[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 26, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41525-41530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-16325]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2025-0061; FRL-12606-01-R9]
Air Plan Revisions; California; Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove or, in the alternative, to
fully approve a submission by the State of California to revise its
State Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to the control of emissions
from non-gasoline combustion vehicles over 14,000 pounds. EPA is
proposing to disapprove the State's ``Heavy-Duty Inspection and
Maintenance Regulation'' to the extent it applies to vehicles
registered out-of-state or out-of-country. The EPA has substantial
concerns that the State has not provided adequate assurances under
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) that implementation of the
SIP is not prohibited by Federal law. EPA seeks comment on this and
other aspects of this proposed rule. If finalized as a partial approval
and partial disapproval, this rule would allow certain aspects of the
covered State regulations to go into effect and would not trigger CAA
section 179 sanctions because the submittal is not a required
submission under CAA section 110(a)(2). If finalized as an approval,
this rule would allow all
[[Page 41526]]
covered State regulations to go into effect.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2025-0061 at https://www.regulations.gov. In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at
Regulations.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language other than English or if
you are a person with a disability who needs a reasonable accommodation
at no cost to you, please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
St., San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 972-3959; email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The State's Submittal
A. What regulations did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these regulations?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted regulations?
III. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules and do the rules meet the
evaluation criteria?
B. Public Comment and Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Under the CAA, the EPA establishes national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. The EPA has
established NAAQS for certain pervasive air pollutants including ozone,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and
particulate matter. Under CAA section 110(a)(1), States must submit
plans that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of the NAAQS within each State. Such plans are referred to as State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), and revisions to those plans are referred
to as ``SIP revisions.'' CAA section 110(a)(2) sets forth the content
requirements for SIPs. Among the various requirements, SIPs must
include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA.\1\ SIP revisions may be submitted
to address specific CAA requirements (such as the elements and
demonstrations required within an attainment plan), or, as with the
State submittal addressed in this action, may be provided to
demonstrate emissions reductions to support attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon receiving a SIP that meets the completeness criteria in CAA
section 110(k)(1)(A), the EPA must determine whether the submission
meets all applicable CAA requirements.\2\ The EPA must either approve,
conditionally approve, approve in part or disapprove in part, or
disapprove a complete State submission within twelve months.\3\ In
addition to the limitations described above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)
provides that a SIP must include ``necessary assurances'' that the
State ``is not prohibited by any Federal or State law from carrying out
such implementation plan or portion thereof'' and that the State or
applicable State entity has adequate authority, personnel, and funding
to carry out adequate implementation of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See CAA section 110(k)(3).
\3\ Id.; CAA section 110(k)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under California law, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is
the State agency responsible for adopting and submitting SIP revisions
to the EPA for review. These include both local rules adopted by county
and regional air districts (typically regulating stationary source
emissions) and statewide regulations adopted by CARB and other State
agencies. If approved into the SIP, submitted regulations become
federally enforceable pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
II. The State's Submittal
A. What regulations did the State submit?
CARB submitted the ``Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance
Regulation'' \4\ (``HD I/M Regulation'') as a revision to the
California SIP on December 14, 2022.\5\ Table 1 identifies the
regulatory sections included in the HD I/M Regulation and addressed by
this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by CARB and
submitted to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The State of California more commonly refers to the HD I/M
Regulation as the ``Clean Truck Check.'' See, e.g., CARB, Clean
Truck Check (HD I/M), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/CTC
(last visited on January 27, 2025).
\5\ Letter (with enclosures) dated December 7, 2022, from Steven
S. Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX (submitted electronically December 14,
2022). The letter and enclosures, which include the HD I/M
Regulation, among other materials, are included in the docket for
this rulemaking.
