Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 25605 

1On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 

8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million. 

See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). EPA designated 

Shelby County; Crittenden County, Arkansas; and a 

portion of Desoto County, Mississippi, as a marginal 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012). 

See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). Currently, 

monitoring data for the Memphis 2008 8-hour 

Ozone Area indicates that the Area has attaining 

data for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As noted 

above, marginal ozone nonattainment areas are not 

required to adopt an I/M program. 

published an interim final rule 

establishing a petition process to review 

the eligibility of countries for the 

benefits of the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act (AGOA) on March 18, 

2016. USTR publishes this final rule to 

adopt and implement the interim final 

rule without change. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on 

April 29, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

procedural questions, please contact 

Yvonne Jamison, Trade Policy Staff 

Committee, at 202–395–3475. Direct all 

other questions to Constance Hamilton, 

Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade 

Representative for African Affairs, at 

Constance_Hamilton@ustr.eop.gov or 

202–395–9514. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

18, 2016 (81 FR 14716), USTR 

published an interim final rule, which 

added 15 CFR part 2017. The new Part 

2017 establishes a petition process that 

supplements the annual (normal cycle) 

request for public comments on whether 

a beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

country is meeting the eligibility criteria 

and requirements of the AGOA program 

(see, e.g., 80 FR 48951, Aug. 14, 2015). 

The interim final rule was effective 

upon publication and the public 

comment period closed on April 18, 

2016. USTR did not receive any 

comments. 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

published March 18, 2016 (81 FR 

14716), is adopted as final without 

change. 

Florizelle Liser, 

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for 

African Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10016 Filed 4–28–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3290–F6–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0250; FRL–9945–91– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Removal of I/M 

Program in Memphis and Revisions to 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan for Shelby County, Tennessee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the State of 

Tennessee’s May 23, 2014, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, 

submitted through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC) on behalf of the 

Shelby County Health Department 

(SCHD), seeking to modify the SIP by 

removing the Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) program in the City 

of Memphis, Tennessee, and by 

incorporating Shelby County’s revised 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Among other 

things, the revised maintenance plan 

updates the emissions inventory 

estimates and the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the years 

2006 and 2021, and contains an 

emissions reduction measure to offset 

the emissions increase expected from 

the termination of City of Memphis I/M 

program. EPA has determined that 

Tennessee’s May 23, 2014, SIP revision 

is consistent with the applicable 

provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective May 31, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2014–0250. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Wong, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, 

Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Wong can be 

reached by phone at (404) 562–8726 or 

via electronic mail at 

wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Shelby County was designated as 

nonattainment for the carbon monoxide 

(CO) NAAQS on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 

8962). Local transportation sources in 

the City of Memphis were identified as 

the prime contributors to monitored CO 

violations in Shelby County at that time. 

The City of Memphis I/M program was 

adopted as a control strategy to attain 

the CO NAAQS. 

On July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37939), EPA 

redesignated Shelby County to 

attainment for the CO standard and 

approved the initial 10-year CO 

maintenance plan for Shelby County. 

Subsequently, further improvements in 

automotive technology led to a 

consistent reduction in locally 

monitored levels of CO. On October 25, 

2006 (71 FR 62384), EPA approved the 

required second 10-year CO 

maintenance plan which demonstrated 

that I/M was no longer needed to 

maintain the CO NAAQS. 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA 

designated Shelby County, Tennessee, 

and Crittenden County, Arkansas, as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, with a classification of 

‘moderate’ (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as the ‘‘Memphis 1997 8- 

hour Ozone Area’’).1 Under CAA section 

182(b)(4), moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas with a censusdefined urbanized area population over 

a given threshold are required to adopt 

basic I/M as part of the required SIP. 

