Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; Redesignation of Phoenix to Attainment for the 1-Hour Ozone Standard, 34362-34371 [05-10792]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34362-34371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10792]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AZ131-0088; FRL-7901-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; Redesignation of 
Phoenix to Attainment for the 1-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality's submittals of revisions to the Arizona state implementation 
plan that include substitution of the clean fuel fleet program 
requirement with the cleaner burning gasoline program, adoption of the 
1-hour serious area ozone plan and adoption of the 1-hour ozone 
maintenance plan for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area. We are also approving Arizona's request to 
redesignate the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 
from nonattainment to attainment. EPA is taking these actions pursuant 
to those provisions of the Clean Air Act that obligate the agency to 
take action on submittals of revisions to state implementation plans 
and requests for redesignation.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 14, 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 and our proposed rule which was published in the 
Federal Register on March 21, 2005 are also available as electronic 
files on EPA's Region 9 Web Page at https://www.epa.gov/region09/air/
phoenixoz/.

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 https://www.epa.gov/region09/air/
phoenixoz/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,'' 
``us,'' and ``our'' mean U.S. EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13425), we published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking for the State of Arizona. The notice proposed approval of 
the State's submittals of revisions to the Arizona state implementation 
plan (SIP) for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 
and the State's redesignation request for this area from 
``nonattainment'' to ``attainment''.
    Specifically, we proposed approval of three sets of SIP revisions 
adopted and submitted to us by the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality (ADEQ). First, under sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act''), we proposed to approve the State of 
Arizona's 1998 request to ``opt-out'' of the clean fuel fleet (CFF) 
program and to approve the cleaner burning gasoline

[[Page 34363]]

(CBG) program as a substitute measure. Second, we proposed to approve, 
under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the State's 2000 submittal of the 
Final Serious Area Ozone State Implementation Plan for Maricopa County 
(``Serious Area Ozone Plan''), which provides a demonstration of 
compliance with the requirements under the CAA for the Phoenix 
metropolitan ``serious'' 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Third, we 
proposed to approve, under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and 110(k)(3), the 
State's 2004 submittal of the One-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area 
(``Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan''), which was developed 
and adopted locally by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), 
as meeting CAA requirements for redesignation requests and maintenance 
plans.
    Our proposed approval of these three sets of SIP revisions provided 
us the basis upon which to propose a finding that the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area has fully met the requirements for 
redesignation found at section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for 
redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In our proposed rule, we also noted that we would not take 
final action on the redesignation request until certain other 
separate rulemakings needed for redesignation were finalized. These 
included a direct final rule approving Maricopa County's emissions 
statement rule and a negative declaration (related to the RACT 
requirement) for fiberglass boat manufacturing (70 FR 7038, Feb. 10, 
2005), a proposed rule approving local permit conditions for W.R. 
Meadows, Inc. as meeting the RACT requirement (70 FR 13125, March 
18, 2005), and a proposed rule approving Maricopa County Rule 358 as 
meeting the RACT requirement for polystyrene foam molding operations 
(70 FR 14616, March 23, 2005). EPA received no adverse comments on 
the direct final rule and thus our approval of Maricopa County's 
emissions statement rule and a negative declaration for fiberglass 
boat manufacturing is now in effect. The Regional Administrator 
signed the final rule approving the source-specific RACT 
requirements at W.R. Meadows, Inc. on April 27, 2005 and signed the 
final rule approving Maricopa County Rule 358 on May 5, 2005. Thus, 
the three separate rulemakings that were referred to in our March 
21, 2005 proposed rule have now been finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have previously approved the principal control measures relied 
on in the Serious Area Ozone Plan and the Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan for attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS in the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area, including various 
Maricopa County Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Reasonable Available 
Control Technology (RACT) rules (see Table 3 in our proposed rule and 
footnote 1 in this notice), stage II vapor recovery requirements (see 
59 FR 54521, November 1, 1994), the area's enhanced inspection and 
maintenance program (see 68 FR 2912, January 22, 2003), and cleaner 
burning gasoline program (see 69 FR 10161, March 4, 2004).
    In addition, under section 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act, we proposed a 
revision of the boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. Upon 
reconsideration, we have decided to withdraw the March 21, 2005 
proposal as it relates to the revision of the boundary of the Phoenix 
metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and will instead address 
this issue in a separate rulemaking. We are withdrawing the boundary 
change part of the proposal because, as a result of certain errors made 
at the time of initial designation, we have decided to consider the 
boundary change pursuant to the error correction provisions of CAA 
section 110(k)(6), rather than pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(A) as 
we had proposed.
    A more complete description of Arizona's SIP revisions and 
redesignation request and the rationale for our related approvals was 
presented in our March 21, 2005 proposed rule and will not be restated 
here. The reader is referred to the proposed rule for more details.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment letter during the 30-day comment period. 
This letter, dated April 20, 2005, was submitted by the Arizona Center 
for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) on behalf of a private citizen 
and the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club. The comments and EPA 
responses are as follows:

Comment 1

    While we do not dispute that the Phoenix area has not officially 
violated the 1-hour ozone standard for the past six years, and has not 
had an exceedance since 1996, we note that several of the monitoring 
sites continue to record some very high values. Over the past two 
summers, for example, Maricopa County issued a significant number of 
ozone alerts. Thus, while the Valley has officially ``attained'' the 
one-hour standard, it has not attained the 8-hour standard and ozone 
continues to be a serious problem that requires vigilant attention.

