# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 70 Fed. Reg. 34362 2005

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Nov 6 13:55:00 2012

-- 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 ofthe rule, to.each House ofthe 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 ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to June 14, 2005. A major rule cannottake effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as definedby 5U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions for judicial review-ofthis action must be filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the,appropriate circuit by August 15, 2005. Filing a petition forreconsideration bythe Administrator ofthis finalrule does not affect the finality of thisrule forthe purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall notpostpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged laterin proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List ofSubjects in40 CFRPart52

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, Region4. 0 Part52 ofchapterI, title40, Codeof Federal Regulations,is amended as follows: PART 52-[AMENDED]

m 1.Theauthority citation forpart 52 continues to read as follows:.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.

0 2. Section 52.570(e) isamended by adding a new entry in numerical order for "20. Severe Area Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT SIP) forthe Atlanta 1- hour severe ozone nonattainment area."
to read,as follows:
§52.570 Identificationof 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]
Approvaland Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for AirQuality Planning Purposes; Arizona; Redesignation of Phoenix to Attainment forthe 1-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: E nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality's submittals ofrevisions to the Arizona state implementation plan that include substitution ofthe clean fuel fleet program requirement with the cleaner burning gasoline program, adoption of the 1-hour serious area ozone plan and adoption ofthe 1-hour ozone maintenance plan forthe 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 ofthe Clean AirAct that obligate the agency to take action on submittals ofrevisions to state implementation plans and requests for redesignation. DATES: EffectiveDate:This rule is effective onJune 14, 2005. ADDRESSES: Copies ofthedocuments relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours atEPA Region 9's Air Planning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Due to increased security, .wesuggest thatyou 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 onEPA's Region 9 Web Page athttp:// www.epa.gov/regionO9/air/phoenixoz/ index.html. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office ofAirPlanning, 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 ofContents
I.Background II.Response to Comments III. EPA's Final Action IV. Statutory andExecutive Order Reviews

.I. Background
On March 21, 2005 (70 FR,13425), we published a notice ofproposed rulemaking forthe State ofArizona. The notice proposed approval ofthe State's submittals ofrevisions to the Arizona
stateimplementation plan (SIP) for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone. nonattainment area and the State's redesignation request forthis area from "nonattainment" to "attainment".

Specifically, we proposed approval of three sets ofSIP revisions adopted and submitted to usby the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ). First,under sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) ofthe 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

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 34362 2005Federal 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) ofthe Act, the State's 2000 submittal ofthe FinalSerious Area Ozone State ImplementationPlan for MaricopaCounty("Serious Area Ozone Plan"), which provides ademonstration ofcompliance with the requirements under the CAA forthe 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 ofthe One-HourOzoneRedesignation RequestandMaintenancePlan forthe MaricopaCountyNonattainment Area ("Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan"), which was developed and adopted locally by the Maricopa Association ofGovernments (MAG), as meeting CAArequirements forredesignation requests and maintenance plans.

Our proposed approval ofthese three
sets of SIP revisions provided us the basisupon which to propose afinding that the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area has fully met the requirements forredesignation found at section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA for redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment forthe 1- hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 1

Wehave 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 inthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment
area, including various Maricopa County Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT)rules (seeTable 3 in

our proposed rule and footnote 1in this notice), stage II vapor recovery

1In our proposed rule, we also noted that we would nottake final action on theredesignation request until certain other separate rulemakings needed forredesignation were finalized. These included a direct final rule approving Maricopa County's emissions statement rule and anegative declaration (relatedto the RACT requirement) for fiberglass boat manufacturing (70 FR 7038, Feb. 10, 2005), aproposed rule approving local permit conditions forW.R. Meadows, Inc. as meeting the RACT requirement (70 FR 13125, March 18, 2005), and aproposed 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 thedirect final rule and thus our approval ofMaricopa County'semissions statement rule and anegative declaration for fiberglass boat manufacturing isnow in effect.The Regional Administrator signed thefinal 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 separaterulemakings that were referred to inour March 21, 2005 proposed rule have nowbeen 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) ofthe Act, we proposed a revision oftheboundary ofthe 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 itrelates to the revision ofthe boundary ofthe Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and will instead address thisissue in a separate rulemaking. We are withdrawing the boundary change part ofthe proposal because, as aresult of certain errors made at the time ofinitial 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 willnot berestated 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 PublicInterest (ACLPI) on behalf ofa private citizen and the Grand Canyon Chapter ofthe Sierra Club. The
comments and EPA responses are as follows:

