Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 30209 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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 CAA; 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 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. 

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 action 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 22, 2013. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 22, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.2570 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(126) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(126) On May 4, 2011, June 20, 2012, 

and September 28, 2012, the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

submitted a request to revise 

Wisconsin’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program to 

incorporate the ‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ and 

the Federal deferral for biogenic CO2

emissions into Wisconsin’s SIP. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

NR 400.02 Definitions. NR 400.02 (74m) 

‘‘Greenhouse gases’’ or ‘‘GHG’’, as 

published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register August 2011, 

No. 668, effective September 1, 2011. 

(B) Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

NR 400.03 Units and abbreviations. NR 

400.03(3)(om) ‘‘SF6’’, NR 400.03(4)(go) 

‘‘GHG’’, and NR 400.03(4)(kg) ‘‘PFC’’, as 

published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register August 2011, 

No. 668, effective September 1, 2011. 

(C) Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

NR 405.02 Definitions. NR 405.02(28m) 

‘‘Subject to regulation under the Act’’, 

as published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register August 2011, 

No. 668, effective September 1, 2011. 

(D) Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

NR 405.07 Review of major stationary 

sources and major modifications— 

source applicability and exemptions. 

NR 405.07(9), as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register 

August 2011, No. 668, effective 

September 1, 2011. 

(E) Wisconsin Statutes, section 

285.60(3m) Consideration of Certain 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, enacted on 

April 2, 2012, by 2011 Wisconsin Act 

171. 

(F) Wisconsin Statutes, section 

285.63(3m) Consideration of Certain 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, enacted on 

April 2, 2012, by 2011 Wisconsin Act 

171. 

§ 52.2572 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.2572 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (b). 

[FR Doc. 2013–12094 Filed 5–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0552; FRL–9780–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; Motor 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve three revisions to the Arizona 

State Implementation Plan submitted by 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. Two of these 

revisions relate to an amendment to 

Arizona’s vehicle emissions inspection 

program that exempts motorcycles in 

the Phoenix metropolitan area from 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
30210 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1 VOC and NOX are precursors to ozone formation 

in the atmosphere under the influence of sunlight 

and meteorology. 

2The changes to ARS Section 49–542 are selfimplementing, which means that they become 

effective upon EPA approval as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP. See page 4 of the 2009 VEI SIP 

Revision. 

3On January 28, 2013, at EPA’s request, ADEQ 

supplemented appendix A of the 2009 VEI SIP 

Revision with a certified copy of the codified 

version of ARS section 49–542, along with two 

House Bills that extended the conditional 

enactment date set for July 2010 in House Bill 2280 

to July 2012, and then to July 2014. We are taking 

final action to approve this certified copy of ARS 

49–542 in today’s action. 

4ADEQ included ARS 49–541(1) in exhibit 1 in 

Appendix C to the 2012 Phoenix Area PM–10 Five 

Percent Plan. With respect to ADEQ’s May 25, 2012 

SIP revision submittal of the 2012 Phoenix Area 

PM–10 Five Percent Plan, EPA is taking action 

today only on the amended statutory provision that 

expands the boundaries of Area A [i.e., amended 

ARS 49–541(1)]. EPA will take action on the rest 

of the 2012 Phoenix Area PM–10 Five Percent Plan 

in one or more future rulemakings. 

emissions testing requirements. The 

third revision expands the geographic 

area in which various air quality control 

measures, including the vehicle 

emissions inspection program but also 

including other control measures, apply 

in the Phoenix metropolitan area. EPA 

is approving these SIP revisions based 

on our conclusion that the SIP revisions 

meet all applicable requirements and 

would not interfere with reasonable 

further progress or attainment of any of 

the national ambient air quality 

standards. EPA is finalizing this action 

under the Clean Air Act obligation to 

take action on State submittals of 

revisions to state implementation plans. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on June 21, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0552 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), and some may not be publicly 

available in either location (e.g., 

Confidential Business Information). 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, Office of Air Planning, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (415) 947–4152, email: 

buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Response to Comments 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66422), 

EPA proposed to approve revisions to 

the Arizona state implementation plan 

(SIP) submitted by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) that would exempt motorcycles 

in the Phoenix metropolitan area from 

testing under the Arizona motor vehicle 

emissions inspections and maintenance 

(‘‘VEI’’) program and that would expand 

the geographic area in which certain air 

pollution control programs apply within 

the Phoenix metropolitan area. We 

proposed these actions under section 

110(k) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

‘‘Act’’). (The State of Arizona developed 

the VEI program to reduce emissions of 

carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) from in-use motor 

vehicles in the Phoenix and Tucson 

areas.1) 

Specifically, we proposed to approve 

the submittal on November 6, 2009 of 

‘‘Final Arizona State Implementation 

Plan Revision, Exemption of 

Motorcycles from Vehicle Emissions 

Inspections and Maintenance Program 

Requirements in Area A’’ (October 2009) 

(‘‘2009 VEI SIP Revision’’) and the 

submittal on January 11, 2011 of ‘‘Final 

Addendum to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision, 

Exemption of Motorcycles from Vehicle 

Emissions Inspections and Maintenance 

Program Requirements in Area A, 

October 2009’’ (December 2010) (‘‘2011 

VEI SIP Addendum’’). 

As described in our November 5, 2012 

proposed rule, the 2009 VEI SIP 

Revision submittal includes a nonregulatory portion that provides 

analyses of emission impacts due to the 

motorcycle exemption, a demonstration 

that the exemption would not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’), and a 

contingency measure establishing a 

binding commitment on ADEQ to 

request Legislative action to reinstate 

emissions testing for motorcycles in the 

Phoenix area should the Phoenix area 

experience a violation of the carbon 

monoxide NAAQS. The 2009 VEI SIP 

Revision also includes a regulatory 

portion comprised by House Bill (HB) 

2280, enacted by Arizona in 2008 to 

take effect upon EPA approval. HB 2280 

amends the Arizona Revised Statutes 

(ARS) section 49–542 (‘‘Emissions 

inspection program; powers and duties 

of director; administration; periodic 

inspection; minimum standards and 

rules; exceptions; definition’’) by 

exempting motorcycles in Area A (i.e., 

the Phoenix area) from emissions testing 

under the VEI program.2 3 The 2011 VEI 

SIP Revision includes additional 

information regarding the impacts of the 

motorcycle exemption on attainment of 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1987 PM10 NAAQS and includes a 

substitute measure to offset the VOC 

emission reductions foregone by the 

exemption of motorcycles from the VEI 

emissions testing requirement. 

With respect to the SIP revision that 

would expand the geographic area in 

which certain air pollution control 

programs apply within the Phoenix 

metropolitan area, we noted in our 

November 5, 2012 proposed rule that 

the relevant amended statutory 

definition of ‘‘Area A’’ was included in 

ADEQ’s May 25, 2012 submittal of the 

MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM–10 

for the Maricopa County Nonattainment 

Area (May 2012) (‘‘2012 Phoenix Area 

PM–10 Five Percent Plan’’). 

Specifically, ADEQ included ARS 49– 

541(1) (‘‘Definitions’’) as amended by 

the Arizona Legislature in 2001 as part 

of the submittal of the 2012 Phoenix 

Area PM–10 Five Percent Plan. ARS 49– 

541(1) establishes the boundaries of 

Area A.4

As explained in our proposed rule, 

Area A, as last approved in 2003 (68 FR 

2912 (January 22, 2003)), includes all of 

the metropolitan Phoenix carbon 

monoxide and 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas plus additional 

areas in Maricopa County to the north, 

east, and west, as well as a small portion 

of Yavapai County and the western 

portions of Pinal County. ‘‘Area A’’ is 

also used by the State of Arizona to 

identify the applicable area for 

implementation of a number of air 

pollution control measures, including 

but not limited to the VEI, cleaner 

burning gasoline (CBG), and ‘‘stage II’’ 

vapor recovery programs. The amended 

‘‘Area A’’ definition, included with the 

2012 Phoenix Area PM–10 Five Percent 

Plan, extends Area A beyond the 

boundaries approved by EPA in 2003 to 

add portions of Maricopa County west 

of Goodyear and Peoria and a small 

piece of land on the north side of Lake 

Pleasant in Yavapai County. 

As discussed in more detail on pages 

66424–66428 of the November 5, 2012 

proposed rule, we proposed to approve 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 30211 

5For example, the proposed rule, at page 66427, 

compares the estimated 1.3 metric tons per day of 

VOC emissions reductions from expansion of Area 

A boundaries with the estimated 0.1 metric ton per 

day of VOC emissions increases from foregone 

emissions testing under the VEI program for 

Phoenix area motorcycles. 

6See page ES–7 of MAG’s Carbon Monoxide 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for 

the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (May 

2003). 

7See page ES–5 of MAG’s Eight-Hour Ozone Plan 

for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June 2007). 

the exemption for Phoenix-area 

motorcycles from the emissions testing 

requirements under the VEI program 

because: 

• With respect to all three SIP 

revisions, ADEQ has met the procedural 

(i.e. public process) requirements for 

SIP revisions under CAA section 110(l) 

and 40 CFR part 51, subpart F; 

• With the emissions testing 

exemption for motorcycles in the 

Phoenix metropolitan area, the Arizona 

VEI would continue to meet Federal 

minimum requirements for vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

programs; 

• The VEI program, as amended to 

exempt motorcycles from the emissions 

testing requirement, would continue to 

meet or exceed the alternate low 

enhanced I/M performance standard in 

the Phoenix area as required under 40 

CFR 51.351 and 51.905(a)(1); 

• The motorcycle exemption would 

not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any of the NAAQS and 

would thereby comply with section 

110(l) of the CAA because the potential 

incremental increase in emissions of 

CO, VOC and PM–10 due to foregone 

motorcycle emissions testing and 

maintenance would be more than offset 

by the emissions impact of expanding 

the boundaries of ‘‘Area A’’ 5 because 

‘‘Area A’’ defines the area of 

applicability for various air pollution 

control measures, such as the VEI 

program, the CBG program, the ‘‘stage 

II’’ vapor recovery program, and various 

PM–10 control measures, and 

expanding the boundaries of ‘‘Area A’’ 

thus extends these programs to areas not 

otherwise covered for the purposes of 

the Arizona SIP; and 

• The 2009 VEI SIP Revision includes 

a commitment by ADEQ, i.e., to request 

Legislative action to reinstate emissions 

testing for motorcycles in the Phoenix 

area should the area experience a 

violation of the CO standards, that we 

find complies with the contingency 

measure requirements under section 

175A(d) of the CAA with respect to the 

Phoenix area, which is a ‘‘maintenance’’ 

area for the CO standard. 

For background information about the 

EPA’s regulations governing motor 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

programs (I/M), the development and 

evolution of Arizona’s VEI program, 

EPA’s actions in connection with that 

program, as well as additional 

information concerning the State’s 

public process for adopting these SIP 

revisions, and our rationale for 

proposing approval of the three subject 

SIP revisions, please see our November 

5, 2012 proposed rule. 

II. Response to Comments 

Our November 5, 2012 proposed rule 

provided a 30-day public comment 

period. We received comments from 15 

commenters on our proposed rule 

during the public comment period. All 

of the commenters except for two 

expressed their support for EPA’s 

proposed action. In the following 

paragraphs, we summarize the 

comments objecting to our proposed 

action and provide our responses. 