TABLE 1--Submitted Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant sections of
Agency Regulation title California Code of Adopted Submitted
Regulations (CCR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB........................ Heavy-Duty Vehicle Amended section: 13 CCR Sec. 12/09/2021 12/14/2022
Inspection and 2193; New sections: 13 CCR
Maintenance Program. Sec. Sec. 2195, 2195.1,
2196, 2196.1, 2196.2,
2196.3, 2196.4, 2196.5,
2196.6, 2196.7, 2196.8,
2197, 2197.1, 2197.2,
2197.3, 2198, 2198.1,
2198.2, 2199, and 2199.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HD I/M Regulation incorporates by reference the ``California
Standards for Heavy-Duty Remote On-Board Diagnostic Devices'' (``OBD
Standards''). CARB approved the HD I/M Regulation on December 9, 2021,
through
[[Page 41527]]
Resolution 21-29. Following minor non-substantive edits by CARB
staff,\6\ CARB formally adopted the final HD I/M Regulation and OBD
Standards on August 22, 2022, through CARB Executive Order R-22-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CARB, Addendum to the Final Statement of Reasons for
Rulemaking, ``Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Heavy-Duty
Inspection and Maintenance Regulation,'' October 4, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's SIP submittal package for the HD I/M Regulation includes
CARB Resolution 21-29,\7\ Executive Order R-22-002, public notice of
CARB's hearing on the proposed SIP revision, CARB's Initial Statement
of Reasons and appendices (``Staff Report''),\8\ public comments and
responses, the Final Statement of Reasons and addendum, and emission
reduction estimates calculated using the State's ``EMission FACtor''
(EMFAC) model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ CARB Board Resolution 21-29, December 9, 2021.
\8\ CARB, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, ``Public
Hearing to Consider the Proposed Heavy-Duty Inspection and
Maintenance Regulation,'' October 8, 2021 (``Staff Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 14, 2023, the submittal from CARB was deemed by operation
of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(1).
B. Are there other versions of these regulations?
On May 10, 2022, we approved an earlier version of the Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Inspection Program \9\ and a Periodic Smoke Inspection Program
\10\ into the California SIP.\11\ The current SIP submittal was
intended to replace these previously approved revisions to the SIP; if
the EPA finalizes a partial disapproval of the current submittal, the
partially approved aspects of the revision would become the SIP and the
earlier versions of the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program and the
Periodic Smoke Inspection Program would remain in the SIP only to the
extent not superseded by the partially approved aspects of the SIP
revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter
3.5.
\10\ California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3,
Chapter 3.6.
\11\ 87 FR 27949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the purpose of the submitted regulations?
Based on ambient data collected at numerous sites throughout the
State, the EPA has designated certain areas within California as
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS and the particulate matter (PM)
NAAQS, which includes both coarse and fine particulate matter (i.e.,
PM10 and PM2.5).\12\ Several areas in California
that had been designated as nonattainment for the carbon monoxide NAAQS
have been redesignated by the EPA to attainment because these areas
have attained the standard and are subject to an approved maintenance
plan demonstrating how the State will maintain the carbon monoxide
standard into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, generally, 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile source emissions constitute a significant portion of overall
emissions of ozone precursors, including volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), as well as direct PM and
PM precursors, including NOX, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and carbon monoxide in the various air quality
planning areas within California.\13\ Although heavy-duty vehicles
comprise about 3% of the State's vehicle fleet, they constitute 52% of
the on-road NOX emissions and 54% of on-road
PM2.5 emissions.\14\ In addition, out-of-state or out-of-
country heavy-duty vehicles are approximately half of the total heavy-
duty vehicles travelling in the State and constitute approximately 30%
of heavy-duty NOX.\15\ According to CARB, the HD I/M
Regulation is intended to reduce PM2.5 and NOX
emissions from heavy-duty non-gasoline combustion vehicles operating in
California to further ozone and PM attainment throughout the State.\16\
In establishing the applicable NAAQS, the EPA has concluded that at
elevated levels, ozone and PM harm human health and the environment by
contributing to premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment,
and damage to vegetation and ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ VOC and NOX are precursors responsible for the
formation of ozone, and NOX and SO2 are
precursors for PM2.5. SO2 belongs to a family
of compounds referred to as sulfur oxides. PM2.5
precursors also include VOC and ammonia. See 40 CFR 51.1000.
\14\ See, Staff Report at I-2.
\15\ Id. at II-2.
\16\ See Staff Report at II-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HD I/M Regulation establishes a comprehensive I/M program for
HD vehicles driven in the State of California to ensure that vehicle
emissions control systems on these vehicles are operating as designed
and are repaired quickly if they malfunction. CARB has explained that
this regulatory revision builds on CARB's current heavy-duty inspection
programs, including building on and replacing the Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Inspection Program and Periodic Smoke Inspection regulations for heavy-
duty vehicles.
