34362 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to June 14, 2005. 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 August 15, 2005. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: June 7, 2005. 

J.I. Palmer, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Region 4.

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

Federal Regulations, is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

■ 2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry in numerical order 

for ‘‘20. Severe Area Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (VMT SIP) for the Atlanta 1-

hour severe ozone nonattainment area.’’

to read as follows:

§ 52.570 Identification of Plan.

* * * * *

(e) EPA Approved Georgia 

Nonregulatory Provisions.

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date 

* * * * * * * 

20. Severe Area Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT SIP) 

for the Atlanta 1-hour severe ozone nonattainment 

area.

Atlanta 1-hour ozone severe nonattainment area.June 30, 2004 June 14, 2005. [Insert first page 

number of publication]. 

[FR Doc. 05–11719 Filed 6–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[AZ131–0088; FRL–7901–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Arizona; Redesignation of 

Phoenix to Attainment for the 1-Hour 

Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality’s 

submittals of revisions to the Arizona 

state implementation plan that include 

substitution of the clean fuel fleet 

program requirement with the cleaner 

burning gasoline program, adoption of 

the 1-hour serious area ozone plan and 

adoption of the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. We are also 

approving Arizona’s request to 

redesignate the Phoenix metropolitan 1-

hour ozone nonattainment area from 

nonattainment to attainment. EPA is 

taking these actions pursuant to those 

provisions of the Clean Air Act that 

obligate the agency to take action on 

submittals of revisions to state 

implementation plans and requests for 

redesignation.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on June 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at EPA Region 9’s Air 

Planning Office (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Due to increased security, we suggest 

that you call at least 24 hours prior to 

visiting the Regional Office so that we 

can make arrangements to have 

someone meet you. 

Electronic Availability 

This document and our proposed rule 

which was published in the Federal 

Register on March 21, 2005 are also 

available as electronic files on EPA’s 

Region 9 Web Page at http://

www.epa.gov/region09/air/phoenixoz/

index.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (520) 622–1622, e-mail: 

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

www.epa.gov/region09/air/phoenixoz/

index.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. EPA’s Final Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background 

On March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13425), we 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking for the State of Arizona. The 

notice proposed approval of the State’s 

submittals of revisions to the Arizona 

state implementation plan (SIP) for the 

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area and the State’s 

redesignation request for this area from 

‘‘nonattainment’’ to ‘‘attainment’’. 

Specifically, we proposed approval of 

three sets of SIP revisions adopted and 

submitted to us by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ). First, under sections 

182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’), we 

proposed to approve the State of 

Arizona’s 1998 request to ‘‘opt-out’’ of 

the clean fuel fleet (CFF) program and 

to approve the cleaner burning gasoline 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 34363

1 In our proposed rule, we also noted that we 

would not take final action on the redesignation 

request until certain other separate rulemakings 

needed for redesignation were finalized. These 

included a direct final rule approving Maricopa 

County’s emissions statement rule and a negative 

declaration (related to the RACT requirement) for 

fiberglass boat manufacturing (70 FR 7038, Feb. 10, 

2005), a proposed rule approving local permit 

conditions for W.R. Meadows, Inc. as meeting the 

RACT requirement (70 FR 13125, March 18, 2005), 

and a proposed rule approving Maricopa County 

Rule 358 as meeting the RACT requirement for 

polystyrene foam molding operations (70 FR 14616, 

March 23, 2005). EPA received no adverse 

comments on the direct final rule and thus our 

approval of Maricopa County’s emissions statement 

rule and a negative declaration for fiberglass boat 

manufacturing is now in effect. The Regional 

Administrator signed the final rule approving the 

source-specific RACT requirements at W.R. 

Meadows, Inc. on April 27, 2005 and signed the 

final rule approving Maricopa County Rule 358 on 

May 5, 2005. Thus, the three separate rulemakings 

that were referred to in our March 21, 2005 

proposed rule have now been finalized.

(CBG) program as a substitute measure. 

Second, we proposed to approve, under 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the State’s 

2000 submittal of the Final Serious Area 

Ozone State Implementation Plan for 

Maricopa County (‘‘Serious Area Ozone 

Plan’’), which provides a demonstration 

of compliance with the requirements 

under the CAA for the Phoenix 

metropolitan ‘‘serious’’ 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. Third, we proposed 

to approve, under sections 107(d)(3)(D) 

and 110(k)(3), the State’s 2004 submittal 

of the One-Hour Ozone Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan for the 

Maricopa County Nonattainment Area

(‘‘Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan’’), which was 

developed and adopted locally by the 

Maricopa Association of Governments 

(MAG), as meeting CAA requirements 

for redesignation requests and 

maintenance plans. 

Our proposed approval of these three 

sets of SIP revisions provided us the 

basis upon which to propose a finding 

that the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area has fully met the 

requirements for redesignation found at 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for 

redesignation of an area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 1-

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS).1

We have previously approved the 

principal control measures relied on in 

the Serious Area Ozone Plan and the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan for attainment and maintenance of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 

area, including various Maricopa 

County Volatile Organic Compound 

(VOC) Reasonable Available Control 

Technology (RACT) rules (see Table 3 in 

our proposed rule and footnote 1 in this 

notice), stage II vapor recovery 

requirements (see 59 FR 54521, 

November 1, 1994), the area’s enhanced 

inspection and maintenance program 

(see 68 FR 2912, January 22, 2003), and 

cleaner burning gasoline program (see 

69 FR 10161, March 4, 2004). 

In addition, under section 

107(d)(3)(A) of the Act, we proposed a 

revision of the boundary of the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Reservation. Upon 

reconsideration, we have decided to 

withdraw the March 21, 2005 proposal 

as it relates to the revision of the 

boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area and 

will instead address this issue in a 

separate rulemaking. We are 

withdrawing the boundary change part 

of the proposal because, as a result of 

certain errors made at the time of initial 

designation, we have decided to 

consider the boundary change pursuant 

to the error correction provisions of 

CAA section 110(k)(6), rather than 

pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(A) as 

we had proposed.

