Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 11553

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 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. 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.

■ 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March 11, 2005, is withdrawn, and 40 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]

■ 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 plan.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

* * * * * * * 

Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Plan.City of Weirton; Butler and Clay Magisterial District (Hancock County).7/27/04 01/10/05 70 FR 1664 .... The SIP-effective date is 

3/11/05. 

[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/region09/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/region09/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 

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

1Telephone conversation with Cathy Arthur, 

Maricopa Association of Governments, November 

19, 2004.

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 area (see 68 FR 55008). 

MAG’s transportation and emissions 

modeling includes the implementation 

of light rail.1

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 Maricopa County 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 

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 decades. 

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, 700,000–800,000 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 11555

2Telephone conservation with Janet Travis, GRIC 

DEQ, December 2, 2004.

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. 

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 MOBILE6 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 Maintenance 

Plan, 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 nonattainment 

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 

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 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ are defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’

Under section 5(b) of Executive Order 

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation 

that has tribal implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs, and that is not required by statute, 

unless the Federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation. 

Under section 5(c) of Executive Order 

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation 

that has tribal implications and that 

preempts tribal law, unless the Agency 

consults with tribal officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

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 ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by 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 does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 11557

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.

■ Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D—Arizona

■ 1. Section 52.120 is amended by 

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

to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(118) The following plan was 

submitted on March 30, 2001, 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]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C—[Amended]

■ 2. In § 81.303, the table entitled 

‘‘Arizona—Carbon Monoxide’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for the 

Phoenix Area to read as follows:

§ 81.303 Arizona.

* * * * *

ARIZONA—CARBON MONOXIDE

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

Phoenix Area: 

Maricopa County (part) .................................................... 4/8/2005 Attainment. 

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, as 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; 

11558 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

ARIZONA—CARBON MONOXIDE—Continued

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

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 Reservation 

and the southeast corner of the Fort McDowell Indian 

Reservation, as shown on the plat dated July 22, 

1902, and recorded with the U.S. Government on 

June 15, 1902, 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 eastern 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 Indian Reservation; 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 11559

ARIZONA—CARBON MONOXIDE—Continued

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

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 Mountain, 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 Reservation; 

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; 

11560 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

ARIZONA—CARBON MONOXIDE—Continued

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

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 these 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 8:30 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 guide 

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.