The HD I/M Regulation applies to all non-gasoline combustion
vehicles above 14,000 gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) that operate
in California. Unlike virtually all prior CARB regulations and similar
regulations adopted by other States, however, the regulation submitted
for review would also apply to vehicles registered out-of-state and
out-of-country that operate within the State of California for almost
any length of time.\17\ Some vehicle categories are exempted, including
zero-emission vehicles, emergency and military tactical vehicles, and
other classes defined by use or purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The HD I/M regulation permits entities subject to the rule
to apply once per calendar year for a five-day ``pass through''
exception which must be granted in each instance and on an
individualized basis. The EPA notes that California has not provided
assurances that this additional compliance step meaningfully changes
the coverage of the HD I/M regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HD I/M Regulation requires owners of HD vehicles operating in
California (including out-of-state vehicles) to report owner and
vehicle information to CARB. It also requires owners of HD vehicles to
demonstrate that their vehicle emissions control systems are properly
functioning through vehicle compliance tests completed by CARB-approved
testers and periodically submit vehicle compliance test results to CARB
to show compliance with the HD I/M regulation. Vehicles equipped with
on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems can be tested using OBD data, while
older non-OBD vehicles are subject to smoke opacity and visual
inspections. Vehicle owners are also required to have a valid HD I/M
compliance certificate with the vehicle while operating in California,
which they must present to a CARB inspector and/or CHP officer upon
request.
The regulation also establishes a referee testing network to
provide independent evaluations of heavy-duty vehicles and services for
vehicles with inspection incompatibilities or compliance issues.
Finally, the regulation describes procedures for HD I/M roadside
inspections, including roadside monitoring and field inspections.
III. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules and do the rules meet the
evaluation criteria?
The EPA has evaluated the HD I/M Regulation against the applicable
procedural and substantive requirements of the CAA for SIPs and SIP
revisions and proposes to find that the HD I/M Regulation meets the
applicable requirements to the extent the substantive requirements
apply to vehicles registered in California. Among other requirements, a
SIP must include
[[Page 41528]]
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, that
may be necessary to meet the requirements of the Act.\18\ The EPA
proposes to find that the State's I/M measures generally meet the
requirements of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations with
respect to vehicles registered in California including because it
satisfies the applicable requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and
(E).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
\19\ See EPA, ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Rulemaking
for the California State Implementation Plan--California Air
Resources Board Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Regulation,''
March 3, 2025 (included in the docket for this proposed action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the EPA has substantial concerns that the HD I/M
Regulation does not provide necessary assurances that the State is not
prohibited by any provision of Federal or State law from carrying out
such SIP or a portion thereof \20\ to the extent the HD I/M Regulation
purports on its face to regulate vehicles that merely pass through or
operate within California for almost any length of time. For the
reasons set out below, the EPA also has substantial concerns that
approving the extraterritorial reach of the HD I/M Regulation could
interfere with other applicable requirements of the Act concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP), as well as the
implementation of SIPs submitted by other States and approved by the
EPA.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
\21\ See id. CAA section 193, which prohibits any pre-1990 SIP
control requirement relating to nonattainment pollutants in
nonattainment areas from being modified unless the SIP is revised to
ensure equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air
pollutants, does not apply to the HD I/M Regulation because it
includes only new regulations and amended regulations that were
previously approved into the California SIP in 2022, and thus, does
not constitute an amendment to a pre-1990 SIP control requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike other SIP provisions that apply to sources that are
registered within the State, the HD I/M Regulation adds requirements on
heavy-duty vehicles that are registered in other States that merely
pass through or do business within California for almost any length of
time. The EPA has substantial concerns that this aspect of the
regulation is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and proposes to
disapprove this portion of the SIP because EPA finds that California
has not provided the necessary assurances that, if approved, the SIP
could be implemented consistent with Federal law.
Here, the Commerce Clause appears to prohibit the implementation of
the HD I/M Regulation because its extraterritorial reach burdens
interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the
Commerce Clause contains ``a negative command'' that forbids ``certain
state [economic regulations] even when Congress has failed to legislate
on the subject.'' Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S.
175, 179 (1995). Generally applicable State regulations that further a
legitimate interest and burden interstate commerce incidentally are
nevertheless invalid when ``the burden imposed on such commerce is
clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.'' Pike v.
Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970). Thus, ``even
nondiscriminatory burdens on commerce'' may run afoul of the Commerce
Clause ``on a showing that those burdens clearly outweigh the benefits
of a state or local practice.'' Nat'l Pork Producers Council v. Ross,
598 U.S. 356, 392 (2023) (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part).\22\ Burdens on interstate commerce are of
particular concern when they impose costs on interstate trade, see,
e.g., Kassel v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662, 674 (1981)
(plurality op.); Raymond Motor Transp., Inc. v. Rice, 434 U.S. 429, 445
& n.21 (1978), where ``the nature of'' the market means that a State
regulation generates costs whether or not participants sell into the
regulating State, Nat'l Pork Producers, 598 U.S. at 400 (Roberts, C.J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part), and where a State
regulation targets ``instrumentalities of interstate transportation--
trucks, trains, and the like,'' id. at 379 n.2, 380 (plurality op.);
accord id. at 392 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in part).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In National Pork Producers, ``six Justices of [the] Court
affirmatively retain[ed] the longstanding Pike balancing test for
analyzing dormant Commerce Clause challenges to state economic
regulations.'' 598 U.S. at 403 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part
and dissenting in part); see id. at 391 (Sotomayor, J., joined by
Kagan, J., concurring in part); id. at 394 (Roberts, C.J., joined by
Alito, Kavanaugh, Jackson, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in
part).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impact of California's HD/IM Regulation on vehicles registered
out of state and on interstate shipping is undoubtably significant. The
HD I/M Regulation adds significant costs to operation of heavy-duty
vehicles in California. According to a CARB's Staff Report, the HD I/M
Regulation will cost $4.12 billion between 2023-2050, with a maximum
annual cost of $350 million in 2024. Much of these costs relate to HD
vehicle testing, repair, and compliance fee costs.\23\ CARB also
estimated the total direct costs on a typical California fleet (seven
vehicles) to be $772 to $2,180 annually.\24\ CARB estimated the total
direct costs on single-vehicle fleets (i.e., small businesses, as
defined by CARB) to be $225 to $701 annually.\25\ To the extent the HD
I/M Regulation applies to out-of-state vehicles that pass through or
operate within California for almost any length of time, this cost
structure would also be imposed on other States and regulated entities
in those States. The EPA notes that many heavy-duty vehicles covered by
the regulations at issue are used for purposes of interstate shipping,
and that maintenance of those vehicles could occur in any number of
States, meaning the burdens of compliance could be felt across the
country and even in other countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Staff Report at IX-14.
\24\ Staff Report at IX-18-20. CARB states according to vehicle
registration data, of fleets consisting of at least three vehicles,
75 percent have four to ten vehicles.
\25\ Staff Report at IX-20-21. CARB defines ``small businesses''
as HD fleets consisting of one to three vehicles, and that 79
percent of ``small businesses'' consist of single-vehicle fleets.
CARB further states that based on vehicle registration data small
businesses constitute approximately 89 percent of fleets and 44
percent of the vehicle population in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's concern in this respect is heightened by the structure of
CAA section 110 and the way in which an approval of this provision
would operate on the ground. In effect, an approval would delegate to
California the ability to enforce the State's I/M requirements
throughout the nation to the extent a vehicle passes through or
operates within the State for almost any length of time. As a result,
an approval would effectively force regulated entities in other States
to comply with California's HD I/M requirements, rather than the
applicable requirements in their respective States, including
requirements approved by the EPA pursuant to the CAA. That interstate
regulatory function is vested exclusively in Congress by the Commerce
Clause, and the result of EPA's approval under the circumstances risks
precisely the abrogation of Federal authority that the Supreme Court
has held the Commerce Clause prohibits.
Moreover, the extraterritorial reach of the HD I/M regulation
appears to abrogate the foreign relation powers vested exclusively in
the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution. The EPA is aware that
vehicles registered in Mexico and Canada regularly pass through or do
business in California for the purposes of international trade,
tourism, and other forms of economic activity. California shares a land
border with Mexico, and Mexico maintains a consulate within
[[Page 41529]]
the State, meaning that vehicles registered in Mexico are also passing
through or doing business in California for diplomatic purposes. The HD
I/M regulation does not include an international exclusion or narrower
exclusion for diplomatic purposes, for example. As a result, the HD I/M
regulation may already be in conflict with applicable international
treaties and conventions adopted by the United States for trade and
diplomatic purposes, and the State has not provided necessary
assurances that adoption into the SIP would not be prohibited by the
Constitution's assignment of foreign affairs authority to Congress and
the President, respectively.