Comment 1

Whilewe do not dispute that the Phoenix areahas not officially violated the 1-hour ozone standard for the past six years, and has not had an exceedance since 1996, we notethat several ofthe monitoring sites continue torecord some very high values. Over the past two summers, for example, Maricopa County issued a significant number ofozone alerts. Thus, while the Valley has officially "attained" the onehour standard, ithas not attained the 8- hour standard and ozone continues to be a serious problem that requires vigilant attention. ResponseI

EPA agrees that, while thePhoenix

area has attained the 1-hourozone standard, the Phoenix area continues to be designated "nonattainment" for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is more stringent than the 1-hourozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23858, at 23860, 23878-23879 (April 30, 2004). The 8- hourozone NAAQS isnot relevant to redesignation forthe 1-hour standard, and this redesignation will not affect the continued nonattainment designation with respect to the 8-hour standard. The State ofArizona willbe obligated to submit further SIPrevisions for the purpose ofattaining and maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, notwithstanding this redesignation forthe 1-hour standard. We intendto identify the specific additional planning and control requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in ourupcoming Phase 2implementation 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.

Comment2

In the past, we have expressed

concern about the adequacy ofthe Phoenix area ozone monitoring network. (SeeLetter dated June 19, 2000 from Jennifer Anderson to Frances Wicher re determination of attainment ofthe onehour standard). Thus, we were interested to learn inthe proposed rule that changes hadbeen made to the network. In the proposedrule, EPA refers tothe description ofthe monitoring network in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, but thennotes that inrecent years,. the network has changed and that the
current monitoring network is comprised offewer and different sites that presumably meet EPA regulations. (70FR 13428). We were unabletolocate anything inthe rulemaking materials that described which monitor sites were discontinued or which sites were relocated. We are informed only that the number of sites has beenreduced from 21 to 18 and thatlocations have changed. Id.

This is ofparticular concern for a couple ofreasons. First, as noted in the proposed rule, one ofthe control

measures implemented bythe State as part ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan is the expansion of the nonattainment area. Common sense suggests that an expansion ofthe nonattainment area should lead to an increase inthe number ofmonitors, not

a decrease. Second, as EPA iswell
aware, the Phoenix metropolitan area continues to experience significant growth, both inpopulation and 

### 34363

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

footprint. Inparticular, there are huge residential developments planning for the West Valley in the Buckeye area. These developments, some ofwhich represent the largest master-planned communities in the country, will convert thousands ofacres ofvacant desert to commercial andresidential development, resulting in asignificant increase in the mobile source emissions in that area. Consequently, having sufficient sites that will adequately monitor the ozonje in this areais critical. However, the information provided in the proposed rule is insufficient to allowus to evaluate the adequacy ofthe systemwith respect to this concern. We do notbelieve it is appropriate forEPA to approve the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan ifit doesnot accurately describe the current monitoring network. Response2

The commenter incorrectly states that expansion ofthe nonattainment area is

one ofthe control measures implemented by the State as partof the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. We want to clarify that the State doesnot intend to expand the 1-hour

ozone nonattainment area itselfbut rather to extend the applicability of certain control measures beyond the boundaries ofthe 1-hotir ozone nonattainment area to areas designated.

as "unclassifiable/attainment." These expanded control measures willprovide additional support for continued maintenance ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS inthe Phoenix metropolitan

area.

With respect to monitoring networks in general, we note that there are ongoing considerations that affect the design ofany network (i.e.,number, capabilities and locations ofstations that comprise the network) in any given year, and thus, a net decrease inthe overall number ofmonitoring stations doesnot in itselfcall into question the utility or reliability ofthe monitoring network or the data it generates. These considerations include, among others, the existence ofredundant monitors, the persistent measurement oflow concentrations ata 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 byEPA 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 andrecord actual changes in the network.

