30370 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 101 / Thursday, May 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘RACT Analysis for Rule 358 Polystyrene Foam 

Operations,’’ Planning & Analysis Section, 

Maricopa County Air Quality Department, Phoenix, 

AZ April 21, 2005.

TABLE 52.1031.—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS—Continued

State

citation Title/subject 

Date 

adopted 

by State 

Date

approved 

by EPA 

Federal Register citation 52.1020

* * * * * * * 

153 ........... Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing.2/5/04 5/26/05 [Insert FR citation from published date] .. (c)(54).

* * * * * * * 

Note.—1. The regulations are effective statewide unless stated otherwise in comments section. 

[FR Doc. 05–10481 Filed 5–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[AZ–140–128; FRL–7912–3] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Maricopa County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the Maricopa County 

portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions were proposed in the Federal 

Register on March 23, 2005 and concern 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from expandable polystyrene 

foam operations. We are approving local 

Rule 358—Polystyrene Foam 

Operations. This rule regulates these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on June 27, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of 

the administrative record for this action 

at EPA’s Region IX office during normal 

business hours by appointment. You 

can inspect copies of the submitted SIP 

revisions by appointment at the 

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901; 

Air and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Room B–102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 6102T), 

Washington, DC 20460; 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, Air Quality Division, 1100 West 

Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85007; 

and, 

Maricopa County, Air Quality Department, 

1001 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, 

85004–1942.

A copy of the rule may also be available 

via the Internet at http://www.maricopa.gov/

AQ/Rules. Please be advised that this is not 

an EPA Web site and may not contain the 

same version of the rule that was submitted 

to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4111, wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

On March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14616), 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

rule into the Arizona SIP.

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

Maricopa County ........................ 358 Polystyrene Foam Operations ........................................................ 04/20/05 04/25/05 

We proposed to approve Rule 358 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on this rule and our 

evaluation. 

On May 2, 2005, we found this rule 

submittal met the completeness criteria 

in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. On 

February 22, 2005, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) requested EPA to parallel 

process our review of Rule 358 

concurrently with Maricopa County’s 

rule adoption process. We agreed to 

parallel process Rule 358 using our 

authority under 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V and, for the purposes of our 

March 23, 2005 proposal, we made a 

completeness finding on the February 

22, 2005 submittal according to the 

criteria at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, 

2.3.1. Our May 2, 2005 completeness 

finding applies to the April 25, 2005 

submittal that is the subject of this 

rulemaking.

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from the 

following party. 

1. Seth v.d.H. Cooley, Duane Morris, 

LLP representing WinCup Holdings, Inc. 

(WinCup); letter dated April 22, 2005 

and received via electronic mail April 

22, 2005. The comments and our 

responses are summarized below. 

Comment #1: The emission limit in 

Rule 358, Section 303, 3.2 pounds of 

VOC per 100 pounds of polystyrene 

beads processed, (Section 303 limit) has 

no technical basis. There is no 

connection between Maricopa County 

Air Quality Division’s (MCAQD) RACT 

Analysis and the Section 303 limit. 

Response #1: In their RACT 

Analysis ,1 MCAQD reviewed the 

expandable polystyrene industry, a 

wide variety of possible emission 

control options, and emission limits and 

controls adopted in other jurisdictions. 

Their RACT analysis outlined a 

compliance strategy of installing 

specific control equipment and process 

modifications, such as a regenerative 

thermal oxidizer, use of a total 

enclosure for capturing prepuff 

polystyrene aging emissions, and 

different prepuff polystyrene aging 

regimes, that could be used at the 

WinCup facility to meet the Section 303 

emission limit. MCAQD calculated a 

specific emission reduction due to 

WinCup’s use of the compliance 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 101 / Thursday, May 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 30371

2See RACT Analysis at Table 12–1, Appendix A–

2, Tables III & IV, and Appendix A–3).

3See RACT Analysis at Table 12–1 and Appendix 

A–2, Table II.

4See citations 11A, B, and C in RACT Analysis 

bibliography.

5See Comment and Response #5, Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFRM), Maricopa County Air 

Pollution Control Regulations, Rule 358—

Polystyrene Foam Operations, Preamble, Response 

to Comments.

strategy, 37.3 tons per year. 2 Then, 

MCAQD calculated the cost 

effectiveness of these emission controls 

at $5,414 per ton of VOC reduced. 3

MCAQD developed the Section 303 

compliance strategy after reviewing 

provisions adopted in other states and 

localities (see Chapter 5.2) and how 

cupmakers met similar and more 

stringent emission limits in the Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD Rule 8–52, 2.8 pounds of 

VOC per 100 pounds of beads 

processed, for our discussion, the ‘‘Rule 

8–52 limit’’) and South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD 

Rule 1175, 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 

pounds of beads processed, for our 

discussion the ‘‘Rule 1175 limit’’). 