Following the initial designations for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, Shelby 

County, the State of Tennessee, 

Crittenden County, and the State of 

Arkansas adopted additional measures 

to control ozone-forming emissions in 

the region and petitioned EPA to use its 

discretion under CAA section 181(a)(4) 

to reclassify the Area from moderate to 

marginal. On September 22, 2004 (69 FR 

56697), EPA granted the petition to 

reclassify the Area, which removed the 

SIP planning requirements mandated of 

moderate ozone nonattainment areas, 

including the adoption of a mandatory 

I/M program, and reset the attainment 

deadline to June 15, 2007. The Area 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

25606 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

2As discussed in the NPRM, the maintenance 

plan revision includes emissions reductions from 

the closure of the Cleo, Inc. facility to offset the 

estimated increase in emissions due to the 

termination of the City of Memphis I/M program. 

The Cleo facility was a gift wrap manufacturing 

plant and warehouse located at 4025 Viscount 

Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee. 

3The safety margin is the difference between the 

attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and 

the projected level of emissions (from all sources) 

in the maintenance plan. As discussed in the 

NPRM, Shelby County chose to allocate 4.224 tpd 

of the available VOC safety margin and 40.393 tpd 

of the available NOX safety margin to the 2021 

MVEBs. 

4The transportation conformity provisions of the 

CAA require interagency consultation in the 

development of MVEBs. The consultation process 

involves federal agencies (EPA, Federal Highway 

Administration, and Federal Transit 

Administration), state and local transportation 

agencies, state and local air agencies, and 

metropolitan planning organizations. 

5The contingency measures portion of Shelby 

County’s maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, as incorporated into the SIP, 

includes the implementation of an I/M program in 

Shelby County as a contingency measure should a 

monitored violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by the marginal area attainment 

deadline. Consequently, on March 28, 

2008 (73 FR 16547), EPA reclassified the 

Area as a moderate nonattainment area. 

This reclassification reset the attainment 

deadline to June 15, 2010, with an 

attainment plan SIP revision due on 

March 1, 2009, to address all CAA 

requirements for a moderate ozone 

nonattainment area, including an I/M 

program in Shelby County pursuant to 

CAA section 184(b)(4). 

The end of the 2008 ozone monitoring 

season resulted in a design value for the 

Memphis 1997 8-hour Ozone Area that 

met the NAAQS. Tennessee, 

Mississippi, and Arkansas prepared 

separate, but coordinated, redesignation 

requests and maintenance plans for 

their respective portions of the Area. 

Tennessee, on behalf of Shelby County, 

submitted the redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for its portion of the 

1997 8-hour Ozone Area to EPA on 

February 26, 2009, prior to the 

attainment plan SIP revision due date. 

EPA approved Tennessee’s 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan on January 4, 2010 (75 FR 56). 

Although there was no longer a 

mandatory requirement to implement I/ 

M in Shelby County under section 

184(b)(4) of the CAA, the City of 

Memphis continued to operate its I/M 

program, and the SIP-approved 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS includes the 

implementation of a basic I/M program 

in Shelby County as a contingency 

measure in the event that the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS is violated in the 

1997 8-hour Ozone Area after 

redesignation. In mid-2012, the 

Memphis City Council voted to defund 

the City of Memphis I/M program 

beginning with Fiscal Year 2013/2014. 

Vehicle inspection operations at all four 

City of Memphis inspection stations 

ended on June 28, 2013. Tennessee’s 

May 23, 2014, SIP submission addresses 

the termination of this program. 

In a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) published on February 12, 2016 

(81 FR 7483), EPA proposed to approve 

the May 23, 2014, SIP revision. No 

comments were received on the 

February 12, 2012, NPRM. The details of 

Tennessee’s submittal and the rationale 

for EPA’s actions are further explained 

in the NPRM. 

