+(,121/,1(

Citation: 70 Fed. Reg. 34362 2005 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Tue Sep 1 16:45:20 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
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.1. Palmer, Jr.,

Regional Administrator, Region 4.

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

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:.

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

0 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.

State submittal

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or date/effective EPA approval date nonattainment area date

20. Severe Area Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT SIP) Atlanta 1-hour ozone severe non- June 30, 2004 June 14, 2005. [Insert first page

for the Atlanta 1-hour severe ozone nonattainment attainment area. number of publication].

area.

[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: E nvironmental 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 dodument 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/regionO9/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/regionO9/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

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

(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

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.

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 I

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

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

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 ozonje 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-hotir 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/AIRDA Y/

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 hdd been

2 The 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.

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 Sirprise 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

v 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

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.

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

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 "[tihe 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.

ResRonse 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(1) 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

4 The 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 Uanuary 30, 2003) and 68 FR 25418

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

(October 19, 2001).

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

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 impleinentation:

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 7

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

I 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.

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 ffieasures. 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

5 We 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.

71n 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, 19941; 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)].

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

Maintehance 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

8 We note that the procedure established in thp

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.

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

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 violatitn

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 aviolation 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 discretioh, 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.

I1. 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:

o 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

9 EPA has previously determined that the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area had

* The SIP for the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

n6nattainment area has been fully

approved by EPA under section 110(k);

e 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).

e 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;

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).

34367
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

0 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 bec6me

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 havo "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, oriEPA 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

includds 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

onthe 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 afithority 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.).

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

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.

0 Parts 52 and 81, chapter 1, title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

s 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 Redesignotion

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]

a 1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C-[Amended]

a 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)

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

Phoenix Area:

Mancopa County (part)

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 comer 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;

6/14/05 1 Attainment

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

ARIZONA-OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)-Continued

Designation Classification

Designated area 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 S6ction 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;

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

ARIZONA-OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)-Continued

Designation Classification Designated area 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 T

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 I 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

authorizat. on 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

34371