Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; Miami Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for Redesignation to Attainment; Correction of Boundary of Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, 3061-3075 [E7-996]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
compliance, please contact Sector
Buffalo (see ADDRESSES).
Small businesses may send comments
on actions of Federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
Collection of Information
This rule would call for no new
collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this rule would not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule would not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
The Coast Guard has analyzed this
rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that may disproportionately affect
children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. It has not been designated by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it
does not require a Statement of Energy
Effects under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedure; and related management
system practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3061
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this
rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, from further environmental
documentation.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are not
required for this rule because we are
disestablishing a safety zone.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
I For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation no. 0170.1.
§ 165.917
I
[Removed]
2. Section 165.917 is removed.
Dated: January 4, 2007.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Buffalo, Sector Buffalo.
[FR Doc. E7–1004 Filed 1–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0580; FRL–8270–3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Arizona; Miami
Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation
Plan and Request for Redesignation to
Attainment; Correction of Boundary of
Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment
Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action under the Clean Air Act to
approve the Miami Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area State
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3062
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Implementation and Maintenance Plan
as a revision to the Arizona state
implementation plan. The Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
developed this plan to maintain the
sulfur dioxide national ambient air
quality standards in the Miami (Gila
County) area. The maintenance plan
contains various elements, including
contingency provisions that will be
implemented if measured ambient
concentrations of sulfur dioxide are
above certain trigger levels. EPA is also
approving the State of Arizona’s request
for redesignation of the Miami area from
nonattainment to attainment for the
sulfur dioxide standards. Lastly, EPA is
correcting the boundary of the Miami
sulfur dioxide nonattainment area to
exclude a noncontiguous township that
was erroneously included in the
description of the area and to fix a
transcription error in the listing of one
of the other townships.
EPA is taking these actions consistent
with provisions in the Clean Air Act
that obligate the Agency to approve or
disapprove submittals of revisions to
state implementation plans and requests
for redesignation. The intended effect is
to redesignate the Miami, Arizona sulfur
dioxide nonattainment area to
attainment, provide for maintenance of
the standard for the ten-year period
following redesignation, and correct
long-standing errors in the codified
description of the area.
DATES: This rule is effective on March
26, 2007 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
February 23, 2007. If we receive such
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that this direct final
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2006–0580, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. E-mail: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas
(Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
should not be submitted through the
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office,
(415) 972–3964 or by e-mail at
vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
Elsewhere
in this Federal Register, we are
proposing approval and soliciting
written comment on this action.
Throughout this document, the words
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today’s Direct Final Action
II. Introduction
A. SO2 NAAQS
B. State Implementation Plan
C. History of SO2 Planning in Arizona
1. Development of the SO2 SIP
2. Miami SO2 Nonattainment Area
D. Sources of SO2 Emissions in the Miami
Area
III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation
Requests and Maintenance Plans
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan for the
Miami, Arizona SO2 Nonattainment Area
A. The Area Must Be Attaining the SO2
NAAQS
B. The Area’s Applicable Implementation
Plan Must Be Fully Approved Under
Section 110(k)
C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must
Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions
D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D
1. Section 110 Requirements
2. Part D Requirements
a. Section 172
b. Section 176
c. Subpart 5
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan
1. Attainment Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
5. Contingency Plan
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
7. Conclusion
V. Boundary Correction
A. Background
B. Authority for Correcting Errors
C. Evaluation and Conclusion
VI. Public Comment and Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review
I. Summary of Today’s Direct Final
Action
On June 26, 2002, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(‘‘ADEQ’’ or ‘‘State’’) submitted to EPA
Region IX its Miami Sulfur Dioxide
State Implementation and Maintenance
Plan and its request for redesignation to
attainment (‘‘Miami SO2 Maintenance
Plan’’ or ‘‘submittal’’). The submittal
summarizes the progress the State has
made in attaining the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) in the Miami
nonattainment area (Gila County,
Arizona) (‘‘Miami area’’) and includes a
plan to assure continued attainment of
the SO2 NAAQS for at least the next 10
years. The June 26, 2002 submittal also
includes a request for redesignation of
the boundary of the area and for
redesignation of the status of the area,
as amended, to ‘‘attainment’’ under
section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act
(‘‘Act’’ or CAA). On June 30, 2004,
ADEQ submitted certain replacement
pages correcting errors in the June 26,
2002 submittal. On June 20, 2006,
ADEQ submitted a letter withdrawing
the boundary redesignation request and
requesting EPA to address the boundary
issue as an error correction under CAA
section 110(k)(6) instead.
In today’s direct final action, because
we find that the Miami SO2
Maintenance Plan meets the
requirements for maintenance plans
under section 175A of the Act and that
the Miami area qualifies for
redesignation under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E), we are approving the
submittal (as amended by the submittals
dated June 30, 2004 and June 20, 2006)
as a revision to the Arizona SIP and
redesignating the Miami area from
nonattainment to attainment for the SO2
NAAQS. Also, based on a review of the
relevant State and EPA materials from
the late 1970’s, we are correcting errors
under CAA section 110(k)(6) in the
listing of the townships that comprise
the Miami SO2 nonattainment area to
exclude a noncontiguous township and
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
to fix a transcription error in one of the
other townships so listed.
Upon our approval, a SIP revision
becomes federally enforceable.
II. Introduction
C. History of SO2 Planning in Arizona
The following section discusses the
NAAQS for SO2, CAA requirements for
state implementation plans, SO2
planning in Arizona generally and in
the Miami area more specifically, and
sources of emissions in the Miami area.
1. Development of the SO2 SIP
In the early 1970’s, soon after the
Clean Air Amendments of 1970 were
passed, Arizona began developing air
quality regulations that applied to all
Arizona primary copper smelters,
including the one operating in the
Miami area. These regulations focused
on establishing an air quality
monitoring network in the areas
surrounding the smelters and
determining the allowable emission
rates from the smelters so that the SO2
NAAQS could be attained and
maintained. Arizona submitted various
SIP revisions during the 1970s to
establish approvable emission
limitations for the primary copper
smelters operating in the state. On
September 20, 1979, the State submitted
its SIP revision to EPA which contained
its multi-point rollback (MPR) technique
to establish operating limitations on
smelters. After EPA’s proposed
conditional approval on November 30,
1981 (46 FR 58098), Arizona made
necessary changes which corrected
identified deficiencies. EPA granted full
approval of the MPR-based SIP
submittal on January 14, 1983 (48 FR
1717), but was not able to grant full
approval to the SO2 SIPs for six smelter
areas (including Miami) because they
lacked a strategy for addressing fugitive1
sources of SO2.
