[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52433-52438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-20353]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ-106-0062; FRL-7257-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona; Motor 
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve two State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revisions submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality (ADEQ). These revisions consist of several changes that have 
been made to Arizona's Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection 
Programs since the programs were originally approved by EPA. Arizona's 
Basic Vehicle Emissions Inspection (VEI) Program is implemented in the 
Tucson Air Planning Area carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area (Area 
B). The Enhanced VEI Program is implemented in the Maricopa County 
ozone and (CO) nonattainment area (the Phoenix area or Area A). These 
revisions include a modeling demonstration that shows that the VEI 
program implemented in Area A meets EPA's high enhanced performance 
standard for inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. Also included 
in these revisions are various program changes including the

[[Page 52434]]

incorporation into the VEI programs of on-board diagnostic (OBD) 
testing, an exemption of the first five model year vehicles from the 
programs on a rolling basis, replacement of the previously approved 
remote sensing program implemented in Area A with an on-road testing 
study, and changes to the waiver provisions. Today's action proposes 
approval of Arizona's enhanced VEI program, implemented in Area A, as 
meeting EPA's high enhanced program requirements and proposes approval 
of changes to Arizona's previously approved basic VEI program 
implemented in Area B.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Sylvia Dugre, Office of Air Planning (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the Region 9 office 
and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Library, 1110 W. 
Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.

Electronic Availability

    This document and the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this 
rulemaking are also available as electronic files on EPA's Region 9 Web 
Page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/air.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 8, 1995 (60 FR 22518), EPA fully approved Arizona's Basic 
and Enhanced VEI Programs as meeting the applicable requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) and the federal I/M rule as amended. A basic I/M 
program was required in the Tucson Air Planning Area CO nonattainment 
area and in the Maricopa County CO and ozone nonattainment area (the 
Phoenix area). At that time, Arizona was not required to have an 
enhanced I/M program, although Arizona was implementing most elements 
of an enhanced program in the Phoenix area (Area A). Arizona's program 
as implemented in Area A, however, was not approved as an enhanced 
program, because the program did not satisfy all the provisions of 
EPA's I/M rule for enhanced programs. An enhanced I/M program became a 
requirement for the Phoenix area when the area was reclassified from a 
``low'' moderate CO nonattainment area (with a design value less than 
12.7 ppm) to a serious CO nonattainment area effective August 28, 1996 
(61 FR 39343, July 29, 1996), and when the area was reclassified from a 
moderate to a serious nonattainment area for ozone effective February 
13, 1998 (63 FR 7290, February 13, 1998). Since the Arizona VEI 
programs were originally approved in May 1995, EPA has amended the 
federal I/M regulations \1\ several times to provide states with more 
flexibility in designing their programs and to require testing of the 
on-board diagnostic (OBD) system. Since that time, Arizona has also 
made a number of changes to its enhanced and basic VEI programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed 
rulemaking for the list of federal register notices amending EPA's 
I/M regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Arizona's Submittals

    ADEQ submitted the changes to its Basic and Enhanced Vehicle 
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Programs as a revision to its SIP 
on July 6, 2001. The July 6, 2001 SIP revision package includes, among 
various other program changes, ADEQ's revised rule which extends the 
exemption for newer model year vehicles from the current model year to 
the first five model year vehicles and the revised rules incorporating 
legislative changes to the provisions for issuing a waiver. Also 
included in the SIP revision is State legislation that discontinues the 
remote sensing program that had been implemented in Area A and 
authorizes a study to determine the most effective on-road testing 
program for Arizona.
    A SIP revision supplementing the July 6, 2001 SIP revision was 
submitted by ADEQ on April 10, 2002. This submittal contains the ADEQ 
rule revisions incorporating on-board diagnostics (OBD) testing and, in 
accordance with the State legislation, deleting the previously approved 
remote sensing program from the ADEQ regulations. It also contains a 
modeling demonstration, with adjustments for the IM147 transient 
loaded-mode emissions test, showing the I/M program implemented in Area 
A meets EPA's high enhanced performance standard. EPA found this 
submittal complete on May 2, 2002.

III. EPA Review of the SIP Revisions

    EPA's requirements for basic and enhanced I/M programs are 
contained in 40 CFR part 51 Subpart S. The SIP revisions submitted by 
ADEQ must be consistent with these requirements and must meet EPA's 
requirements for enforceability, as well as, CAA section 110(l) 
requirements.