A more complete description of 

Arizona’s SIP revisions and 

redesignation request and the rationale 

for our related approvals was presented 

in our March 21, 2005 proposed rule 

and will not be restated here. The reader 

is referred to the proposed rule for more 

details. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received one comment letter 

during the 30-day comment period. This 

letter, dated April 20, 2005, was 

submitted by the Arizona Center for 

Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) on 

behalf of a private citizen and the Grand 

Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club. The 

comments and EPA responses are as 

follows: 

Comment 1 

While we do not dispute that the 

Phoenix area has not officially violated 

the 1-hour ozone standard for the past 

six years, and has not had an 

exceedance since 1996, we note that 

several of the monitoring sites continue 

to record some very high values. Over 

the past two summers, for example, 

Maricopa County issued a significant 

number of ozone alerts. Thus, while the 

Valley has officially ‘‘attained’’ the onehour standard, it has not attained the 8-

hour standard and ozone continues to 

be a serious problem that requires 

vigilant attention. 

Response 1 

EPA agrees that, while the Phoenix 

area has attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard, the Phoenix area continues to 

be designated ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is more 

stringent than the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See 69 FR 23858, at 23860, 

23878–23879 (April 30, 2004). The 8-

hour ozone NAAQS is not relevant to 

redesignation for the 1-hour standard, 

and this redesignation will not affect the 

continued nonattainment designation 

with respect to the 8-hour standard. The 

State of Arizona will be obligated to 

submit further SIP revisions for the 

purpose of attaining and maintaining 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the 

Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, notwithstanding 

this redesignation for the 1-hour 

standard. We intend to identify the 

specific additional planning and control 

requirements for 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas in our upcoming 

Phase 2 implementation rule. The action 

we are taking today relates only to the 

1-hour standard and does not affect the 

area’s designation for the 8-hour ozone 

standard nor the obligations that will 

flow from that designation. 

Comment 2 

In the past, we have expressed 

concern about the adequacy of the 

Phoenix area ozone monitoring network. 

(See Letter dated June 19, 2000 from 

Jennifer Anderson to Frances Wicher re 

determination of attainment of the onehour standard). Thus, we were 

interested to learn in the proposed rule 

that changes had been made to the 

network. In the proposed rule, EPA 

refers to the description of the 

monitoring network in the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan, but then notes that in recent years, 

the network has changed and that the 

current monitoring network is 

comprised of fewer and different sites 

that presumably meet EPA regulations. 

(70 FR 13428). We were unable to locate 

anything in the rulemaking materials 

that described which monitor sites were 

discontinued or which sites were 

relocated. We are informed only that the 

number of sites has been reduced from 

21 to 18 and that locations have 

changed. Id.

This is of particular concern for a 

couple of reasons. First, as noted in the 

proposed rule, one of the control 

measures implemented by the State as 

part of the Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan is the expansion of 

the nonattainment area. Common sense 

suggests that an expansion of the 

nonattainment area should lead to an 

increase in the number of monitors, not 

a decrease. Second, as EPA is well 

aware, the Phoenix metropolitan area 

continues to experience significant 

growth, both in population and 

34364 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2The Tonto National Monument ozone 

monitoring site is located in Gila County and is 

operated by ADEQ. No exceedances were measured 

there during the 2002 to 2004 period (i.e., the 

period for which data is available through AQS). 

The highest maximum hourly reading over that 

period was 0.112 ppm.

3 In 88 days of full operation in 2004, the Buckeye 

station recorded a highest maximum daily 1-hour 

ozone concentration of 0.088 ppm.

footprint. In particular, there are huge 

residential developments planning for 

the West Valley in the Buckeye area. 

These developments, some of which 

represent the largest master-planned 

communities in the country, will 

convert thousands of acres of vacant 

desert to commercial and residential 

development, resulting in a significant 

increase in the mobile source emissions 

in that area. Consequently, having 

sufficient sites that will adequately 

monitor the ozone in this area is critical. 

However, the information provided in 

the proposed rule is insufficient to 

allow us to evaluate the adequacy of the 

system with respect to this concern. We 

do not believe it is appropriate for EPA 

to approve the Redesignation Request 

and Maintenance Plan if it does not 

accurately describe the current 

monitoring network. 

Response 2 

The commenter incorrectly states that 

expansion of the nonattainment area is 

one of the control measures 

implemented by the State as part of the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan. We want to clarify that the State 

does not intend to expand the 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area itself but 

rather to extend the applicability of 

certain control measures beyond the 

boundaries of the 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to areas designated 

as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ These 

expanded control measures will provide 

additional support for continued 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Phoenix metropolitan 

area. 

With respect to monitoring networks 

in general, we note that there are ongoing considerations that affect the 

design of any network (i.e., number, 

capabilities and locations of stations 

that comprise the network) in any given 

year, and thus, a net decrease in the 

overall number of monitoring stations 

does not in itself call into question the 

utility or reliability of the monitoring 

network or the data it generates. These 

considerations include, among others, 

the existence of redundant monitors, the 

persistent measurement of low 

concentrations at a given site, and lost 

access to site locations. These are 

practical issues that are considered 

annually by air monitoring agencies as 

they conduct the Annual Monitoring 

Network Reviews required by EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 58.20 and 58.25. 

Maricopa County has published its last 

four monitoring network reviews (2001 

to 2004) on the Web at http://

www.maricopa.gov/aq/AIRDAY/

airmon.asp. The monitoring network 

reviews explain anticipated changes in 

the network and record actual changes 

in the network. 

