# + 2

(,1 1/,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

ofthe United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA ifthe 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 briefstatement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA had

- made such a good cause finding, including thereasons therefore, and established an effective date ofMarch 11, 2005. EPAwill submit a report containing this rule and other requiredinformation to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States priorto publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. This correction to 40 CFR 52.52.2520(e) forWest Virginia is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, Sulfur oxides.

.Dated: February 28, 2005".
Donald S. Welsh, RegionalAdministrator, RegionIII.

mAccordingly, theamendment to 40 CFR 52.2520 published inthe Federal Register onJanuary 10, 2005 (70FR 1668), whichwas to become effective on March 11, 2005, is withdrawn, and 40' CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52-[AMENDED]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 citationfor part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Subpart XX-West Virginia

* 2.In §52.2520, thetable inparagraph (e) is amended by adding an entry at the end ofthe table forthe Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Plan, Cityof Weirton; Butler and Clay Magisterial District (Hancock County)to read as follows:
§52.2520 Identificationof pian.

* * * * *



### (e)* * *

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

Sulfur Dioxide Main, City of Weirton; Butler and Clay Magisterial Dis- 7127/04 01/10/0570 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]
Approvaland Promulgation of Implementation Plansand Designation ofAreas forAir Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection. Agency (EPA). ACTION: Finalrule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Maricopa Association ofGovernments (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 forthe Maricopa County CO nonattainment area as meeting CAA requirements forredesignation requests and maintenance plans. In addition,we
are making a boundary change under Section 107 ofthe CAA to take the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) out of the Maricopa County maintenance area. The portion ofthe Gila River Indian Community which is currently in the Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area willbe "unclassifiable/attainment" forCO, and will notbe subject to the MAG CO Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. DATE: Effective Date:This rule is effective April 8, 2005. ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe 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 visitingthe Regional Office so that we
can make arrangements to have.

someone meet you.
Electronic Availability

This document, our proposedrule which was published inthe 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* ofAir 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 ofContents
I. Summary ofEPA's Final Action II. Response to Comments III. EPA's FinalAction IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary ofEPA's FinalAction

On October 8, 2004 (69FR 60328), we published a notice ofproposed rulemaking forthe State ofArizona. The notice proposed approval ofrevisions to the SIP forthe Maricopa County CO nonattainment area. These revisions to the SIPwere adoptedby the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ). Today, we are finalizing our proposal to approve the MAG serious

area SIP for attainment ofthe CO air quality standard inthe 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 asthe 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 aboundary correction under Section 107 ofthe CAA forthe Gila River Indian Community.

II.Response to Comments

Wereceived 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 forthe October 8, 2004, proposal. Two comments were dated October 19, 2004, and one comment was dated November 8, 2004. In addition tothese comments, we received three e-mails submitted after signature but prior to publication ofthe proposal in the Federal Register, two on September 22 and one on September 24, 2004. Since these e-mails raisethe same issues as the comments submitted after publication, we discuss and respondto all ofthem 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 aresponse. We determined that the correspondence should be treated as public comment, and respond to it here. (Thiscommentor also sent comments directly to Region 9 on September 22 and 24, 2004). We also received a letter ofsupport from ADEQregarding the boundary change for the Gila River Indian Community. Werespond to the comments below in the order we receiVed them.
E-MailsSubmittedtoEPAPrior to the PublicCommentPeriod

We received three e-mails before the October 8 publication ofthe 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-mailreceived on September 22 stated that the Central Phoenix light rail project will increase the production ofair pollutants due to the prohibition ofleft 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 ofthe vehicles in the Phoenix vehicle mix willbe 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 torefer to the projected

use ofthe 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 statesthat 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 isbased onboth monitored data indicating no violations ofthe CO standard in the past seven years and.modeling whichindicates no expected violations ofthe 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 atthe national level and the

use ofcleaner-burning fuels and other emissions control measures atthe local levelhave 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 notreduce traffic congestion orthe production of air pollutants inthe lightrail corridor. This e-mail comments that ISTEA and TEA-21 legislation call formaking transit more efficient, and the commenter does notbelieve the Phoenix light rail will increase speeds in the light rail corridor, and will notyield much farebox revenue when compared
to the cost ofmoving light rail -passengers.

Response.Our action today concerns the MAG serious area CO SIP forthe Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area and the MAG CO Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan forthe Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area. The FEIS forthe Phoenix light rail project is completely unrelated to this action.

Comment.The second e-mail from September 22 states that while MAG reports noviolations ofthe CO standard since 1996, the most recent statistics haven't been applied to air quality modeling, and thatthe light railtrolley hasn't beenproperly factored in.