II. Revised MVEBs 

Tennessee’s May 23, 2014, 

maintenance plan revision updates the 

MVEBs for 2006 and 2021 using on-road 

mobile source emissions estimates from 

MOVES and removes the MVEBs for 

2009 and 2017. The revised 2021 MVEB 

accounts for the termination of the I/M 

program and the shutdown of the Cleo, 

Inc. facility.2 These budgets are used by 

transportation authorities to assure that 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects are consistent with, and 

conform to, the maintenance of 

acceptable air quality in the Memphis 

1997 8-hour Ozone Area. 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects, such as the construction of 

new highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., 

be consistent with) the part of the state’s 

air quality plan that addresses pollution 

from cars and trucks. Conformity to the 

SIP means that transportation activities 

will not cause new air quality 

violations, worsen existing violations, or 

delay timely attainment of the NAAQS 

or any interim milestones. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

transportation activities to a SIP. The 

regional emissions analysis is one, but 

not the only, requirement for 

implementing transportation 

conformity. Transportation conformity 

is a requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Maintenance areas 

are areas that were previously 

nonattainment for a particular NAAQS 

but have since been redesignated to 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan for that NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas. These control 

strategy SIPs (including RFP and 

attainment demonstration) and 

maintenance plans create MVEBs for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a 

MVEB must be established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. A state 

may adopt MVEBs for other years as 

well. The MVEB is the portion of the 

total allowable emissions in the 

maintenance demonstration that is 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. 

The MVEB serves as a ceiling on 

emissions from an area’s planned 

transportation system. The MVEB 

concept is further explained in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993 (58 

FR 62188), Transportation Conformity 

Rule. The preamble also describes how 

to establish the MVEB in the SIP and 

how to revise the MVEB. According to 

40 CFR 93.118, a maintenance plan 

must establish MVEBs for the last year 

of the maintenance plan (in this case, 

2021). The updated MVEBs in the 

revised maintenance plan for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS are for the base 

year (2006) and the last year of the first 

10-year maintenance plan (2021). The 

2021 MVEB reflects the total on-road 

mobile source emissions for 2021 plus 

an allocation from the available volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) safety margins.3 The 

MVEBs are presented in Table 1, below. 

TABLE 1—SHELBY COUNTY VOC AND

NOX MVEBS

[Ozone season tons per day] 

2006 2021 

NOX .......................... 58.013 56.428 

VOC .......................... 23.986 12.782 

The previously-approved 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan for Shelby 

County contained interim MVEBs for 

years 2006, 2009, and 2017 in addition 

to the required maintenance year MVEB 

of 2021. The consensus formed during 

the interagency consultation process 

was that MVEBs should only be set for 

2006 and 2021.4 Therefore, the revised 

maintenance plan removes the interim 

budgets for years 2009 and 2017. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Tennessee’s May 

23, 2014, SIP revision seeking to remove 

the City of Memphis I/M program from 

the SIP and to incorporate Shelby 

County’s revised maintenance plan for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS into the 

SIP.5 The maintenance plan includes, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 25607 

NAAQS occur in the former Memphis, TN-AR 

nonattainment area. Today’s final action does not 

remove the I/M program from the contingency 

measures in the SIP-approved maintenance plan. 

among other things, an emissions 

reduction measure to offset the 

emissions increase expected from the 

termination of City of Memphis I/M 

program as well as revised emission 

inventory estimates and revised 2006 

and 2021 MVEBs based upon new 

modeling associated with the 

termination of the I/M program and the 

inclusion of the offset measure. Within 

24 months from this final rule, the 

transportation partners will need to 

demonstrate conformity to the new NOX

and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e)(3). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it 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 June 28, 2016. 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, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 20, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

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. 

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

■ 2. Section 52.2220(e), is amended by 

adding an entry for ‘‘8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance plan for the Shelby 

County, Tennessee Area’’ at the end of 

the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Revised 8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance plan for 

the Shelby County, 

Tennessee Area.

Memphis, Shelby County.5/14/2014 4/29/2016 [Insert citation of publication].Revises the maintenance plan approved by EPA 

on 1/4/10 to include a revised emissions inventory, revised MVEBs, and an emissions reduction measure to offset the termination of 

the City of Memphis I/M program. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

25608 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2016–10166 Filed 4–28–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0028; FRL–9945–78– 

Region 9] 

Approval of Air Plan Revisions; 

Arizona; Rescissions and Corrections 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) under the 

Clean Air Act. These revisions include 

rescissions of outdated test methods and 

performance test specifications. The 

intended effect is to rescind 

unnecessary provisions from the 

applicable SIP. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 31, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2016– 

0028 for this action. The index to the 

docket is 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 in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for Final Rule 

II. Summary of Proposed Rule 

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for Final Rule 

On February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7259), 

we proposed to approve revisions to the 

Arizona SIP under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) and provided a 30-day 

comment period. The revisions include 

rescissions of certain statutory 

provisions, administrative and 

prohibitory rules, and test methods. The 

EPA also proposed to correct certain 

errors in previous actions on prior 

revisions to the Arizona SIP and to 

make certain other corrections. 