A. Geographic Coverage

    EPA's I/M regulations require that state I/M programs be 
implemented in the entire urbanized area, based on the 1990 census. 40 
CFR 51.350. Since EPA approved the VEI programs into the SIP in 1995, 
Arizona has extended the boundaries of Area A \2\, where the Phoenix 
VEI program is implemented, to incorporate high-growth areas 
surrounding metropolitan Phoenix. The Maricopa County geographic area 
covered by the VEI program was increased and portions of Yavapai and 
Pinal Counties were included for the first time. Inspection of subject 
vehicles included within the Maricopa and Yavapai County portions of 
expanded Area A began on December 31, 1998. Inspection of subject 
vehicles in the Pinal County portion of Area A began January 1, 2001. 
By expanding the boundaries of Area A, ADEQ projected that 60,676 
vehicles were covered by the program in the geographic area that was 
added to the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The TSD for this proposed rulemaking contains the boundaries 
for Area A as defined by township and range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Vehicle Coverage

    The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs assumes coverage 
of all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles and trucks. Light 
duty trucks are not included in the performance standard for basic I/M 
programs. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary 
emission reductions are achieved. CFR 51.356.
    The VEI programs approved by EPA in 1995 exempted vehicles 
manufactured in the current model year from inspection. Senate Bill 
1427, enacted in 1998, expanded the exemption from testing for current 
model year vehicles to the prior four model years, making the first 
five model year vehicles exempt from testing on a rolling basis in both 
Area A and Area B. Implementation of this revision to the VEI programs 
began September 1, 1998. The exemption of newer model year vehicles 
from emissions testing results in a relatively small loss in emission 
benefit since newer vehicles are generally anticipated to be cleaner 
than older vehicles. Furthermore, recent data suggest that newer 
vehicles stay cleaner longer due to the slower rate of emission control 
system deterioration. An analysis of Arizona data done by Sierra 
Research shows that this portion of the vehicle fleet is responsible 
for only a small fraction of identifiable excess emissions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Sierra Research Draft Final Report, ``Determination of 
Emissions Credit and Average Test Times for IM147 Testing,'' 
November 9, 1998, p. 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The federal regulations also require basic and enhanced I/M 
programs to

[[Page 52435]]

include inspection of all 1996 and later motor vehicles equipped with 
OBD systems. EPA required I/M programs to begin OBD checks on January 
1, 2002. 40 CFR 51.373. OBD consists of a computer which performs 
checks of a number of different vehicle systems for malfunctions or 
deterioration which could result in the vehicle exceeding its emissions 
standards and a malfunction indicator light which is required to be 
illuminated when the system detects a problem. In accordance with EPA's 
requirements, Arizona began OBD testing 1996 and newer OBD-equipped 
vehicles in Area A and Area B in January 2002. Vehicles which receive 
an OBD inspection do not receive an IM147 tailpipe test, which is 
described below.

C. On-Road Testing

    On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M programs and is 
optional for basic I/M programs. The on-road testing requirement may be 
met by measuring on-road emissions through the use of remote sensing 
devices or through roadside pullovers including tailpipe or evaporative 
emission testing or a check of the OBD system. The federal regulations 
require on-road testing to evaluate annually the emission performance 
of 0.5% of the subject fleet statewide or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is 
less. 40 CFR 51.371.
    Arizona began an on-road testing program using remote sensing 
devices (RSD) in Area A in 1995. Vehicles identified by RSD as high 
emitters were required to have a follow-up emissions test at a state 
run station and to undergo repairs if necessary. The State found that 
the program resulted in relatively small emissions reductions. Twenty-
nine percent of the vehicles initially identified as high emitters were 
found to be meeting the applicable standards upon retest. Arizona 
estimated the cost effectiveness of the program as approximately $800-
$1000 per ton of carbon monoxide and $16,000 to $20,000 per ton for 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In Arizona House Bill (HB) 2104, 
enacted in 2000, the State legislature replaced the RSD program with a 
requirement to conduct a study to identify more accurate and cost-
effective on-road testing methods. The legislation authorized the 
analysis of alternative technologies, including remote sensing, to 
evaluate the performance of in-use vehicle emissions control systems. 
The goals of the study include improving methods of identifying high 
emission vehicles and increasing compliance with the annual/biennial 
inspection program. HB 2104 also provided dedicated funding to complete 
the study and develop the new program.
    ADEQ has amended its VEI program rules to remove the RSD 
provisions. ADEQ has contracted with Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) 
in Austin, Texas to conduct the baseline assessment and evaluation of 
alternative testing technologies for the Arizona Alternative Compliance 
and Testing Study. Under the provisions of the contract with ERG, 
Arizona continues to meet EPA's requirement for on-road testing of 0.5% 
of the subject fleet statewide or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is less, 
annually.\4\ Arizona has also committed to submit a VEI program SIP 
revision when the study is completed and the new on-road testing 
program designed. EPA is proposing to find that the Arizona Alternative 
Compliance and Testing Study satisfies EPA's requirements for on-road 
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A copy of the contract with ERG was included in the SIP 
revision and is part of the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Waivers

    EPA's requirements permit I/M programs to provide a waiver which 
allows the motorist to comply with the program without meeting 
applicable test standards as long as certain prescribed criteria are 
met. 40 CFR 51.360. In basic programs, a minimum of $75 for pre-1981 
vehicles and $200 for 1981 and newer vehicles must be spent by the 
motorist for appropriate repairs in order to qualify for a waiver. 40 
CFR 51.360(a)(6). Beginning January 1, 1998, enhanced programs must 
require motorists to spend at least $450 for appropriate repairs. 40 
CFR 51.360(a)(7).
    Arizona's rules provide that a waiver from the applicable standards 
may only be issued after a retest is failed after qualifying repairs, 
including performance of a low-emissions tune-up, are made. Although 
the required expenditures under Arizona's enhanced I/M program for Area 
A differ from those described in EPA's I/M requirements for enhanced 
programs, a side-by-side comparison demonstrates that, overall, they 
are not less stringent.
    For enhanced programs EPA requires a minimum expenditure of at 
least $450 to qualify for a waiver, but allows for an extension of time 
to repair a failed vehicle for the period of one test cycle for 
``economic hardship.'' 40 CFR 51.360(a)(9). EPA's regulations also 
allow a vehicle to receive multiple waivers as long as the vehicle 
fully passes the applicable test standards between such waivers. Id.
    Arizona's program recognizes that the burden of repairs is greatest 
on owners of older vehicles. The Arizona program includes minimum 
expenditures that decrease with the age of the vehicle, i.e., $450 for 
1980+ model year vehicles, $300 for 1975-79 model years, and $200 for 
pre-1975 model years. The costs of repair due to tampering do not apply 
to the waiver cost limit. Under the State's program, waivers are denied 
to gross polluting vehicles, which are vehicles failing the emissions 
inspection at more than twice the applicable standard. A waiver may be 
granted only once in a vehicle's life. Waivers are denied if the 
vehicle has an inoperable catalytic convertor. Thus, unlike the federal 
program where relief may be allowed for ``economic hardship'' and 
multiple waivers may be granted for failure during subsequent test 
cycles, the Arizona program includes more limited allowances for 
waivers and allows only a single such waiver. Therefore, EPA proposes 
to conclude that, taken as a whole, Arizona's waiver requirements are 
not less stringent than those required by the federal I/M regulations.
    The provisions which deny a waiver to vehicles failing the 
emissions test at more than twice the applicable standard and limit the 
issuance of a waiver to once in a vehicle's lifetime also apply to the 
Area B basic I/M program. These provisions strengthen the program and 
provide additional emissions reductions.

E. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard

    EPA's I/M regulations require that the state perform modeling using 
the most current version of EPA's mobile source emissions model to 
determine that the emissions levels achieved by the state I/M program 
design meet the minimum performance standard provided in the federal 
regulations. 40 CFR 51.351(f). The elements of EPA's high enhanced 
program model program are contained in 40 CFR 51.351(f).
    On January 1, 2000, ADEQ began using a revised test procedure 
called the IM147 for vehicles undergoing the transient, loaded 
emissions test in Area A. The IM147 test is derived from the IM240 test 
which had been used in Area A since 1995. The IM240 transient, loaded 
emissions test includes two phases. The IM147 is based on the second 
phase, which has a driving cycle that is longer and has significantly 
higher speeds than the first phase. The IM147 was developed to allow 
more vehicles to be tested per lane at the I/M testing facilities and 
to reduce the incidence of false failures due to