Response.The Maricopa County CO nonattainment area has monitored clean data every yearbetween 1996 and 2003. This factwas reflected in our finding of attainment published on September 22, 2003, for the Maricopa County CO nonattainment afea (see68FR 55008). MAG's transportation and emissions modeling includes the implementation oflight 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. Wenoted this in our finding

Telephone conversation with Cathy Arthur, Maricopa Association ofGovernments, November 19, 2004. ofattainment'(see 68 FR 55008, page 55009, 3rd column).

Comment,The September 24 e-mail also states that our finding ofattainment ofthe CO standard for theMaricopa County nonattainment area (68 FR 55008) reflects only data through 1999.

Response.The finding ofattainment

was based on monitoring data from the years 1999 and 2000 because 2000 was the attainment yearfor the Maricopa County serious CO nonattainment area. (See 68 FR55008, September 22, 2003.) Section 179(c)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act provides that attainment determinations

are to bebased upon an area's "air quality as ofthe attainment date". Monitoring data gathered byADEQ and Maricopa County since that time indicate that the Maricopa County CO nonattainment areahas nothad a violation of the CO standard since 1996,

so current data have beenreviewed and taken into account in our action today.

Comment.The September 24 e-mail questions how the CO standard canbe met given the rapid increase in population and an even faster increase inVMT in the Maricopa County nonattainment area. The e-mail states. that Maricopa County's population has been increasing 45 percent every 10 years inrecent decadds.

Response.MAG's data estimate about

a 32 percent increase in population between 2004 and 2015. As indicated in. the Appendix to the MAGCO Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, while VMT doubles between 1995 and 2015, CO emissions decrease. MAG's models properly account for the growth inVMT.
E-MailsSubmittedtoEPADuringthe PublicCommentPeriod

Comment.The first e-mail dated October 19, 2004, asks how it can be possible toreduce 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 inCO 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 aDraft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) inan air quality conformity report.

Response.This comment is not relevant to today's action.

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11554 2005Federal 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

aDEIS.

Response.-Itis notclear which project DEIS is referred toby 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 forfuel properties such as oxidants and sulfur, and reduces the effects ofoxidants on CO emissions over time. Most newer cars are equipped with electronic fuel injection systems that generally automatically compensate forthe proper air-to-fuel mixture to reduce'COemissions.

Comment.This same e-mailrefers to

a "new standard for CO" that requires

an 8-hour test, and refersto calm days inthe summerwhen CO could be a problem.

Response.There is nonew standard forCO; we assume the commentrefers
to the new 8-hour ozone standard. CO tends tobe a wintertime problem, and CO emissions do not tendto be high in the summer.

Comment.The letter we received on October 19via U.S. Mail questioned our proposed boundary change forthe Gila River Indian Reservation. This letter indicated that the Gila River Indian Community is planning a large truck stop alongthe Reservation border with the Phoenix metropolitan area, as well

as substantial development along the northern border ofthe reservation.

Response.Our proposal to change the boundary ofthe Phoenix CO maintenance area to remove GRIC was based onmonitored 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 ofEnvironmental Quality staffhave indicated they are looking into truck stop electrification to reduce the impacts ofidling 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 ofattaining the boundary change.

2 Telephone'conservation withJanetTravis, 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 ofa status change is faulty andbiased.

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) andLong Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) are deficient and not worthy ofCO redesignation. The e-mail also raises a concern that the public needs to be protected infast-growing

areas like Maricopa County, and states that CMAQ funding should notbe used forthe Central Phoenix LightRail Project.

Response.This comment raises issues unrelated to EPA's action. Our proposed approval ofMAG's CO redesignation request and maintenance plan is an action on MAG's SIP revision, not on the TIPor 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 healthwill be protected.

Regarding CMAQ funding, while EPA may review and comment on CMAQ funding proposals, final funding decisions aremade 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's3MOBILE6 model is the modelrequired to be used by all
states except California for SIP development. Studies ofair toxics from

sources such as gasoline are currently underway atthe national level, but there is currently no health standard for aldehydes.

Comment.This same e-mail states that the rapid growth inthe MAG region will increase VMT, and that MAG's computer models donot properly incorporate these factors.