Comment #1: The commenter agrees 

with the proposal to exempt 

motorcycles from emissions testing, but 

objects to the expansion of Area A 

because it expands the use of special 

gasoline blends (summer and winter) 

that the commenter believes do nothing 

for the environment and contribute to 

fuel shortages and excessive retail fuel 

costs. The commenter also suggests that 

the emissions testing exemption for 

newer model year vehicles be increased 

from 5 to 10 years based on engine 

technology improvements. 

Response #1: First of all, EPA 

disagrees with the contention that the 

special gasoline blends in effect in the 

Phoenix metropolitan area, and referred 

to as the ‘‘cleaner burning gasoline’’ 

(CBG) program, do nothing for the 

environment. To the contrary, EPA has 

approved a number of Phoenix area air 

quality plans that rely on the 

continuation of the CBG program to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. For 

instance, in the Carbon Monoxide 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa 

County Nonattainment Area (May 

2003), which was approved by EPA at 

70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005), the 

Maricopa Association of Governments 

(MAG) credits CBG with providing over 

20% of the CO emissions reductions 

relied upon to demonstrate maintenance 

of the CO standard through the first ten 

years beyond redesignation.6 More 

recently, in the Eight-Hour Ozone Plan 

for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area 

(June 2007), approved by EPA at 77 FR 

35285 (June 13, 2012), MAG credits CBG 

with providing 3.5% of the NOX

reductions that the plan relies upon to 

demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard in the PhoenixMesa area.7

Second, we note that the commenter 

does not challenge EPA’s conclusion 

that the expansion of Area A meets all 

applicable CAA requirements but rather 

contends that the extension of CBG to a 

larger area would increase retail fuel 

costs and lead to fuel shortages. 

However, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the minimum 

criteria set in the Clean Air Act or any 

applicable EPA regulations. Thus, 

considerations such as whether a State 

rule may be economically or 

technologically challenging cannot form 

the basis for EPA disapproval of a rule 

submitted by a state as part of a SIP [see 

Union Electric Company v. EPA; 427 

U.S. 246, 265 (1976)]. Also, EPA 

disapproval of ADEQ’s submittal of the 

statutory provision expanding Area A 

would not prevent the implementation 

of CBG in the larger area because the 

expanded definition of Area A and 

related CBG requirements would still 

apply in the larger area, and would still 

be enforceable, under State law, 

regardless of EPA’s action to approve or 

disapprove the amended definition as a 

revision to the Arizona SIP. 

Lastly, with respect to the suggestion 

that the emissions testing exemption for 

newer model year vehicles should be 

increased from 5 to 10 years, any 

changes to the exemption for motor 

vehicle emissions testing would first 

require a change in Arizona law. Thus, 

the commenter should direct this 

suggestion to State officials in the first 

instance. If such a statutory change were 

to be adopted, ADEQ would need to 

adopt and submit the change as a 

revision to the Arizona SIP, including 

documentation showing that the 

revision meets all relevant CAA and 

EPA requirements—including a 

demonstration that the change would 

not interfere with reasonable further 

progress or attainment of the NAAQS 

under section 110(l) of the Act. Upon 

receipt of a complete SIP revision, EPA 

would then consider approval or 

disapproval in the context of noticeand-comment rulemaking. 

Comment #2: The commenter objects 

to EPA’s proposed approval of the 

exemption for motorcycles because 

motorcycle-related emissions contribute 

to the overall problem of poor air 

quality in the Phoenix metropolitan area 

and should not be ignored even though 

it may be small in comparison to the 

emissions generated by cars. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
30212 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

8 In Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment 

Area (February 2009) (see page 109 of the Appendix 

A, Exhibit 1 (‘‘2005 Ozone Periodic Emission 

Inventory’’), MAG estimates that motorcycles in 

year 2005 emitted approximately 660 tons per year 

(tpy), 200 tpy, and 2,620 tpy of VOC, NOX, and CO, 

respectively, within the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. The corresponding estimates 

prepared by the commenter, as corrected for an 

error in computation (i.e., the commenter’s 

calculated estimate of CO per bike should have 

been 33,817 grams (per year) instead of 3,137 grams 

(per year) based on 7 grams per kilogram and 4,831 

kilometers driven per year per bike) and converted 

to tons per year, are approximately 360 tpy for VOC 

(and for VOC+NOX) and 2,720 tpy for CO. 