With respect to the ozone monitoring 

network in the Phoenix area, changes 

reflect an effort undertaken several years 

ago by ADEQ, Maricopa County, Pinal 

County, and the tribes in the Phoenix 

area to take a more holistic view of the 

ozone monitoring network, in part due 

to concerns about 8-hour ozone 

concentrations. EPA supported this 

effort to reassess the ozone network in 

light of the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

and encouraged other areas to conduct 

the same type of assessment. The 

designation of the Phoenix area as an 8-

hour ozone nonattainment area caused 

Maricopa County Environmental 

Services Department (MCESD), ADEQ, 

Pinal County and the tribes to make 

changes to the monitoring network to 

better track ozone concentrations in the 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area, which 

is larger than the 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment and which includes the 

West Valley area.

Specifically, the commenter notes 

that, in our proposal, we indicate that 

the number of ozone monitoring sites in 

the Phoenix metropolitan area had been 

reduced from 21 in 2002 to 18 in 2004 

and that some locations had changed 

but provide no further information 

describing these changes to the 

monitoring network. As discussed 

below, the actual net change in the 

number of ozone monitoring stations 

from 2002 to 2004 was from 21 stations 

to 20 stations. In our proposal, we 

inadvertently did not include one of the 

stations (i.e., the Tonto National 

Monument station) that had been listed 

for 2002 in our 2004 data table, and one 

of the other stations that had been listed 

in 2002 was in the process of being relocated during 2004 and thus was not 

included in the 2004 data table either. 

We note that these network changes are 

documented on an annual basis in the 

Annual Monitoring Network Reviews 

prepared by Maricopa County and made 

available to the public through the Web 

link cited above. 

With respect to the changes in the 

ozone monitoring network between 

2002 and 2004, we should have 

included the Tonto National Monument 

site in our summary of ozone data in 

table 1 of the proposed rule (70 FR 

13429).2 In that table, we did not 

include either the Maryvale station 

(closed in March 2004) that had been 

part of the 2002 network or the Buckeye 

station (to which the Maryvale station 

was re-located) in the fast-growing West 

Valley area because no data was 

gathered at either site for much of the 

2004 ozone season (the Buckeye station 

opened in August 2004).3 Thus, the 

reduction in the number of stations from 

21 to 18 that was cited in the proposed 

rule was actually a reduction from 21 to 

20. Other changes in the network 

between 2002 and 2004 included: (1) In 

mid-2003, the ‘‘Surprise’’ station was 

relocated due to power and access 

problems to another site within the City 

of Surprise referred to as the ‘‘Dysart’’

site; and (2) the ozone monitor at the 

Mesa site was permanently shut down 

in November 2002 to conserve 

personnel and equipment resources but 

also in recognition of the redundancy of 

ozone data from that particular site 

given that the Tempe station, which is 

merely three miles away, also monitors 

ozone. The relocation of the monitoring 

sites within the City of Surprise resulted 

in no net change in the number of ozone 

monitoring stations while the closing of 

the Mesa ozone site accounts for the net 

decrease of one station between 2002 

and 2004 in the ozone monitoring 

network in the Phoenix area. We believe 

that the closing of a single monitoring 

station that was deemed redundant 

where there are still 20 monitoring 

stations remaining in operation does 

nothing to undermine our conclusion 

that the Phoenix area ozone monitoring 

network and the data it generates are 

adequate for the purposes of SIP 

development and redesignation under 

the Clean Air Act. Given that the data 

from the remaining 20 monitors 

supports a finding of attainment, EPA 

concludes that the monitoring network 

fully supports this redesignation.

Comment 3 

Although, in principle, we do not 

object to the substitution of the CBG 

program for the clean fuel fleet 

requirement (provided the requirement 

that the substitute program will result in 

at least equivalent reductions in ozone), 

recent actions by the Governor’s office 

call into question the State’s 

commitment to the CBG program in the 

long term. Just last week, the Arizona 

Republic reported that Governor Janet 

Napolitano intends to seek a waiver of 

the CBG requirement this coming 

summer due to high gas prices. See 

‘‘Napolitano May Seek Gas Price 

Relief,’’ Arizona Republic, April 11, 

2005. We do not believe that high gas 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 34365

4The commenter has misstated the standard set 

by Congress for implementing contingency 

measures under section 175A as requiring 

implementation ‘‘immediately’’ and 

‘‘automatically’’ after a violation. On the contrary, 

section 175A(d) provides that ‘‘each plan revision 

submitted under this section shall contain such 

contingency provisions as the Administrator deems 

necessary to assure that the State will promptly 

correct any violation of the standard * * * .’’

(emphasis added.) EPA has approved as ‘‘prompt’’

contingency measures under section 175A(d) that 

are implemented as soon as a year and as long as 

two years after being triggered. See, e.g., 60 FR 

12459, at 12470, 12472 (March 7, 1995); 68 FR 

4847, 4859 (January 30, 2003) and 68 FR 25418 

(May 12, 2003); and 66 FR 53094, at 53102–53103 

(October 19, 2001).

prices are a proper basis for such a 

waiver and fully anticipate the EPA will 

reject the request; however, in the 

article, the Governor’s spokeswoman 

was quoted as saying ‘‘[t]he governor 

will continue to hammer on the Federal 

Government that we need to figure this 

out.’’ Id. Clearly, these comments call 

into question any commitments the 

State has made with respect to the CBG 

program and suggest that given the high 

price of gasoline (which is only 

expected to increase), approval of the 

State’s request to opt out of the CFF 

requirement at this time may be illadvised and short sighted. Rather than 

approving the CBG program only to 

field repeated waiver requests, it may be 

more appropriate for EPA to encourage 

the State to pursue the use of alternative 

fuels by implementing a clean fuel fleet 

program. 

Response 3 

The commenter has not objected to 

the substitution of the CBG program for 

the Clean Fuel Fleet requirement, 

provided there is at least an equivalent 

reduction in ozone. EPA’s proposed 

approval of the substitution made a 

demonstration of equivalency, as 

required by the CAA, and the 

commenter does not dispute this 

demonstration. 