Response.As indicated in the Appendix tothe MAG CO Redesignation Request andMaintenancePlan, while VMT doubles between 1995 and 2015, CO emissions decrease. MAG's models properly account forthis growth inVMT.
III. EPA'sFinalAction

In today's action, we are approving the MAG Serious Area CO SIP forthe 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 ofthe Revised 1999 CO Plan for the metropolitan Phoenix area and the MAG CO Redesignation Request and Maintenance Planinto the Arizona SIP:

1. 1990base 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 forthe implementation of reasonably available control measures including transportation control

measures under sections 172(c)(1) and 187(b)(2);

3.Demonstration ofattainment by December 31, 2000, under section 187(a)(7);

4. Demonstration ofreasonable 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 ofvehicle miles traveled andprovisions for annual tracking and reporting under section 187(a)(2)(A);

7.Transportation control measures as necessary to offset growth inemissions 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 themaintenance plan forthe years 2000, 2006 and 2015 under the transportation conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93, subpart A;

12. Demonstration ofmaintenance 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 ofthat portion of theGila RiverIndian Reservation that is

now within the nonattainment area to "nonclassifiable/attainment'; and 

### 11555

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11555 200511556 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 ofthe applicable implementation plan, implementation ofapplicable Federal airpollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions.

Wehave 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 inthis action should be construed as permitting orallowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation plan..Each request for revision to a state implementation plan shallbe considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and inrelation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Statutory and Executive OrderReviewsUnderExecutive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a"signifi6ant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review bythe Office ofManagement and Budget. For thisreason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merelyapproves
state law asmeeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposedby state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule willnot have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act(5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.).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 inthe 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 inthe Executive Orderto include regulations

- that have "substantial direct effects on

one or moreIndian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal *government and Indian tribes." Under section 5(b) ofExecutivd Order 13175, EPA may not issuea regulation that has tribal implications, that
"imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is notrequired by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary topay the direct* compliance costs incurred bytribal governments, orEPA consultswith tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposedregulation. Under section 5(c) ofExecutive Order 13175, EPA may notissue a regulation that has tribal implications and that preempts tribal law, unless the Agency consults with tribal officials early in the process ofdeveloping the proposed regulation.

EPA has concluded that this final rule may have tribal implications. EPA's action will removethe GilaRiver 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 ofsections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order donot apply to this rule.

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with representatives oftribal governments early in the process of developing this regulation topermit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. Representatives oftribal governments approached EPA two years ago and requested that EPA make this boundary change. We agree with the technical andpolicy rationale the tribe Provided, and believe that all tribal

concerns have been met. Moreover, in the spirit ofExecutive 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 nothave Federalism implications because it does. nothave substantial direct effects on the 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 rule implementing a Federal standard, and doesnot 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.

Inreviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In thiscontext, in the absence ofa prior existing requirement forthe State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure touse VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place ofa 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 (15U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Thisrule does
notimpose an.information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Actof 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Actof 1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe 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 topublication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. Amajor 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 5U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct,'petitions forjudicial review of this action mustbe filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit byMay 9, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthisfinal rule does
notaffect the finality ofthisrule forthe purposes ofjudicial review nor dioes it extendthe time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule oraction. This action maynot be challenged laterin proceedings to

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

enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects

40 CFRPart 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: January 3,2005. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region9.

n ChapterI,title40 oftheCode of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

s 1.Theauthority citation forpart 52 continues to read asfollows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart D-Arizona

0 1. Section 52.120 is amendedby adding paragraphs (c)(118) and (c)(119)
to read asfollows:
§52.120 Identification ofplan.

* * * *o *
(c) * * * (118) The following plan was submitted onMarch 30, 20Q1, bythe Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation byreference. (A)Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

(1)RevisedMAG 1999 SeriousArea CarbonMonoxidePlan fortheMaricopa CountyNonattainment Area,dated March 2001, adopted by the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality

on March 30, 2001.

(119) The following plan was submitted onJune 16, 2003, bythe Governor's designee.

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

(1) MAG CarbonMonoxide RedesignationRequestand MaintenancePlan fortheMaricopa CountyNonattainment Area and Appendices,dated May 2003, adopted bythe Arizona Department of Environmental Quality onJune 16,
2003.

PART 81-[AMENDED]

m 1.Theauthority citation forpart81 continues to read as follows:

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

m2. In§ 81.303,the tableentitled "Arizona-Carbon Monoxide" is amended byrevising 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 Eastwhich 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 ofTownship

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, exceptthat 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 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 inArizona Revised Statues Section 11-109 and 11-113, which isthe eastern line of Range 1 East, except that portion inthe 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 Riverto apoint 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 inthe 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 forStorm Water Discharges for Oiland Gas ActivityThat DisturbsOne 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 PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit coverage-for oil and gas construction activity that disturbs one to five acres ofland. This is the second postponement promulgated byEPA for these activities. This postponement will allow the Agency additional time to complete its analysis ofthe issues raised by stakeholders about storm water runofffrom construction activities at oil and gas sites and ofpractices and methods for controlling Vtiese storm water discharges to mitigate impacts on water quality, as appropriate. Within six months oftoday's action, EPA intends
to publish a notice ofproposed rulemaking inthe Federal Register for addressing these discharges and to invitepublic comments. DATES: This final rule is effective on March 9, 2005. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket forthis 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 onthe Internet and willbe publicly available only inhard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy atthe Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC..The Public Reading Room is open from 8:36a.m. to 

### 4:30p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number forthe Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number forthe Water Docket is (202)
566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Smith, Office ofWastewater Management, Office ofWater, 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 bythis action include operators ofconstruction activities disturbing atleast one acre, but less than five acres ofland 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 ofentities thatEPA is now aware could potentially be affectedby this action. Other types of entities notidentified could alsobe affected. To determine whether your facility or company is affected bythis action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in40 CFR 122.26(b)(15) and (e)(8). Ifyouhave questions regarding the applicability of this action to aparticular entity, consult the personlisted 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 ThisRule TakeEffect?

Because this rule provides temporary relieffrom permitting requirements for certain dischargers, this rule is not subject to the general requirement for a thirty-day waitingperiod after publication before a final rule takes effect. By providing such relief, this rule "relieves arestriction" on these dischargers. 5U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Moreover, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), EPA has good cause to make this ruleeffective immediately upon publication. The March 10, 2005,' deadline this action extends is less than thirty days after the publication ofthis rule. Making this action effective as

soon as it is published will help reduce any confusion bythose affected by the rule regarding the necessity for obtaining permit coverage. Therefore, a thirty-day waiting period is unnecessary and would be contrary tothe public interest.

II.Background

On January 18, 2005 (70 FR 2832), EPA proposed afifteen month postponement ofthe permit requirement foroil and gas construction activity disturbing oneto five acres, from March 10, 2005, to June 12, 2006, toallow time forEPA to complete its analysis ofthe economic impacts and the legal and procedural implications ofthe options that the Agency is considering regarding the regulation ofstorm 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 bythis rule. In that proposal, EPA explained the background of the NPDES construction permit requirement, and why EPAbelieves it is appropriate to provide an additional fifteen month postponement ofpermit requirements for construction ofoil 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 onits proposal to provide an additional fifteen month postponement ofpermit requirements fordischarges from oil and gas-related construction activity disturbing oneto five acres. EPA's responses to all ofthese
comments may be found in the Response to Comment document that is part of the docket forthis final rule. IV. Today's Action

Intoday's action,EPA is extending untilJune 12, 2006, the deadline for obtaining NPDES storm waterpermits for oil and gas construction activity that disturbs at least one acre, but less than five acres ofland and sites disturbing less than one acre that are a part ofa larger conimon plan ofdevelopment or sale that disturbs between oneand five

acres. The textfinalized at § 122.26(e)(8) does not create any duty to apply foran NPDES permit that didnot already exist

as a resultofEPA's Phase II regulations. Rather, this amendment merely extends the permitting deadline fora certain class of dischargers.

During the nextfifteen months, EPA intends to (1)complete the economic impact analysis; (2)complete the evaluation ofthe legal and procedural implications associated with several options that the Agency is considering withregard to regulation ofstorm 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 ofthe issues EPA will be examining during this period is how best to resolve questions posed by outside parties regarding section 402(l)(2) ofthe Clean Water Act, which exempts certain storm water discharges from oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations ortransmission facilities from NPDES permit requirements. EPA intends to convene at least one public meeting with stakeholders forthe putpose ofexchanging information on current industry practices and the effectiveness ofthose 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 toJune 12, 2006.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order12866:Regulatory Planning andReview

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subjectto OMB review and the requirements ofthe Executive Order. The Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely
to resultin a rule that may:

(1)Have an annual effect onthe
economy of$100 million or moreor adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity, competition,jobs, the environment, public health orsafety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere withan action taken orplanned by another agency;

(3)Materially alterthe budgetary impact ofentitlements, grants, userfees,

or loan programs orthe rights and obligations ofrecipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policyissues arising outof legal mandates, the President's priorities, orthe principles
set forth inthe Executive Order.

Ithas been determined that this rule is not-a "significant regulatory action" under the terms ofExecutive Order 12866 andis therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork ReductionAct
This action does notimpose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.Itmerely postpones implementation ofan existing rule deadline.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

orprovide information to or fora 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 andproviding information; adjustthe 'existing waysto 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.