On November 1, 2004, EPA approved
several revisions to the SO2 SIP,
including site-specific requirements,
compliance and monitoring, and
fugitive emissions standards for existing
primary copper smelters. See 69 FR
63321. In that same notice, EPA
promulgated a limited approval/limited
disapproval of R18–2–Appendix 8,
which sets out procedures for
calculating sulfur emissions using a
sulfur balance method. ADEQ
subsequently corrected the identified
deficiencies and EPA approved the new
version of R18–2–Appendix 8 as a SIP
revision on April 12, 2006. See 71 FR
18624. The effective date for our April
12, 2006 final approval is June 12, 2006.
A. SO2 NAAQS
The NAAQS for SO2 consists of three
standards: Two primary standards for
the protection of public health and a
secondary standard for protection of
public welfare. The primary SO2
standards address 24-hour average and
annual average ambient SO2
concentrations. The secondary standard
addresses 3-hour average ambient SO2
concentrations. The level of the annual
SO2 standard is 0.030 parts per million
(ppm), which is equivalent to 80
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), not
to be exceeded in a calendar year. The
level of the 24-hour standard is 0.14
ppm (365 µg/m3), not to be exceeded
more than once per calendar year. The
level of the secondary SO2 standard is
a 3-hour standard of 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/
m3), not to be exceeded more than once
per calendar year. See 40 CFR 50.2–
50.5.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
B. State Implementation Plan
The CAA requires states to
implement, maintain, and enforce
ambient air quality equal to or better
than the NAAQS. A state’s strategies for
implementing, maintaining, and
enforcing the NAAQS are submitted to
EPA for approval, and, once approved,
become part of the State Implementation
Plan (or SIP) for that State. SIPs are
compilations of regulatory and nonregulatory elements adopted, submitted,
and approved at different times to
address various types of changes in
circumstances, such as new or revised
NAAQS or amendments to the CAA.
SIPs include, among other things, the
following: (1) An inventory of emission
sources; (2) statutes and regulations
adopted by the state legislature and
executive agencies; (3) air quality
analyses that include demonstrations
that adequate controls are in place to
meet the NAAQS; and (4) contingency
measures to be undertaken if an area
fails to attain the standard or make
reasonable progress toward attainment
by the required date. The state must
make proposed changes to the SIP
available for public review and
comment through a public hearing, and
must formally adopt the changes before
submitting them to EPA for approval.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
2. Miami SO2 Nonattainment Area
Originally, the air quality planning
area we refer to as the Miami SO2
nonattainment area was not separately
defined but rather was included in a
county-wide SO2 nonattainment area
1 ‘‘Fugitive’’ in this context refers to emissions
that could not reasonably pass through a stack,
chimney, vent for a functionally equivalent
opening.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3063
(see 43 FR 8969, March 3, 1978). At the
request of the state of Arizona, the
boundaries were reduced to nine
townships in and around the city of
Miami (44 FR 21261, April 10, 1979).
See also, 40 CFR 81.303.2 In addition,
six adjacent townships were designated
as ‘‘cannot be classified’’. Section
107(d)(1)(C) of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) brought forward,
by operation of law, the nonattainment
designations for areas, such as the
Miami SO2 area, that continued to be
designated as nonattainment at the time
of enactment of the CAAA, i.e., areas
that had not been redesignated to
‘‘attainment’’ prior to November 1990.
D. Sources of SO2 Emissions in the
Miami Area
The dominant source of SO2
emissions in the Miami area is the
Phelps-Dodge Miami primary copper
smelter (‘‘Miami smelter’’). Combined
stack and fugitive SO2 emissions from
the smelter are limited under the
source-specific EPA-approved rule (i.e.,
R18–2–7–715) to 2,420 pounds per hour
annual average, which amounts to
approximately 10,368 tons per year
based on 357 days of operation (set forth
for the permit for this facility) or
approximately 10,600 tons per year
assuming 365 days per year of smelter
operation. Between 1996 and 2000, the
smelter’s actual SO2 emissions ranged
from 5,737 tons per year to 7,819 tons
per year and represented 97 to 99% of
the total stationary source SO2
emissions in the Miami nonattainment
area. See tables 4.1, 4.3, and 5.2 of the
Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan. There are
several other point sources of SO2 in the
Miami area, all of which are relatively
minor: BHP Copper, Pinto Valley; BHP
Copper, Miami East Unit; Carlota
Copper Company Mine; and the PhelpsDodge Miami Mine. Viewed
collectively, these sources are permitted
to emit a total of approximately 100 tons
per year. Actual emissions, however, are
generally less than 10 tons per year. SO2
emissions from area and mobile sources
2 The nine townships that comprise the Miami
SO2 nonattainment area are: T2N, R14E; T2N, R15E;
T1N, R13E (only that portion in Gila County); T1N,
R14E; T1N, R15E; T1N, R16E; T1S, R14E (only that
portion in Gila County); T1S, R141⁄4E; and T1S,
R15E. Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, part 81,
section 303 (40 CFR 81.303) also identifies six other
townships as areas that ‘‘cannot be classified.’’
These six townships are: T2N, R13E (only that
portion in Gila County); T2N, R16E; T1S, R13E
(only that portion in Gila County); T1S, R16E; T2S,
R14E (only that portion in Gila County); and T2S,
R15E. All of the townships discussed in this notice
relate to the Gila and Salt River Base Line. In
section V of this notice, we discuss our decision to
amend 40 CFR 81.303 to correct the boundary of the
Miami area to exclude a noncontiguous township
and to fix a typographical error.
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
3064
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
are about 150 tons per year. See sections
4.1 and 4.3 of the Miami SO2
Maintenance Plan and table 1, below.
TABLE 1.—POINT, AREA, AND MOBILE SOURCES OF SO2 EMISSIONS IN THE MIAMI SO2 NONATTAINMENT AREA (TONS PER
YEAR, TPY)
Allowable
emissions
Source name or type
Actual emissions (1999)
Stationary Sources (not including Phelps-Dodge primary copper smelter):
BHP Copper, Pinto Valley Unit ........................................................................................................................
BHP Copper, Miami East Unit ..........................................................................................................................
Carlotta Copper Company Mine .......................................................................................................................
Phelps-Dodge Miami Mine ...............................................................................................................................
Area and Mobile ...............................................................................................................................................
Phelps-Dodge Miami Smelting Operations ......................................................................................................
6a
<1
1
92
NA
10,368
<1
<1
0
7
149
7,819
Total From All Sources .............................................................................................................................
NA
7,975
burning diesel; lower limits exist for other fuels.
NA = not applicable.
Source: Sections 4.1 and 4.3 from the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
a When
III. CAA Requirements for
Redesignation Requests and
Maintenance Plans
As stated in the summary section of
this rule, Arizona has requested that we
redesignate the Miami SO2
nonattainment area to attainment. Any
redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment requires EPA to determine
whether the requirements of Clean Air
Act section 107(d)(3)(E), have been met.
These criteria are: (1) At the time of the
redesignation, we must find that the
area has attained the relevant NAAQS;
(2) the State must have a fully approved
SIP for the area; (3) we must determine
that the improvements in air quality are
due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP and
applicable federal regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions;
(4) the state must have met all the
nonattainment area requirements
applicable to the area; and (5) we must
have fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area under CAA section 175A.
To evaluate the State’s redesignation
request for the Miami area, we relied
upon the Clean Air Act itself,
particularly section 110 and part D (of
title I), EPA’s NAAQS and SIP
regulations in 40 CFR parts 50 and 51,
and guidance set forth in ‘‘General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992),
and in the following EPA guidance
documents: ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ dated September 4, 1992,
from John Calcagni, (‘‘Calcagni Memo’’),
‘‘Attainment Determination Policy for
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
dated January 26, 1995, from Sally L.
Shaver, (‘‘Shaver Memo’’), and ‘‘Part D
New Source Review (part D NSR)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment,’’ dated
October 14, 1994, from Mary D. Nichols
(‘‘Nichols Memo’’).
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan for the
Miami, Arizona SO2 Nonattainment
Area
A. The Area Must Be Attaining the SO2
NAAQS
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i), in
order for an area to be redesignated, we
must determine that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS. The air
quality data should be representative of
the area of highest concentration and
should be measured by monitors that
remain at the same location for the
duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
The data should be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40
CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA’s Air
Quality System database (AQS) to be
available for public review. Under 40
CFR part 58, States certify data that is
entered into AQS on an annual basis.
For the purposes of determining
whether an area has attained the SO2
NAAQS, we require no fewer than two
consecutive years of ‘‘clean’’ data (i.e.,
no violations) as recorded in AQS. In
addition, to qualify for attainment
determination purposes, the annual
average and second-highest 24-hour
average concentrations must be based
upon hourly data that are at least 75
percent complete in each calendar
quarter. See 40 CFR 50.4.
The State of Arizona initiated ambient
monitoring of SO2 in the Miami area in
1970. In order to establish coverage
sufficient to evaluate the ambient
impact of smelter emissions, this initial
effort was expanded. Eventually more
than sixteen stationary monitoring sites
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
were established, with as many as seven
monitors operating concurrently.
Historic ambient SO2 monitoring site
locations and periods of operation are
provided in Table 3.1, and Figures 3.1
and 3.2 of the State’s submittal.
Following the Miami smelter’s
compliance with stack emissions limits
(using continuous control technology)
as required under Arizona
Administrative Code (AAC) R9–3–515,
which was submitted and approved by
EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP in
the 1980’s (but since amended and recodified as R18–2–7–715), the number
of SO2 monitors has decreased. Between
1990 and 1996, the number of monitors
varied from three to four and several
monitoring locations changed, but since
1997, the three presently-operating
monitors have remained at their current
locations: the Jones Ranch monitor
along Cherry Flats Road, the Ridgeline
monitor along Linden Street, and the
Townsite monitor along Sullivan Street.
All three presently-operating monitors
are located south of the smelter, but
vary in distance and elevation relative
to smelter sources. The Townsite
monitor lies closest to the smelter and
at the lowest elevation among the three
sites while the Jones Ranch monitor lies
furthest from the smelter but at the
highest elevation. The Jones Ranch and
Townsite monitors are operated by
Phelps Dodge using Thermal Electron
pulsed fluorescent (TECO) samplers,
and the Ridgeline monitor is operated
by ADEQ using a Thermo pulse
fluorescence analyzer.
Table 2 below summarizes the SO2
monitoring data collected at the various
monitors operated by ADEQ (or, in the
case of Jones Ranch, ADEQ or the
smelter operator) from 1988 through
2005. ADEQ ended its monitoring at
Jones Ranch in 1994, but the smelter
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
3065
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
operator continues to monitor SO2 at
that location. Table 3 below presents
estimated annual SO2 emissions from
the smelter over the same time period.
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA—MIAMI, ARIZONA: 1988–2005
Concentrations (µg/m3) at individual sites
Year
Averaging period
Jones ranch
1988 ...................................
1989 ...................................
1990 ...................................
1991 ...................................
1992 ...................................
1993 ...................................
1994 ...................................
1995 ...................................
1996 ...................................
1997 ...................................
1998 ...................................
1999 ...................................
2000 ...................................
2001 ...................................
2002 ...................................
2003 ...................................
2004 ...................................
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
2005 ...................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Max 3-hour ......................................................
Max 24-hour ....................................................
Annual .............................................................
Cities services
bldg.
655
180
21
814
133
17
715
136
*16
767
143
*18
875
128
*8
721
123
10
566
121
16
433
122
8
593
146
11
820
138
10
840
123
10
897
152
8
895
133
11
577
145
19
628
184
16
578
152
21
326
99
13
—
—
—
413
73
13
169
29
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Little acres
153
29
6
86
18
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Ridgeline
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
244
89
10
338
110
8
524
92
5
175
40
8
198
65
14
307
70
17
338
110
19
174
78
18
250
70
13
291
78
11
250
78
12
Notes: The primary NAAQS for SO2 are 365 µg/m3, 24-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year, and 80 µg/m3,
annual average. The secondary NAAQS for SO2 is 1,300 µg/m3, 3-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The *
indicates that the annual average does not satisfy summary criteria. The — indicates little or no data in a given year from a given monitor. EPA’s
AQS database is the source of data shown in italics. ADEQ’s Air Quality Annual Reports are the sources of the non-italicized data shown in this
table.
Monitoring Sites:
• The Jones Ranch monitoring site is located along Cherry Flats Road, approximately 1.8 miles south-southeast of the smelter stack at an elevation of 4,100 feet above sea level. ADEQ operated a monitor at this site through 1994. From 1991 through 1994, the State-operated monitor at
Jones Ranch was referred to as ‘‘Nolan Ranch’’. More recent data shown in this table for Jones Ranch was collected and compiled by the smelter operator.
• The Cities Services Building monitoring site was located approximately 2.2 miles east-northeast of the smelter stack. ADEQ operated a monitor at this site through 1989.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
3066
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
• The Little Acres monitoring site was located approximately 2 miles southeast of the smelter. ADEQ operated a monitor at this site through
1989.
• The Ridgeline monitoring site, which is the current ADEQ monitoring site for SO2 in the Miami area, is located along Linden Street at an elevation of 3,600 feet.
Phelps-Dodge primary copper smelter 4
and local meteorological and
topographic characteristics, and all
Sulfur dioxide other SO2 sources have essentially no
Year
emissions tons effect on ambient levels in the planning
per year
area;
• The monitor at the Jones Ranch site
1988 ......................................
3,988
records SO2 concentrations that are
1989 ......................................
6,398
1990 ......................................
4,141 representative of the highest ambient
1991 ......................................
11,145 levels in the nonattainment area;
• There are two consecutive and
1992 ......................................
4,813
1993 ......................................
7,678 complete years of ‘‘clean’’ data from the
1994 ......................................
9,260 Jones Ranch monitor, i.e., the limiting
1995 ......................................
5,108 site, as recorded in AQS (1988 and
1996 ......................................
5,737 1989);
1997 ......................................
6,368
• During the 1988–1989 period,
1998 ......................................
6,097 maximum concentrations were
1999 ......................................
7,819 approximately 60% of the 3-hour2000 ......................................
6,810 average secondary NAAQS and
2001 ......................................
9,062
approximately 50% of the 24-hour2002 ......................................
5,667
2003 ......................................
8,005 average primary NAAQS, and the
2004 ......................................
8,754 highest of the annual-average
2005 ......................................
7,366 concentrations measured in the area
during this period was approximately
Sources: Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan, 30% of the corresponding primary
page 35; e-mail correspondence from Bruce
NAAQS;
Friedl, ADEQ, dated September 29, 2006.
• While annual emissions from the
Review of historic data supports
smelter have varied from year to year,
identification of the Jones Ranch
they have generally been no higher than
monitor as the monitoring location
50% above those that occurred during
where the highest concentrations are
the 1988–1989 period; and
recorded among the network of
• No SO2 exceedances have been
monitoring locations selected to
measured at any of the monitoring sites
measure the impact of smelter-related
over the 1988 to 2005 period.
emissions on ambient air quality. We
B. The Area’s Applicable
note that the Jones Ranch monitoring
Implementation Plan Must Be Fully
site was determined to be the ‘‘limiting
Approved Under CAA Section 110(k)
site’’ for the purposes of establishing
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii),
emissions limits for the smelter. ADEQ
closed its monitoring site at Jones Ranch the SIP for the Miami area must be fully
approved under CAA section 110(k) of
in 1994, and while Phelps-Dodge
the Act. We examined the applicable
continues to operate an SO2 monitor at
SIP for Arizona and also looked at the
that site, the data is not recorded in
AQS.3 In 1995, ADEQ began monitoring disapprovals listed in 40 CFR 52.125
and have determined that no
at the Ridgeline site, and no
disapprovals listed remain relevant to
exceedances have ever been recorded
the applicable SIP. Arizona has a fully
there.
Based on a review of the data from the approved SIP with respect to SO2 in the
Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan as well as Miami area.
tables 2 and 3 presented above, we find
C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must
that the Miami nonattainment area has
Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable
attained the SO2 NAAQS and thereby
Reductions in Emissions
meets the first criterion for
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires
redesignation. Our conclusion is based
that EPA determine that the
on six basic interrelated facts:
improvement in air quality is due to
• Ambient SO2 concentrations in the
permanent and enforceable reductions
Miami air quality planning area are
TABLE 3.—MIAMI SMELTER SULFUR
DIOXIDE EMISSIONS: 1988–2005
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
determined by emissions from the
3 ADEQ has committed to working with PhelpsDodge to begin entering SO2 monitoring data
collected at the Jones Ranch site to AQS beginning
with the first quarter of 2008. See letter from Nancy
C. Wrona, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to
Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA—
Region IX, dated October 18, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
4 There is one significant point source located
outside the Miami nonattainment area but within
50 kilometers of the Miami nonattainment area. The
ASARCO Hayden Smelter is located approximately
46 kilometers south of the Miami smelter. However,
because the ASARCO Hayden smelter is
geographically separated from the Miami area by
the 7,000 foot Pinal Mountains, its emissions do not
have an impact on air quality in the Miami area.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP and/or
applicable federal measures. Figure 6.1
of the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan (as
amended in ADEQ’s submittal dated
June 30, 2004) illustrates the significant
decline in emissions from the Miami
smelter since the 1970’s in inverse
proportion to the level of control over
smelter emissions sources.
Control over the smelter’s SO2
emissions has been made permanent
and enforceable through EPA approval
of State rules limiting such emissions as
a revision to the Arizona SIP
(specifically, R18–2–715, R18–2–715.01,
R18–2–715.02, and R18–2–Appendix 8)
and through ADEQ’s issuance of a title
V permit for the Miami smelter.
Arizona’s primary copper smelter rules
and ADEQ’s title V permit contain
enforceable emission limitations that
cap emissions at a level that has been
shown to be protective of the NAAQS.
Any relaxation to the SIP-approved
limits must be approved by EPA as a
revision to the Arizona SIP, and EPA
may not approve any such SIP revision
without a demonstration that the
relaxation in the limits would not
interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. See CAA
section 110(l). Therefore, we find that
the improvement in ambient SO2
concentrations in the Miami, AZ area is
due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP.
D. The Area Must Have Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v),
we must determine whether the State of
Arizona has met all requirements under
section 110 and under part D (of title I)
of the CAA applicable to the Miami SO2
nonattainment area.
1. Section 110 Requirements
CAA section 110 contains the general
requirements for SIPs (enforceable
emissions limits, ambient monitoring,
permitting of new sources, adequate
funding, etc.). EPA’s guidance for
implementing section 110 of the Act is
discussed in the General Preamble to
Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
Over the years, we have approved
Arizona’s SIP as meeting these basic
requirements. The SIP includes
enforceable emission limitations;
requires monitoring, compiling, and
analyzing of ambient air quality data;
requires preconstruction review of new
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
major stationary sources and major
modifications to existing ones; provides
for adequate funding, staff, and
associated resources necessary to
implement its requirements; and
requires stationary source emission
monitoring and reporting.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
2. Part D Requirements
Before an area can be redesignated to
attainment, it must have fulfilled the
applicable requirements under part D
(of title I). For this area, the relevant
requirements are found in subparts 1
and 5 of part D. Subpart 1 of part D
specifies the basic requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Subpart 5 sets out additional provisions
for areas designated nonattainment for
SO2. As discussed below, EPA finds that
Arizona has met the requirements of
subpart 1 of part D, specifically sections
172(c) and 176, and subpart 5 as
applicable for the Miami SO2
nonattainment area.
a. Section 172
CAA section 172 contains the general
requirements for nonattainment SIPs. A
thorough discussion of the requirements
of 172(c) can be found in the General
Preamble for the implementation of title
I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
Additional guidance can be found in the
Calcagni memo.
EPA has interpreted the requirements
of CAA sections 172(c)(2) (reasonable
further progress—RFP), 172(c)(6) (other
measures), and 172(c)(9) (contingency
measures) as not relevant to a
redesignation request because they only
have meaning for an area that is not
attaining the standard (see the General
Preamble and the Calcagni Memo), and
as discussed above in section IV.A. of
this notice, we find that the Miami area
is attaining the SO2 standard.
Furthermore, the State has not sought to
exercise options that would trigger
section 172(c)(4) (identification of
certain emissions increases). Thus, this
provision is also not relevant to this
redesignation request. The other
provisions under 172(c) are discussed
below.
Reasonably available control
measures. Under CAA section 172(c)(1),
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), which include requirements
for reasonably available control
technology (RACT), are required for
existing sources in nonattainment areas.
In 1983, we approved the State’s
submittal of Rule R9–3–315, a
predecessor to the State’s current
smelter rules codified at Arizona
Administrative Code (AAC) R18–2–715.
See 48 FR 1717 (January 14, 1983). This
rule limited stack emissions from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
primary copper smelters, including the
smelter in the Miami area. We
concluded, however, that the control
strategy for SO2 in Arizona’s six SO2
nonattainment areas was incomplete
due to the failure to address fugitive
emissions problems. See 48 FR 1717
(January 14, 1983) and 40 CFR
52.125(a)(1).
In 1998, 2003, and 2006, the State
submitted amended rules (AAC R18–2–
715 (sections F, G, and H), R18–2–
715.01, R18–2–715.02, and R18–2–
Appendix 8).5 These rules address both
fugitive and stack emissions from
smelters and, in approving the rules, we
found that the amended rules met the
RACT requirement under CAA sections
172(c)(1) and 191(b). See 69 FR 26789
at 26788 (May 14, 2004), 69 FR 63321
(November 2, 2004), and 71 FR 18624 at
18625 (April 12, 2006). Furthermore,
because the area has attained the
standard, no further demonstration that
RACM has been implemented need be
submitted by the State.
Emissions inventory. The emissions
inventory requirement of section
172(c)(3) is satisfied by the maintenance
plan inventory requirements. The
maintenance plan inventory is
evaluated below, in section IV.E.1.
NSR permit program. Section
172(c)(5) requires new source review
(NSR) permits for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources located in
nonattainment areas. ADEQ is the
agency responsible for implementing
the nonattainment area NSR permit
program in the Miami area. Under
ADEQ’s rules, all new major sources
and modifications to existing major
sources are subject to the NSR
requirements of these rules.
We have not yet fully approved the
ADEQ NSR rules.6 We have, however,
determined that an area being
redesignated from nonattainment to
attainment does not need to have an
approved NSR program prior to
redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without nonattainment NSR in
effect. See memorandum from Mary
Nichols dated October 14, 1994 (‘‘Part D
New Source Review (part D NSR)
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’) We have
5A
more extensive summary of the regulatory
history of copper smelters in Arizona is included
in EPA’s proposed action on these rules. See 69 FR
26786 (May 14, 2004).
6 ADEQ’s NSR rules are included in the
preconstruction review and permitting provisions
of Arizona Administrative Code (AAC), Title 18,
Chapter 2, Articles 3 and 4. EPA approved an
earlier version of ADEQ’s NSR requirements (AAC
R9–3–302) on May 5, 1982 (47 FR 19328) and
August 10, 1988 (53 FR 30220).
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3067
determined that the maintenance
demonstration for Miami does not rely
on nonattainment NSR.
Prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) is the permitting program that
applies in attainment areas. PSD was
established to preserve air quality in
areas that are meeting the NAAQS. The
PSD program requires new, modified, or
reconstructed stationary sources to
undergo preconstruction review and to
apply best available control technology.
In addition, sources are required to
review PSD increment consumption and
undertake preconstruction modeling.
ADEQ has an EPA-approved PSD
permitting program (Arizona Air
Pollution Rule R9–3–304) for all criteria
pollutants except respirable particulate
matter (PM10). See 48 FR 19878 (May 3,
1983). The federal PSD program for
PM10 was delegated to the State on
March 12, 1999. ADEQ’s partially
approved, partially delegated PSD
program will apply automatically to
new major sources or major
modifications to existing sources of SO2
in the Miami area once the area is
redesignated to attainment.
Compliance with section 110(a)(2).
Under section 172(c)(7), plan provisions
submitted to satisfy part D must meet
the applicable provisions of section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted in
section IV.B. above, the Miami portion
of the Arizona SIP meets these
requirements.
Equivalent techniques. Under section
172(c)(8), EPA may allow the use of
equivalent modeling, emission
inventory, and planning procedures,
unless EPA determines that the
proposed techniques are, in the
aggregate, less effective than the
methods specified by EPA. The Miami
SO2 Maintenance Plan relies on an
equivalent modeling technique referred
to as Multipoint Rollback (MPR). MPR
was used to derive emissions limits for
the Miami smelter that provide for
attainment and maintenance of the SO2
NAAQS. The State’s rules containing
MPR-derived emission limits for the
Miami smelter were approved by EPA
on January 14, 1983 (48 FR 1717) and
amended versions of the rules were
approved by EPA on November 1, 2004
(69 FR 63321).
b. Section 176
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs, and
projects developed, funded or approved
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
3068
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal
Transit Laws (‘‘transportation
conformity’’) as well as to all other
federally supported or funded projects
(‘‘general conformity’’). Because EPA
does not consider SO2 a transportationrelated pollutant, only the requirements
related to general conformity apply to
the Miami SO2 area. The State of
Arizona adopted general conformity
criteria and procedures as a revision to
the Arizona SIP. EPA approved
Arizona’s general conformity SIP on
April 23, 1999 (64 FR 19916). Thus, the
requirements of CAA section 176 have
been satisfied.
c. Subpart 5
Subpart 5 of part D contains
additional provisions for areas
designated nonattainment for SO2.