9Final approval of the current version of ARS 49– 

542 exempting motorcycles from VEI emissions 

testing requirements supersedes the previous 

versions of ARS 49–542 approved by EPA and made 

a part of the applicable Arizona SIP. The most 

recent prior approval by EPA of ARS 49–542 was 

published at 72 FR 15046 (March 30, 2007). 

10Final approval of the amendment to ARS 49– 

541(1) expanding the boundaries of ‘‘Area A’’ to 

those promulgated by the Arizona Legislature in 

2001 supersedes the previous versions of ARS 49– 

541(1) approved by EPA and made a part of the 

applicable Arizona SIP. The most recent prior 

approvals by EPA of the definition of ‘‘Area A’’ in 

ARS 49–541(1) were published at 68 FR 2912 

(January 22, 2003) and 69 FR 10161 (March 4, 

2004). The definition of the boundaries of ‘‘Area A’’ 

in ARS 49–541(1) was the same in both the 2003 

and 2004 final approval actions and reflect the 

boundaries promulgated by the Arizona Legislature 

in 1999. Approval of the amended statutory 

definition of ‘‘Area A’’ in today’s final action 

expands the geographic applicability of the VEI 

program, the CBG program, the Stage II vapor 

recovery program and any other Arizona SIP control 

measure that relies on the definition of ‘‘Area A’’ 

in ARS 49–541(1) under the Arizona SIP. 

Response #2: In support of the 

contention that motorcycle emissions do 

contribute to overall air quality 

problems in the Phoenix metropolitan 

area, the commenter presents an 

estimate of total emissions from 

motorcycles in the Phoenix area that, as 

corrected for a computational error and 

adjusted for unit conversions, are not 

inconsistent with the corresponding 

estimates of motorcycle emissions 

prepared by MAG in the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa 

Nonattainment Area (February 2009).8

However, we did not propose to 

approve the VEI exemption for 

motorcycles based on the relatively low 

contribution of motorcycle emissions to 

overall pollutant emissions in the 

Phoenix metropolitan area. Rather, we 

based our proposed approval on our 

conclusion that the VEI program, as 

amended to include the motorcycle 

exemption, would continue to meet 

Federal I/M requirements and that any 

increase in emissions due to the 

exemption would be offset by the 

reduction in emissions due to the 

extension of various control measures to 

a larger geographic area by virtue of the 

amended statutory definition of ‘‘Area 

A.’’ 

More specifically, in connection with 

the emissions impact analysis submitted 

by ADEQ, we agreed with its focus on 

the incremental change due to foregone 

emissions testing and maintenance of 

motorcycles under the VEI program 

rather than on total motorcycle-related 

emissions. Next, we found ADEQ’s 

emissions estimates for the incremental 

increase to be reasonable. Converted to 

tons per year, ADEQ’s estimates for the 

incremental increase amounts to 

approximately 20 tpy for VOC and 100 

tpy for CO (see the column labeled 

‘‘I/M benefit from motorcycle testing 

and repair’’ in table 2 of EPA’s 

November 5, 2012 proposed rule). As to 

this incremental increase in VOC and 

CO emissions, we concluded that the 

incremental increase in emissions due 

to foregone emissions testing and 

maintenance would not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of any of the 