The commenter does, however, 

express concern about the State’s 

commitment to the CBG program, given 

recent publicity that the State has 

considered requesting a waiver of the 

CBG requirements due to rising gasoline 

prices. We note that the CBG program is 

a control measure which EPA has 

approved into the Arizona SIP (in a 

Federal Register notice dated February 

10, 1998 and a subsequent approval 

notice dated March 4, 2004), making it 

a federally enforceable measure. There 

are no waiver provisions under the SIPapproved CBG program for the 

summertime (i.e., ozone season) 

gasoline formulation nor are any such 

waiver provisions being approved as 

part of this action. Thus, if the State 

wants to make revisions to, or to 

temporarily suspend, the summertime 

gasoline formulation requirements of 

the CBG program, the State must follow 

CAA requirements applicable to any SIP 

revision, including provisions of section 

110(l) regarding interference with 

attainment and applicable requirements, 

and requirements for public notice and 

comment, and EPA must follow similar 

notice and comment requirements for its 

action on such a SIP revision request. 

In the past two years, the State has on 

several occasions requested and in two 

cases received from EPA a grant of 

enforcement discretion notifying CBG 

suppliers that EPA would not enforce 

the CBG requirements due to serious 

supply problems. In cases where EPA 

has granted such enforcement 

discretion, the discretion was of a 

temporary nature (i.e., 30 days or less) 

and was granted due to emergency 

situations such as a pipeline break, 

which resulted in legitimate problems 

with getting supplies of CBG to the 

Phoenix area, and not solely due to high 

gasoline prices. Thus, the commenter’s 

objection does not relate to the 

justification for the proposed 

substitution of the CBG program and 

does not undermine EPA’s belief in the 

future validity of the program as a viable 

component of the maintenance 

demonstration. EPA concludes that the 

justification for approving the 

substitution of emissions reductions 

from the CBG program for the Clean 

Fuel Fleet program is still sound.

Comment 4 

Finally, we disagree that the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan properly includes contingency 

measures. As EPA acknowledges in the 

proposed rule, the measures designated 

as ‘‘contingency measures’’ in the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan are already implemented. 

According to CAA section 175A(d), the 

purpose of contingency provisions is to 

assure that the State will promptly 

correct any violation of the standard 

which occurs after the redesignation of 

the area as an attainment area. 

Obviously, if the so called ‘‘contingency 

measures’’ are already being 

implemented when a violation occurs, 

there is nothing to suggest that their 

continued implementation would 

ensure that the situation will be 

corrected. Rather, the Act clearly 

envisions additional measures which 

are automatically and immediately 

implemented if and when a violation 

occurs. If and when a violation occurs, 

the fact that the State did not rely upon 

these measures in its maintenance 

demonstration is meaningless. If a 

violation occurs, protection of the 

public health is paramount and the 

Clean Air Act contemplates and requires 

an immediate response that does not 

require additional EPA or State action. 

The State’s commitment to adopt 

nonspecific additional contingency 

measures over a 15 to 21 month period 

if the ‘‘trigger’’ of at least four 0.120 

ppm readings is met falls far short of 

this requirement of the Act. We believe 

that EPA’s approval of the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan without requiring meaningful and 

appropriate contingency provisions 

would be arbitrary and capricious and 

contrary to law. 

Response 4 

The commenter is correct in that the 

contingency provisions of the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan rely on measures that have already 

been implemented; however, we 

disagree that such measures, together 

with an enforceable mechanism to 

identify, adopt and implement 

additional contingency measures, do not 

suffice for the purposes of a 

maintenance plan under CAA section 

175A(d). 

Section 175A(d) of the Act requires 

that each maintenance plan ‘‘contain 

such contingency provisions as the 

Administrator deems necessary to 

assure that the State will promptly 

correct any violation of the standard 

which occurs after the redesignation of 

the area as an attainment area.’’

(emphasis added). First, as a general 

matter, we note that the italicized 

language clearly indicates that Congress 

expressly delegated authority to EPA to 

determine what contingency provisions 

in maintenance plans are necessary. 

More specifically, we have consistently 

held that section 175A(d) does not 

require that the contingency provisions 

developed for maintenance plan 

purposes contain fully adopted 

measures that will take effect (upon the 

occurrence of a given event) without 

further action by the State or EPA. 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, U.S. EPA, ‘‘Procedures 

for processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’ (September 4, 

1992) (‘‘Calcagni memo’’) at 12.4 In this 

regard, we distinguish the contingency 

provision requirements for maintenance 

plans from those for nonattainment 

plans. For the latter, the CAA requires 

fully adopted measures that will take 

effect (upon the occurrence of a given 

event) without further action by the 

34366 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

5 In this instance, ‘‘early’’ refers to measures that 

are implemented prior to occurrence of a triggering 

event, such as a NAAQS violation, during the 

maintenance period.

6We also note that Arizona has not chosen to 

deactivate, and place in reserve, any SIP control 

measures as part of this redesignation request for 

the 1-hour ozone standard in the Phoenix 

metropolitan area.

7 In prior rulemakings, we have approved other 

maintenance plans that include contingency 

measures that will be implemented ‘‘early.’’ See the 

San Francisco Bay area 1-hour ozone maintenance 

plan [NPRM: 59 FR 49361 at 49368–49369 

(September 28, 1994); FR: 60 FR 27028 (May 22, 

1995)] and the Salt Lake City carbon monoxide 

maintenance plan [Direct Final Rule: 64 FR 3216, 

at 3221 (January 21, 1999)].

8We note that the procedure established in the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for 

developing additional contingency measures is 

triggered prior to the occurrence of either an 

exceedance or a violation and therefore is 

consistent with the principle of maintaining the 

NAAQS. Exceedances occur when the daily 

maximum value equals or exceeds 0.125 ppm, and 

a violation occurs when the expected number of 

exceedances-days per calender year averaged over 

the past three calendar years is equal to or less than 

1.0.

State or EPA. See CAA sections 

172(c)(9), 182(c)(9), and 187(a)(3).

