[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 9, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11553-11560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4585]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AZ104-0083; FRL-7875-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 
serious area carbon monoxide (CO) state implementation plan (SIP) for 
the Maricopa County CO nonattainment area, also referred to as ``the 
metropolitan Phoenix area'', as meeting the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
requirements for serious CO nonattainment areas. We are also approving 
the MAG CO Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa 
County CO nonattainment area as meeting CAA requirements for 
redesignation requests and maintenance plans. In addition, we are 
making a boundary change under Section 107 of the CAA to take the Gila 
River Indian Community (GRIC) out of the Maricopa County maintenance 
area. The portion of the Gila River Indian Community which is currently 
in the Maricopa County CO nonattainment area will be ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' for CO, and will not be subject to the MAG CO 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan.

DATE: Effective Date: This rule is effective April 8, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at EPA 
Region 9's Air Planning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Due to increased security, we suggest that 
you call at least 24 hours prior to visiting the Regional Office so 
that we can make arrangements to have someone meet you.

Electronic Availability

    This document, our proposed rule which was published in the Federal 
Register on October 8, 2004, and the technical support document (TSD) 
are also available as electronic files on EPA's Region 9 Web page at 
http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/phxco/index.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (520) 622-1622, e-mail: 
[email protected], or refer to http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/phxco/index.html.

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

Table of Contents

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

I. Summary of EPA's Final Action

    On October 8, 2004 (69 FR 60328), we published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking for the State of Arizona. The notice proposed approval of 
revisions to the SIP for the Maricopa County CO nonattainment area. 
These revisions to the SIP were adopted by the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Today, we are finalizing our proposal to 
approve the MAG serious area SIP for attainment of the CO air quality 
standard in the Maricopa County area. This action is based on our 
determination that this SIP complies with the CAA's requirements for 
attaining the CO standard in serious CO nonattainment areas such as the 
metropolitan Phoenix area.
    We are also approving the MAG CO Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County CO nonattainment area as 
meeting CAA requirements for redesignation requests and maintenance 
plans.
    We are also making a boundary correction under Section 107 of the 
CAA for the Gila River Indian Community.

II. Response to Comments

    We received three comments (two via electronic mail (e-mail) and 
one written letter) during the official comment

[[Page 11554]]

period for the October 8, 2004, proposal. Two comments were dated 
October 19, 2004, and one comment was dated November 8, 2004. In 
addition to these comments, we received three e-mails submitted after 
signature but prior to publication of the proposal in the Federal 
Register, two on September 22 and one on September 24, 2004. Since 
these e-mails raise the same issues as the comments submitted after 
publication, we discuss and respond to all of them below. The September 
24, 2004, e-mail was submitted directly to EPA Administrator Michael 
Leavitt's office and was referred to EPA Region 9 for a response. We 
determined that the correspondence should be treated as public comment, 
and respond to it here. (This commentor also sent comments directly to 
Region 9 on September 22 and 24, 2004). We also received a letter of 
support from ADEQ regarding the boundary change for the Gila River 
Indian Community. We respond to the comments below in the order we 
received them.

E-Mails Submitted to EPA Prior to the Public Comment Period

    We received three e-mails before the October 8 publication of the 
proposed action--two on September 22, and one on September 24 to 
Administrator Leavitt. These e-mails, however, solely raise issues 
unrelated to the action being taken by EPA.
    Comment. The first e-mail received on September 22 stated that the 
Central Phoenix light rail project will increase the production of air 
pollutants due to the prohibition of left turns from certain streets 
where the trolley tracks will exist. The e-mail refers to an ``Air 
Quality Technical Report'', and states that 75 percent of the vehicles 
in the Phoenix vehicle mix will be cars, and 20 percent will be light 
trucks. This e-mail also refers to a ``New Starts Report for 2004'', 
dated December 2003. This report appears to refer to the projected use 
of the light rail trains.
    Response. Our action in this notice will not have any impact 
whatsoever on the Central Phoenix light rail project.
    Comment. This e-mail also states that the Phoenix area is not in 
conformity with ozone and PM-10 standards, and that the growth in VMT 
has exceeded population growth.
    Response. Our action today only concerns carbon monoxide, not ozone 
or PM-10. Our approval is based on both monitored data indicating no 
violations of the CO standard in the past seven years and modeling 
which indicates no expected violations of the CO standard to the year 
2015. While growth in VMT has exceeded population growth in Phoenix and 
other fast-growing metropolitan areas, tailpipe emissions standards at 
the national level and the use of cleaner-burning fuels and other 
emissions control measures at the local level have reduced CO emissions 
sufficiently to attain and maintain Federal ambient air quality 
standards.
    Comment. The e-mail refers to the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS), stating that the FEIS shows that the light rail 
project will not reduce traffic congestion or the production of air 
pollutants in the light rail corridor. This e-mail comments that ISTEA 
and TEA-21 legislation call for making transit more efficient, and the 
commenter does not believe the Phoenix light rail will increase speeds 
in the light rail corridor, and will not yield much farebox revenue 
when compared to the cost of moving light rail passengers.
    Response. Our action today concerns the MAG serious area CO SIP for 
the Maricopa County CO nonattainment area and the MAG CO Redesignation 
Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County CO nonattainment 
area. The FEIS for the Phoenix light rail project is completely 
unrelated to this action.
    Comment. The second e-mail from September 22 states that while MAG 
reports no violations of the CO standard since 1996, the most recent 
statistics haven't been applied to air quality modeling, and that the 
light rail trolley hasn't been properly factored in.
    Response. The Maricopa County CO nonattainment area has monitored 
clean data every year between 1996 and 2003. This fact was reflected in 
our finding of attainment published on September 22, 2003, for the 
Maricopa County CO nonattainment area (see 68 FR 55008). MAG's 
transportation and emissions modeling includes the implementation of 
light rail.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Telephone conversation with Cathy Arthur, Maricopa 
Association of Governments, November 19, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment. The e-mail which was sent to EPA Administrator Leavitt on 
September 24 states that there is no reason to believe that the air 
quality in the Phoenix area currently conforms to Federal standards for 
CO.
    Response. Monitoring data gathered by ADEQ and Maricopa County 
indicate that the Maricopa County CO nonattainment area has not had a 
violation of the CO standard since 1996. The area is now in attainment 
for the CO Federal health-based standard for CO, based on data from the 
years 1999 and 2000. We noted this in our finding of attainment (see 68 
FR 55008, page 55009, 3rd column).
    Comment. The September 24 e-mail also states that our finding of 
attainment of the CO standard for the Maricopa County nonattainment 
area (68 FR 55008) reflects only data through 1999.
    Response. The finding of attainment was based on monitoring data 
from the years 1999 and 2000 because 2000 was the attainment year for 
the Maricopa County serious CO nonattainment area. (See 68 FR 55008, 
September 22, 2003.) Section 179(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act provides 
that attainment determinations are to be based upon an area's ``air 
quality as of the attainment date''. Monitoring data gathered by ADEQ 
and Maricopa County since that time indicate that the Maricopa County 
CO nonattainment area has not had a violation of the CO standard since 
1996, so current data have been reviewed and taken into account in our 
action today.
    Comment. The September 24 e-mail questions how the CO standard can 
be met given the rapid increase in population and an even faster 
increase in VMT in the Maricopa County nonattainment area. The e-mail 
states that Maricopa County's population has been increasing 45 percent 
every 10 years in recent decades.
    Response. MAG's data estimate about a 32 percent increase in 
population between 2004 and 2015. As indicated in the Appendix to the 
MAG CO Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, while VMT doubles 
between 1995 and 2015, CO emissions decrease. MAG's models properly 
account for the growth in VMT.

E-Mails Submitted to EPA During the Public Comment Period

    Comment. The first e-mail dated October 19, 2004, asks how it can 
be possible to reduce CO emissions by half by 2015 assuming 1.2 million 
additional residents, 700,000-800,000 more vehicles, and additional 
airplanes and diesel trucks in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
    Response. MAG's modeling estimates a 14 percent reduction in CO 
between 1994 and 2015 and is sufficient to maintain the ambient air 
quality standard for CO. Tier 2 emissions standards, cleaner burning 
gasoline, and other measures provide reductions which outweigh the 
increases in emissions due to vehicle miles travelled.
    Comment. The first October 19 e-mail refers to a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in an air quality conformity 
report.
    Response. This comment is not relevant to today's action.