Specifically, Chapter 10 of the RACT 

analysis describes how MCAQD 

established the Section 303 standard by 

adding 0.4 pounds VOC to BAAQMD’s 

2.8 pound VOC limit. MCAQD added 

the 0.4 pounds VOC to account for 

residual VOC in finished products that 

are not stored at the WinCup Corte 

Madera manufacturing facility. WinCup 

supplied this information used to 

estimate residual VOC content in their 

finished products.4

Finally, in the appendices to the 

RACT analysis, MCAQD supplied the 

information needed to review the 2001 

pre-rule implementation VOC emissions 

baseline case, the post-rule 

implementation estimated VOC 

emissions, the resulting VOC emission 

reductions, and rule implementation 

costs. These appendices show the 

different VOC capture and destruction 

percentages that result from 

implementing the MCAQD’s control 

strategy and that ultimately allow a 

cupmaker to meet the Section 303 

standard. MCAQD’s calculations use the 

Section 303 limit as an end point for 

estimating emission reductions under 

the rule and the Section 303 limit can 

be mathematically derived from the 

information provided in the RACT 

Analysis and appendices. 

As MCAQD points out, 5 they did not 

specify precise WinCup production 

inputs, exact emission rates related to 

WinCup’s specific production processes 

or manufacturing practices, or discuss 

production figures or emission rates for 

specific WinCup product lines because 

WinCup labeled this information 

confidential. Furthermore, MCAQD 

could not present information in such a 

way as to allow a reader to derive the 

information which WinCup claimed as 

confidential. Had WinCup allowed 

MCAQD to be more forthcoming with 

this information labeled as confidential, 

the RACT Analysis and its appendices 

could have demonstrated more clearly 

the existing link between the Section 

303 emission limit and the VOC 

emissions and compliance estimates 

used in the RACT Analysis.

Contrary to the comment, MCAQD 

provides three independent rationales 

supporting the section 303 limit. First, 

similar and more stringent limits are in 

effect in other areas. Second, by using 

a reasonably available and similar 

control strategy employed by cupmakers 

to meet these similar and more stringent 

limits, it is technically feasible to meet 

the Section 303 limit. Third, the cost of 

compliance with the Section 303 limit 

is reasonable. In contrast, WinCup 

provided no evidence that compliance 

with the Section 303 limit is 

unreasonable for Maricopa County 

facilities. 

Comment #2: The Section 303 limit is 

derived from the BAAQMD Rule 8–52 

emission limit. As determined by 

BAAQMD, the Rule 8–52 limit is a Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology 

(BARCT) standard. Under California 

regulation, BARCT limits are more 

stringent than RACT limits for the same 

source. Because the Rule 8–52 limit is 

defined as BARCT, the Section 303 limit 

cannot represent RACT. 

Response #2: As discussed in 

Response #1, the Rule 8–52 limit was 

not the only basis for the Section 303 

limit. However, even if MCAQD had 

borrowed wholly from the BAAQMD 

rule, nothing in Federal law precludes 

MCAQD from adopting in Rule 358 

limits taken from other jurisdictions and 

submitting them to EPA. There are over 

a hundred state and local agencies in 

the United States that establish 

prohibitory air pollution regulations like 

Rule 358 for stationary sources of 

pollution. It is necessary and 

appropriate for these agencies to build 

on work performed by others with 

similar sources. 

EPA has defined RACT as the, 

‘‘lowest emission limitation that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of control technology 

that is reasonably available, considering 

technological and economic feasibility’’

(44 Federal Register 53762, September 

17, 1979). MCAQD has the primary 

obligation to analyze the source category 

and determine what controls are 

applicable to their jurisdiction and 

sources and part of this obligation 

involves looking at limits applied to 

similar sources in other jurisdictions.

In Rule 358, MCAQD must adopt and 

submit to EPA limits that meet our 

RACT criteria. At MCAQD’s discretion, 

they may adopt and submit to EPA 

limits that exceed our RACT criteria. We 

note that the commenter provided no 

evidence that compliance with the 

Section 303 limit is unreasonable for 

Maricopa County facilities given EPA’s 

definition of RACT. 

Also, we point out that BAAQMD 

Rule 8–52 has one set of limits intended 

fulfill both RACT and BARCT 

requirements under California law. In 

contrast, BAAQMD could have specified 

separate RACT and BARCT limits as 

they have done, for example, within 

BAAQMD Rule 9–9. However, 

BAAQMD did not do this in adopting 

Rule 8–52. 

Comment #3: MCAQD has not 

demonstrated the technical and 

economic feasibility of the Section 303 

limit based on the physical structures 

and layout of Wincup’s Maricopa 

facility. 