[[Page 52436]]

inadequate preconditioning,\5\ while maintaining stringency close to 
the level of the I/M240 test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If a vehicle is not thoroughly warmed up, high emissions can 
be caused by air-fuel ratio enrichment or an inactive catalytic 
convertor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the IM147 test type was not available as an input option in 
the MOBILE5b emission factor model, Arizona performed its modeling 
using the closest available test type, the IM240. The resulting credit 
was then adjusted based upon the analysis of a 2,518 vehicle sample of 
paired IM240 and IM147 emission tests. Based on this analysis and 
previous work done by ADEQ, EPA, and Sierra Research, it was determined 
that multiplying the IM240 modeling output CO, HC and NOX 
results by .994, .987, and .954 respectively,\6\ was an appropriate 
surrogate for modeling the IM147 test directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the TSD in the docket for this proposed rulemaking for 
further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time the Arizona SIP revision was developed, MOBILE5b was 
EPA's latest available approved emission factor model, and was 
therefore the model used to project the emission reductions 
attributable to Arizona's IM147 enhanced program. Because of the 
complexity of the program, i.e., different tests for different model 
year vehicles and types of vehicles, several different modeling 
scenarios were combined to determine the level of emission reductions 
achieved by the State's program. These emission reductions were then 
compared to the emission reductions associated with EPA's high enhanced 
I/M performance standard. The modeling demonstrated that Arizona's 
enhanced program with the IM147 test meets EPA's high enhanced I/M 
performance standard.

F. Legal Authority for the Program

    The federal I/M rule requires the state I/M program to remain in 
operation until it is no longer necessary. 40 CFR 51.372. State 
legislation enacted in 1999 added Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 41-
3009.01 which extends the I/M program to January 1, 2009, well beyond 
the date of expected attainment of the CO and ozone national ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS) for the Phoenix area. With respect to 
this sunset date, in a letter \7\ to EPA, dated August 23, 1998, ADEQ 
stated that ARS 41-2955 limits to ten years the existence of an agency 
such as ADEQ before it undergoes a sunset review. Therefore the Vehicle 
Emissions Inspection Program (VEIP) has been extended for the maximum 
time that is consistent with ARS 41-2955, i.e., ten years. The letter 
supplies a recent history of legislative changes to the VEIP, 
concluding that ``The VEIP has consistently received support for 
necessary program updates from the Legislature.'' In the final rule 
redesignating the Tucson area to attainment for CO and approving the 
Tucson maintenance plan, EPA concluded that, on the basis of this 
legislative history, it is reasonable to assume that the program will 
be extended when it expires at the end of 2008.\8\ We continue to 
believe that ADEQ has demonstrated that the Arizona I/M programs will 
remain in operation as long as necessary and the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.372 have been satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the TSD for this proposed rulemaking for a copy of the 
letter.
    \8\ 65 FR 36356, June 8, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Effect of Program Changes on Emission Benefits