For many of the same reasons, the EPA proposes to partially
disapprove because it finds that California has not provided necessary
assurances that the extraterritorial reach of the HD I/M regulation
into other States does not violate CAA section 110 and related
provisions by infringing upon, or frustrating the implementation of,
SIPs submitted by other States and approved by the EPA. Some States
have HD I/M provisions that differ from California's in material
respects but none of these have been approved into SIPs. If approved in
all respects, California's HD I/M Regulation would be federally
enforceable to the same extent as other State I/M regulations
potentially approved by the EPA in the future pursuant to CAA section
110. The result is potentially multiple conflicting sources of
obligations that are enforceable both within the respective States and
federally under the CAA. EPA solicits comment on these potential
conflicts and whether they would frustrate the ability of other States
to implement their SIPs and achieve and attain compliance with the
NAAQS.
Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to partially disapprove the
State's HD I/M Regulation to the extent it applies to vehicles
registered out-of-state or out-of-country, and is proposing to approve
the remainder. The EPA acknowledges, however, that the extraterritorial
reach of the State's regulation is unusual in the SIP context and that
the EPA's response would necessarily be the first instance in which the
Agency has disapproved a SIP on this basis. We therefore seek comment
on all aspects of this proposal, including whether extraterritorial
application of California's regulation would be prohibited by Federal
law on the bases presented here, as well as on other bases under
Federal or State law. We also seek comment on any ways in which Federal
enforcement of California's HD I/M Regulation could conflict with the
approved SIPs for other States. Moreover, we seek comment on the
aspects of the submission that the EPA proposes to partially approve,
that is, the application of the HD I/M Regulation to vehicles
registered in California.
In the alternative, the EPA proposes to approve if the State's
submission sufficiently demonstrates that implementation of the HD I/M
Regulation would not be prohibited by Federal or State law. The EPA
seeks comment on whether California has provided necessary assurances
that its submission meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and the extent and nature of potential Federal and
State law prohibitions on implementing California's submission as
proposed.
B. Public Comment and Proposed Action
The EPA proposes to partially disapprove the submitted rules
because, while they fulfill many of the relevant CAA requirements, the
application of the rules to vehicles registered out of state and out of
country appears to be prohibited by Federal law. We will accept
comments from the public on this proposal until September 25, 2025.
Neither sanctions nor a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) would be
imposed should the EPA finalize this partial disapproval. Sanctions
would not be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the submittal of
the HD I/M Regulation is discretionary (i.e., not required to be
included in the SIP), and the EPA would not promulgate a FIP under CAA
section 110(c)(1) because the disapproval does not reveal a deficiency
in the SIP for the area that such a FIP must correct. Note that the
submitted rule has been adopted by the State of California, and a final
partial disapproval by the EPA would not by its own force prevent the
State from attempting to enforce it within California.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This is a significant regulatory action as per Executive Order
12866 and was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 14192
regulatory action. The proposed SIP partial disapproval, if finalized,
will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but will simply
disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP. The
proposed SIP approval, if finalized, would not impose any requirements,
but rather would determine that the State's submission complies with
the CAA and applicable regulations.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The proposed
SIP partial disapproval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create
any new requirements but will simply disapprove certain State
requirements for inclusion in the SIP. The proposed SIP approval, if
finalized, would not impose any requirements, but rather would
determine that the State's submission complies with the CAA and
applicable regulations.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action proposes to disapprove pre-existing
requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that the EPA is
proposing to disapprove
[[Page 41530]]
would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has
jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because this proposed SIP disapproval,
if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations, but
will simply partially disapprove or approve certain State requirements
for inclusion in the SIP, thereby determining whether the requirements
are or are not federally enforceable. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on
Children's Health does not apply to this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. This action on an inspection and
maintenance measure for heavy-duty vehicles in California does not
relate to or affect energy supply, distribution, or use.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 20, 2025.
Joshua F.W. Cook,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2025-16325 Filed 8-25-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P