+(,121/,1(

Citation: 70 Fed. Reg. 11553 2005 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed Aug 4 16:14:16 2010

-- 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. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

of the United States. Section 808 allows

the issuing agency to make a rule

effective sooner than otherwise

provided by the CRA if the agency

makes a good cause finding that notice

and public procedure is impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest. This determination must be

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C.

808(2). As stated previously, EPA had -

made such a good cause finding,

including the reasons therefore, and

established an effective date of March

11, 2005. EPA will submit a report

containing this rule and other requiredinformation 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. This correction to

40 CFR 52.52.2520(e) for West Virginia

is not a "major rule" as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, recordkeeping and reporting

requirements, Sulfur oxides.

. Dated: February 28, 2005".

Donald S. Welsh,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

m Accordingly, the amendment to 40

CFR 52.2520 published in the Federal

Register on January 10, 2005 (70 FR

1668), which was to become effective on

March 11, 2005, is withdrawn, and 40'

CFR part 52 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.

Subpart XX-West Virginia

* 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph

(e) is amended by adding an entry at the

end of the table for the Sulfur Dioxide

Maintenance Plan, City of Weirton;

Butler and Clay Magisterial District

(Hancock County) to read as follows:

§52.2520 Identification of pian.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

Name latory of SIP non-regu- revision Applicable geographic area State date submittal EPA approval date Additional explanation

Sulfur Dioxide Main, City of Weirton; Butler and Clay Magisterial Dis- 7127/04 01/10/05 70 FR 1664 .... The SIP-effective date is

tenance Plan. trict (HAncock County). 3/11/05. I

[FR Doc. 05-4473 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 0

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AZ104-0083; FRL-7875-2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection.

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the

Maricopa Association of Governments

(MAG) serious area carbon monoxide

(CO) state implementation plan (SIP) for

the Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area, also referred to as "the

metropolitan Phoenix area", as meeting

the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements

for serious CO nonattainment areas. We

are also approving the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan for the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area as meeting CAA

requirements for redesignation requests

and maintenance plans. In addition, we

are making a boundary change under

Section 107 of the CAA to take the Gila

River Indian Community (GRIC) out of

the Maricopa County maintenance area.

The portion of the Gila River Indian

Community which is currently in the

Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area will be "unclassifiable/attainment"

for CO, and will not be subject to the

MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan.

DATE: Effective Date: This rule is

effective April 8, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at EPA Region 9's Air

Planning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Due to increased security, we suggest

that you call at least 24 hours prior to

visiting the Regional Office so that we

can make arrangements to have.

someone meet you.

Electronic Availability

This document, our proposed rule

which was published in the Federal

Register on October 8, 2004, and the

technical support document (TSD) are

also available as electronic files on.

EPA's Region 9 Web page at http://

www.epa.gov/regionOg/air/phxco/

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/regionOg/air/phxco/

index.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, the terms

"we," 'us," and "our" mean U.S. EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA's Final Action

II. Response to Comments

III. EPA's Final Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA's Final Action

On October 8, 2004 (69 FR 60328), we

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking for the State of Arizona. The

notice proposed approval of revisions to

the SIP for the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area. These revisions to

the SIP were adopted by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ). Today, we are finalizing our

proposal to approve the MAG serious

area SIP for attainment of the CO air

quality standard in the Maricopa County

area. This action is based on our

determination that this SIP complies

with the CAA's requirements for

attaining the CO standard in serious CO

nonattainment areas such as the

metropolitan Phoenix area.

, We are also approving the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan for the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area as meeting CAA

requirements for redesignation requests

and maintenance plans.

We are also making a boundary

correction under Section 107 of the

CAA for the Gila River Indian

Community.

II. Response to Comments

We received three comments (two via

electronic mail' (e-mail) and one written

letter) during the official comment

11553

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11553 2005
11554 Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 45/Wednesday, March 9, 2005/Rules and Regulations

period for the October 8, 2004, proposal.

Two comments were dated October 19,

2004, and one comment was dated

November 8, 2004. In addition to these

comments, we received three e-mails

submitted after signature but prior to

publication of the proposal in the

Federal Register, two on September 22

and one on September 24, 2004. Since

these e-mails raise the same issues as

the comments submitted after

publication, we discuss and respond to

all of them below. The September 24,

2004, e-mail was submitted directly to

EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt's

office and was referred to EPA Region

9 for a response. We determined that the

correspondence should be treated as

public comment, and respond to it here.