However, we note that the 

contingency provisions in a 

maintenance plan do become an 

enforceable part of the SIP (upon 

approval by EPA) and that the 

provisions should ensure that 

contingency measures are adopted 

expediently once they are triggered. We 

believe that the contingency provisions 

in a maintenance plan should clearly 

identify measures to be adopted, a 

schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation, and a specific time 

limit for action by the State. As a 

necessary part of the plan, the State 

should also identify specific indicators, 

or triggers, which will be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be implemented. 

Calcagni memo, page 12.

We reviewed the contingency 

provisions in the Redesignation Request 

and Maintenance Plan with the above 

considerations in mind and found them 

acceptable. The contingency provisions 

in the Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan identify three specific 

measures for implementation: 

expansion of Area A boundaries, gross 

polluter option for vehicle inspection 

and maintenance (I/M) program 

waivers, and increased waiver repair 

limit options. See pages 3–17 and 3–18 

of the Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan and 70 FR 13425, at 

13438–13439 (March 21, 2005). The 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan anticipates that these measures 

would be implemented ‘‘early,’’ 5 and in 

fact, all of these measures have been 

implemented and continue to provide 

emissions reductions within the 

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. Although these 

measures have been implemented, they 

will continue to provide additional 

reductions in future years. The 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan also describes when these 

measures were adopted and how they 

are being implemented. See pages VI–18 

through VI–21 in MAG’s Technical 

Support Document for Ozone Modeling 

in Support of the One-Hour Ozone 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix 

Metropolitan Nonattainment Area, 

November 2003 (included as Exhibit 2 

of Appendix A of the Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan). 

Because they were expected to be (and 

have been) implemented ‘‘early,’’ there 

is no need to identify a triggering event 

for them. Further, we note that none of 

the three contingency measures was 

needed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS nor are they relied upon for the 

purposes of the maintenance 

demonstration.6

The positive effects of these 

contingency measures are continuing in 

nature, and are surplus, permanent and 

federally enforceable. The continuing 

reduction credits from the contingency 

measures are, in effect, set aside to be 

applied in the event that maintenance is 

not achieved. EPA has historically 

allowed early reductions under section 

172(c)(9)—that is, reductions achieved 

before the contingency measure is 

‘‘triggered’’—to be used as contingency 

measures, because if it did not do so it 

would discourage areas from 

implementing ‘‘all reasonably available 

control measures as expeditiously as 

practicable’’ as required by CAA section 

172(c)(1). See also the August 13, 1993 

memorandum: ‘‘Early Implementation 

of Contingency Measures for Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas.’’ Were areas to hold such 

measures in reserve to serve as 

contingency measures, EPA would 

approve them. EPA sees only air quality 

benefits in allowing areas to implement 

such measures early and to get 

additional reductions in advance, 

potentially preventing any future 

violations. 

We believe that it would be illogical 

to penalize maintenance areas that are 

taking extra steps (i.e., through ‘‘early’’

implementation of contingency 

measures) to ensure maintenance of the 

NAAQS by requiring them to adopt yet 

additional contingency measures now to 

backfill for the early activation of 

contingency measures.7 Our 

interpretation of the contingency 

measure requirement and acceptance of 

‘‘early’’ implementation of contingency 

measures in fulfillment of that 

requirement under section 172(c)(9) was 

recently upheld by the Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. See La. Envtl. Action 

Network v. United States Envtl. 

Protection Agency, 382 F.3d 575 (5th 

Cir. 2004) (EPA approval of contingency 

measures vacated on different grounds). 

In the La. Envtl. Action Network case, 

the court stated, ‘‘Here, the EPA’s 

allowance of early reductions to be used 

as contingency measures comports with 

a primary purpose of the CAA—the aim 

of ensuring that nonattainment areas 

reach NAAQS compliance in an 

efficient manner—and necessary 

requirements of the CAA.’’ Id at 581. 

While the La. Envtl. Action Network 

case specifically addressed the 

nonattainment plan contingency 

measure requirements under section 

172(c)(9), we would expect a court to 

apply similar logic in reviewing EPA’s 

acceptance of ‘‘early implementation’’ of 

contingency measures under section 

175A(d) in support of the aim of 

ensuring that attainment areas continue 

to maintain the NAAQS as well.

Of course, if an area experiences a 

NAAQS violation despite early 

implementation of contingency 

measures, then additional contingency 

measures would be needed to promptly 

correct the violation, and the 

contingency provisions of the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan provide a mechanism under which 

such additional measures will be 

identified, adopted and implemented. 

This procedure is triggered by the 

occurrence of a fourth highest daily 

maximum hourly measurement 

exceeding 0.120 (at any given station 

over a three-year period) whereby 

additional measures (i.e., in addition to 

those already implemented) will be 

considered.8 Once the triggering event 

occurs, the Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan establishes that (1) 

verification of the monitoring data is to 

be completed within three months of 

the triggering event; (2) the additional 

measure is to be considered for adoption 

six months after verification of the data 

(nine months after the triggering event); 

and (3) the measure is to be 

implemented within six to 12 months 

after adoption, i.e., 15 to 21 months after 

the triggering event. The Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan does not 

identify the specific additional 

measures that would be adopted and 

implemented but notes that the existing 

contingency measures may be 

strengthened to provide additional 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 34367

9EPA has previously determined that the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area had 

attained the 1-hour NAAQS and, based on that 

determination, that certain CAA requirements 

would not be applicable so long as the area 

continued to attain. See 66 FR 29230 (May 30, 

2001).

emissions reductions as needed. This 

mechanism provides further assurance 

that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS will not 

be violated after redesignation of the 

Phoenix metropolitan area to attainment 

(by establishing a triggering event short 

of a violation) but that, if such a 

violation were to occur, it will be 

promptly corrected. The selection of a 

triggering event short of a violation 

would allow the State ‘‘to take early 

action to address potential violations of 

the NAAQS before they occur.’’

Calcagni memo, page 12.

The commenter appears to assert that 

it is possible that a violation could 

occur of such severity that the 

contingency provisions would be 

insufficient, and therefore inadequate. 