[[Page 11555]]

    Comment. This same e-mail questioned the CO reductions attributed 
to oxidants and sulfur in fuel, again in a DEIS.
    Response. It is not clear which project DEIS is referred to by the 
commenter. MAG used the MOBILE6 model, which is the model EPA requires 
all states except California to use for SIP development. The MOBILE 
model accounts for fuel properties such as oxidants and sulfur, and 
reduces the effects of oxidants on CO emissions over time. Most newer 
cars are equipped with electronic fuel injection systems that generally 
automatically compensate for the proper air-to-fuel mixture to reduce 
CO emissions.
    Comment. This same e-mail refers to a ``new standard for CO'' that 
requires an 8-hour test, and refers to calm days in the summer when CO 
could be a problem.
    Response. There is no new standard for CO; we assume the comment 
refers to the new 8-hour ozone standard. CO tends to be a wintertime 
problem, and CO emissions do not tend to be high in the summer.
    Comment. The letter we received on October 19 via U.S. Mail 
questioned our proposed boundary change for the Gila River Indian 
Reservation. This letter indicated that the Gila River Indian Community 
is planning a large truck stop along the Reservation border with the 
Phoenix metropolitan area, as well as substantial development along the 
northern border of the reservation.
    Response. Our proposal to change the boundary of the Phoenix CO 
maintenance area to remove GRIC was based on monitored air quality 
data, current emissions levels and sources, and planning 
considerations. The commenter has not provided any reliable facts about 
development on the Gila River Indian Reservation that would affect 
ambient CO concentrations to a degree sufficient to violate the NAAQS. 
In particular, diesel trucks idling at a truck stop would emit 
primarily particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides, not CO. GRIC 
Department of Environmental Quality staff have indicated they are 
looking into truck stop electrification to reduce the impacts of idling 
trucks.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Telephone conservation with Janet Travis, GRIC DEQ, December 
2, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment. The October 19 letter also questioned whether EPA 
established air quality monitoring stations on the Reservation or 
whether we relied on data from the GRIC. The e-mail asserts that the 
monitors and data were distorted for the purpose of attaining the 
boundary change.
    Response. The commenter has provided only speculation, without any 
reliable facts to substantiate the claim.
    Comment. Finally, the October letter asserts that the entire 
premise of a status change is faulty and biased.
    Response. As stated earlier, the commenter has provided only 
speculation, without any reliable facts to substantiate the claim.
    Comment. The e-mail dated November 8 asserts that MAG's 
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long Range Transportation 
Plan (LRTP) are deficient and not worthy of CO redesignation. The e-
mail also raises a concern that the public needs to be protected in 
fast-growing areas like Maricopa County, and states that CMAQ funding 
should not be used for the Central Phoenix Light Rail Project.
    Response. This comment raises issues unrelated to EPA's action. Our 
proposed approval of MAG's CO redesignation request and maintenance 
plan is an action on MAG's SIP revision, not on the TIP or LRTP. MAG 
has demonstrated through air quality modeling that the Maricopa County 
CO nonattainment area will stay below federal air quality standards 
until 2015. In this way, public health will be protected.
    Regarding CMAQ funding, while EPA may review and comment on CMAQ 
funding proposals, final funding decisions are made by other agencies.
    Comment. The November 8 e-mail also states that MAG uses flawed and 
old models, referring to the base year 1994 inventory which MAG used, 
EPA's MOBILE6 model, and the CO Complex model. This e-mail also states 
that oxygenated fuels increase aldehydes.
    Response. While MAG used a base year 1994 inventory, the 
redesignation request and maintenance plan also contains emissions 
inventories for 1998, 1999, 2006, and 2015. We have reviewed these 
inventories and have found them to be complete, accurate, and current. 
EPA's MOBILE6 model is the model required to be used by all states 
except California for SIP development. Studies of air toxics from 
sources such as gasoline are currently underway at the national level, 
but there is currently no health standard for aldehydes.
    Comment. This same e-mail states that the rapid growth in the MAG 
region will increase VMT, and that MAG's computer models do not 
properly incorporate these factors.
    Response. As indicated in the Appendix to the MAG CO Redesignation 
Request and Maintenance Plan, while VMT doubles between 1995 and 2015, 
CO emissions decrease. MAG's models properly account for this growth in 
VMT.

III. EPA's Final Action

    In today's action, we are approving the MAG Serious Area CO SIP for 
the Maricopa County CO nonattainment area and the MAG CO Redesignation 
Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County CO nonattainment 
area. We have evaluated the submitted SIP revisions and have determined 
that they are consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations.
    We are approving the following elements of the Revised 1999 CO Plan 
for the metropolitan Phoenix area and the MAG CO Redesignation Request 
and Maintenance Plan into the Arizona SIP:
    1. 1990 base year and 1993 and 1996 periodic emission inventories 
as required by sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(5).
    2. Demonstration that the plan provides for the implementation of 
reasonably available control measures including transportation control 
measures under sections 172(c)(1) and 187(b)(2);
    3. Demonstration of attainment by December 31, 2000, under section 
187(a)(7);
    4. Demonstration of reasonable further progress under sections 
172(c)(2) and 187(a)(7);
    5. Contingency measures under sections 172(c)(9) and 187(a)(3);
    6. Forecasts of vehicle miles traveled and provisions for annual 
tracking and reporting under section 187(a)(2)(A);
    7. Transportation control measures as necessary to offset growth in 
emissions under section 187(b)(2);
    8. Attainment year and projected emissions inventories under 
section 175A;
    9. Air quality monitoring requirements under section 110(a)(2) and 
section 172(c)(7);
    10. CO motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation 
conformity under section 176(c) for the attainment demonstration and 
the maintenance plan for the years 2000, 2006 and 2015 under the 
transportation conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93, subpart A;
    12. Demonstration of maintenance under section 175A(a) and a fully-
approved maintenance plan under section 175A;
    13. Maintenance plan contingency measures under section 175A(d);
    14. Commitment for subsequent maintenance plan revisions under 
section 175A(b);
    15. Redesignation of that portion of the Gila River Indian 
Reservation that is now within the nonattainment area to 
``nonclassifiable/attainment'; and

[[Page 11556]]

    16. A determination that the improvement in air quality in the 
Maricopa County nonattainment area is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from the implementation of the 
applicable implementation plan, implementation of applicable Federal 
air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions.
    We have previously approved the principal control measures relied 
on for attainment and contingency measures in the Revised 1999 CO Plan, 
including the area's enhanced inspection and maintenance program 
(required by section 187(a)(6)), oxygenated gasoline program (required 
by sections 187(b)(3) and 211(m)), and woodburning curtailment 
regulations. See 68 FR 2912, 69 FR 10161, 64 FR 60678 and 67 FR 52416.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation 
plan. Each request for revision to a state implementation plan shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    Under section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with 
tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed 
regulation. Under section 5(c) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not 
issue a regulation that has tribal implications and that preempts 
tribal law, unless the Agency consults with tribal officials early in 
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    EPA has concluded that this final rule may have tribal 
implications. EPA's action will remove the Gila River Indian Community 
from the Phoenix CO maintenance area. However, it will neither impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt 
State law. Thus, the requirements of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the 
Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
    Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with 
representatives of tribal governments early in the process of 
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely 
input into its development. Representatives of tribal governments 
approached EPA two years ago and requested that EPA make this boundary 
change. We agree with the technical and policy rationale the tribe 
provided, and believe that all tribal concerns have been met. Moreover, 
in the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy 
to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA 
specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from tribal 
officials.
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air 
Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 9, 2005. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to

[[Page 11557]]

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: January 3, 2005.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.


0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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
1. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(118) and (c)(119) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (118) The following plan was submitted on March 30, 2001, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the 
Maricopa County Nonattainment Area, dated March 2001, adopted by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on March 30, 2001.
    (119) The following plan was submitted on June 16, 2003, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) MAG Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan 
for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area and Appendices, dated May 
2003, adopted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on 
June 16, 2003.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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--Carbon Monoxide'' is 
amended by revising the entry for the Phoenix Area to read as follows:


Sec.  81.303  Arizona.

* * * * *

                                                                Arizona--Carbon Monoxide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Designation                                           Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Date                        Type                        Date                        Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix Area:
    Maricopa County (part)..............     4/8/2005  Attainment.
Phoenix nonattainment area boundary:
    1. Commencing at a point which is
     the intersection of the eastern
     line of Range 7 East, Gila and Salt
     River Baseline and Meridian, and
     the southern line of Township 2
     South, said point is the
     southeastern corner of the Maricopa
     Association of Governments Urban
     Planning Area, which is the point
     of beginning, except that portion
     in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    2. thence, proceed northerly along
     the eastern line of Range 7 East
     which is the common boundary
     between Maricopa and Pinal
     Counties, as described in Arizona
     Revised Statute Section 11-109, to
     a point where the eastern line of
     Range 7 East intersects the
     northern line of Township 1 North,
     said point is also the intersection
     of the Maricopa County Line and the
     Tonto National Forest Boundary, as
     established by Executive Order 869
     dated July 1, 1908, as amended and
     showed on the U.S. Forest Service
     1969 Planimetric Maps, except that
     portion in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    3. thence, westerly along the
     northern line of Township 1 North
     to approximately the southwest
     corner of the southeast quarter of
     Section 35, Township 2 North, Range
     7 East, National Forest and Usery
     Mountain Semi-Regional Park, except
     that portion in the Gila River
     Indian Reservation;
    4. thence, northerly along the Tonto
     National Forest Boundary, which is
     generally the western line of the
     east half of Sections 26 and 35 of
     Township 2 North, Range 7 East, to
     a point which is where the quarter
     section line intersects with the
     northern line of Section 26,
     Township 2 North, Range 7 East,
     said point also being the northeast
     corner of the Usery Mountain Semi-
     Regional Park, except that portion
     in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;

[[Page 11558]]

 
    5. thence, westerly along the Tonto
     National Forest Boundary, which is
     generally the south line of Section
     19, 20, 21 and 22 and the southern
     line of the west half of Section
     23, Township 2 North, Range 7 East,
     to a point which is the southwest
     corner of Section 19, Township 2
     North, Range 7 East, except that
     portion in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    6. thence, northerly along the Tonto
     National Forest Boundary to a point
     where the Tonto National Forest
     Boundary intersects with the
     eastern boundary of the Salt River
     Indian Reservation, generally
     described as the center line of the
     Salt River Channel, except that
     portion in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    7. thence, northeasterly and
     northerly along the common boundary
     of the Tonto National Forest and
     the Salt River Indian Reservation
     to a point which is the northeast
     corner of the Salt River Indian
     Reservation and the southeast
     corner of the Fort McDowell Indian
     Reservation, as shown on the plat
     dated July 22, 1902, and recorded
     with the U.S. Government on June
     15, 1902, except that portion in
     the Gila River Indian Reservation;
    8. thence, northeasterly along the
     common boundary between the Tonto
     National Forest and the Fort
     McDowell Indian Reservation to a
     point which is the northeast corner
     of the Fort McDowell Indian
     Reservation, except that portion in
     the Gila River Indian Reservation;
    9. thence, southwesterly along the
     northern boundary of the Fort
     McDowell Indian Reservation, which
     line is a common boundary with the
     Tonto National Forest, to a point
     where the boundary intersects with
     the eastern line of Section 12,
     Township 4 North, Range 6 East,
     except that portion in the Gila
     River Indian Reservation.
    10. thence, northerly along the
     eastern line of Range 6 East to a
     point where the eastern line of
     Range 6 East intersects with the
     southern line of Township 5 North,
     said line is the boundary between
     the Tonto National Forest and the
     east boundary of McDowell Mountain
     Regional Park, except that portion
     in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    11. thence, westerly along the
     southern line of Township 5 North
     to a point where the southern line
     intersects with the eastern line of
     Range 5 East which line is the
     boundary of Tonto National Forest
     and the north boundary of McDowell
     Mountain Regional Park, except that
     portion in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    12. thence, northerly along the
     eastern line of Range 5 East to a
     point where the eastern line of
     Range 5 East intersects with the
     northern line of Township 5 North,
     which line is the boundary of the
     Tonto National Forest, except that
     portion in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    13. thence, westerly along the
     northern line of Township 5 North
     to a point where the northern line
     of Township 5 North intersects
     generally in the northeast quarter
     of Section 17, Township 5 North,
     Range 1 East, as shown on the U.S.
     Geological Survey's Baldy Mountain,
     Arizona Quadrangle Map, 7.5 Minute
     series (Topographic), dated 1964,
     except that portion in the Gila
     River Indian Reservation;
    14. thence, northerly along the
     eastern line of Range 4 East to a
     point where the eastern line of
     Range 4 East intersects with the
     northern line of Township 6 North,
     which line is the boundary of the
     Tonto National Forest, except that
     portion in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;

[[Page 11559]]

 
    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), except that portion in
     the Gila River Indian Reservation;
    16. thence, southwesterly and
     southerly along the Maricopa-
     Yavapai County line to a point
     which is described by Arizona
     Revised Statute Section 11-109 as
     being on the center line of the
     Aqua Fria River, two miles
     southerly and below the mouth of
     Humbug Creek, except that portion
     in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    17. thence, southerly along the
     center line of Aqua Fria River to
     the intersection of the center line
     of the Aqua Fria River and the
     center line of Beardsley Canal,
     said point is generally in the
     northeast quarter of Section 17,
     Township 5 North, Range 1 East, as
     shown on the U.S. Geological
     Survey's Baldy Mountain, Arizona
     Quadrangle Map, 7.5 Minute series
     (Topographic), dated 1964, except
     that portion in the Gila River
     Indian Reservation;
    18. thence, southwesterly and
     southerly along the center line of
     Beardsley Canal to a point which is
     the center line of Beardsley Canal
     where it intersects with the center
     line of Indian School Road, except
     that portion in the Gila River
     Indian Reservation;
    19. thence, westerly along the
     center line of West Indian School
     Road to a point where the center
     line of West Indian School Road
     intersects with the center line of
     North Jackrabbit Trail, except that
     portion in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    20. thence, southerly along the
     center line of Jackrabbit Trail
     approximately nine and three-
     quarter miles to a point where the
     center line of Jackrabbit Trail
     intersects with the Gila River,
     said point is generally on the
     north-south quarter section line of
     Section 8, Township 1 South, Range
     2 West, except that portion in the
     Gila River Indian Reservation;
    21. thence, northeasterly and
     easterly up the Gila River to a
     point where the Gila River
     intersects with the northern
     extension of the western boundary
     of Estrella Mountain Regional Park,
     which point is generally the
     quarter corner of the northern line
     of Section 31, Township 1 North,
     Range 1 West, except that portion
     in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    22. thence, southerly along the
     extension of the western boundary
     and along the western boundary of
     Estrella Mountain Regional Park to
     a point where the southern
     extension of the western boundary
     of Estrella Mountain Regional Park
     intersects with the southern line
     of Township 1 South, except that
     portion in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    23. thence, easterly along the
     southern line of Township 1 South
     to a point where the south line of
     Township 1 South intersects with
     the western line of Range 1 East,
     which line is generally the
     southern boundary of Estrella
     Mountain Regional Park, except that
     portion in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    24. thence, southerly along the
     western line of Range 1 East to the
     southwest corner of Section 18,
     Township 2 South, Range 1 East,
     said line is the western boundary
     of the Gila River Indian
     Reservation, except that portion in
     the Gila River Indian Reservation;

[[Page 11560]]

 
    25. thence, easterly along the
     southern boundary of the Gila River
     Indian Reservation which is the
     southern line of Sections 13, 14,
     15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 2
     South, Range 1 East, to the
     boundary between Maricopa and Pinal
     Counties as described in Arizona
     Revised Statues Section 11-109 and
     11-113, which is the eastern line
     of Range 1 East, except that
     portion in the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    26. thence, northerly along the
     eastern boundary of Range 1 East,
     which is the common boundary
     between Maricopa and Pinal
     Counties, to a point where the
     eastern line of Range 1 East
     intersects the Gila River, except
     that portion in the Gila River
     Indian Reservation;
    27. thence, southerly up the Gila
     River to a point where the Gila
     River intersects with the southern
     line of Township 2 South; and
    28. thence, easterly along the
     southern line of Township 2 South
     to the point of beginning which is
     a point where the southern line of
     Township 2 South intersects with
     the eastern line Range 7 East,
     except that portion in the Gila
     River Indian Reservation.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-4585 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P