(This commentor also sent comments

directly to Region 9 on September 22

and 24, 2004). We also received a letter

of support from ADEQ regarding the

boundary change for the Gila River

Indian Community. We respond to the

comments below in the order we

receiVed them.

E-Mails Submitted to EPA Prior to the

Public Comment Period

We received three e-mails before the

October 8 publication of the proposed

action-two on September 22, and one

on September 24 to Administrator

Leavitt. These e-mails, however, solely

raise issues unrelated to the action being

taken by EPA.

Comment. The first e-mail received on

September 22 stated that the Central

Phoenix light rail project will increase

the production of air pollutants due to

the prohibition of left turns from certain

streets where the trolley tracks will

exist. The e-mail refers to an "Air -

Quality Technical Report", and states

that 75 percent of the vehicles in the

Phoenix vehicle mix will be cars, and 20

percent will be light trucks. This e-mail

also refers to a "New Starts Report for

2004", dated December 2003. This

report appears to refer to the projected

use of the light rail trains.

Response. Our action in this notice

will not have any impact whatsoever on

the Central Phoenix light rail project.

Comment. This e-mail also states that

the Phoenix area is not in conformity

with ozone and PM-10 standards, and

that the growth in VMT has exceeded

population growth.

Response. Our action today only

concerns carbon monoxide, not ozone or

PM-10. Our approval is based on both

monitored data indicating no violations

of the CO standard in the past seven

years and. modeling which indicates no

expected violations of the CO standard

to the year 2015. While growth in VMT

has exceeded population growth in

Phoenix and other fast-growing

metropolitan areas, tailpipe emissions

standards at the national level and the

use of cleaner-burning fuels and other

emissions control measures at the local

level have reduced CO emissions

sufficiently to attain and maintain

Federal ambient air quality standards.

Comment. The e-mail refers to.the

Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS), stating that the FEIS shows that

the light rail project will not reduce

traffic congestion or the production of

air pollutants in the light rail corridor.

This e-mail comments that ISTEA and

TEA-21 legislation call for making

transit more efficient, and the

commenter does not believe the Phoenix

light rail will increase speeds in the

light rail corridor, and will not yield

much farebox revenue when compared

to the cost of moving light rail

-passengers.

Response. Our action today concerns

the MAG serious area CO SIP for the

Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area and the MAG CO Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan for the

Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area. The FEIS for the Phoenix light rail

project is completely unrelated to this

action.

Comment. The second e-mail from

September 22 states that while MAG

reports no violations of the CO standard

since 1996, the most recent statistics

haven't been applied to air quality

modeling, and that the light rail trolley

hasn't been properly factored in.

Response. The Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area has monitored clean

data every year between 1996 and 2003.

This fact was reflected in our finding of

attainment published on September 22,

2003, for the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment afea (see 68 FR 55008).

MAG's transportation and emissions

modeling includes the implementation

of light rail.' . Comment. The e-mail which was sent

to EPA Administrator Leavitt on

September 24 states that there is no

reason to believe that the air quality in

the Phoenix area currently conforms to

Federal standards for CO.

Response. Monitoring data gathered

by ADEQ and Maricopa County indicate

that the'MaricopaCounty CO

nonattainment area has not had a

violation of the CO standard since 1996.

The area is now in attainment for the

CO Federal health-based standard for

CO, based on data from the years 1999

and 2000. We noted this in our finding

Telephone conversation with Cathy Arthur,

Maricopa Association of Governments, November

19, 2004.

of attainment'(see 68 FR 55008, page

55009, 3rd column).

Comment, The September 24 e-mail

also states that our finding of attainment

of the CO standard for the Maricopa

County nonattainment area (68 FR

55008) reflects only data through 1999.

Response. The finding of attainment

was based on monitoring data from the

years 1999 and 2000 because 2000 was

the attainment year for the Maricopa

County serious CO nonattainment area.

(See 68 FR 55008, September 22, 2003.)

Section 179(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act

provides that attainment determinations

are to be based upon an area's "air

quality as of the attainment date".