With respect to the ozone monitoring network in the Phoenix area, changes reflect an effortundertaken several years ago by ADEQ, Maricopa County, Pinal County, and the tribes in the Phoenix

area to take a more holistic view ofthe

ozone monitoring network, in part due
to concerns about 8-hour ozone concentrations. EPA supported this effort to reassess the ozone network in light ofthe new 8-hour ozone NAAQS and encouraged other areas to conduct the same type ofassessment. The designation ofthe 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 thanthe 1-hour ozone nonattainment and which includes the West Valley area.

Specifically, the commenter notes that, in ourproposal, we indicate that the number ofozone monitoring sites in the Phoenix metropolitan areahad 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 ofozone monitoring stations from 2002 to 2004 was from 21 stations
to 20 stations. In our proposal, we * inadvertently did notinclude one ofthe stations (i.e., the Tonto National Monument station) that hadbeen listed for 2002 in our 2004 data table, and one ofthe other stations thathad been listed in 2002 was in the process ofbeing 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 byMaricopa County and made available to the public through the Web link cited above.

With respect to the changes inthe

ozone monitoring networkbetween 2002 and 2004, we should have included the Tonto National Monument site in our summary ofozone data in table 1ofthe proposed rule (70 FR 13429).2 Inthat table, we did not include either the Maryvale station (closed in March 2004)that hdd been

2TheTonto 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 highestmaximum hourlyreading over that period was 0.112 ppm. part ofthe 2002 network or the Buckeye station (to whichthe Maryvale station

was re-located) in the fast-growing West Valley area because no data was gathered.at either site for much ofthe 2004 ozone season (theBuckeye station opened in August 2004).3 Thus, the reduction in the number ofstations from 21 to 18 that was cited in the proposed rule was actually a reduction from 21 to 20. Other changes inthe 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 ofSirprise referred to as the "Dysart" site; and (2)the ozone monitor at the Mesa site was permanently shut down inNovember 2002 to conserve personnel and equipment resources but also in recognition ofthe redundancy of

ozone data from that particular site given that the Tempe station, which is merely three miles away, also monitors

ozone. The relocation ofthe monitoring sites within the City ofSurprise resulted in nonet change in the number of ozone monitoring stations while the closing of the Mesa ozone site accounts forthe net decrease ofone stationbetween 2002 and 2004 inthe ozone monitoring network in the Phoenix area. Webelieve that the closing ofa 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 forthe purposes ofSIP development and redesignation under the CleanAir Act. Given that the data from the remaining 20 monitors

vsupports a finding of attainment, EPA

concludes that the monitoring network fully supports this redesignation.
Comment3

Although, in principle, we do not object to the substitution-ofthe CBG program for the clean fuel fleet requirement (provided the requirement that the substitute program willresult in
at least equivalent reductions inozone), 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, theArizona Republicreported 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," ArizonaRepublic,April 11, 2005. We do notbelieve that high gas

3In 88 days offull operation in 2004, the Buckeye station recorded a highest maximum daily 1-hour

ozone concentration of0.088 ppm. 34364

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 34364 2005

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

prices area 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 onthe Federal Government that we need to figurethis out." Id.Clearly, these comments call into question any commitments the State has made with respect to the CBG program and suggestthat given the high price ofgasoline (which is only expected to increase), approval ofthe State's request to opt outofthe CFF requirement at thistime maybe illadvised and short sighted.Rather than approving the CBG program only to field repeated waiver requests, it may be

more appropriate forEPA to encourage the State to pursue the use ofalternative fuels byimplementing aclean fuel fleet program.
ResRonse 3

The commenter has not objected to the substitution ofthe CBGprogram for the Clean Fuel Fleet requirement, provided there is at leastan equivalent reduction in ozone. EPA's proposed approval ofthe substitution made a demonstration ofequivalency, as required bythe CAA, and the commenter does not dispute this demonstration.

The commenter does, however, express concern about the State's commitment tothe CBGprogram, given recent publicity that the State has considered requesting a waiver ofthe CBG requirements due to risinggasoline prices. We note that the CBG program is

a control measure which EPA has approved into the Arizona SIP (ina FederalRegister 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 ofthis action. Thus, ifthe 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 mustfollow 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 intwo

cases received from EPA agrant of enforcement discretion notifying CBG suppliers that EPA would not enforce the CBGrequirements due to serious supply problems. Incases where EPA has granted such enforcement discretion, the discretion was ofa 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 ofCBG tothe Phoenix area, and not solely due to high gasoline prices. Thus, the commenter's objection doesnot relate to the justification for theproposed substitution ofthe CBG program and does not undermine EPA's belief inthe future validity ofthe program as aviable component ofthe maintenance demonstration. EPA concludes that the justification for approving the substitution ofemissions reductions from the CBGprogram for the Clean Fuel Fleet program is still sound.

Comment4

Finally, we disagree thatthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan properly includes contingency

measures. As EPA acknowledges in the proposed rule, the measures designated

as "contingency measures" inthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan are already implemented. According to CAA section 175A(d), the purpose ofcontingency provisions is to

assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation ofthe standard which occurs after the.redesignation of the area as anattainment area. Obviously, ifthe 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 situationwillbe corrected. Rather, the Act clearly envisions additionalmeasures which

are automatically and immediately implemented if and when aviolation

occurs. If and when a violation occurs, the fact that the State did notrely upon these measures inits maintenance demonstration is meaningless. Ifa violation occurs, protection ofthe public health isparamount and the Clean AirAct contemplates and requires

an immediate response that does not require additional EPAor State action. The State's commitment to adopt nonspecific additional contingency

measures over a 15to 21 month period ifthe "trigger" ofat least four 0.120 ppm readings ismet falls far shortof this requirement ofthe Act. Webelieve that EPA's approval ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan without requiring meaningful and appropriate contingency provisions would bearbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. Response4

The commenter is correct in that the contingency provisions ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan rely onmeasures thathave 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 forthe purposes ofa maintenance planunder CAA section 175A(d).

Section 175A(d)ofthe Act requires that each maintenance plan "contain such contingency provisions asthe Administrator deemsnecessary to

assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation ofthe 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 formaintenance plan purposes contain fully adopted

measures that will take effect (uponthe

occurrence ofa given event)without further action by the State orEPA. Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, "Procedures forprocessing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment" (September4, 1992) ("Calcagni memo") at 12. 4 In this regard, we distinguish the contingency provision requirements formaintenance plans from those for nonattainment plans. Forthe latter,the CAA requires fully adopted measures that willtake effect (uponthe occurrence ofa given event) without further action by the

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 ofthe standard * * * " (emphasis added.) EPA has approved as "prompt" contingency measures under section 175A(d) that

are implemented as soonas ayear and as long as twoyears afterbeing triggered. See, e.g., 60FR 12459, at 12470, 12472 (March 7, 1995); 68 FR 4847, 4859 Uanuary 30, 2003) and 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003); and 66FR 53094, at 53102-53103 (October 19, 2001). 

### 34365

I

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 34365 2005

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

State orEPA. 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 partofthe SIP (upon approval byEPA) and that the provisions should ensure that contingency measures are adopted expediently once they aretriggered. We believe that the contingency provisions in amaintenance plan should clearly identify measures tobe adopted, a schedule andprocedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action bythe State. As a necessary part ofthe plan, the State should also identify specific indicators,

ortriggers, which willbe used to determine when the contingency

measures need tobe implemented Calcagni memo, page 12.

We reviewed the contingency provisions in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan withthe above considerations inmind and found them acceptable.The contingency provisions in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan identify three specific

measures for impleinentation: expansion ofAreaA 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 ofthe Redesignation Request and .Maintenance Plan and 70 FR 13425, at 13438-13439 (March21,2005).The 7 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan anticipates that these measures would be implemented "early," 5and in fact, all ofthese measures have been implemented and continueto 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 inMAG's Technical SupportDocument forOzoneModeling in Support ofthe One-Hour Ozone RedesignationRequestand MaintenancePlan forthePhoenix MetropolitanNonattainment Area, November2003 (included as Exhibit 2 ofAppendix A ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan). Because they were expected tobe (and have been) implemented "early," there

IIn this instance, "early" refers to measures that

are implemented prior to occurrence ofatriggering event, such as a NAAQS violation, duringthe maintenance period. is no needto identify atriggering event forthem. Further, we note that none of the three contingency measures was needed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS nor are they relied upon forthe purposes ofthe maintenance demonstration. 6

The positive effects ofthese contingency measures are continuing in nature, and are surplus, permanent and federally enforceable. The continuing reduction credits from the contingency

measures are, ineffect, set aside tobe applied inthe 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 ifit did notdo 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 ofContingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)Nonattainment Areas." Were areas to hold such

measures inreserve 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 itwould be illogical
topenalize maintenance areas that are taking extra steps (i.e., through "early" implementation ofcontingency measures) to ensure maintenance ofthe NAAQS byrequiring them to adopt yet. additional contingency measures now to backfill forthe early activation of contingency 

### ffieasures. 7 Our interpretation ofthe contingency

measure requirement and acceptance of "early" implementation ofcontingency

measures infulfillment ofthat requirement under section 172(c)(9) was recently upheldby the Fifth Circuit Court ofAppeals. See La. Envtl.Action Networkv. UnitedStatesEnvtl. Protection Agency, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004) (EPAapproval ofcontingency

5We also note that Arizona has not chosen to deactivate, and place in reserve, any SIP control

measures aspart ofthis redesignation request for the 1-hour ozone standard inthe Phoenix metropolitan area.

71n priorrulemakings, we have approved other maintenance plans that include contingency

measures that will be implemented "early." See the San Francisco Bayarea 1-hour ozone maintenance plan [NPRM: 59 FR49361 at49368-49369 [September 28, 19941; FR: 60 FR27028 (May 22, 1995] and the Salt Lake City carbon monoxide maintenance plan [Direct Final Rule: 64 FR3216,

at 3221 [January 21, 1999)]. measures vacated ondifferent grounds). In the La. Envtl. Action Network case, the court stated, "Here, the EPA's allowance ofearly reductions tobe used

as contingency measures comports with

a primary purpose ofthe CAA-the aim of ensuring that nonattainment areas reach NAAQS compliance in an efficient manner-and necessary requirements ofthe CAA." Id at 581. While the La. Envtl. Action Network

case specifically addressed the nonattainment plan contingency

measure-requirementsunder section 172(c)(9), wewould expect a court to apply similar logicin reviewing EPA's acceptance of"early implementation" of contingency measures under section 175A(d) in support ofthe aim of ensuring that attainment areas continue to maintain the NAAQS aswell.

Ofcourse, ifan area experiences a NAAQS violation despite early implementation ofcontingency
measures, then additional contingency

measures would beneeded to promptly
correct the violation, and the contingency provisions ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan provide amechanism under which such additional measures will be identified, adopted and implemented. This procedure is triggered bythe

occurrence ofa fourth highest daily maximum hourly measurement exceeding 0.120 (atany given station

over athree-year period) whereby additional measures (i.e.,in additionto those already implemented) will be considered.8 Once the triggering event occurs, the Redesignation Request and Maintehance Plan establishes that (1) verification of themonitoring data isto be completed within three months of the triggering event; (2)the additional

measure is tobe considered for adoption six months after verification ofthe 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

8We note that the procedure established in thp Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for developing additional contingency measures is triggered prior tothe occurrence ofeither an exceedance or a violation and therefore is consistent with theprinciple ofmaintaining 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 equalto or less than 1.0. 

### 34366

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 34366 2005

### 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 ofthe Phoenix metropolitan area to attainment (byestablishing a triggering event short ofa violation) but that, if such a violation were tooccur, it willbe promptly corrected. The selection ofa triggering event short ofa violatitn would allow the State "totake early action to address potential violations of the NAAQS before they occur." Calcagni memo, page 12.

The commenter appears to assert that itis possible that aviolation could

occur ofsuch severity that the contingency provisions would be insufficient, and therefore inadequate. This interpretation ofthe statute is unreasonable. EPA cannot expect Arizona toprovide contingency provisions-that, bythemselves, address
every hypothetical violation ofthe NAAQS, no matterhow severe. The State is not compelled todevelop contingency provisions that are capable ofaddressing any imaginable violation,

nomatter how severe. EPA is applying

areasonable interpretation, considering the contingency provisions inthe
context ofa reasonable range ofpossible violations. In the event that the specified contingency measures are less than is necessary to avoid aviolation, Arizona has committed to adopt and implement additionalmeasures. Moreover, itis evident in section 110(k)(5), aswell as within section 175A(d) itself,that Congress contemplated that there maybe situations in which the contingency provisions are insufficient to address a violation. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA torequire 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 thatEPA may, in its discretioh, determine that a violation ofthe 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 inresponse to a violation ofthe NAAQS would be unnecessary. Thus,

we continue tobelieve that the contingency provisions inthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, including both specific contingency measures that have already been implemented aswell as a mechanism for identifying, adopting and implementing additional contingency measures, fully comply with the statutory requirements ofsuch provisions under section 175A(d) ofthe Act.
I1. EPA's Final Action

No comments were submitted that change ourassessment thatthe State of Arizona's "opt-out" request, serious

area plan,maintenance plan and redesignation request forthe Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment areacomply with the CAA and EPA regulations. Therefore, under the Clean AirAct, we are fully approving three sets ofrevisions 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 forthis area from "nonattainment" to "attainment."

First, under sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) ofthe CAA, we are approving the State ofArizona's 1998 submittal of

arequest to "opt-out" ofthe Clean Fuel Fleet program and to approve the cleanerburning gasoline (CBG) program
as a substitute measure.

Second, under section 110(k)(3) ofthe Act, we are approving the State's 2000 submittal ofthe Serious Area Ozone Planas meeting the applicable requirements for serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. As part ofour overall approval ofthe 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 ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan asmeeting 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. Inthis regard, we find that:

o The Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour

ozone nonattainment areahas continued
to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based on quality-assured data for the years 2002 through 2004 (thus, certain requirements oftitle I, part D, as set forth inthe 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

9EPA has previously determined that thePhoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area had * The SIP forthe Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone n6nattainment areahas been fully approved by EPA under section 110(k);

e The improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions inemissions resulting from implementation ofthe SIP (principally, the VOC RACTrules, stage II vapor recovery rules, the enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program, and the cleaner burning gasoline program), and applicable Federal air pollutioncontrol regulations;

* The Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan meetsthe requirements ofsection 175A ofthe CAA;

* The State ofArizona has met all requirements applicable to the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area under section 110 andpart D oftitleI ofthe CAA; and

* For the reasons described inthe proposal, the State has satisfied all of the requirements forredesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E).

As part ofour overall approval ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, we approve thefollowing specific plan elements:

* Periodic (ozoneseason) inventory update for 1999 as required under section 182(a)(3)(A);

* 1998 and 1999base cases (episodic), 2006 interimyear, and 2015 maintenance year emissions inventories and maintenance demonstration;

• Implementation ofthe following control measures for maintenance purposes: CARB Phase 2 and Federal Phase II Reformulated Gasoline with a maximum 7psivapor pressure requirement from May through September, coordination oftraffic signal systems, tougher enforcement ofvehicle 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 thefollowing measures: expansion of Area Aboundaries, gross polluter optionfor I/M program waivers, and increased waiver repair limit options, as well as a mechanism (based on ambient

ozone concentration readings) for triggering consideration ofadditional (or strengthened) contingency measures;

attained the 1-hour NAAQS and, basedon that determination, that certain CAA requirements would not be applicable so longas thearea continued to attain. See 66 FR 29230 (May 30, 2001). 

### 34367

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 34367 2005

### 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 ofNational Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) inaccordance with 40 CFR part 58 to verify continued attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard;

* Commitment byMaricopa 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 ofchanges 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 inAugust) for transportation conformity purposes under CAA section 176(c): 71.9 metric tons per day (mtpd) forVOC and 104.8 mtpd forNOx in 2006 and 48.7 mtpd for VOC and 53.6 mtpdfor NOx in 2015.

Lastly, as noted above, we are withdrawing the March 21, 2005 proposal as itrelates to the revision of -theboundary ofthe 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 ofthis 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 Actrequirements 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 thatrulemaking actions may become effective lessthan 30 days after publication ifthe rule "grants or recognizes an exemption orrelieves a restriction" and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication "as otherwise provided bythe agency forgood cause found and published with the rule."
IV. StatutoryandExecutive Order 

### Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58FR 51735, October 4, 1993),this action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review bythe Office ofManagement and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly AffectEnergy 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 thoseimposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that thisrule will nothave asignificant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.). Because this rule approves pre-existingrequirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable dutybeyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described inthe Unfunded Mandates ReformAct 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 inputby tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." "Policies that have tribal implications" are defined in the Executive Orderto include regulations that havo "substantial direct effects on
one ormore Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, oron the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes."