    CAA section 110(l) states, in part, that EPA shall not approve a 
SIP revision if it would ``interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress* * *or any other 
applicable requirement of [the Act].'' One of the tests that EPA has 
used historically to determine whether a SIP revision would interfere 
with attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP) is the ``no 
relaxation'' test. Under this test, if a SIP revision does not reduce 
or delay emission reductions when compared to the unrevised SIP, then 
EPA can conclusively find that it will not interfere with the area's 
applicable requirements concerning attainment or RFP.
    In a recent court decision (Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 
2001)), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that EPA cannot 
invariably rely on the ``no relaxation'' test in determining if a SIP 
revision is allowed under section 110(l)'s prohibition on interference 
with attainment and RFP. Rather, the court determined that, before EPA 
can conclude that the SIP revision is allowed under section 110(l), EPA 
must first conclude that ``the particular plan revision before it is 
consistent with the development of an overall plan capable of meeting 
the Act's attainment requirements.'' (Hall, 273 F.3d at 1160). However, 
the court also found that the ``no relaxation'' test would ``clearly be 
appropriate in areas that achieved attainment under preexisting 
rules.'' (Hall, 273 F.3d at 1160 n.11).
    As described above, the changes to Arizona's VEI programs contained 
in the proposed SIP revision affect both the Phoenix and Tucson areas. 
Therefore, EPA needs to address the proposed SIP revision's effect in 
both of these areas before we can determine whether we can approve this 
revision under CAA section 110(l).
    Tucson. Arizona implemented its VEI program in the Tucson area as 
part of the control strategy to attain and maintain the CO standard in 
the area. Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the Tucson area was designated 
``nonattainment'' and ``not classified'' for carbon monoxide. 56 FR 
56694 (November 6, 1991). In 2000, EPA redesignated the area to 
attainment for CO. See 65 FR 36353 (June 8, 2000).
    EPA can use here, per Hall, the ``no relaxation'' test to determine 
if the proposed SIP revision is allowed under section 110(l)'s 
prohibition on interference with attainment because the Tucson area 
attained under a pre-existing rule. In this case, the pre-existing rule 
is the VEI program in place at the time the area was redesignated to 
attainment in June 2000. The program in place in 2000 is the same 
revised VEI program being proposed for approval today. Therefore, EPA 
proposes to conclude that this SIP revision, if approved, will not 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning CO attainment in 
the Tucson area.
    As an attainment area, the Tucson area has neither a requirement to 
demonstrate RFP nor one for an I/M program; therefore, the proposed SIP 
revision does not interfere with any applicable requirement for RFP or 
any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    Phoenix. The Phoenix-area VEI program is an important component of 
the area's control strategies for both carbon monoxide and ozone.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Phoenix area is also a PM-10 nonattainment area; 
however, the VEI program plays a very minor roll in the control 
strategy for this pollutant. Moreover, the area's recently-approved 
PM-10 plan was prepared based on the VEI program that we are 
proposing to approve today. See 66 FR 50136 (October 2, 2001). 
Therefore, this SIP revision is consistent with and supports the 
development of the Phoenix area's plan for meeting the Act's 
attainment, RFP and control requirements (i.e., reasonably available 
control measures, best available control measures, and most 
stringent measures). There is no CAA requirement for I/M programs in 
PM-10 nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carbon monoxide. In March, 2001, Arizona submitted a revised 
serious nonattainment area CO plan for the Phoenix area. This plan 
relied in part on the VEI program being proposed for approval today to 
demonstrate both progress toward and attainment of the CO standard in 
the area. See Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for 
the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area, Maricopa

[[Page 52437]]