Response #3: It is not appropriate for 

state and local agencies to analyze the 

physical structures and layout of every 

potentially affected facility before 

adopting requirements. Instead, 

agencies consider typical facilities and 

design elements common to a class of 

facilities. 

As we outlined in Response to 

Comment #1, MCAQD did consider the 

technical and cost feasibility of 

implementing the Section 303 standard. 

MCAQD provided three independent 

rationales for the section 303 limit. 

First, in comparison to the Section 303 

limit, similar and more stringent limits 

are in effect in other areas such as 

BAAQMD and SCAQMD. Second, by 

using a reasonably available and similar 

control strategy employed by cupmakers 

to meet these similar or more stringent 

limits, it is technically feasible to meet 

the Section 303 limit. Third, the cost of 

compliance with the Section 303 limit 

is reasonable. In contrast, WinCup has 

provided no evidence that compliance 

with the Section 303 limit is technically 

or economically infeasible for their 

Phoenix facility. 

Comment #4: Under current WinCup 

operating conditions, the VOC content 

of pre-puff polystyrene fed to cup 

molding machines is 3.3 to 3.9 percent. 

Therefore, the Section 303 limit cannot 

be met by installing the control 

equipment MCAQD assigned to the 

WinCup facility in the RACT Analysis 

without changing the facility’s pre-puff 

polystyrene aging process. MCAQD 

30372 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 101 / Thursday, May 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

6See Comment and Response #24, NFRM, 

Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations 

Rule 358—Polystyrene Foam Operations, Preamble, 

Response to Comments.

7See Comment and Response #1 and 24, NFRM, 

Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations 

Rule 358—Polystyrene Foam Operations, Preamble, 

Response to Comments.

8See Comment and Response #24, NFRM, 

Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations 

Rule 358—Polystyrene Foam Operations, Preamble, 

Response to Comments.

9See Comment and Response #20, NFRM, 

Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations 

Rule 358—Polystyrene Foam Operations, Preamble, 

Response to Comments.

10Again, MCAQD is restricted from presenting 

the specific product and production volumes due 

to confidentiality strictures applied by WinCup to 

their data.

11These three elements of the SIP submittal can 

be found in the February 11, 2005 Arizona 

Administrative Register Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and the RACT Analysis, draft January 

28, 2005 at pages 42–44 and appendices A–2 and 

A–3.

failed to consider and analyze how 

WinCup might be able to change its prepuff aging processes without affecting 

product quality. This failure constitutes 

an arbitrary and capricious action. 

Response #4: MCAQD reviewed the 

current operating conditions at WinCup 

and other expandable polystyrene 

molding operations. They found that 

block makers were able to maintain 

product quality while modernizing their 

manufacturing equipment, using a lower 

VOC bead content, and installing more 

efficient VOC capture and control 

equipment. 6 MCAQD questioned 

cupmaker Dart Container Corporation 

on how it meets SCAQMD’s more 

stringent Rule 1175 limit while making 

similar high density products that 

WinCup cites as problematic in 

implementing the Section 303 limit, and 

MCAQD learned that product quality 

did not suffer due to an emission 

reduction strategy that included a prepuff polystyrene aging regime. 7

MCAQD has information from WinCup 

showing that they already mold 4.5 

pound per cubic foot density product 

from 3.0% VOC pre-puff. If WinCup 

installs a 90% efficient emission control 

system and ages the pre-puff to 2.9% 

VOC, it would meet the 3.2 pound VOC 

limit. 8 We cite this evidence presented 

by MCAQD to show that they have 

performed an analysis and have reason 

to believe that the Section 303 limit has 

been and can be met as described in the 

RACT Analysis, through aging pre-puff 

polystyrene adequately and capture and 

control of these and other VOC 

emissions prior to molding.

Also, MCAQD points out that the 

form of Section 303 limit does not 

preclude WinCup from implementing 

VOC emission controls on molding or 

storage emissions. 9 WinCup has 

presented data to MCAQD showing that 

specific products lines have molding 

losses of 0.8 pounds of VOC and storage 

losses of 1.0 pound VOC per 100 pound 

beads processed. MCAQD determined 

that these emission rates and the 

product’s production volumes are high 

enough to make capture and control of 

either of these VOC emission points 

cost-effective.10 Consequently, WinCup 

has considerable flexibility in how it 

may choose to comply with the Section 

303 limit.

Lastly, we do not believe MCAQD 

must specify exactly how WinCup will 

meet the Section 303 limit in every 

conceivable circumstance for every 

single product line without 

modification of WinCup’s current 

operating conditions before MCAQD can 

adopt and apply the Section 303 limit 

to WinCup’s operations. MCAQD need 

only perform an analysis sufficient to 

demonstrate that the Section 303 limit 

is consistent with our definition of 

RACT; that the Section 303 limit is 

reasonably available, both on a technical 

and economic basis.