On that same date, we issued a direct 

final rule (81 FR 7209) taking final 

action effective April 11, 2016 but 

indicated that, if we received adverse 

comments by the end of the comment 

period, we would publish a withdrawal 

of the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register prior to the effective date 

informing the public that the direct final 

rule will not take effect. The February 

11, 2016 proposed rule indicated that if 

the EPA received adverse comment on 

an amendment, paragraph, or section of 

the direct final rule and if that provision 

may be severed from the remainder of 

the rule, the EPA may adopt as final 

those provisions of the rule that are not 

the subject of an adverse comment. 

We received a timely adverse 

comment on a specific test method for 

which we had approved rescission and 

found that our action on the test method 

(and other test methods and 

performance test specifications from the 

same approved SIP revision submittal) 

could be severed from the rest of the 

rule. Thus, we published a partial 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register at 81 FR 19495 (April 

5, 2016), affecting only the action as it 

relates to the test method for which the 

comment was received (and the other 

test methods and performance test 

specifications that were submitted and 

approved on the same dates as the test 

method in question). In today’s action, 

we provide our response to the public 

comment and take final action to 

approve the rescissions of the outdated 

test methods and performance test 

specifications based on the proposal 

published on February 11, 2016. 

II. Summary of Proposed Rule 

In our February 11, 2016 proposed 

rule (81 FR 7259), we directed 

commenters to the direct final rule for 

a detailed rationale for the proposed 

approval of the SIP revisions and for the 

proposed corrections. As such, the 

following paragraphs summarize the 

background information and evaluation 

included in the direct final rule also 

published on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 

7209) as it relates to the test methods 

and performance test specifications that 

are the subject of this final rule. 

On March 10, 2015 and January 13, 

2016, the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

submitted rescissions of certain 

statutory and regulatory provisions from 

the applicable Arizona SIP. Under CAA 

section 110(k)(3), the EPA is obligated to 

approve, disapprove, or conditionally 

approve SIPs and SIP revisions, 

including rescissions. As noted above, 

the rescissions relate to certain statutory 

provisions, administrative and 

prohibitory rules, and test methods. In 

our February 11, 2016 direct final rule 

(81 FR 7209), we approved all of the 

rescissions included in the two SIP 

revisions except for certain test methods 

and performance test specifications, for 

which we withdrew direct final action. 

In our direct final rule, we also 

corrected certain errors in previous 

actions on prior revisions to the Arizona 

SIP and to make certain other 

corrections, but because no adverse 

comments were received on the 

corrections, we did not withdraw any 

part of the error corrections portion of 

the direct final rule. 

Table 1 lists the test methods and 

performance test specifications the 

rescission of which we withdrew direct 

final action, the dates on which the EPA 

approved the provisions as part of the 

SIP, and the dates on which ADEQ 

submitted the rescissions to the EPA. 

TABLE 1—ARIZONA SIP REGULATORY PROVISIONS THAT ADEQ HAS RESCINDED

Regulatory provision Title EPA approval Rescission 

submittal date 

Arizona Testing Manual for Air Pollutant 

Emissions, Section 3.01.

Method 1 Sample and Velocity Traverses 

for Stationary Sources.

47 FR 17483 (April 23, 1982) ..... January 13, 2016. 

Arizona Testing Manual for Air Pollutant 

Emissions, Section 3.02.

Method 2 Determination of Stack Gas 

Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate 

(Type S Pitot Tube).

47 FR 17483 (April 23, 1982) ..... January 13, 2016. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES