15046 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 29, 2007. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See Section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 6, 2007. 

Mary A. Gade, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

part 52, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart KK—Ohio 

■ 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(135) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(135) On May 9, 2006, the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

submitted several volatile organic 

compound rules for approval into the 

Ohio State Implementation Plan. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Ohio Administrative Code 

Chapter 3745–21–01 Definitions: 

Paragraphs (D) and (Z), adopted 1/31/ 

2006, effective 2/10/2006. 

(B) Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 

3745–21–04 Attainment dates and 

compliance time schedules: Paragraph 

(C)(16)(c), adopted 1/31/2006, effective 

2/10/2006. 

(C) Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 

3745–21–09 Control of emissions of 

volatile organic compounds from 

stationary sources and 

perchloroethylene from dry cleaning 

facilities: Paragraphs 

(O)(2)(e),(O)(6)(b),(T)(4),(Y), (HH), (RR), 

and (VV), adopted 3/2/2006, effective 3/ 

12/2006. 

(D) Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 

3745–21–17: Portable Fuel Containers, 

adopted 1/31/2006, effective 2/10/2006. 

(E) Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 

3745–21–18: Commercial Motor Vehicle 

and Mobile Equipment Refinishing 

Operations, adopted 1/31/2006, 

effective 2/10/2006. 

[FR Doc. E7–5800 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2005–AZ–0009; FRL–8284–

2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; Motor 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving two 

revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality. These revisions consist of: 

changes to Arizona’s Basic and 

Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection 

Programs to exempt collectible vehicles 

in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and 

collectible vehicles and motorcycles in 

the Tucson metropolitan area, from 

emissions testing requirements; an 

updated performance standard 

evaluation for the vehicle emissions 

inspection program in the Phoenix area; 

and new contingency measures. EPA is 

approving these two state 

implementation plan revisions because 

they meet all applicable requirements of 

the Clean Air Act and EPA’s regulations 

and because the exemptions will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the national ambient air 

quality standards in the two affected 

areas. EPA is finalizing this action 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 15047 

1 ‘‘Report on Potential Exemptions from Vehicle 

Emissions Testing for Motorcycles, Collectible 

Vehicles, and Vehicles 25 Model Years Old and 

Older’’ (December 2004). 

under the Clean Air Act obligation to 

take action on State submittals of 

revisions to state implementation plans. 

The intended effect is to exempt these 

vehicle categories from the emissions 

testing requirements of the State’s 

vehicle emissions inspection programs 

as approved for the Phoenix and Tucson 

areas but also to provide a mechanism 

to reinstate the requirements in the 

event of a violation of the carbon 

monoxide national ambient air quality 

standard in the Phoenix or Tucson area. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on April 30, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at EPA Region 9’s Air 

Planning Office (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105–3901. 

Due to increased security, we suggest 

that you call at least 24 hours prior to 

visiting the Regional Office so that we 

can make arrangements to have 

someone meet you. 

Electronic Availability 

This document and our proposed rule 

which was published in the Federal 

Register on December 28, 2006 are also 

available as electronic files on EPA’s 

Region 9 webpage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/region09/air/actions/ 

az.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (520) 622–1622, e-mail: 

tax.wienke@epa.gov, or refer to http:// 

www.epa.gov/region09/air/actions/ 

az.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On December 28, 2006 (71 FR 78115), 

we proposed to approve, under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), two 

revisions submitted by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Both SIP 

revisions relate to Arizona’s Basic and 

Enhanced Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection/Maintenance (VEI) Programs 

implemented in the Tucson and 

Phoenix areas, respectively. 

ADEQ submitted the first VEI SIP 

revision on December 23, 2005 (‘‘VEI 

SIP Revision’’). The VEI SIP Revision 

submittal includes the SIP revision 

itself, divided into a non-regulatory 

portion, ‘‘Final Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision, Basic 

and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection/Maintenance Programs’’

(December 2005), and a regulatory 

portion, House Bill (HB) 2357, as well 

as supporting materials related to legal 

authority, adoption, public process and 

technical analysis. 

HB 2357 amends Arizona Revised 

Statutes (ARS) Section 49–542 by 

exempting vehicles that are at least 15 

years old or are of a unique and rare 

design and that carry collectible vehicle 

insurance that restricts the mileage and/ 

or use of the vehicle (‘‘collectible 

vehicles’’) from emission testing in both 

Area A (i.e., the Phoenix area) and Area 

B (i.e., the Tucson area). In addition, HB 

2357 exempts motorcycles in the 

Tucson area from emissions testing. 

Specifically, the amendments to ARS 

49–542 are found in paragraphs or 

subparagraphs (J)(2)(k), (J)(2)(l), (Y), and 

(Z) of that section of code. The changes 

to ARS Section 49–542 are selfimplementing, which means that they 

become effective upon EPA approval as 

a revision to the Arizona SIP. 

Among the technical materials 

included in the VEI SIP Revision 

submittal package is a report 1 prepared 

by ADEQ that evaluates the impacts of 

exempting three vehicle categories 

(vehicles 25 model years old and older, 

motorcycles, and collectible vehicles) 

from the emissions testing requirements 

on ambient air quality and on the ability 

of Areas A and B (i.e., Phoenix and 

Tucson, respectively) to maintain or 

attain the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). The report 

concluded that the testing and repair of 

these vehicle categories as a whole does 

provide a significant air quality benefit. 

The analysis, however, also identified a 

subset of vehicle categories (collectible 

vehicles in Phoenix and Tucson plus 

motorcycles in Tucson) for which the 

emissions testing requirement does not 

provide a significant air quality benefit 

and for which exemption would not 

interfere with continued maintenance of 

the CO NAAQS or progress towards the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. HB 2357 was a 

Legislative response to the findings in 

this report. 

In consultation with EPA concerning 

the VEI SIP Revision, ADEQ prepared 

an updated performance standard 

evaluation for the VEI program in the 

Phoenix area to reflect the new 

exemption for collectible vehicles, and 

developed new contingency measures 

that are intended to provide for 

reinstatement of emissions testing for 

the newly exempt vehicle categories in 

the event that a violation of the carbon 

monoxide NAAQS were to be recorded 

in the Phoenix or Tucson area. On 

October 3, 2006, ADEQ adopted and 

submitted the updated performance 

standard evaluation and new 

contingency measures in a second SIP 

revision, entitled, ‘‘Supplement to Final 

Arizona State Implementation Plan 

Revision, Basic and Enhanced Vehicle 

Emissions Inspection/Maintenance 

Programs, December 2005’’ (September 

2006) (‘‘VEI SIP Supplement’’). As part 

of the submittal of the VEI SIP 

Supplement, ADEQ documented the 

public participation process that was 

conducted by ADEQ prior to adoption 

and submittal to EPA. 

Our December 28, 2006 proposed rule 

provides our evaluation of these two SIP 

submittals and our rationale for 

concluding that the submittals meet all 

relevant CAA requirements including 

SIP revision procedural requirements, 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

program requirements, requirements 

under CAA section 110(l) related to 

non-interference with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS, and 

contingency provision requirements 

under CAA section 175A(d). Please see 

our December 28, 2006 proposed rule 

for more information concerning the SIP 

revision submittals, our evaluation of 

them, and our rationale for proposing 

approval. 

II. Response to Comments 

Our December 28, 2006 proposed rule 

provided a 30-day public comment 

period. We received comments from 40 

commenters on our proposed rule 

during the public comment period. Most 

were supportive of our proposed action. 

We are responding to the five 

commenters who disagreed with our 

action. 

Comment. One commenter agrees 

with the proposal but states that 

vehicles 25 years old or older should 

also be exempt. 

Response. Arizona House Bill (HB) 

2501, as amended by HB 2294, required 

ADEQ to evaluate whether vehicles 25 

years old and older in combination with 

collectible vehicles or motorcycles 

could be exempt from emissions testing. 

The report concluded that the testing 

and repair of these vehicle categories as 

a whole does provide significant air 

quality benefit. The analysis, however, 

also identified a subset of vehicle 

categories (collectible vehicles in 

Phoenix and Tucson and motorcycles in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
15048 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Tucson) for which the emissions testing 

requirement does not provide a 

significant air quality benefit and for 

which exemption would not interfere 

with continued maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS or progress towards the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. HB 2357 (i.e., the 

regulatory portion of the VEI SIP 

Revision) was a Legislative response to 

the findings in this report. 

Comment. One commenter suggests 

various changes to the new statutory 

exemption for collectible vehicles that 

would make the exemption less 

restrictive and thereby allow a greater 

number of collectors to fall within the 

exemption. 

Response. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

minimum criteria set by the Clean Air 

Act or any applicable EPA regulations. 

Any changes to Arizona law expanding 

the exemption for collectible vehicles 

would need first to be introduced as a 

new bill in the Arizona Legislature. If 

passed and approved by the Governor, 

such a statutory change would then 

need to be submitted by ADEQ to EPA 

for approval with documentation 

showing continued compliance with all 

relevant CAA and EPA requirements 

including a demonstration of noninterference with the ambient air quality 

standards under section 110(l) of the 

CAA. 

Comment. One commenter states that 

motorcycles should not be exempt from 

the vehicle emissions inspection 

program in Tucson, unless EPA has 

solid evidence that very few, if any, 

motorcycles pose a pollution problem, 

or that the Tucson inspection program 

passes essentially all motorcycles, so 

providing little environmental benefit. 

Response. ADEQ’s statistics about the 

VEI program indicate that between 2003 

and 2006, from 91.3 to 94.9 percent of 

motorcycles in the Tucson area passed 

the vehicle emissions test on their 

initial pass on an annual basis . These 

statistics provide further support for our 

conclusion that exemption of 

motorcycles from emissions testing 

requirements of the VEI program would 

not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

Tucson area. 

Comment. The fourth commenter 

states that he opposes this type of 

‘‘reverse regulation’’ (removing of 

grandfathering) of old, collectible cars. 

He states that making people retrofit 

emissions equipment on older vehicles 

is infeasible, costly, and that owners are 

unlikely to comply. 

Response. This commenter appears to 

have misunderstood EPA’s action. We 

are approving an exemption to 

Arizona’s vehicle inspection program 

for owners of collectible vehicles which 

meet certain requirements, including 

collectible insurance which limits the 

use or annual mileage of the collectible 

vehicle. We are not requiring existing 

older vehicles to be retrofit with 

emissions control technology. 

Comment. The fifth commenter states 

that the law establishing the new 

exemption for collectible vehicles is 

poorly crafted in that the requirements 

of the law, as written by the Arizona 

legislature, are both vague and do not 

have sufficient enforcement methods to 

insure that the net result falls within the 

assumptions that were made by the 

ADEQ to validate this exemption. 

Specifically, the commenter questions 

the estimate of the number of collectible 

vehicles used by ADEQ in estimating 

the emissions impact of the exemption 

and also questions the methods that will 

be relied upon to limit the exemption 

only to qualifying vehicles. 

Furthermore, the commenter requests 

additional requirements in the law to 

limit the possible abuse of the 

exemption. 

Response. As noted above, EPA’s role 

in reviewing SIP submissions is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet minimum criteria of the Clean 

Air Act and EPA’s regulations. EPA is 

not responsible for drafting changes to 

state laws. Nonetheless, this comment 

raises questions about the validity of the 

assumptions underlying the emissions 

impact analysis and the enforcement 

methods that will be relied upon to 

limit the exemptions to qualifying 

vehicles. 

ADEQ estimates that collectible 

vehicles represent 0.4% to 0.5% of the 

total tested fleet of vehicles in the 

Tucson and Phoenix areas, respectively. 

ADEQ developed these estimates on the 

basis of a survey conducted by ADEQ in 

coordination with car clubs in Arizona 

and information received from two of 

the four major insurance companies 

specializing in selling collectible car 

insurance in Arizona, taking into 

account the number of such vehicles 

that are already exempt (i.e., pre-1967 

model year vehicles) from emission 

testing requirements. See appendix 2b 

(‘‘Technical Support Document, 

Evaluating Emissions Impacts of 

Exempting Collectible Vehicles from 

Vehicle Emissions Inspections’’) of 

Appendix B (‘‘Report on Potential 

Exemptions from Vehicle Emissions 

Testing for Motorcycles, Collectible 

Vehicles and Vehicles 25 Model Years 

Old and Older’’) of the VEI SIP revision. 

We believe that ADEQ’s methods 

provide a reasonable basis for estimating 

the number of vehicles that would be 

newly exempt as ‘‘collectible vehicles’’

under HB 2357 and the corresponding 

emissions impact from exemption of 

those vehicles from VEI emissions 

testing requirements. 

We also continue to believe that the 

compliance enforcement methods, 

including the collectible vehicle 

insurance and registration procedures, 

that will be relied upon to limit the 

exemption to qualifying vehicles are 

reasonably calculated to do so. See 

pages 4–5 and appendix C (‘‘Collectible 

Vehicle Insurance and Registration 

Procedures’’) of the VEI SIP Revision 

and our discussion of the compliance 

enforcement issue in our proposed rule 

at 71 FR at 78118. 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the VEI SIP 

revisions as set forth in our proposed 

rule. Therefore, pursuant to section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA and for the reasons 

set forth in the proposed rule, EPA is 

approving the revisions to the Arizona 

SIP submitted by the State of Arizona on 

December 23, 2005 and October 3, 2006 

concerning the Arizona VEI programs 

implemented in the Phoenix and 

Tucson areas because we find that the 

revisions are consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations. 

Specifically, we are approving 

exemptions from emissions testing 

requirements for collectible vehicles in 

the Phoenix area and collectible 

vehicles and motorcycles in the Tucson 

area as set forth in the ‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision, Basic 

and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection/Maintenance Programs’’

(December 2005) and ARS Section 49–

542 as amended in section 1 of Arizona 

House Bill 2357, 47th Legislature, 1st 

Regular Session (2005) and approved by 

the Governor on April 13, 2005; and the 

updated performance standard 

evaluation for the Phoenix area and new 

contingency measures as set forth in the 

‘‘Supplement to Final Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision, Basic 

and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection/Maintenance Programs, 

December 2005’’ (September 2006). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 15049 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)). This action merely approves 

changes to state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves changes to state law and 

does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it 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). 

This rule also does not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), nor 

will it 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

approves changes to state law 

implementing a Federal requirement, 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997), because it finalizes approval 

of a state rule implementing a Federal 

Standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a (major rule( as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 29, 2007. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 20, 2007. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations are amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(133) and (c)(134) 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(133) The following statute and plan 

were submitted on December 23, 2005 

by the Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Revised Statutes. 

(1) Section 49–542 as amended in 

section 1 of the Arizona House Bill 

2357, 47th Legislature, 1st Regular 

Session (2005) and approved by the 

Governor on April 13, 2005. 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Final Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision, Basic 

and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection/Maintenance Programs 

(December 2005), adopted by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality on December 23, 2005, 

excluding appendices. 

(134) The following plan was 

submitted on October 3, 2006 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) September 2006 Supplement to 

Final Arizona State Implementation 

Plan Revision, Basic and Enhanced 

Vehicle Emissions Inspection/ 

Maintenance Programs, December 2005, 

adopted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on October 3, 

2006, excluding appendices. 

[FR Doc. E7–5558 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 624 

[Docket No. FTA–2006–24708] 

RIN 2132–AA91 

Clean Fuels Grant Program 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On June 9, 1998, the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA–21) was enacted 

requiring the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) to establish the 

Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program (the 

program). The program was developed 

to assist non-attainment and 

maintenance areas in achieving or 

maintaining the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for ozone and carbon 

monoxide (CO). Additionally, the 

program supports emerging clean fuel 

and advanced propulsion technologies 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES