Before thinking further, the first thing I would do would be a cost-of-living (COL) analysis for the places that I'd be living for each of the 4 job options (staying at current or each of the 3 new options). $55k in AZ could be a lot more than $72k in DC, if the AZ job is based out of a smaller town, or if AZ COL is enough lower than DC's in general. For me, my salary is lower than any of the OP's options; however, my COL is super-low, so if I took any of those options, it'd probably require a reduction in lifestyle and/or savings. My family lives about an hour or so outside of DC and their COL is substantially higher than mine; when they moved from where I am to where they are now, they were surprised by how little the dollar-change meant after the COL adjustment, and I imagine DC itself is even worse. However, I don't know what the COL is where the OP is currently in Maryland.
So, my advice to OP is to try to find some COL information and do a COL-adjusted salary comparison. Then it might come out that after adjusting salaries to be comparative to his current COL, maybe DC is equivalent to $56k/yr (so small pay cut, but I think as a Fed job it's supposed to have better benefits?) and maybe them AZ is equivalent to $65k/yr (so small pay increase, but just doing the same thing – is that worth moving halfway across the country for?). The Top 50 job maybe is in the same area OP currently lives, so stays $65k after adjustment, but is a lot more hours – if your equivalent hourly wage is going down by 25-50%, is the experience worth it?
Probably if it was me, and wanted to move, I'd go for either the AZ or DC job, depending on the COL analysis and if I would be happy with the lifestyle and savings that the salary afforded (I'm not high-maintenance, but having grown up poor, I don't want to go backwards – being able to save a substantial portion of my pay every month is very important to me). If the equivalent wages were the same for both after accounting for COL, I'd probably be more inclined to the Federal job.