Monitoring data gathered by ADEQ and

Maricopa County since that time

indicate that the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area has not had a

violation of the CO standard since 1996,

so current data have been reviewed and

taken into account in our action today.

Comment. The September 24 e-mail

questions how the CO standard can be

met given the rapid increase in

population and an even faster increase

in VMT in the Maricopa County

nonattainment area. The e-mail states.

that Maricopa County's population has

been increasing 45 percent every 10

years in recent decadds.

Response. MAG's data estimate about

a 32 percent increase in population

between 2004 and 2015. As indicated in.

the Appendix to the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan, while VMT doubles between 1995

and 2015, CO emissions decrease.

MAG's models properly account for the

growth in VMT.

E-Mails Submitted to EPA During the

Public Comment Period

Comment. The first e-mail dated

October 19, 2004, asks how it can be

possible to reduce CO emissions by half

by 2015 assuming 1.2 million additional

residents, 700,00g-800,000 more

vehicles, and additional airplanes and

diesel trucks in the'Phoenix

metropolitan area. Response. MAG's modeling estimates

a 14 percent reduction in CO between

1994 and 2015 and is sufficient to

maintain the ambient air quality

standard for CO. Tier 2 emissions

standards, cleaner burning gasoline, and

other measures provide reductions

which outweigh the increases in

emissions due to vehicle miles

travelled.

Comment. The first October 19 e-mail

refers to a Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) in an air quality

conformity report.

Response. This comment is not

relevant to today's action.

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11554 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70,. No. 45/Wednesday, March 9, 2005/Rules and Regulations

Comment. This same e-mail

questioned the CO reductions attributed

to oxidants and sulfur in fuel, again in

a DEIS.

Response. -It is not clear which project

DEIS is referred to by the commenter.

MAG used the MOBILE6 model, which

is the model EPA requires all states

except California to use for SIP

development. The MOBILE model

accounts for fuel properties such as

oxidants and sulfur, and reduces the

effects of oxidants on CO emissions over

time. Most newer cars are equipped

with electronic fuel injection systems

that generally automatically compensate

for the proper air-to-fuel mixture to

reduce 'CO emissions.

Comment. This same e-mail refers to

a "new standard for CO" that requires

an 8-hour test, and refers to calm days

in the summer when CO could be a

problem.

Response. There is no new standard

for CO; we assume the comment refers

to the new 8-hour ozone standard. CO

tends to be a wintertime problem, and

CO emissions do not tend to be high in

the summer.

Comment. The letter we received on

October 19 via U.S. Mail questioned our

proposed boundary change for the Gila

River Indian Reservation. This letter

indicated that the Gila River Indian

Community is planning a large truck

stop along the Reservation border with

the Phoenix metropolitan area, as well

as substantial development along the

northern border of the reservation.

Response. Our proposal to change the

boundary of the Phoenix CO

maintenance area to remove GRIC was

based on monitored air quality data,

current emissions levels and sources,

and planning considerations. The

commenter has not provided any

reliable facts about development on the

Gila River Indian Reservation that

would affect ambient CO concentrations

to a degree sufficient to violate the

NAAQS. In particular, diesel trucks

idling at a truck stop would emit

primarily particulate matter (PM) and

nitrogen oxides, not CO. GRIC

Department of Environmental Quality

staff have indicated they are looking

into truck stop electrification to reduce

the impacts of idling trucks.2

Comment. The October 19 letter also

questioned whether EPA established air

quality monitoring stations on the

Reservation or whether we relied on

data from the GRIC. The e-mail asserts

that the monitors and data were

distorted for the purpose of attaining the

boundary change.

2 Telephone'conservation with Janet Travis, GRIC

DEQ, December 2, 2004.

Response. The commenter has

provided only speculation, without any

reliable facts to substantiate the claim.

Comment. Finally, the October letter

asserts that the entire premise of a status

change is faulty and biased.

Response. As stated earlier, the

commenter has provided-only

speculation, without any reliable facts

to substantiate the claim.

Comment. The e-mail dated

November 8 asserts that MAG's

Transportation Improvement Program

(TIP) and Long Range Transportation

Plan (LRTP) are deficient and not

worthy of CO redesignation. The e-mail

also raises a concern that the public

needs to be protected in fast-growing

areas like Maricopa County, and states

that CMAQ funding should not be used

for the Central Phoenix Light Rail

Project.

Response. This comment raises issues

unrelated to EPA's action. Our proposed

approval of MAG's CO redesignation

request and maintenance plan is an

action on MAG's SIP revision, not on

the TIP or LRTP. MAG has

demonstrated through air quality

modeling that the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area will stay below

federal air quality standards until 2015.

In this way, public health will be

protected.

Regarding CMAQ funding, while EPA

may review and comment on CMAQ

funding proposals, final funding

decisions are made by other agencies.

Comment. The November 8 e-mail

also states that MAG uses flawed and

old models, referring to the base year

1994 inventory which MAG used, EPA's

MOBILE6 model, and the CO Complex

model. This e-mail also states that

oxygenated fuels increase aldehydes.

Response. While MAG used a base

year 1994 inventory, the redesignation

request and maintenance plan also

contains emissions inventories for 1998,

1999, 2006, and 2015. We have

reviewed these inventories and have

found them to be complete, accurate,

and current. EPA's 3MOBILE6 model is

the model required to be used by all

states except California for SIP

development. Studies of air toxics from

sources such as gasoline are currently

underway at the national level, but there

is currently no health standard for

aldehydes.

Comment. This same e-mail states

that the rapid growth in the MAG region

will increase VMT, and that MAG's

computer models do not properly

incorporate these factors.

Response. As indicated in the

Appendix to the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and MaintenancePlan, while VMT doubles between 1995

and 2015, CO emissions decrease.

MAG's models properly account for this

growth in VMT.

III. EPA's Final Action

In today's action, we are approving

the MAG Serious Area CO SIP for the

Maricopa County.CO norattainment

area and the MAG CO Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan for the

Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area. We have evaluated the submitted

SIP revisions and have determined that

they are. consistent with the CAA and

EPA regulations.

We are approving the following

'elements of the Revised 1999 CO Plan

for the metropolitan Phoenix area and

the MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan into the Arizona SIP:

1. 1990 base year and 1993 and 1996

periodic emission inventories as

required by sections 172(c)(3) and

187(a)(5).

2. Demonstration that the plan

provides for the implementation of

reasonably available control measures

including transportation control

measures under sections 172(c)(1) and

187(b)(2);

3. Demonstration of attainment by

December 31, 2000, under section

187(a)(7);

4. Demonstration of reasonable further

progress under sections 172(c)(2) and

187(a)(7);

5. Contingency measures under

sections 172(c)(9) and 187(a)(3);

6. Forecasts of vehicle miles traveled

and provisions for annual tracking and

reporting under section 187(a)(2)(A);

7. Transportation control measures as

necessary to offset growth in emissions

under section 187(b)(2);

8. Attainment year and projected

emissions inventories under section

175A;

9. Air quality monitoring

requirements under section 110(a)(2)

and section 172(c)(7);

10. CO motor vehicle emissions

budgets for transportation conformity

under section 176(c) for the attainment

demonstration and the maintenance

plan for the years 2000, 2006 and 2015

under the transportation conformity

rule, 40 CFR part 93, subpart A;

12. Demonstration of maintenance

under section 175A(a) and a.fullyapproved maintenance plan under

section 175A;

. 13. Maintenance plan contingency

measures under section 175A(d);

14. Commitment for subsequent

maintenance plan revisions under

section 175A(b);

15. Redesignation of that portion of

the Gila River Indian Reservation that is

now within the nonattainment area to

"nonclassifiable/attainment'; and

11555

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11555 2005
11556 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

16. A determination-that the

improvement in air quality in the

Maricopa County nonattainment area is

due to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions resulting from

the implementation of the applicable

implementation plan, implementation

of applicable Federal air pollution

control regulations, and other

permanent and enforceable reductions.

We have previously approved the

principal control measures relied on for

attainment and contingency measures in

the Revised 1999 CO Plan, including the

area's enhanced inspection and

maintenance program (required by

section 187(a)(6)), oxygenated gasoline

program (required by sections 187(b)(3)

and 211(m)), and woodburning

curtailment regulations. See 68 FR 2912,

69 FR 10161,.64 FR 60678 and 67 FR

52416.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan.. Each request for

revision to a state implementation plan

shall be considered separately in light of

specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to

relevant statutory and regulatory

requirements.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order

ReviewsUnder Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a "signifi6ant 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 merelyapproves

state law as meeting Federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

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

rule approves pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act'of 1995

(Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175, entitled

"Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications." "Policies that have tribal

implications" are defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

- that have "substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

* government and Indian tribes."