This interpretation of the statute is 

unreasonable. EPA cannot expect 

Arizona to provide contingency 

provisions that, by themselves, address 

every hypothetical violation of the 

NAAQS, no matter how severe. The 

State is not compelled to develop 

contingency provisions that are capable 

of addressing any imaginable violation, 

no matter how severe. EPA is applying 

a reasonable interpretation, considering 

the contingency provisions in the 

context of a reasonable range of possible 

violations. In the event that the 

specified contingency measures are less 

than is necessary to avoid a violation, 

Arizona has committed to adopt and 

implement additional measures. 

Moreover, it is evident in section 

110(k)(5), as well as within section 

175A(d) itself, that Congress 

contemplated that there may be 

situations in which the contingency 

provisions are insufficient to address a 

violation. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes 

EPA to require a State to revise its SIP 

where EPA finds that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to maintain the 

NAAQS. The final sentence of section 

175A(d) contemplates that EPA may, in 

its discretion, determine that a violation 

of the NAAQS requires a revision to the 

State SIP. Had Congress intended 

contingency provisions to successfully 

address every conceivable violation of 

the standard, additional revisions to the 

SIP in response to a violation of the 

NAAQS would be unnecessary. Thus, 

we continue to believe that the 

contingency provisions in the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan, including both specific 

contingency measures that have already 

been implemented as well as a 

mechanism for identifying, adopting 

and implementing additional 

contingency measures, fully comply 

with the statutory requirements of such 

provisions under section 175A(d) of the 

Act. 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the State of 

Arizona’s ‘‘opt-out’’ request, serious 

area plan, maintenance plan and 

redesignation request for the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area comply with the 

CAA and EPA regulations. Therefore, 

under the Clean Air Act, we are fully 

approving three sets of revisions to the 

Arizona SIP that have been submitted to 

us in connection with the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area and the State’s 

redesignation request for this area from 

‘‘nonattainment’’ to ‘‘attainment.’’

First, under sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 

110(k)(3) of the CAA, we are approving 

the State of Arizona’s 1998 submittal of 

a request to ‘‘opt-out’’ of the Clean Fuel 

Fleet program and to approve the 

cleaner burning gasoline (CBG) program 

as a substitute measure.

Second, under section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, we are approving the State’s 2000 

submittal of the Serious Area Ozone 

Plan as meeting the applicable 

requirements for serious 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. As part of our 

overall approval of the Serious Area 

Ozone Plan, we approve the following 

specific plan elements: 

• Periodic (ozone season) inventory 

update for 1996 as required under 

section 182(a)(3)(A); and 

• Enhanced monitoring as required 

under section 182(c)(1). 

Third, under sections 107(d)(3)(D) 

and 110(k)(3), we are approving the 

State’s 2004 submittal of the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan as meeting CAA requirements for 

redesignation requests and maintenance 

plans under sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 

175A and are redesignating the Phoenix 

metropolitan area from nonattainment 

to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. In this regard, we find that: 

• The Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area has continued 

to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on quality-assured data for the 

years 2002 through 2004 (thus, certain 

requirements of title I, part D, as set 

forth in the proposed notice at 70 FR 

13431–13432 (March 21, 2005), 

including the attainment demonstration, 

non-RACT reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), reasonable further 

progress, contingency measures, and 

other related requirements, continue to 

be inapplicable to the area); 9

• The SIP for the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has been fully 

approved by EPA under section 110(k); 

• The improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP (principally, 

the VOC RACT rules, stage II vapor 

recovery rules, the enhanced vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program, 

and the cleaner burning gasoline 

program), and applicable Federal air 

pollution control regulations; 

• The Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA; 

• The State of Arizona has met all 

requirements applicable to the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area under section 110 

and part D of title I of the CAA; and 

• For the reasons described in the 

proposal, the State has satisfied all of 

the requirements for redesignation 

under section 107(d)(3)(E). 

As part of our overall approval of the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan, we approve the following specific 

plan elements: 

• Periodic (ozone season) inventory 

update for 1999 as required under 

section 182(a)(3)(A); 

• 1998 and 1999 base cases 

(episodic), 2006 interim year, and 2015 

maintenance year emissions inventories 

and maintenance demonstration; 

• Implementation of the following 

control measures for maintenance 

purposes: CARB Phase 2 and Federal 

Phase II Reformulated Gasoline with a 

maximum 7 psi vapor pressure 

requirement from May through 

September, coordination of traffic signal 

systems, tougher enforcement of vehicle 

registration and emission test 

compliance, one-time waiver from 

vehicle emissions test, development of 

intelligent transportation systems, 

phased-in emission test cutpoints, and 

Maricopa County Rule 348 (related to 

aerospace manufacturing and rework 

operations). 

• Contingency provisions, including 

the following measures: expansion of 

Area A boundaries, gross polluter 

option for I/M program waivers, and 

increased waiver repair limit options, as 

well as a mechanism (based on ambient 

ozone concentration readings) for 

triggering consideration of additional (or 

strengthened) contingency measures; 

34368 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

• Commitments by ADEQ and the 

Maricopa County Environmental 

Services Department (MCESD) to 

continue to operate an appropriate air 

quality monitoring network of National 

Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and 

State and Local Air Monitoring Stations 

(SLAMS) in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58 to verify continued attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard; 

• Commitment by Maricopa County 

to prepare periodic emission inventories 

every three years in coordination with 

ADEQ, the Arizona Department of 

Transportation, and MAG (this 

commitment extends to a review and 

evaluation of changes in the inventory 

through the regional air quality 

planning process to determine if 

additional measures should be 

considered); 

• Commitment by MAG to prepare a 

revised maintenance plan eight years 

after redesignation to attainment; and 

• VOC and NOX motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (corresponding to a 

weekday in August) for transportation 

conformity purposes under CAA section 

176(c): 71.9 metric tons per day (mtpd) 

for VOC and 104.8 mtpd for NOX in 

2006 and 48.7 mtpd for VOC and 53.6 

mtpd for NOX in 2015.