Comment #5: In EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking action on Rule 358, EPA 

found complete the February 22, 2005 

SIP revision submitted to EPA by ADEQ 

using the criteria at 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, 2.3.1 (The Completeness 

Criteria). Under the Completeness 

Criteria, a SIP submittal must contain a 

fully justified basis. ADEQ’s February 

22, 2005 SIP submittal is deficient 

because it does not support a RACT 

standard for expandable polystyrene 

cup-makers. As a result, EPA must 

disapprove this SIP revision pursuant to 

40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

Response #5: The comment confuses 

EPA’s completeness finding with EPA’s 

subsequent qualitative review and 

proposed action. The Completeness 

Criteria provide a list of materials that 

a SIP revision should contain when 

submitted to EPA for review. For a few 

items on the list, a state is allowed 

discretion in determining the 

appropriateness of the criterion to the 

submittal; however, EPA may contradict 

the state’s decision in our completeness 

finding. EPA’s March 23, 2005 

completeness finding states that Arizona 

submitted the material EPA needed to 

review and take an action on the SIP 

revision. EPA is neither required by 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V, nor did we 

use it to review the technical and legal 

sufficiency of Rule 358. It is after our 

completeness finding that we determine 

whether or not the SIP submittal 

complies with the relevant federal 

requirements discussed in our TSD, 

proposal, and outlined in Response #1. 

Comment #6: EPA is required to 

review and approve the technical 

support submitted with the SIP revision. 

Among other items, the technical 

support must include quantification of 

emission changes as a result of the 

proposed SIP revision, evidence that 

emission limitations are based on 

continuous emission reduction 

technology, and any modeling required 

to support the revision (see 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V, 2.2 (c),(e), and (h)). 

Otherwise, the Section 303 limit is an 

unsupported numerical standard and 

EPA’s action to approve this SIP 

submittal is arbitrary and capricious. 

Response #6: The comment cites the 

three completeness criteria listed above 

as the basis for the deficiency described 

in Comment #5. Beyond that, the 

comment does not claim that these three 

completeness elements were missing. 

Nonetheless, in our March 23, 2005 

completeness finding, we found that 

Arizona and MCAQD submitted all the 

required elements needed for EPA to 

review the February 22, 2005 SIP 

Revision. In particular, we found that 

Arizona quantified emission changes as 

a result of the proposed SIP revision; we 

found evidence that the emission 

limitations are based on a continuous 

emission reduction technology; and, we 

found that Arizona provided modeling 

sufficient to support the revision.11 In 

the case of modeling, no ambient 

aerometric modeling or specific 

aerometric models were required for 

this rulemaking so the majority of the 

elements described within the criterion 

are not relevant. MCAQD estimated 

VOC emissions prior to and after rule 

implementation according to a specified 

control strategy. This simple modeling 

was all we required.

We point out that our March 23, 2005 

completeness finding supported our 

proposed action on Arizona’s February 

22, 2005 parallel processing request and 

SIP revision. MCAQD adopted Rule 358 

on April 20, 2005 after a lengthly public 

comment period and Arizona submitted 

a new SIP revision to complete their 

parallel processing request on April 25, 

2005. Our May 2, 2005 completeness 

finding and today’s final action concern 

this April 25, 2005 SIP submittal. In this 

submittal, we note that Arizona and 

MCAQD may submit additional 

information in support of their SIP 

revision as a result of their public 

review and comment period. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that Rule 358 

complies with the relevant CAA 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 101 / Thursday, May 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 30373

requirements. Also, because our 

proposed action was based on a parallel 

processing submittal, Maricopa 

County’s April 20, 2005 adopted version 

and subsequent submittal of Rule 358 

must be similar in meaning and content 

to the February 11, 2005 version of the 

rule published in the Arizona 

Administrative Register submitted for 

parallel processing. There are no 

substantial and meaningful differences 

between the two submitted versions of 

Rule 358. Therefore, as authorized in 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 

approving Rule 358 into the Arizona 

SIP. 

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).

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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 July 25, 2005. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Dated: May 5, 2005. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

■ Part 52, 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

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(122) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(122) A plan revision was submitted 

on April 25, 2005 by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Maricopa County Environmental 

Services Department. 

(1) Rule 358 adopted on April 20, 

2005.

[FR Doc. 05–10491 Filed 5–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[R01–OAR–2005–ME–0002; A–1–FRL–7915–

1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; 

Smaller-Scale Electric Generating 

Resources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Maine. This 

revision establishes requirements to 

reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate 

matter (PM), and carbon monoxide (CO) 

from smaller-scale electric generating 

units. The intended effect of this action 

is to approve these requirements into 

the Maine SIP. EPA is taking this action