Response 1

    EPA agrees that, while the Phoenix area has attained the 1-hour 
ozone standard, the Phoenix area continues to be designated 
``nonattainment'' for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is more stringent 
than the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23858, at 23860, 23878-23879 
(April 30, 2004). The 8-hour ozone NAAQS is not relevant to 
redesignation for the 1-hour standard, and this redesignation will not 
affect the continued nonattainment designation with respect to the 8-
hour standard. The State of Arizona will be obligated to submit further 
SIP revisions for the purpose of attaining and maintaining the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS within the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, 
notwithstanding this redesignation for the 1-hour standard. We intend 
to identify the specific additional planning and control requirements 
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in our upcoming Phase 2 
implementation rule. The action we are taking today relates only to the 
1-hour standard and does not affect the area's designation for the 8-
hour ozone standard nor the obligations that will flow from that 
designation.

Comment 2

    In the past, we have expressed concern about the adequacy of the 
Phoenix area ozone monitoring network. (See Letter dated June 19, 2000 
from Jennifer Anderson to Frances Wicher re determination of attainment 
of the one-hour standard). Thus, we were interested to learn in the 
proposed rule that changes had been made to the network. In the 
proposed rule, EPA refers to the description of the monitoring network 
in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, but then notes that 
in recent years, the network has changed and that the current 
monitoring network is comprised of fewer and different sites that 
presumably meet EPA regulations. (70 FR 13428). We were unable to 
locate anything in the rulemaking materials that described which 
monitor sites were discontinued or which sites were relocated. We are 
informed only that the number of sites has been reduced from 21 to 18 
and that locations have changed. Id.
    This is of particular concern for a couple of reasons. First, as 
noted in the proposed rule, one of the control measures implemented by 
the State as part of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan is 
the expansion of the nonattainment area. Common sense suggests that an 
expansion of the nonattainment area should lead to an increase in the 
number of monitors, not a decrease. Second, as EPA is well aware, the 
Phoenix metropolitan area continues to experience significant growth, 
both in population and

[[Page 34364]]

footprint. In particular, there are huge residential developments 
planning for the West Valley in the Buckeye area. These developments, 
some of which represent the largest master-planned communities in the 
country, will convert thousands of acres of vacant desert to commercial 
and residential development, resulting in a significant increase in the 
mobile source emissions in that area. Consequently, having sufficient 
sites that will adequately monitor the ozone in this area is critical. 
However, the information provided in the proposed rule is insufficient 
to allow us to evaluate the adequacy of the system with respect to this 
concern. We do not believe it is appropriate for EPA to approve the 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan if it does not accurately 
describe the current monitoring network.