Association of Governments, March 2001, Chapter 9. Therefore, these 
revisions to the VEI program are consistent with and support the 
development of the Phoenix area's plan for meeting the Act's attainment 
and RFP requirements. Also, the revisions to the program collectively 
provide a further reduction in total area CO emissions of around 3.0 
percent over those achieved by the program as implemented prior to 
2000. Id. As discussed above, the revised VEI program meets the CAA's 
requirements for enhanced I/M programs for serious CO nonattainment 
areas. Therefore, we propose to conclude that this SIP revision, if 
approved, will not interfere with any applicable requirements for 
attainment and RFP or any other applicable requirements of the CAA and 
is approvable under section 110(l).
    Ozone. In April 2001, EPA determined that the Phoenix area had 
attained the 1-hour ozone standard by its statutory deadline of 
November 15, 1999. See 66 FR 29230 (May 30, 2001). The area has 
continued in attainment since 1999 with no recorded exceedances of the 
1-hour ozone standard and an overall downward trend in ozone levels. 
See Letter, Nancy Wrona, ADEQ to Colleen McKaughan, EPA, June 12, 2002.
    Because of its clean air record, Arizona was not required to submit 
a serious area attainment demonstration \10\; therefore, we are unable 
to judge whether the proposed revisions are consistent with the area's 
formal plan to attain the standard by its applicable statutory 
deadline. However, because the area has achieved attainment under the 
pre-existing program, we can use, per Hall, the ``no relaxation'' test 
to determine if the proposed SIP revision is allowed under section 
110(l)'s prohibition on interference with attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Memorandum, John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, EPA, to 
Regional Air Directors, ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 
Demonstrations, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 
Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' May 
10, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of section 110(l), EPA compares the proposed 
revisions to the ``pre-existing'' VEI program which was in place during 
the 1997 to 1999 time frame when the area achieved attainment.\11\ The 
most substantial changes to the VEI program are: (1) The change from 
the IM240 to the IM147 emission test; (2) the elimination of the remote 
sensing program; and (3) the expansion of the program into Pinal 
County. Collectively, these three program revisions reduce VOC, CO, and 
NOX emissions as compared to emissions reductions achieved 
by the VEI program over the1997-1999 attainment period by approximately 
1,400 metric tons per year (mtpy), 16,000 mtpy, and 95 mtpy, 
respectively. See Email, Teresa Pella, ADEQ to Frances Wicher, EPA, 
June 14, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard is demonstrated 
when the average number of exceedances per year over a three-year 
period is 1 or less. Thus, to demonstrate attainment by November 
1999, the Phoenix area had to average 1 or fewer exceedances per 
year over the 1997 to 1999 time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the VOC and CO reductions contribute to reducing ozone 
levels, the decrease in NOX emissions may have the effect of 
potentially increasing ozone levels in the Phoenix area. However, the 
NOX reductions are so small (less than 0.2 percent of the 
total NOX inventory, Id.) that any increase in ozone levels 
resulting from the NOX reductions will be negligible and 
more than offset by a decrease in ozone levels resulting from the much 
more substantial VOC and CO reductions.\12\ Therefore, EPA proposes to 
conclude that this SIP revision, if approved, will not adversely affect 
the area's clean air status and is allowed under section 110(l)'s 
prohibition on interfering with any applicable requirement pertaining 
to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Two previous analyses of the effect of NOX 
reductions on 1-hour ozone levels in the Phoenix area show 
uncompensated NOX reduction of 3.7 percent and 9 percent 
of the total NOX inventory resulted a 0.001 ppm and 0.004 
ppm, respectively, increase in peak 1-hour ozone levels. See 
Memorandum, Cari Anderson, MAGTPO, to Sharon G. Douglas and others, 
SAI, re: NOX RACT Simulation for the 9-10 August 1992 
Episode, March 29, 1994 and ``Reanalysis of the Metropolitan Phoenix 
Voluntary Early Ozone Plan,'' ENSR, October 1997, p. 5-2. The 1-hour 
ozone standard is 0.12 ppm; current peak 1-hour ozone levels in 
Phoenix area are 0.115 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The only existing RFP demonstration for the area is the 15 percent 
rate-of-progress (ROP) demonstration required by CAA section 182(b)(1). 
See 64 FR 36243 (July 6, 1999). This ROP requirement addresses VOC 
only. Emission reductions from the VEI program are credited in the 
Phoenix area's 15% ROP plan, but that credit is based on the program as 
implemented in 1996. See 63 FR 3687, 3690. This proposed SIP revision 
results in additional reductions in VOC over the reductions achieved 
from the VEI program implemented in 1996; therefore, EPA proposes to 
conclude that the revision, if approved, will not interfere the area's 
applicable requirement to demonstrate RFP.
    Finally, as discussed above, EPA has concluded that the revised 
program meets the enhanced I/M program requirements for serious ozone 
nonattainment areas.

IV. Proposed Action

    In todays action EPA is proposing to find that the Arizona enhanced 
I/M program implemented in Area A meets CAA and EPA requirements for a 
high enhanced program. We are also proposing to find that the VEI 
program implemented in Area B continues to meet EPA's I/M requirements 
for basic programs. In addition, we are proposing to approve various 
Arizona statutes amending the VEI programs and the latest revisions to 
the basic and enhanced VEI program regulations. Specifically, the 
Arizona statutes are:
    Amendments to A.R.S. 49-541, 49-542.05, 49-544, 49-545, 49-551 and 
the repeal of 49-542.01 submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on July 6, 
2001.
    Amendments to A.R.S. 49-542, 49-543, and the repeal of 49-541.01 
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on April 10, 2002.
    The Arizona regulations are:
    Arizona Administrative Code (AAC), Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 10 
``Motor Vehicles; Inspection and Maintenance'' as of December 31, 2000 
except for AAC R 18-2-1020, submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on July 
6, 2001.
    Amendments to AAC R 18-2-1006 and 18-2-1019, and the repeal of AAC 
R 18-2-1014 and R 18-2-1015 submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on April 
10, 2002.

V. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed 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 proposed action is also not subject to 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely approves state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to 
approve pre-existing requirements under 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

[[Page 52438]]

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
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 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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 proposes to approve 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. This proposed 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.
    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 proposed 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental Regulations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: August 1, 2002.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 02-20353 Filed 8-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P