Lastly, as noted above, we are 

withdrawing the March 21, 2005 

proposal as it relates to the revision of 

the boundary of the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Reservation and will 

instead address this issue in a separate 

rulemaking. 

EPA finds that there is good cause for 

approval of this redesignation to 

attainment and SIP revision to become 

effective immediately upon publication 

because a delayed effective date is 

unnecessary due to the nature of a 

redesignation to attainment which 

relieves the area from certain Clean Air 

Act requirements that would otherwise 

apply to it. The immediate effective date 

for this redesignation is authorized 

under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which 

provides that rulemaking actions may 

become effective less than 30 days after 

publication if the rule ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction’’ and section 553(d)(3), 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and redesignates the area 

to attainment for air quality planning 

purposes and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

rule approves 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 in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ are defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’

Under section 5(b) of Executive Order 

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation 

that has tribal implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs, and that is not required by statute, 

unless the Federal Government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation. 

Under section 5(c) of Executive Order 

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation 

that has tribal implications and that 

preempts tribal law, unless the Agency 

consults with tribal officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

As indicated above, EPA had 

proposed to revise the boundary of the 

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Reservation, but has 

decided to withdraw that part of the 

proposal and to address the boundary 

issue in a separate rulemaking. 

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA has 

communicated this change to 

representatives of the Gila River Indian 

Community and explained our rationale 

for withdrawing the proposal and 

conducting a separate rulemaking. EPA 

finds that this action, which no longer 

includes the boundary change, will 

neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. Thus, the 

requirements of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard and redesignates the 

area to attainment for the purposes of air 

quality planning and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this rule present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

In reviewing SIP submissions and 

redesignation requests, 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 or 

redesignation request for failure to use 

VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews 

a SIP submission or redesignation 

request, to use VCS in place of a SIP 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 34369

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by August 15, 2005. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: May 20, 2005. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

■ Parts 52 and 81, 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)(123), (c)(124), and 

(c)(125) to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(123) The following plan was 

submitted on December 7, 1998, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Letter and enclosures regarding 

Arizona’s Intent to ‘‘Opt-out’’ of the 

Clean Fuel Fleet Program, adopted by 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on December 7, 

1998. 

(124) The following plan was 

submitted on December 14, 2000, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Final Serious Area Ozone State 

Implementation Plan for Maricopa 

County, dated December 2000, adopted 

by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on December 14, 

2000. 

(125) The following plan was 

submitted on April 21, 2004, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) One-Hour Ozone Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan for the 

Maricopa County Nonattainment Area,

dated March 2004, adopted by the 

Maricopa Association of Governments 

Regional Council on March 26, 2004 

and adopted by the Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality on April 21, 

2004.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C—[Amended]

■ 2. In § 81.303, the table entitled 

‘‘Arizona—Ozone (1-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for the 

Phoenix Area to read as follows:

§ 81.303 Arizona

* * * * *

ARIZONA—OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

Phoenix Area: 

Maricopa County (part) 6/14/05 Attainment 

The Urban Planning Area of the Maricopa Association of Government is bounded as 

follows: 

1. Commencing at a point which is the intersection of the eastern line of Range 7 

East, Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian, and the southern line of Township 2 South, said point is the southeastern corner of the Maricopa Association 

of Governments Urban Planning Area, which is the point of beginning; 

2. Thence, proceed northerly along the eastern line of Range 7 East which is the 

common boundary between Maricopa and Pinal Counties, as described in Arizona Revised Statute Section 11–109, to a point where the corner line of Range 

7 East intersects the northern line of Township 1 North, said point is also the 

intersection of the Maricopa County Line and the Tonto National Forest Boundary, as established by Executive Order 869 dated July 1, 1908, as amended 

and shown on the U.S. Forest Service 1969 Planimetric Maps; 

3. Thence, westerly along the northern line of Township 1 North to approximately 

the southwest corner of the southeast quarter of Section 35, Township 2 North, 

Range 7 East, said point being the boundary of the Tonto National Forest and 

Usery Mountain Semi-Retional Park; 

34370 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

ARIZONA—OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)—Continued

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

4. Thence, northerly along the Tonto National Forest Boundary, which is generally 

the western line of the east half of Sections 26 and 35 of Township 2 North, 

Range 7 East, to a point which is where the quarter section line intersects with 

the northern line of Section 26, Township 2 North, Range 7 East, said point also 

being the southast corner of the Usery Mountain Semi-Regional Park; 

5. Thence, westerly along the Tonto National Forest Boundary, which is generally 

the south line of Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 and the southern line of the west 

half of Section 23, Township 2 North, Range 7 East, to a point which is the 

southwest corner of Section 19, Township 2 North, Range 7 East; 

6. Thence, northerly along the Tonto National Forest Boundary to a point where 

the Tonto National Forest Boundary intersects with the eastern boundary of the 

Salt River Indian Reservation, generally described as the center line of the Salt 

River Channel; 

7. Thence, northeasterly and northerly along the common boundary of the Tonto 

National Forest and the Salt River Indian Reservation to a point which is the 

northeast corner of the Salt River Indian Reservation and the southeast corner 

of the Fort McDowell Indian Reservation, as shown on the plat dated July 22, 

1902, and recorded with the U.S. Government on June 15, 1902; 

8. Thence, northeasterly along the common boundary between the Tonto National 

Forest and the Fort McDowell Indian Reservation to a point which is the northeast corner of the Fort McDowell Indian Reservation; 

9. Thence, southwesterly along the northern boundary of the Fort McDowell Indian 

Reservation, which line is a common boundary with the Tonto National Forest, 

to a point where the boundary intersects with the eastern line of Section 12, 

Township 4 North, Range 6 East; 

10. Thence, northerly along the eastern line of Range 6 East to a point where the 

eastern line of Range 6 East intersects with the southern line of Township 5 

North, said line is the boundary between the Tonto National Forest and the east 

boundary of McDowell Mountain Regional Park; 