Under section 5(b) ofExecutive Order 13175, EPA may not issue aregulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial directcompliance costs,and that is notrequired by statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred bytribal governments, oriEPA consults with tribal officials early inthe process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 5(c) ofExecutive Order 13175, EPA may not issue aregulation that has tribal implications and that preempts tribal law, unless the Agency consults with tribal officials early in the process ofdeveloping the proposed regulation.

As indicated above, EPA had proposed to revise the boundary ofthe Phoenixmetropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation, but has decided to withdraw thatpart ofthe proposal and to addressthe boundary issue in a separate rulemaking. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA has communicated this change to representatives ofthe Gila River Indian Community and explained our rationale forwithdrawing the proposal and conducting a separate rulemaking. EPA findsthat this action, which nolonger 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 theExecutive Order donot apply to this rule.

This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does nothave substantial direct effects onthe States, onthe relationship between the National Government and the States, or onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state ruleimplementing a Federal standard and redesignates the

area to attainment for the purposes of air quality planning and does not alterthe relationship orthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is noteconomically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, andbecause the Agency does not havereason tobelieve 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 ofthe Clean Air Act. In this context, inthe absence ofa 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. Itwould thusbe inconsistent with applicable law forEPA, when it reviews

a SIP submission orredesignation request, to use VCS inplace ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions ofthe Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) donot apply.This rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act-of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.). 

### 34368

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Actof 1996, generally provides thatbefore arule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy of the rule,to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A majorrule
cannottake effect until 60 days after it is published in the FederalRegister. This action is nota "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct, petitions for judicial review of this action mustbe filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit byAugust 15, 2005. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which apetition forjudicial review maybe filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged laterin proceedings to enforce its requirements. (SeeCAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFRPart 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.
40 CFRPart81

Airpollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Dated: May 20, 2005. Alexis Strauss, , ActingRegional Administrator, Region 9.
0 Parts 52 and 81, chapter 1,title40of the Code ofFederal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

s 1.The authority citationforpart 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Subpart D-Arizona

* 2.Section 52.120is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(123), (c)(124), and (c)(125) toread 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" ofthe Clean Fuel Fleet Program, adoptedby the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality onDecember 7, 1998. (124) The following plan was submitted onDecember 14, 2000, bythe Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

(1)FinalSeriousAreaOzoneState ImplementationPlan forMaricopa County,dated December 2000, adopted bythe 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-HourOzoneRedesignotion Requestand MaintenancePlan forthe MaricopaCountyNonattainment Area, datedMarch 2004, adopted by the Maricopa Association ofGovernments Regional Council onMarch 26, 2004 and adopted by the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality on April 21, 2004.

PART 81-[AMENDED]

a 1.The authority citation forpart 81 continues toread as follows:

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Subpart C-[Amended]

a 2.In §81.303, the tableentitled "Arizona-Ozone (1-Hour Standard)" is amended by revisingthe entry for the Phoenix Area to read asfollows:
§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 1Attainment 

### 34369

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 34369 2005

### 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 isthe 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 lineof 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 1West; 

### 34370

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 34370 2005Federal 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 1South to apoint 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 ofthe Gila River Indian Reservation; 25. Thence, easterly along the southern boundary of the Gila River Indian Reservation which isthe 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 intersectswith 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 ofState 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 RossAvenue, 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 ofthat notice, which was subject to public comment. No comments were received. We hereby determine that Texas' hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all ofthe requirements
necessary to qualify for final authorization.

A. Why Are Revisions to State ProgramsNecessary?

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 ofFederal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.

B. WhatDecisions Have We Made in This Rule?

We conclude that Texas' application
to revise its authorized program meets all ofthe 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 (exceptin Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects ofthe RCRA program described in its revised
program application, subject to the limitations ofthe Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). NewFederal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal

### 34371

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 34371 2005