Response 2

    The commenter incorrectly states that expansion of the 
nonattainment area is one of the control measures implemented by the 
State as part of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. We 
want to clarify that the State does not intend to expand the 1-hour 
ozone nonattainment area itself but rather to extend the applicability 
of certain control measures beyond the boundaries of the 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area to areas designated as ``unclassifiable/
attainment.'' These expanded control measures will provide additional 
support for continued maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the 
Phoenix metropolitan area.
    With respect to monitoring networks in general, we note that there 
are on-going considerations that affect the design of any network 
(i.e., number, capabilities and locations of stations that comprise the 
network) in any given year, and thus, a net decrease in the overall 
number of monitoring stations does not in itself call into question the 
utility or reliability of the monitoring network or the data it 
generates. These considerations include, among others, the existence of 
redundant monitors, the persistent measurement of low concentrations at 
a given site, and lost access to site locations. These are practical 
issues that are considered annually by air monitoring agencies as they 
conduct the Annual Monitoring Network Reviews required by EPA 
regulations at 40 CFR 58.20 and 58.25. Maricopa County has published 
its last four monitoring network reviews (2001 to 2004) on the Web at 
https://www.maricopa.gov/aq/AIRDAY/airmon.asp. The monitoring network 
reviews explain anticipated changes in the network and record actual 
changes in the network.
    With respect to the ozone monitoring network in the Phoenix area, 
changes reflect an effort undertaken several years ago by ADEQ, 
Maricopa County, Pinal County, and the tribes in the Phoenix area to 
take a more holistic view of the ozone monitoring network, in part due 
to concerns about 8-hour ozone concentrations. EPA supported this 
effort to reassess the ozone network in light of the new 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS and encouraged other areas to conduct the same type of 
assessment. The designation of the Phoenix area as an 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area caused Maricopa County Environmental Services 
Department (MCESD), ADEQ, Pinal County and the tribes to make changes 
to the monitoring network to better track ozone concentrations in the 
8-hour ozone nonattainment area, which is larger than the 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment and which includes the West Valley area.
    Specifically, the commenter notes that, in our proposal, we 
indicate that the number of ozone monitoring sites in the Phoenix 
metropolitan area had been reduced from 21 in 2002 to 18 in 2004 and 
that some locations had changed but provide no further information 
describing these changes to the monitoring network. As discussed below, 
the actual net change in the number of ozone monitoring stations from 
2002 to 2004 was from 21 stations to 20 stations. In our proposal, we 
inadvertently did not include one of the stations (i.e., the Tonto 
National Monument station) that had been listed for 2002 in our 2004 
data table, and one of the other stations that had been listed in 2002 
was in the process of being re-located during 2004 and thus was not 
included in the 2004 data table either. We note that these network 
changes are documented on an annual basis in the Annual Monitoring 
Network Reviews prepared by Maricopa County and made available to the 
public through the Web link cited above.
    With respect to the changes in the ozone monitoring network between 
2002 and 2004, we should have included the Tonto National Monument site 
in our summary of ozone data in table 1 of the proposed rule (70 FR 
13429).\2\ In that table, we did not include either the Maryvale 
station (closed in March 2004) that had been part of the 2002 network 
or the Buckeye station (to which the Maryvale station was re-located) 
in the fast-growing West Valley area because no data was gathered at 
either site for much of the 2004 ozone season (the Buckeye station 
opened in August 2004).\3\ Thus, the reduction in the number of 
stations from 21 to 18 that was cited in the proposed rule was actually 
a reduction from 21 to 20. Other changes in the network between 2002 
and 2004 included: (1) In mid-2003, the ``Surprise'' station was 
relocated due to power and access problems to another site within the 
City of Surprise referred to as the ``Dysart'' site; and (2) the ozone 
monitor at the Mesa site was permanently shut down in November 2002 to 
conserve personnel and equipment resources but also in recognition of 
the redundancy of ozone data from that particular site given that the 
Tempe station, which is merely three miles away, also monitors ozone. 
The relocation of the monitoring sites within the City of Surprise 
resulted in no net change in the number of ozone monitoring stations 
while the closing of the Mesa ozone site accounts for the net decrease 
of one station between 2002 and 2004 in the ozone monitoring network in 
the Phoenix area. We believe that the closing of a single monitoring 
station that was deemed redundant where there are still 20 monitoring 
stations remaining in operation does nothing to undermine our 
conclusion that the Phoenix area ozone monitoring network and the data 
it generates are adequate for the purposes of SIP development and 
redesignation under the Clean Air Act. Given that the data from the 
remaining 20 monitors supports a finding of attainment, EPA concludes 
that the monitoring network fully supports this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Tonto National Monument ozone monitoring site is located 
in Gila County and is operated by ADEQ. No exceedances were measured 
there during the 2002 to 2004 period (i.e., the period for which 
data is available through AQS). The highest maximum hourly reading 
over that period was 0.112 ppm.
    \3\ In 88 days of full operation in 2004, the Buckeye station 
recorded a highest maximum daily 1-hour ozone concentration of 0.088 
ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 3

    Although, in principle, we do not object to the substitution of the 
CBG program for the clean fuel fleet requirement (provided the 
requirement that the substitute program will result in at least 
equivalent reductions in ozone), recent actions by the Governor's 
office call into question the State's commitment to the CBG program in 
the long term. Just last week, the Arizona Republic reported that 
Governor Janet Napolitano intends to seek a waiver of the CBG 
requirement this coming summer due to high gas prices. See ``Napolitano 
May Seek Gas Price Relief,'' Arizona Republic, April 11, 2005. We do 
not believe that high gas

[[Page 34365]]

prices are a proper basis for such a waiver and fully anticipate the 
EPA will reject the request; however, in the article, the Governor's 
spokeswoman was quoted as saying ``[t]he governor will continue to 
hammer on the Federal Government that we need to figure this out.'' Id. 
Clearly, these comments call into question any commitments the State 
has made with respect to the CBG program and suggest that given the 
high price of gasoline (which is only expected to increase), approval 
of the State's request to opt out of the CFF requirement at this time 
may be ill-advised and short sighted. Rather than approving the CBG 
program only to field repeated waiver requests, it may be more 
appropriate for EPA to encourage the State to pursue the use of 
alternative fuels by implementing a clean fuel fleet program.

Response 3

    The commenter has not objected to the substitution of the CBG 
program for the Clean Fuel Fleet requirement, provided there is at 
least an equivalent reduction in ozone. EPA's proposed approval of the 
substitution made a demonstration of equivalency, as required by the 
CAA, and the commenter does not dispute this demonstration.
    The commenter does, however, express concern about the State's 
commitment to the CBG program, given recent publicity that the State 
has considered requesting a waiver of the CBG requirements due to 
rising gasoline prices. We note that the CBG program is a control 
measure which EPA has approved into the Arizona SIP (in a Federal 
Register notice dated February 10, 1998 and a subsequent approval 
notice dated March 4, 2004), making it a federally enforceable measure. 
There are no waiver provisions under the SIP-approved CBG program for 
the summertime (i.e., ozone season) gasoline formulation nor are any 
such waiver provisions being approved as part of this action. Thus, if 
the State wants to make revisions to, or to temporarily suspend, the 
summertime gasoline formulation requirements of the CBG program, the 
State must follow CAA requirements applicable to any SIP revision, 
including provisions of section 110(l) regarding interference with 
attainment and applicable requirements, and requirements for public 
notice and comment, and EPA must follow similar notice and comment 
requirements for its action on such a SIP revision request.
    In the past two years, the State has on several occasions requested 
and in two cases received from EPA a grant of enforcement discretion 
notifying CBG suppliers that EPA would not enforce the CBG requirements 
due to serious supply problems. In cases where EPA has granted such 
enforcement discretion, the discretion was of a temporary nature (i.e., 
30 days or less) and was granted due to emergency situations such as a 
pipeline break, which resulted in legitimate problems with getting 
supplies of CBG to the Phoenix area, and not solely due to high 
gasoline prices. Thus, the commenter's objection does not relate to the 
justification for the proposed substitution of the CBG program and does 
not undermine EPA's belief in the future validity of the program as a 
viable component of the maintenance demonstration. EPA concludes that 
the justification for approving the substitution of emissions 
reductions from the CBG program for the Clean Fuel Fleet program is 
still sound.

Comment 4

    Finally, we disagree that the Redesignation Request and Maintenance 
Plan properly includes contingency measures. As EPA acknowledges in the 
proposed rule, the measures designated as ``contingency measures'' in 
the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan are already implemented. 
According to CAA section 175A(d), the purpose of contingency provisions 
is to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the 
standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area. Obviously, if the so called ``contingency measures'' 
are already being implemented when a violation occurs, there is nothing 
to suggest that their continued implementation would ensure that the 
situation will be corrected. Rather, the Act clearly envisions 
additional measures which are automatically and immediately implemented 
if and when a violation occurs. If and when a violation occurs, the 
fact that the State did not rely upon these measures in its maintenance 
demonstration is meaningless. If a violation occurs, protection of the 
public health is paramount and the Clean Air Act contemplates and 
requires an immediate response that does not require additional EPA or 
State action. The State's commitment to adopt nonspecific additional 
contingency measures over a 15 to 21 month period if the ``trigger'' of 
at least four 0.120 ppm readings is met falls far short of this 
requirement of the Act. We believe that EPA's approval of the 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan without requiring meaningful 
and appropriate contingency provisions would be arbitrary and 
capricious and contrary to law.

Response 4

    The commenter is correct in that the contingency provisions of the 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan rely on measures that have 
already been implemented; however, we disagree that such measures, 
together with an enforceable mechanism to identify, adopt and implement 
additional contingency measures, do not suffice for the purposes of a 
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(d).
    Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that each maintenance plan 
``contain such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems 
necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation 
of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area.'' (emphasis added). First, as a general matter, we 
note that the italicized language clearly indicates that Congress 
expressly delegated authority to EPA to determine what contingency 
provisions in maintenance plans are necessary. More specifically, we 
have consistently held that section 175A(d) does not require that the 
contingency provisions developed for maintenance plan purposes contain 
fully adopted measures that will take effect (upon the occurrence of a 
given event) without further action by the State or EPA. Memorandum 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, ``Procedures for 
processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (September 4, 
1992) (``Calcagni memo'') at 12.\4\ In this regard, we distinguish the 
contingency provision requirements for maintenance plans from those for 
nonattainment plans. For the latter, the CAA requires fully adopted 
measures that will take effect (upon the occurrence of a given event) 
without further action by the

[[Page 34366]]

State or EPA. See CAA sections 172(c)(9), 182(c)(9), and 187(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The commenter has misstated the standard set by Congress for 
implementing contingency measures under section 175A as requiring 
implementation ``immediately'' and ``automatically'' after a 
violation. On the contrary, section 175A(d) provides that ``each 
plan revision submitted under this section shall contain such 
contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to 
assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the 
standard * * * .'' (emphasis added.) EPA has approved as ``prompt'' 
contingency measures under section 175A(d) that are implemented as 
soon as a year and as long as two years after being triggered. See, 
e.g., 60 FR 12459, at 12470, 12472 (March 7, 1995); 68 FR 4847, 4859 
(January 30, 2003) and 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003); and 66 FR 53094, 
at 53102-53103 (October 19, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we note that the contingency provisions in a maintenance 
plan do become an enforceable part of the SIP (upon approval by EPA) 
and that the provisions should ensure that contingency measures are 
adopted expediently once they are triggered. We believe that the 
contingency provisions in a maintenance plan should clearly identify 
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and 
implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the State. As a 
necessary part of the plan, the State should also identify specific 
indicators, or triggers, which will be used to determine when the 
contingency measures need to be implemented. Calcagni memo, page 12.
    We reviewed the contingency provisions in the Redesignation Request 
and Maintenance Plan with the above considerations in mind and found 
them acceptable. The contingency provisions in the Redesignation 
Request and Maintenance Plan identify three specific measures for 
implementation: expansion of Area A boundaries, gross polluter option 
for vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program waivers, and 
increased waiver repair limit options. See pages 3-17 and 3-18 of the 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan and 70 FR 13425, at 13438-
13439 (March 21, 2005). The Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan 
anticipates that these measures would be implemented ``early,'' \5\ and 
in fact, all of these measures have been implemented and continue to 
provide emissions reductions within the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour 
ozone nonattainment area. Although these measures have been 
implemented, they will continue to provide additional reductions in 
future years. The Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan also 
describes when these measures were adopted and how they are being 
implemented. See pages VI-18 through VI-21 in MAG's Technical Support 
Document for Ozone Modeling in Support of the One-Hour Ozone 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix Metropolitan 
Nonattainment Area, November 2003 (included as Exhibit 2 of Appendix A 
of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan). Because they were 
expected to be (and have been) implemented ``early,'' there is no need 
to identify a triggering event for them. Further, we note that none of 
the three contingency measures was needed to attain the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS nor are they relied upon for the purposes of the maintenance 
demonstration.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In this instance, ``early'' refers to measures that are 
implemented prior to occurrence of a triggering event, such as a 
NAAQS violation, during the maintenance period.
    \6\ We also note that Arizona has not chosen to deactivate, and 
place in reserve, any SIP control measures as part of this 
redesignation request for the 1-hour ozone standard in the Phoenix 
metropolitan area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The positive effects of these contingency measures are continuing 
in nature, and are surplus, permanent and federally enforceable. The 
continuing reduction credits from the contingency measures are, in 
effect, set aside to be applied in the event that maintenance is not 
achieved. EPA has historically allowed early reductions under section 
172(c)(9)--that is, reductions achieved before the contingency measure 
is ``triggered''--to be used as contingency measures, because if it did 
not do so it would discourage areas from implementing ``all reasonably 
available control measures as expeditiously as practicable'' as 
required by CAA section 172(c)(1). See also the August 13, 1993 
memorandum: ``Early Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone 
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas.'' Were areas to hold such 
measures in reserve to serve as contingency measures, EPA would approve 
them. EPA sees only air quality benefits in allowing areas to implement 
such measures early and to get additional reductions in advance, 
potentially preventing any future violations.
    We believe that it would be illogical to penalize maintenance areas 
that are taking extra steps (i.e., through ``early'' implementation of 
contingency measures) to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS by requiring 
them to adopt yet additional contingency measures now to backfill for 
the early activation of contingency measures.\7\ Our interpretation of 
the contingency measure requirement and acceptance of ``early'' 
implementation of contingency measures in fulfillment of that 
requirement under section 172(c)(9) was recently upheld by the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. See La. Envtl. Action Network v. United 
States Envtl. Protection Agency, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004) (EPA 
approval of contingency measures vacated on different grounds). In the 
La. Envtl. Action Network case, the court stated, ``Here, the EPA's 
allowance of early reductions to be used as contingency measures 
comports with a primary purpose of the CAA--the aim of ensuring that 
nonattainment areas reach NAAQS compliance in an efficient manner--and 
necessary requirements of the CAA.'' Id at 581. While the La. Envtl. 
Action Network case specifically addressed the nonattainment plan 
contingency measure requirements under section 172(c)(9), we would 
expect a court to apply similar logic in reviewing EPA's acceptance of 
``early implementation'' of contingency measures under section 175A(d) 
in support of the aim of ensuring that attainment areas continue to 
maintain the NAAQS as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In prior rulemakings, we have approved other maintenance 
plans that include contingency measures that will be implemented 
``early.'' See the San Francisco Bay area 1-hour ozone maintenance 
plan [NPRM: 59 FR 49361 at 49368-49369 (September 28, 1994); FR: 60 
FR 27028 (May 22, 1995)] and the Salt Lake City carbon monoxide 
maintenance plan [Direct Final Rule: 64 FR 3216, at 3221 (January 
21, 1999)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, if an area experiences a NAAQS violation despite early 
implementation of contingency measures, then additional contingency 
measures would be needed to promptly correct the violation, and the 
contingency provisions of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance 
Plan provide a mechanism under which such additional measures will be 
identified, adopted and implemented. This procedure is triggered by the 
occurrence of a fourth highest daily maximum hourly measurement 
exceeding 0.120 (at any given station over a three-year period) whereby 
additional measures (i.e., in addition to those already implemented) 
will be considered.\8\ Once the triggering event occurs, the 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan establishes that (1) 
verification of the monitoring data is to be completed within three 
months of the triggering event; (2) the additional measure is to be 
considered for adoption six months after verification of the data (nine 
months after the triggering event); and (3) the measure is to be 
implemented within six to 12 months after adoption, i.e., 15 to 21 
months after the triggering event. The Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan does not identify the specific additional measures 
that would be adopted and implemented but notes that the existing 
contingency measures may be strengthened to provide additional

[[Page 34367]]

emissions reductions as needed. This mechanism provides further 
assurance that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS will not be violated after 
redesignation of the Phoenix metropolitan area to attainment (by 
establishing a triggering event short of a violation) but that, if such 
a violation were to occur, it will be promptly corrected. The selection 
of a triggering event short of a violation would allow the State ``to 
take early action to address potential violations of the NAAQS before 
they occur.'' Calcagni memo, page 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We note that the procedure established in the Redesignation 
Request and Maintenance Plan for developing additional contingency 
measures is triggered prior to the occurrence of either an 
exceedance or a violation and therefore is consistent with the 
principle of maintaining the NAAQS. Exceedances occur when the daily 
maximum value equals or exceeds 0.125 ppm, and a violation occurs 
when the expected number of exceedances-days per calender year 
averaged over the past three calendar years is equal to or less than 
1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter appears to assert that it is possible that a 
violation could occur of such severity that the contingency provisions 
would be insufficient, and therefore inadequate. This interpretation of 
the statute is unreasonable. EPA cannot expect Arizona to provide 
contingency provisions that, by themselves, address every hypothetical 
violation of the NAAQS, no matter how severe. The State is not 
compelled to develop contingency provisions that are capable of 
addressing any imaginable violation, no matter how severe. EPA is 
applying a reasonable interpretation, considering the contingency 
provisions in the context of a reasonable range of possible violations. 
In the event that the specified contingency measures are less than is 
necessary to avoid a violation, Arizona has committed to adopt and 
implement additional measures. Moreover, it is evident in section 
110(k)(5), as well as within section 175A(d) itself, that Congress 
contemplated that there may be situations in which the contingency 
provisions are insufficient to address a violation. Section 110(k)(5) 
authorizes EPA to require a State to revise its SIP where EPA finds 
that the SIP is substantially inadequate to maintain the NAAQS. The 
final sentence of section 175A(d) contemplates that EPA may, in its 
discretion, determine that a violation of the NAAQS requires a revision 
to the State SIP. Had Congress intended contingency provisions to 
successfully address every conceivable violation of the standard, 
additional revisions to the SIP in response to a violation of the NAAQS 
would be unnecessary. Thus, we continue to believe that the contingency 
provisions in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, including 
both specific contingency measures that have already been implemented 
as well as a mechanism for identifying, adopting and implementing 
additional contingency measures, fully comply with the statutory 
requirements of such provisions under section 175A(d) of the Act.

III. EPA's Final Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the 
State of Arizona's ``opt-out'' request, serious area plan, maintenance 
plan and redesignation request for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour 
ozone nonattainment area comply with the CAA and EPA regulations. 
Therefore, under the Clean Air Act, we are fully approving three sets 
of revisions to the Arizona SIP that have been submitted to us in 
connection with the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment 
area and the State's redesignation request for this area from 
``nonattainment'' to ``attainment.''
    First, under sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) of the CAA, we are 
approving the State of Arizona's 1998 submittal of a request to ``opt-
out'' of the Clean Fuel Fleet program and to approve the cleaner 
burning gasoline (CBG) program as a substitute measure.
    Second, under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are approving the 
State's 2000 submittal of the Serious Area Ozone Plan as meeting the 
applicable requirements for serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. 
As part of our overall approval of the Serious Area Ozone Plan, we 
approve the following specific plan elements:
     Periodic (ozone season) inventory update for 1996 as 
required under section 182(a)(3)(A); and
     Enhanced monitoring as required under section 182(c)(1).
    Third, under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and 110(k)(3), we are approving 
the State's 2004 submittal of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance 
Plan as meeting CAA requirements for redesignation requests and 
maintenance plans under sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A and are 
redesignating the Phoenix metropolitan area from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In this regard, we find that:
     The Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 
has continued to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based on quality-assured 
data for the years 2002 through 2004 (thus, certain requirements of 
title I, part D, as set forth in the proposed notice at 70 FR 13431-
13432 (March 21, 2005), including the attainment demonstration, non-
RACT reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable further 
progress, contingency measures, and other related requirements, 
continue to be inapplicable to the area); \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA has previously determined that the Phoenix metropolitan 
1-hour ozone nonattainment area had attained the 1-hour NAAQS and, 
based on that determination, that certain CAA requirements would not 
be applicable so long as the area continued to attain. See 66 FR 
29230 (May 30, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The SIP for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area has been fully approved by EPA under section 110(k);
     The improvement in air quality is due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of 
the SIP (principally, the VOC RACT rules, stage II vapor recovery 
rules, the enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program, and the 
cleaner burning gasoline program), and applicable Federal air pollution 
control regulations;
     The Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan meets the 
requirements of section 175A of the CAA;
     The State of Arizona has met all requirements applicable 
to the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area under 
section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA; and
     For the reasons described in the proposal, the State has 
satisfied all of the requirements for redesignation under section 
107(d)(3)(E).
    As part of our overall approval of the Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan, we approve the following specific plan elements:
     Periodic (ozone season) inventory update for 1999 as 
required under section 182(a)(3)(A);
     1998 and 1999 base cases (episodic), 2006 interim year, 
and 2015 maintenance year emissions inventories and maintenance 
demonstration;
     Implementation of the following control measures for 
maintenance purposes: CARB Phase 2 and Federal Phase II Reformulated 
Gasoline with a maximum 7 psi vapor pressure requirement from May 
through September, coordination of traffic signal systems, tougher 
enforcement of vehicle registration and emission test compliance, one-
time waiver from vehicle emissions test, development of intelligent 
transportation systems, phased-in emission test cutpoints, and Maricopa 
County Rule 348 (related to aerospace manufacturing and rework 
operations).
     Contingency provisions, including the following measures: 
expansion of Area A boundaries, gross polluter option for I/M program 
waivers, and increased waiver repair limit options, as well as a 
mechanism (based on ambient ozone concentration readings) for 
triggering consideration of additional (or strengthened) contingency 
measures;

[[Page 34368]]

     Commitments by ADEQ and the Maricopa County Environmental 
Services Department (MCESD) to continue to operate an appropriate air 
quality monitoring network of National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) 
and State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in accordance with 
40 CFR part 58 to verify continued attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
standard;
     Commitment by Maricopa County to prepare periodic emission 
inventories every three years in coordination with ADEQ, the Arizona 
Department of Transportation, and MAG (this commitment extends to a 
review and evaluation of changes in the inventory through the regional 
air quality planning process to determine if additional measures should 
be considered);
     Commitment by MAG to prepare a revised maintenance plan 
eight years after redesignation to attainment; and
     VOC and NOX motor vehicle emissions budgets 
(corresponding to a weekday in August) for transportation conformity 
purposes under CAA section 176(c): 71.9 metric tons per day (mtpd) for 
VOC and 104.8 mtpd for NOX in 2006 and 48.7 mtpd for VOC and 
53.6 mtpd for NOX in 2015.
    Lastly, as noted above, we are withdrawing the March 21, 2005 
proposal as it relates to the revision of the boundary of the Phoenix 
metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River 
Indian Reservation and will instead address this issue in a separate 
rulemaking.
    EPA finds that there is good cause for approval of this 
redesignation to attainment and SIP revision to become effective 
immediately upon publication because a delayed effective date is 
unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment which 
relieves the area from certain Clean Air Act requirements that would 
otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this 
redesignation is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which 
provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days 
after publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or 
relieves a restriction'' and section 553(d)(3), which allows an 
effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise 
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the 
rule.''

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 
redesignates the area to attainment for air quality planning purposes 
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.
    As indicated above, EPA had proposed to revise the boundary of the 
Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the 
Gila River Indian Reservation, but has decided to withdraw that part of 
the proposal and to address the boundary issue in a separate 
rulemaking. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA has communicated this 
change to representatives of the Gila River Indian Community and 
explained our rationale for withdrawing the proposal and conducting a 
separate rulemaking. EPA finds that this action, which no longer 
includes the boundary change, will neither impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Thus, 
the requirements of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do 
not apply to this rule.
    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 redesignates the area to attainment for the 
purposes of air quality planning 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 as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency 
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to 
children.
    In reviewing SIP submissions and redesignation requests, EPA's role 
is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria 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 or redesignation 
request for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission or 
redesignation request, 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.).

[[Page 34369]]

    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 August 15, 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: May 20, 2005.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

0
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(123), (c)(124), 
and (c)(125) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (123) The following plan was submitted on December 7, 1998, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Letter and enclosures regarding Arizona's Intent to ``Opt-out'' 
of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program, adopted by the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality on December 7, 1998.
    (124) The following plan was submitted on December 14, 2000, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Final Serious Area Ozone State Implementation Plan for Maricopa 
County, dated December 2000, adopted by the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality on December 14, 2000.
    (125) The following plan was submitted on April 21, 2004, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) One-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for 
the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area, dated March 2004, adopted by 
the Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Council on March 26, 
2004 and adopted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on 
April 21, 2004.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  81.303, the table entitled ``Arizona--Ozone (1-Hour 
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Phoenix Area to 
read as follows:


Sec.  81.303  Arizona

* * * * *

                                        Arizona--Ozone (1-Hour Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Designation                      Classification
              Designated area               --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Date                 Type                  Date         Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix Area:
    Maricopa County (part)                       6/14/05  Attainment
The Urban Planning Area of the Maricopa
 Association of Government is bounded as
 follows:
    1. Commencing at a point which is the
     intersection of the eastern line of
     Range 7 East, Gila and Salt River
     Baseline and Meridian, and the
     southern line of Township 2 South,
     said point is the southeastern corner
     of the Maricopa Association of
     Governments Urban Planning Area, which
     is the point of beginning;
    2. Thence, proceed northerly along the
     eastern line of Range 7 East which is
     the common boundary between Maricopa
     and Pinal Counties, as described in
     Arizona Revised Statute Section 11-
     109, to a point where the corner line
     of Range 7 East intersects the
     northern line of Township 1 North,
     said point is also the intersection of
     the Maricopa County Line and the Tonto
     National Forest Boundary, as
     established by Executive Order 869
     dated July 1, 1908, as amended and
     shown on the U.S. Forest Service 1969
     Planimetric Maps;
    3. Thence, westerly along the northern
     line of Township 1 North to
     approximately the southwest corner of
     the southeast quarter of Section 35,
     Township 2 North, Range 7 East, said
     point being the boundary of the Tonto
     National Forest and Usery Mountain
     Semi-Retional Park;

[[Page 34370]]

 
    4. Thence, northerly along the Tonto
     National Forest Boundary, which is
     generally the western line of the east
     half of Sections 26 and 35 of Township
     2 North, Range 7 East, to a point
     which is where the quarter section
     line intersects with the northern line
     of Section 26, Township 2 North, Range
     7 East, said point also being the
     southast corner of the Usery Mountain
     Semi-Regional Park;
    5. Thence, westerly along the Tonto
     National Forest Boundary, which is
     generally the south line of Sections
     19, 20, 21 and 22 and the southern
     line of the west half of Section 23,
     Township 2 North, Range 7 East, to a
     point which is the southwest corner of
     Section 19, Township 2 North, Range 7
     East;
    6. Thence, northerly along the Tonto
     National Forest Boundary to a point
     where the Tonto National Forest
     Boundary intersects with the eastern
     boundary of the Salt River Indian
     Reservation, generally described as
     the center line of the Salt River
     Channel;
    7. Thence, northeasterly and northerly
     along the common boundary of the Tonto
     National Forest and the Salt River
     Indian Reservation to a point which is
     the northeast corner of the Salt River
     Indian Reservation and the southeast
     corner of the Fort McDowell Indian
     Reservation, as shown on the plat
     dated July 22, 1902, and recorded with
     the U.S. Government on June 15, 1902;
    8. Thence, northeasterly along the
     common boundary between the Tonto
     National Forest and the Fort McDowell
     Indian Reservation to a point which is
     the northeast corner of the Fort
     McDowell Indian Reservation;
    9. Thence, southwesterly along the
     northern boundary of the Fort McDowell
     Indian Reservation, which line is a
     common boundary with the Tonto
     National Forest, to a point where the
     boundary intersects with the eastern
     line of Section 12, Township 4 North,
     Range 6 East;
    10. Thence, northerly along the eastern
     line of Range 6 East to a point where
     the eastern line of Range 6 East
     intersects with the southern line of
     Township 5 North, said line is the
     boundary between the Tonto National
     Forest and the east boundary of
     McDowell Mountain Regional Park;
    11. Thence, westerly along the southern
     line of Township 5 North to a point
     where the southern line intersects
     with the eastern line of Range 5 East
     which line is the boundary of Tonto
     National Forest and the north boundary
     of McDowell Mountain Regional Park;
    12. Thence, northerly along the eastern
     line of Range 5 East to a point where
     the eastern line of Range 5 East
     intersects with the northern line of
     Township 5 North, which line is the
     boundary of the Tonto National Forest;
    13. Thence, westerly along the northern
     line of Township 5 North to a point
     where the northern line of Township 5
     North intersects with the easterly
     line of Range 4 East, said line is the
     boundary of Tonto National Forest;
    14. Thence, northerly along the eastern
     line of Range 4 East to a point where
     the eastern line of Range 4 East
     intersects with the northern line of
     Township 6 North, which line is the
     boundary of the Tonto National Forest;
    15. Thence, westerly along the northern
     line of Township 6 North to a point of
     intersection with the Maricopa-Yavapai
     County line, which is generally
     described in Arizona Revised Statute
     Section 11-109 as the center line of
     the Aqua Fria River (Also the north
     end of Lake Pleasant);
    16. Thence, southwesterly and southerly
     along the Maricopa-Yavapai County line
     to a point which is described by
     Arizona Revised Statute Section 11-109
     as being on the center line of the
     Aqua Fria River, two miles southerly
     and below the mouth of Humbug Creek;
    17. Thence, southerly along the center
     line of Aqua Fria River to the
     intersection of the center line of the
     Aqua Fria River and the center line of
     Beardsley Canal, said point is
     generally in the northeast quarter of
     Section 17, Township 5 North, Range 1
     East, as shown on the U.S. Geological
     Survey's Baldy Mountain, Arizona
     Quadrangle Map, 7.5 Minute series
     (Topographic), dated 1964;
    18. Thence, southwesterly and southerly
     along the center line of Beardsley
     Canal to a point which is the center
     line of Beardsley Canal where it
     intersects with the center line of
     Indian School Road;
    19. Thence, westerly along the center
     line of West Indian School Road to a
     point where the center line of West
     Indian School Road intersects with the
     center line of North Jackrabbit Trail;
    20. Thence, southerly along the center
     line of Jackrabbit Trail approximately
     nine and three-quarter miles to a
     point where the center line of
     Jackrabbit Trail intersects with the
     Gila River, said point is generally on
     the north-south quarter section line
     of Section 8, Township 1 South, Range
     2 West;
    21. Thence, northeasterly and easterly
     up the Gila River to a point where the
     Gila River intersects with the
     northern extension of the western
     boundary of Estrella Mountain Regional
     Park, which point is generally the
     quarter corner of the northern line of
     Section 31, Township 1 North, Range 1
     West;

[[Page 34371]]

 
    22. Thence, southerly along the
     extension of the western boundary and
     along the western boundary of Estrella
     Mountain Regional Park to a point
     where the southern extension of the
     western boundary of Estrella Mountain
     Regional Park intersects with the
     southern line of Township 1 South;
    23. Thence, easterly along the southern
     line of Township 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;
    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;
    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 Statutes Section 11-109 and 11-
     113, which is the eastern line of
     Range 1 East;
    26. Thence, northerly along the eastern
     boundary of Range 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;
    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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-10792 Filed 6-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P