11. Thence, westerly along the southern line of Township 5 North to a point where 

the southern line intersects with the eastern line of Range 5 East which line is 

the boundary of Tonto National Forest and the north boundary of McDowell 

Mountain Regional Park; 

12. Thence, northerly along the eastern line of Range 5 East to a point where the 

eastern line of Range 5 East intersects with the northern line of Township 5 

North, which line is the boundary of the Tonto National Forest; 

13. Thence, westerly along the northern line of Township 5 North to a point where 

the northern line of Township 5 North intersects with the easterly line of Range 

4 East, said line is the boundary of Tonto National Forest; 

14. Thence, northerly along the eastern line of Range 4 East to a point where the 

eastern line of Range 4 East intersects with the northern line of Township 6 

North, which line is the boundary of the Tonto National Forest; 

15. Thence, westerly along the northern line of Township 6 North to a point of 

intersection with the Maricopa-Yavapai County line, which is generally described 

in Arizona Revised Statute Section 11–109 as the center line of the Aqua Fria 

River (Also the north end of Lake Pleasant); 

16. Thence, southwesterly and southerly along the Maricopa-Yavapai County line 

to a point which is described by Arizona Revised Statute Section 11–109 as 

being on the center line of the Aqua Fria River, two miles southerly and below 

the mouth of Humbug Creek; 

17. Thence, southerly along the center line of Aqua Fria River to the intersection 

of the center line of the Aqua Fria River and the center line of Beardsley Canal, 

said point is generally in the northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 5 North, 

Range 1 East, as shown on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Baldy Mountain, Arizona Quadrangle Map, 7.5 Minute series (Topographic), dated 1964; 

18. Thence, southwesterly and southerly along the center line of Beardsley Canal 

to a point which is the center line of Beardsley Canal where it intersects with the 

center line of Indian School Road; 

19. Thence, westerly along the center line of West Indian School Road to a point 

where the center line of West Indian School Road intersects with the center line 

of North Jackrabbit Trail; 

20. Thence, southerly along the center line of Jackrabbit Trail approximately nine 

and three-quarter miles to a point where the center line of Jackrabbit Trail intersects with the Gila River, said point is generally on the north-south quarter section line of Section 8, Township 1 South, Range 2 West; 

21. Thence, northeasterly and easterly up the Gila River to a point where the Gila 

River intersects with the northern extension of the western boundary of Estrella 

Mountain Regional Park, which point is generally the quarter corner of the northern line of Section 31, Township 1 North, Range 1 West; 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 34371

ARIZONA—OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)—Continued

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

22. Thence, southerly along the extension of the western boundary and along the 

western boundary of Estrella Mountain Regional Park to a point where the 

southern extension of the western boundary of Estrella Mountain Regional Park 

intersects with the southern line of Township 1 South; 

23. Thence, easterly along the southern line of Township 1 South to a point where 

the south line of Township 1 South intersects with the western line of Range 1 

East, which line is generally the southern boundary of Estrella Mountain Regional Park; 

24. Thence, southerly along the western line of Range 1 East to the southwest 

corner of Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, said line is the western 

boundary of the Gila River Indian Reservation; 

25. Thence, easterly along the southern boundary of the Gila River Indian Reservation which is the southern line of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, to the boundary between Maricopa and Pinal 

Counties as described in Arizona Revised Statutes Section 11–109 and 11–113, 

which is the eastern line of Range 1 East; 

26. Thence, northerly along the eastern boundary of Range 1 East, which is the 

common boundary between Maricopa and Pinal Counties, to a point where the 

eastern line of Range 1 East intersects the Gila River; 

27. Thence, southerly up the Gila River to a point where the Gila River intersects 

with the southern line of Township 2 South; and 

28. Thence, easterly along the southern line of Township 2 South to the point of 

beginning which is a point where the southern line of Township 2 South intersects with the eastern line Range 7 East. 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–10792 Filed 6–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–7924–1] 

Texas: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is granting Texas 

final authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). The Agency published a 

proposed rule on March 18, 2005, and 

provided for public comment. The 

public comment period ended on April 

18, 2005. We received no comments. No 

further opportunity for comment will be 

provided. EPA has determined that 

Texas’ program revisions satisfy all the 

requirements needed to qualify for final 

authorization, and is authorizing the 

State’s changes through this final action.

DATES: This final authorization will be 

effective on June 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You can view and copy 

Texas’s application and associated 

publicly available materials from 8:30 

a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday 

at the following locations: Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ), 12100 Park 35, Circle, Austin 

TX 78753–3087, (512) 239–1121 and 

EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, (214) 665–

8533. Interested persons wanting to 

examine these documents should make 

an appointment with the office at least 

two weeks in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, State /Tribal 

Oversight Section (6PD–O), Multimedia 

Planning and Permitting Division, EPA 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas 

Texas 75202–2733, 

patterson.alima@epa.gov., (214) 665–

8533.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

18, 2005, U.S. EPA published a 

proposed rule (70 FR 13127) proposing 

to grant Texas authorization for changes 

to its Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act program, listed in section 

D of that notice, which was subject to 

public comment. No comments were 

received. We hereby determine that 

Texas’ hazardous waste program 

revisions satisfy all of the requirements 

necessary to qualify for final 

authorization. 

A. Why Are Revisions to State 

Programs Necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from the EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, States must change their 

programs and ask the EPA to authorize 

the changes. Changes to State programs 

may be necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, States must 

change their programs because of 

changes to the EPA’s regulations in 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 

279. 

B. What Decisions Have We Made in 

This Rule? 

We conclude that Texas’ application 

to revise its authorized program meets 

all of the statutory and regulatory 

requirements established by RCRA. 

Therefore, we propose to grant Texas 

Final authorization to operate its 

hazardous waste program with the 

changes described in the authorization 

application. Texas has the responsibility 

for permitting treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities within its borders 

(except in Indian Country) and for 

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program described in its revised 

program application, subject to the 

limitations of the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by Federal