Under section 5(b) of Executivd Order

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has tribal implications, that

" imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct*

compliance costs incurred by tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

tribal officials early in the process of

developing the proposed regulation.

Under section 5(c) of Executive Order

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has tribal implications and that

preempts tribal law, unless the Agency

consults with tribal officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

EPA has concluded that this final rule

may have tribal implications. EPA's

action will remove the Gila River Indian

Community from the Phoenix CO

maintenance area. However, it will

neither impose substantial direct

compliance costs on tribal governments,.

nor preempt State law. Thus, the

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

the Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA

nonetheless consulted with

representatives of tribal governments

early in the process of developing this

regulation to permit them to have

meaningful and timely input into its

development. Representatives of tribal

governments approached EPA two years

ago and requested that EPA make this

boundary change. We agree with the

technical and policy rationale the tribe

Provided, and believe that all tribal

concerns have been met. Moreover, in

the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and

consistent with EPA policy to promote

communications between EPA and

tribal governments, EPA specifically

solicited comment on the proposed rule

from tribal officials.

This action also does not have

Federalism implications because it does.

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This action merely

approves a state rule implementing a

Federal standard, and 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.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) do not apply. This 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.).

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 "majpr 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 May 9, 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 dioes 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

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11556 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45/Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

enforce its requirements. (See CAA

section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental regulations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: January 3, 2005.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Region 9.

n Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is 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

0 1. Section 52.120 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(118) and (c)(119)

to read as follows:

§52.120 Identification of plan. * * * *o *

(c) * * *

(118) The following plan was

submitted on March 30, 20Q1, by the

Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality.

(1) Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area

Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa

County Nonattainment Area, dated

March 2001, adopted by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

on March 30, 2001.

(119) The following plan was

submitted on June 16, 2003, by the

Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality.

(1) MAG Carbon Monoxide

Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa

County Nonattainment Area and

Appendices, dated May 2003, adopted

by the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality on June 16,

2003.

PART 81-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C-[Amended]

m 2. In § 81.303, the table entitled

"Arizona-Carbon Monoxide" is

amended by revising the entry for the

Phoenix Area to read as follows:

§81.303 Arizona.

ARIZONA-CARBON MONOXIDE

Designation Classification

Designated area Date Type Date .. Type

Phoenix Area:

M aricopa County (part) ....................................................

Phoenix nonattainment area boundary:

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,

except that portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

2. thence, proceed northerly along the eastern line of

Range 7 East. which is the common boundary between Maricopa and Pinal Counties, a's described in

Arizona Revised' Statute Section 11-109, to a point

where the eastern 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 showed on the U.S. Forest Service 1969 Planimetric Maps, except that portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

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, National Forest and Usery Mountain

Semi-Regional Park, except that portion in the Gila

River Indian Reservation;

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 northeast corner of the Usery Mountain

Semi-Regional Park, except that portion in the Gila

River Indian Reservation;

4/8/2005 Attainment.

11557

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11557 2005
11558 Federal Register/ Vol., 70, No. 45 [Wednesday, March 9, 2005/Rules and -Regulati.ons

ARIZONA-CARBON MONOXIDE-Continued

Designation Classification

Designated area

Date Type Date Type

5. thence, westerly along the Tonto National Forest

Boundary, which is generally the south line of Section

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, except that portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

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, except that

portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

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 Reservatiorr

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, except that portion in the Gila River

Indian Reservation;

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, except that portion in the Gila River 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 eastem line of Section 12, Township 4 North, Range 6

East, except that portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation.

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, except that portion in the

Gila River Indian Reservation;

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,

except that portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

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, except that portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

13. thence, westerly along the northern line of Township

5 North to a point where the northern line of Township 5 North intersects 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, except that portion

in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

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, except that portion in the Gila River IndianReservation;

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11558 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 45/Wednesday, March 9, 2005/Rules and Regulations .11559

ARIZONA-CARBON MONOXIDE-Continued

Designation Classification

Designated area Date Type Date Type

15. thence, westerly along the northern line of Township

6 North to a point of intersection with the MaricopaYavapai 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), except that portion in the Gila River

Indian Reservation;

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, except that portion in the Gila River Indian

Reservation;

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 Mpuntain, Arizona Quadrangle Map, 7.5 Minute series (Topographic), dated 1964, except that portion in the Gila

River Indian Reservation;

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, except that

portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

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, except that portion in the Gila

River Indian Reservation;

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, except that portion

in the Gila River Indian Reservaion;

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, except that

portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

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, except that portion in the Gila

River Indian- Reservation;

23. thence, easterly along the southern line of Township

1 South to a point where the south line of Township 1

South intersects with the western line of Range 1

East, which line is generally the southern boundary of

Estrella Mountain Regional Park, except that portion

in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

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, except

that portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11559 2005
11560 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules 'and Regulations

ARIZONA-CARBON MONOXIDE-Continued

Designation Classification

Designated area

Date Type Date Type

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 Statues Section 11-109 and 11-113, which

is the eastern line of Range 1 East, except that portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation;

26. thence, northerly along the eastern boundary of

Range 1 East, which is the common boundary between Maricopa and Pinal Counties, to a point where

the eastern line of Range 1 East intersects the Gila

River, except that, portion in the Gila River Indian

Reservation;

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, except that

portion in the Gila River Indian Reservation.

[FR Doc. 05-4585 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 122

[OW-2002--0068; FRL-7882-2]

RIN 2040-AE71

Extension of National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Permit Deadline for Storm

Water Discharges for Oil and Gas

Activity That Disturbs One to Five

Acres

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today's-action postpones

until June 12, 2006, the requirement to

obtain National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) storm

water permit coverage-for oil and gas

construction activity that disturbs one to

five acres of land. This is the second

postponement promulgated by EPA for

these activities. This postponement will

allow the Agency additional time to

complete its analysis of the issues raised

by stakeholders about storm water

runoff from construction activities at oil

and gas sites and of practices and

methods for controlling Vtiese storm

water discharges to mitigate impacts on

water quality, as appropriate. Within six

months of today's action, EPA intends

to publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking in the Federal Register for

addressing these discharges and to

invite public comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

March 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a

docket for this action under Docket ID

No. OW-2002-0068. All documents in

the docket are listed in the EDOCKET

index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available,

i.e., confidential business information or

other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Certain other

material, such as copyrighted material,

is not placed on the Internet and will be

publicly available only in hard copy

form. Publicly available docket

materials are available either

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard

copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC..The Public

Reading Room is open from 8:36 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The telephone

number for the Public Reading Room is

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone

number for the Water Docket is (202)

566-2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Smith, Office of Wastewater

Management, Office of Water,

Environmental Protection Agency

(4203M), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (202) 564-0652; fax number:

(202) 564-6431; e-mail address:

smith.jeff@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Affected Entities

Entities potentially affected by this

action include operators of construction

activities disturbing at least one acre,

but less than five acres of land at oil and

gas sites, North American Industrial.

Classification System (NAICS) codes

and titles: 211-Oil and Gas Extraction,

213111-Drilling Oil and Gas Wells,

and 213112-Support Activities for Oil

and Gas Operations.

This description is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a gvide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. This description

identifies the types of entities that EPA

is now aware could potentially be

affected by this action. Other types of

entities not identified could also be

affected. To determine whether your

facility or company is affected by this

action, you should carefully examine

the applicability criteria in 40 CFR

122.26(b)(15) and (e)(8). If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11560 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, NO. 45/Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

B. When Does This Rule Take Effect?

Because this rule provides temporary

relief from permitting requirements for

certain dischargers, this rule is not

subject to the general requirement for a

thirty-day waiting period after

publication before a final rule takes

effect. By providing such relief, this rule

"relieves a restriction" on these

dischargers. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

Moreover, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(3), EPA has good cause to make

this rule effective immediately upon

publication. The March 10, 2005,'

deadline this action extends is less than

thirty days after the publication of this

rule. Making this action effective as

soon as it is published will help reduce

any confusion by those affected by the

rule regarding the necessity for

obtaining permit coverage. Therefore, a

thirty-day waiting period is unnecessary

and would be contrary to the public

interest.

II. Background

On January 18, 2005 (70 FR 2832),

EPA proposed a fifteen month

postponement of the permit requirement

for oil and gas construction activity

disturbing one to five acres, from March

10, 2005, to June 12, 2006, toallow time

for EPA to complete its analysis of the

economic impacts and the legal and

procedural implications of the options

that the Agency is considering regarding

the regulation of storm water discharges

from oil and gas-related construction

sites, and to evaluate the practices and

methods operators employ to control

storm water discharges from the sites

affected by this rule. In that proposal,

EPA explained the background of the

NPDES construction permit

requirement, and why EPA believes it

is appropriate to provide an additional

fifteen month postponement of permit

requirements for construction of oil and

gas exploration and production facilities

disturbing one to five acres. When

describing construction activity that

disturbs "one to five acres" or in

discussing "small" construction activity

in this preamble, EPA is referring to

activities covered by 40 CFR

122.26(b)(15).

III. Response to Comments

EPA received a modest number of

comments on its proposal to provide an

additional fifteen month postponement

of permit requirements for discharges

from oil and gas-related construction

activity disturbing one to five acres.

EPA's responses to all of these

comments may be found in the

Response to Comment document that is

part of the docket for this final rule.

IV. Today's Action

In today's action, EPA is extending

until June 12, 2006, the deadline for

obtaining NPDES storm water permits

for oil and gas construction activity that

disturbs at least one acre, but less than

five acres of land and sites disturbing

less than one acre that are a part of a

larger conimon plan of development or

sale that disturbs between one and five

acres. The text finalized at § 122.26(e)(8)

does not create any duty to apply for an

NPDES permit that did not already exist

as a result of EPA's Phase II regulations.

Rather, this amendment merely extends

the permitting deadline for a certain

class of dischargers.

During the next fifteen months, EPA

intends to (1) complete the economic

impact analysis; (2) complete the

evaluation of the legal and procedural

implications associated with several

options that the Agency is considering

with regard to regulation of storm water

discharges from oil and gas-related

construction sites; and (3) continue to

evaluate practices and methods

operators may employ to control storm

water discharges from the sites affected

by this ruld. One of the issues EPA will

be examining during this period is how

best to resolve questions posed by

outside parties regarding section

402(l)(2) of the Clean Water Act, which

exempts certain storm water discharges

from oil and gas exploration,

production, processing, or treatment

operations or transmission facilities

from NPDES permit requirements. EPA

intends to convene at least one public

meeting with stakeholders for the

putpose of exchanging information on

current industry practices and the

effectiveness of those practices in

protecting water quality and obtaining

input on the appropriate approach for

addressing construction storm water

discharges from this industry. EPA will

publish a separate notice in the Federal

Register with information about this

public meeting. Finally, EPA expects to

propose and take some subsequent final

action based on the Agency's

conclusions following these activities

prior to June 12, 2006.

V. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is "significant" and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines "significant

regulatory action" as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

orplanned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President's priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule

is not-a "significant regulatory action"

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 andis therefore not subject to

OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. It merely

postpones implementation of an

existing rule deadline.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

.needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire,.install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information; processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

'existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and fransmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA's regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires

-an agency to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking

requirements under the Administrative

11561

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11561 2005
11562 federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 45/Wednesday, March 9, 2005/Rules and Regulations

Procedure Act or any other statute '

unless the agency certifies that the rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small organizations, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today's final rule on small entities,

small entity is defined as: (1) A small

business based on Small Business

Administration size standards; (2) a

small governmental jurisdiction. that is a government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today's final rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Today's action merely postpones the

permit authorization deadline for oil

and gas construction activity that

disturb one to five acres. Because EPA

is postponing a deadline for numerous

small entities to comply with NPDES

permit requirements, this final action

will not impose any burden on any

small entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104-4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with "Federal mandates" that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any oie year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-dffective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

* proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising.

.small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. This

rule does not impose any costs. It

merely postpones the permit

authorization deadline for oil and gas

constructiofi activity that disturb one to

five acres. Thus, today's final rule is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same

reason, EPA has determined that this

rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.

Thus, today's final rule is not subject to

the requirements of section 203 of

UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132,-entitled

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism implications" is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have '-substantial direct

effects on the States, on the'relationship

between the National Government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government."

This rule does not have federalism

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the National

Government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. It merely

postpones the permit authorization

deadline for oil and gas construction

activity that disturb one to five acres.

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not

apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled,

"Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 9, 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."

This rule does not have tribal

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on tribal governments, on

the relationship between the Federal

government and Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes, as

specified in Executive Order 13175.. It'

merely postpones the permit

authorization deadline for oil and gas

construction activity that disturb one to

five acres. Thus, Executive Order 13175

does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045: "Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be "economically

significant" as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the p'lanned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This

regulation is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not

economically significant as defined

under Executive Order 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13211, "Actions Concerning

R~gulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is

not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866. The only effect

of this rule is to (1) delay the permit

authorization requirement for affected

small oil and gas operations by an

additional fifteen months and (2) allow

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11562 2005
Federal. Register/Vol. 70, No. 45/Wednegday, March 9, 2005/Rules and Regulations

EPA time necessary to develop a further

proposal to address storm water

discharges from such activities.

L National Technology Transfer And

Advancement Act,

As noted in the proposed rule, section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

("NTTAA"), Public Law 104-113,

section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so' would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standard bodies.

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

This rulemaking does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did

not consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards. However, EPA is

exploring the availability and potential

use of voluntary consensus standards

developed consistent with the NTTAA

and the requirements of the CWA as a

means of addressing storm water runoff

from oil and gas construction activities

as part of a future rulemaking.

J. Congressional Review Act

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). This rule

will be effective March 9, 2005.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean

Water Act, judicial review of this action

may only be had by filing a petition for

review in the United States Court of

Appeals within 120 days after March 9,

2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122

Administrative practice and

procedure,. Confidential business

information, Environmental protection,

Hazardous substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Water

pollution control.

Dated: March 3, 2005.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Acting Administrator.

m For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 122-EPA ADMINISTERED

PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL

POLLUTANT DISCHARGE

ELIMINATION SYSTEM

m 1. The authority citation for part 122

continues to read as follows:

Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.

1251 etseq.

Subpart B-[Amended]

N 2. Revise § 122.26(e)(8) to read as

follows:

§ 122.26 Storm water discharges

(applicable to State NPDES programs, see

§ 123.25).

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(8) For any storm water discharge

associated with small construction

activity identified in paragraph (b)(15)(i)

of this section,.see § 122.21(c)(1).

Discharges from these sources, other

than discharges associated with small

construction activity at oil and gas

exploration, production, processing, and

treatment operations or transmission

facilities, require permit authorization

by March 10, 2003, unless designated

for coverage before then. Discharges

associated with small construction

activity at such oil and gas sites require

permit authorization by June 12, 2006. * * * * *

[FR Doc. 05-4467 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-2005-0022; FRL-7699-8]

Clofentezine; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

tolerances for residues of clofentezine in

or on grapes and persimmons.

Makhteshim-Agan of North America,

Inc. and the Interregional Research

Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these

tolerances under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as

amended by the Food Quality Protection

Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective

March 9, 2005. Objections and requests

for hearings must be received on or

before May 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written

objection or hearing request, follow the

detailed instructions as provided in

Unit VI of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. EPA has established a

docket for this action under Docket

identification (ID) number OPP-2005-

0022. All documents in the docket are

listed in the EDOCKET index at http:/

/www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed

in the index, some information is not

publicly available, i.e., CBI or other

information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Certain other

material, such as copyrighted material,

is not placed on the Internet and will be

publicly available only in hard copy

form. Publicly available docket

materials are available either

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard

copy at the Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Room

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell Street,

Arlington, VA 22202-4501. This docket

facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The docket telephone number

is (703) 305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carmen Rodia, Registration Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone

number: (703) 306-0327; fax number:

(703) 305-6596; e-mail address:

rodia.carmen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by

this action if you are an agricultural

producer, food manufacturer, or

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially

affected entities may include, but are

not limited to:

* Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g.,

agricultural workers; greenhouse,

nursery, and floriculture workers;

farmers.

e Animal production (NAICS 112),

e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy

cattle farmers, livestock farmers.

9 Food manufacturing (NAICS 311),

e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;

111563

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11563 2005