AnAgency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is notrequired to respond to a collection ofinformation unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers forEPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFRpart 9.

C.RegulatoryFlexibility Act
TheRegulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5U.S.C. 601 etseq., generally requires

-anagency to prepare aregulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 

### 11561

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 11561 200511562 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 oftoday'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 ofa city, county, town, school districtor 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 inits field.

After considering the economic impacts oftoday's finalrule on small entities, Icertify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number ofsmall 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. UnfundedMandatesReform Act

Title II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of theirregulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 ofthe UMRA, EPAgenerally must prepare awritten 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,

orto the private sector, of$100 million

ormore in any oie year. Before promulgating an EPA rule forwhich a written statement is needed, section 205 ofthe UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number ofregulatory alternatives and adoptthe least costly, most costeffective or leastburdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply whenthey are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly,most cost-dffective

orleast burdensome alternative ifthe 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 ofthe UMRA a small government agency plan.The plan must provide fornotifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials ofaffected small governments tohave meaningful and timely input in the development ofEPA 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 inexpenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any oneyear. This rule does not impose any costs. It merely postpones the permit authorization deadline for oil and gas constructiofi activity that disturb oneto five acres. Thus, today's final rule is not subject tothe requirements ofsections 202 and 205 ofthe UMRA. For the same reason, EPA has determined that this rule contains noregulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's final rule isnot subject to therequirements ofsection 203 of UMRA.

E.ExecutiveOrder13132:Federalism

Executive Order 13132,-entitled "Federalism" (64FR 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, onthe'relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment."

Thisrule doesnot have federalism implications. Itwillnot have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 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. It merely postpones the permit authorization deadline for oil and gas construction activity that disturb one to five acres. Thus, Executive Order 13132 doesnot apply to this rule. F.Executive Order13175:Consultation andCoordinationWith IndianTribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65FR 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 havetribal implications."

This rule does not havetribal implications. Itwill not have substantial direct effects ontribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified inExecutive Order 13175.. It' merely postpones the permit authorization deadline foroil and gas construction activity that disturb one to five acres. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G.Executive Order13045:Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth andSafetyRisks

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 definedunder Executive Order 12866, and (2)concerns an environmental health or safety riskthat EPA has reasonto believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meetsboth criteria, the Agency mustevaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the p'lanned ruleon children, and explain whythe planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective andreasonably 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 Order13211:Actions Concerning RegulationsThat Significantly Affect EnergySupply, Distribution,orUse

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 significantregulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The only effect ofthis 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.

LNationalTechnologyTransferAnd AdvancementAct,

As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards inits regulatory activities unless to do so' would be inconsistent with applicable law orotherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, andbusiness practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA toprovide 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
notconsider theuse ofany voluntary

consensus standards. However, EPA is exploring the availability andpotential

use ofvoluntary consensus standards developed consistent with the NTTAA and the requirements ofthe CWA as a

means ofaddressing storm water runoff from oil and gas construction activities

as part ofa future rulemaking.

J.

Congressional ReviewAct

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule maytake effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe. Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing thisrule and other required information tothe 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 major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published inthe Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2). Thisrule willbe effective March 9, 2005.

K.Petitions forJudicial Review

Under section 509(b)(1) ofthe Clean Water Act,judicial review ofthis action
may onlybe had byfiling a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120 days after March 9, 2005. List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart122 Administrative practice and procedure,.Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

Dated: March 3,2005. StephenL.Johnson, ActingAdministrator.

mForthe reasons setforth inthe preamble, chapter Iof title40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 122-EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

m1. Theauthority citation forpart 122 continues to read as follows:

Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 etseq. Subpart B-[Amended]

N2.Revise § 122.26(e)(8) toreadas follows: 

### §122.26 Storm waterdischarges (applicable toState NPDES programs,see §123.25).

* * * * *

(e) * * * (8) For any storm water discharge associated with small construction activity identified inparagraph (b)(15)(i) ofthis 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 forcoverage before then. Discharges associated with small construction activity at such oil and gas sites require permit authorization by June 12, 2006.

* * * * * [FRDoc. 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: Thisregulation establishes tolerances for residues ofclofentezine in or on grapes andpersimmons. Makhteshim-Agan ofNorth 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 bythe Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). DATES: This regulation is effective March 9, 2005. Objections and requests forhearings mustbe 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 ofthe 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 inthe 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 ascopyrighted 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 inhard 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 ofPesticide 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. DoesthisActionApply toMe?

You may be potentially affectedby this action ifyou are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, butare notlimited to:

* Cropproduction (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