NAAQS given the emissions benefits 

associated with the expansion of Area A 

and the related extension of various air 

quality control measures to the larger 

area, including the VEI program, the 

CBG program, the vapor recovery 

program, and various PM–10 control 

measures, given that the geographic 

applicability for all of these programs is 

defined by ‘‘Area A.’’ See page 66426– 

66428 of EPA’s November 5, 2012 

proposed rule. 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

Under section 110(k) of the CAA, and 

for the reasons set forth in our 

November 5, 2012 proposed rule and 

summarized herein, EPA is taking final 

action to approve the revisions to the 

Arizona SIP submitted by ADEQ on 

November 6, 2009 and January 11, 2011 

concerning the exemption of 

motorcycles from the emissions testing 

requirements under the Arizona VEI 

program in the Phoenix area, because 

we find that the revisions meet all 

applicable requirements, and together 

with the expansion of the geographic 

area to which the VEI and other air 

pollution control measures apply, 

would not interfere with reasonable 

further progress or attainment of any of 

the national ambient air quality 

standards. In connection with our 

approval of the State’s exemption of 

motorcycles from the VEI emissions 

testing requirements, we are approving 

an amended statute, Arizona Revised 

Statutes (ARS) section 49–542, that 

codifies this exemption in State law.9

EPA is also approving the revised 

statutory provision [amended Arizona 

Revised Statutes (ARS) section 49– 

541(1)], submitted by ADEQ on May 25, 

2012,10 that expands the boundaries of 

Area A, i.e., the area in which the 

various air pollution control measures 

(including the VEI, and cleaner burning 

gasoline and stage II vapor recovery 

programs) in the Phoenix area apply. 

IV. 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 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). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 30213 

In addition, this 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. 

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 action 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 22, 2013. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of 

nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 4, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

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)(155), (c)(156), and 

(c)(157) to read as follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(155) The following plan was 

submitted on November 6, 2009 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Affidavit by Efrem K. Sepulveda, 

Law Librarian, Arizona State Library, 

Archives and Public Records, certifying 

authenticity of reproduction of A.R.S. 

§ 49–542 (2008 edition) plus title page 

to pocket part of Title 49 (2008 edition), 

signed January 11, 2013. 

(2) Arizona Revised Statutes 

(Thomson West, 2008 Cumulative 

Pocket Part): Title 49 (the environment), 

section 49–542 (‘‘Emissions inspection 

program; powers and duties of director; 

administration; periodic inspection; 

minimum standards and rules; 

exceptions; definition’’). 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Final Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision, 

Exemption of Motorcycles from Vehicle 

Emissions Inspections and Maintenance 

Program Requirements in Area A 

(October 2009), adopted by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

on November 6, 2009, excluding 

appendices A and C. 

(156) The following plan was 

submitted on January 11, 2011 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Final Addendum to the Arizona 

State Implementation Plan Revision, 

Exemption of Motorcycles from Vehicle 

Emissions Inspections and Maintenance 

Program Requirements in Area A, 

October 2009 (December 2010), adopted 

by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on January 11, 

2011. 

(157) The following plan was 

submitted on May 25, 2012 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Affidavit by Barbara Howe, Law 

Reference Librarian, Arizona State 

Library, Archives and Public Records, 

certifying authenticity of reproduction 

of Arizona Revised Statutes § 49–451 

(sic) (corrected to § 49–541) (2001 

pocket part), signed May 3, 2012. 

(2) Arizona Revised Statutes (West 

Group, 2001 Cumulative Pocket Part): 

title 49 (the environment), section 49– 

541 (‘‘Definitions’’), subsection 1 

[Definition of Area A]. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12091 Filed 5–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0203; FRL–9386–1] 

1-Naphthaleneacetic acid; Pesticide 

Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of 1- 

naphthaleneacetic acid in or on 

avocado; fruit, pome, group 11–10; 

mango; sapote, mamey; and rambutan. 

This regulation additionally deletes 

certain tolerances, identified and 

discussed later in this document. 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR–4) requested these tolerances under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective May 

22, 2013. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

July 22, 2013, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0203, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Nollen, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES