[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34362-34371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/phoenixoz/index.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (520) 622-1622, e-mail:
[email protected], or refer to http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/phoenixoz/index.html.
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
http://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