Under CAA section 191(b), States with
existing nonattainment areas for the
primary SO2 NAAQS where those areas
lack fully approved SIPs, including part
D plans, must submit implementation
plans meeting the requirements of
subpart 1 of part D. As discussed in
section IV.D.2.a of this notice, the State
of Arizona has met the requirements of
subpart 1 of part D for the Miami area.
Under CAA section 192(b), such areas
were required to meet the primary SO2
NAAQS as expeditiously as possibly but
no later than November 15, 1995. As
discussed in section IV.A of this notice,
the Miami SO2 nonattainment area met
the primary SO2 standards well before
the applicable attainment date of
November 15, 1995 and has continued
to attain since then.
E. The Area Must Have a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan
maintenance of the NAAQS for an
additional 10-year period beyond the
initial 10-year maintenance period.
1. Attainment Inventory
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act
makes EPA approval of a maintenance
plan meeting the requirements of
section 175A another prerequisite to
redesignation. Under section 175A, a
maintenance plan must provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for at least
10 years after redesignation, and include
any additional control measures as may
be necessary to ensure such
maintenance. In addition, maintenance
plans are to contain such contingency
provisions as EPA deems necessary to
assure the prompt correction of a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The contingency
measures must include, at a minimum,
a requirement that the state will
implement all control measures
contained in the nonattainment SIP
prior to redesignation.
The Calcagni Memo contains EPA
guidance on the contents of
maintenance plans submitted for the
purposes of meeting section 175A.
Generally, such plans should address
the following five topics: the attainment
emissions inventory, maintenance
demonstration, monitoring network,
verification of continued attainment,
and a contingency plan.
Lastly, under CAA section 175A(b),
states are required to submit a
subsequent maintenance plan eight
years after redesignation providing for
The Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan
includes an emissions inventory for
point sources, area sources, and mobile
sources for 1999 and 2000 as well as a
projection of emissions to 2015. See
table 4 below. As discussed in section
IV.A of this notice, the Miami area has
continued to attain the SO2 NAAQS
since at least 1990 and thus 1999 and
2000 are acceptable as the basis upon
which to develop an ‘‘attainment
emissions inventory’’ for the purposes
of a maintenance plan.
ADEQ developed the area and mobile
source estimates shown in table 4 based
on EPA’s AIRData for Gila County. Point
source estimates are based on ADEQ
annual emissions inventory data. See
section 4.0 and appendix B of the Miami
SO2 Maintenance Plan. Sulfur dioxide
emissions from the Phelps-Dodge
smelter copper smelter itself are based
on continuous emission monitoring
systems and the assumption that stack
emissions represent 25 percent of the
facility’s total annual (i.e., stack plus
fugitive) SO2 emissions. The actual
percentage of total facility emissions
emanating from the stacks varies from
year to year (e.g., from 19 percent to 33
percent over the 1996 to 2000 period)
but the 25 percent assumption is a
reasonable average annual value based
on material balance calculation
methods.
TABLE 4.—SO2 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR 1999, 2000, AND PROJECTED INVENTORY FOR 2015 FOR THE MIAMI AREA
(IN TPY)
Source type
1999
2000
2015
Area and Mobile ..........................................................................................................................
Point (excluding Miami smelter) ..................................................................................................
Miami Smelter ..............................................................................................................................
149
7
7,819
150
4
6,810
162
9
8,000
Total ......................................................................................................................................
7,975
6,964
8,171
Source: Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan, tables 4.4 and 4.6.
Based on our review of the submitted
plan, we conclude that the emissions
inventory is based on reasonable
methods and assumptions and is
comprehensive and accurate.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
2. Maintenance Demonstration
EPA allows states to demonstrate
maintenance of the NAAQS by either
showing that future emissions of a
pollutant or its precursors will not
exceed the level of the attainment
inventory, or by modeling to show that
the future mix of sources and emission
rates will not cause a violation of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
NAAQS.7 In the case of the Miami
nonattainment area, the demonstration
of maintenance relies on both a
projected emissions inventory for future
years of 2005, 2010, and 2015 for
sources in the Miami nonattainment
area as well as SO2 emission limits for
the Miami smelter that were developed
using a variant of Multipoint Rollback
(MPR) modeling and intended to
minimize the probability of an
exceedance of the SO2 NAAQS due to
smelter emissions.
7 See
PO 00000
Calcagni Memo, at p. 9.
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The inventory from the Miami SO2
Maintenance Plan shows that about
98% of the total SO2 emissions in the
Miami nonattainment area are generated
by the smelter.8 Projections for the
Miami smelter itself anticipate a minor
increase from those in 1999 [7,819 tons
per year (tpy)] to 2005 and beyond
(8,000 tpy). The remaining point sources
in the nonattainment area have existing
permits that limit their allowable
emissions to less than 100 tpy.
Projections for area and mobile sources
8 See
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
appendix B of submitted plan.
24JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
(increasing from 149 tpy 9 to 162 tpy)
are based on anticipated moderate
increases in population and the
assumption that SO2 emissions from
such sources are proportionate to the
population. Total projected actual
emissions of point, area, and mobile
sources are expected to remain
relatively constant, with total SO2
emissions projected to be less than 24
tons on a daily basis and approximately
8,200 tons on annual basis by 2015.10
This represents an increase of only
about 2 percent from 1999 levels. Thus,
throughout the maintenance period, the
Miami smelter is expected to continue
to be the overwhelming source of SO2
emissions in the area.
The emissions projections for the
smelter (from 7,819 tpy) in 1999 to
8,000 tpy in 2005 and beyond are based
on the expectation that, through 2015,
the copper industry will not expand.
While the expectation of continued low
price pressures on copper may well
have been reasonable in 2002 when the
maintenance plan was adopted, changes
in the copper market in fact have
occurred over the past several years
raising the price for copper thereby
leading to a reasonable expectation of
higher production levels at the Miami
smelter than anticipated in the Miami
SO2 Maintenance Plan.
Nonetheless, the demonstration of
maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in the
Miami area does not rely solely on the
emissions projections, but also on the
SO2 emission limits established under
SIP rule AAC R18–2–715 (approved by
EPA in 2004 and, as amended, in 2006)
and incorporated into the title V
operating permit for the Phelps-Dodge
Miami smelter. These limits cap stack
emissions at 604 pounds per hour (lbs/
hr) on an annual average basis and total
facility (i.e., stacks plus fugitives)
emissions at 2,420 lbs/hr on an annual
basis. SIP rule AAC R18–2–715 also
establishes a cumulative occurrence
table that caps the number of
occurrences of 3-hour average emissions
above various levels with, for example,
only two occurrences allowed per year
of stack SO2 emissions greater than
5,900 lbs/hr, 3-hour average. The total
facility emissions cap (2,420 lbs/hr)
corresponds to approximately 10,600
tpy assuming round-the-clock, yearround operation (the permit however
cites 10,400 tpy based on 357 work days
in a given year).
9 The most recent quality assured inventory is
from 1996. The 1999 SO2 inventory for area and
mobile sources is based on economic growth
activity.
10 See table 4.6 of submitted plan.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
As explained below, ADEQ has
demonstrated that the new limits are
protective of the SO2 NAAQS. In order
to increase the smelter’s emissions
limits the State would have to submit a
SIP revision that demonstrates that,
consistent with CAA section 110(l), the
revision does not interfere with
maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS.
Therefore, the emission limits for the
smelter, supported by the emissions
inventory projections that show that the
smelter will remain the overwhelming
source of SO2 emissions in the area for
the foreseeable future, in essence
provide the demonstration necessary to
show that the Miami area will continue
to attain the SO2 standard indefinitely,
and thereby comply with CAA section
175A(a), which requires maintenance
plans to provide for maintenance of the
NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation.
Given the link then between the SO2
emission limits on the Phelps-Dodge
Miami smelter and the demonstration of
maintenance, the Miami SO2
Maintenance Plan provides a detailed
explanation of how the limits were
derived and how they minimize the
probability of exceedance of the SO2
NAAQS due to smelter operations. See
chapter 5 of the submitted plan. First, it
is important to note that ADEQ used a
variant of the Multipoint Rollback
(MPR) method to derive these emissions
limits. In brief, MPR uses the ratio of
monitored concentrations to the
NAAQS to determine how much to
scale the smelter’s existing hourly
distribution of emission rates so that
they meet the NAAQS. Unlike simple
rollback, which yields a single
maximum emission rate never to be
exceeded, MPR yields limitations on the
number of times per year that the
facility may exceed each of a series of
emission rates. In the resulting
cumulative occurrence table, the larger
the emissions rate, the fewer number of
occurrences are allowed per year. The
emission rates are chosen so that the full
hourly distribution results in attainment
of the NAAQS on a probabilistic basis.
This approach has been approved by
EPA for use with smelters because of
their highly variable emission rates.11
ADEQ used a variant of MPR, as
explained further below, to show that
the new limits are protective of the
NAAQS.
11 See
EPA Final Rule, ‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona
Plan Revision: Sulfur Oxides Control Strategy and
Regulations for Existing Nonferrous Smelters,’’ 48
FR 1717 (January 14, 1983); and the SO2 Guideline
Document, EPA–452/R–94–008, February 1994,
section 6.4.4.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3069
ADEQ derived the original emissions
limits for the smelter in the late 1970’s
using MPR, and adopted the original
smelter SO2 emissions rule in 1979. To
derive new, enforceable limits on the
smelter stacks, it was necessary to
distinguish stack emissions from total
emissions, which include fugitives
(those emissions not vented through the
stack). The new emissions limits were
derived by apportioning the old facilitywide emission limits between the stack
emissions and fugitive emissions. Using
mass balance, the total amount of
emissions can be calculated from the
total mass of sulfur entering the plant in
raw materials. Stack emissions are
monitored, and account for about 25%
of the total sulfur. The fugitive
emissions were then determined by
subtracting the monitored stack
emissions from the calculated total
emissions. Because the release height of
the stack and fugitive emissions is
similar, and their emissions are fairly
well-mixed by the time they reach the
monitor, the stack also accounts for 25%
of the observed concentration at the
monitor, on average. Thus, 25% of the
existing facility-wide limits (2,420 lb/hr)
are what the stack must be limited to
(605 lb/hr; the SIP rule caps the
emissions at 604 lb/hr, which is slightly
more conservative) in order to meet the
NAAQS.
This provides only an annual average
emission rate. To derive MPR-style
limits on allowed occurrences of various
emission rates (i.e., a cumulative
occurrence table), ADEQ used the shape
of the current hourly emission
distribution 12 and scaled it to match the
required annual average emission rate.
Since the new average limit is 1.75
times the current average actual
emissions (604 lb/hr limit vs. 345 lb/hr
current average), the current
distribution and occurrence emission
levels were scaled up by this factor. The
result is new occurrence limits
consistent with the new average limit of
604 lb/hr, the level needed to meet the
NAAQS based upon the 1979 MPR
analysis and the 25% stack fraction.
However, scaling according to the
1979 limits assumes that the 1979
relationship between emissions and
ambient concentrations has not
changed. There have been substantial
operational and emissions changes at
the smelter since the 1979 average
12 Emissions from each hour of 1999 were
averaged with the corresponding hour in 2000,
which represents a minor departure from how
original MPR was carried out; i.e., using all data in
a single distribution. EPA believes any resulting
changes to the calculations are insignificant in the
context of the Miami MPR analysis and finds this
to be an acceptable approach.
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
3070
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
emission limit and occurrence table
were derived, which could have altered
the shape of the emissions curve. If the
current distribution shape has a broader
peak than the 1979 one, then there will
be relatively more instances of high
ambient impacts, and so scaling of the
average will not guarantee NAAQSprotective limits on short-term
emissions.
In order to address this, ADEQ carried
out a second step in the submittal that
is more consistent with the MPR
new limits, and applied the fractional
emissions increase to ambient 3-hour,
24-hour, and annual SO2
concentrations. This uses the current
relationship between emissions and
ambient concentration to show that the
scaled-up emissions allowed in the new
limits are consistent with the NAAQS.
The result of this ‘‘rollback’’ scaling is
shown in figure 5.4 of the Miami SO2
Maintenance Plan, and also in table 5
below.
procedure, in that it incorporated the
ambient effect of the current emissions
distribution, rather than relying on the
1979 relationship. ADEQ used
monitoring data from 1996–2000, and
emissions during that same period. The
new emission limits, though a decrease
from the old limits, represent an
increase over the current actual
emissions, and so should be shown to
be consistent with the NAAQS. ADEQ
assumed the smelter operated at the
higher emissions rate allowed in the
TABLE 5.—PREDICTED AMBIENT SO2 CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON EMISSIONS LIMITS
Predicted level
µg/m3
Averaging time
NAAQS µg/m3
1,180
230
25
1,300
365
80
3-hour ...........................................................................................................................................
24-hour .........................................................................................................................................
Annual ..........................................................................................................................................
Percent of
NAAQS
91
63
31
Note: The predicted 3-hour and 24-hour average concentrations represent second-high values in a given year. Predicted levels listed in this
table are derived from figure 5.4 of the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan.
With this second verification step,
ADEQ used a procedure consistent with
MPR, an EPA-approved method for
smelter attainment demonstrations, to
show that the new limits are protective
of the NAAQS. We find that the
protection of the NAAQS provided by
the smelter’s SO2 emissions limits,
considered in the context of emissions
projections that show that the smelter
will remain the overwhelming source of
SO2 emissions in the area for the
foreseeable future, sufficient to
demonstrate maintenance through the
maintenance period and beyond.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3. Monitoring Network
Currently, there are three monitoring
sites in the Miami nonattainment area:
the Ridgeline monitor operated by
ADEQ, and the Jones Ranch and
Townsite monitors operated by PhelpsDodge. ADEQ and Phelps-Dodge Miami
commit to continue monitoring ambient
SO2 concentrations at their respective
sites for at least 10 years following the
approval of the Miami SO2 Maintenance
Plan. Phelps-Dodge has the option of
shutting down the monitors if the
smelter has not operated for more than
2 years but commits to resume
monitoring at the two sites three months
prior to restarting of smelting
operations. In addition, ADEQ commits
to discussing changes to monitor
locations with EPA and indicates that
all ambient monitoring data will
continue to be quality-assured in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance. See section 7.2 of the
submitted plan. We find that the Miami
SO2 Maintenance Plan adequately
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
provides for continued monitoring of
SO2 concentrations in the Miami area.
At the present time, only the SO2
monitoring data collected at ADEQ’s
Ridgeline site is certified and entered
into AQS. However, because the Jones
Ranch site has historically measured the
highest SO2 concentrations in the area
and because the data from Jones Ranch
is used in connection with the
contingency plan, EPA has requested
that ADEQ commit to working with
Phelps-Dodge to ensure that SO2
monitoring data from the Jones Ranch
site is entered into AQS. By letter to
EPA dated October 18, 2006, ADEQ has
agreed that entering SO2 monitoring
data from the Jones Ranch site into AQS
is appropriate and has committed to
working with Phelps-Dodge to
accomplish this task no later than the
first quarter of 2008. This commitment
provides additional assurance that a
suitable monitoring network will be
maintained within the Miami area
through the maintenance period and
provides additional support for the
contingency plan discussed below in
section IV.E.5 of this action.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
ADEQ intends to track the progress of
the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan
through implementation and
enforcement of the monitoring,
reporting, and certification procedures
to which permitted sources are subject
under AAC R18–2–306 and R18–2–309.
As a permitted source, the Phelps-Dodge
Miami smelter is subject to these State
requirements. ADEQ also notes that it
has authority pursuant to Arizona
Revised Statutes section 49–101 to
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
monitor and ensure source compliance
with all applicable rules and permit
conditions. See section 7.3 of the
submitted plan. Lastly, we note that
ADEQ is required under 40 CFR part 51,
subpart A, to report emissions data for
large stationary sources, such as the
Phelps-Dodge Miami smelter, on an
annual basis. Considered together, the
submitted plan and relevant EPA
regulations adequately provide for
verification of continued attainment of
the SO2 NAAQS in the Miami area.
5. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires
that maintenance plans include
contingency provisions to promptly
correct any violation of the NAAQS that
occurs after redesignation of the area.
The Calcagni memo provides additional
guidance, noting that, although a state is
not required to have fully adopted
contingency measures that will take
effect without further action by the state
in order for the maintenance plan to be
approved, the maintenance plan should
ensure that the contingency measures
are adopted expediently once they are
triggered. Specifically, the maintenance
plan should clearly identify the
measures to be adopted, include a
schedule and procedure for adoption
and implementation of the measures,
and contain a specific time limit for
action by the state. In addition, the state
should identify specific indicators, or
triggers, that will be used to determine
when the contingency measures need to
be implemented.
Because the Phelps-Dodge smelter is
the overwhelming source of SO2
emissions in the Miami area, the
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
contingency plan contained in section
7.4 of the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan
focuses on ambient impacts and
emissions attributable to it. The
contingency plan uses monitored
ambient concentrations of SO2 to trigger
actions designed to ensure continued
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. The
trigger levels and associated notification
procedures and associated actions are
described below.
Notification Procedure: If either of the
Phelps-Dodge monitors or the ADEQoperated monitor record ambient 3-hour
average SO2 levels between 0.425 ppm
and 0.5 ppm (i.e., levels greater than
85%, but less than 100%, of the
secondary SO2 NAAQS), 13 the entity
that operates the monitor is required to
notify the other party. A second
occurrence in a calendar year of ambient
concentrations between 0.425 ppm and
0.5 ppm, or an exceedance of the
secondary NAAQS is defined as the
protective trigger level (PTL). The
response required by a triggering of the
PTL is divided into two action levels.
First Action Level: If the PTL is
tripped, Phelps-Dodge must undertake a
series of inspections and a full
calibration check of the ambient SO2
analyzers and recording systems in
order to validate the data. If the data are
determined to be valid, Phelps-Dodge
must perform any needed repairs or
corrective actions and implement
specified preventive measures. The
source must also submit a report to
ADEQ by the close of the second
business day following an exceedance
in which it describes the nature of the
event, any corrective actions taken to
resolve the event, and recommendations
for future corrective actions to avoid
recurrence of such an event.
Second Action Level: If the source is
unable to correct the triggering of the
PTL by implementing the actions
required under the first action level,
Phelps-Dodge must undertake an
analysis to identify additional control
measures needed to ensure maintenance
of the NAAQS. Phelps-Dodge is
required to submit recommendations to
ADEQ within 30 business days
following the triggering of the PTL.
Using all available data, ADEQ will
determine the cause and appropriate
resolution of the event, and will require
the adoption and implementation of
additional control measures, as needed.
13 See Table 5, above, which shows that the threehour SO2 NAAQS is ‘‘limiting’’ in the sense of being
the most constraining on emissions, since this
averaging time has the least room for additional
emission increases. This is consistent with past
findings that the three-hour average requires the
most stringent reduction in emissions. See 46 FR
58098 (November 30, 1981) at page 58102.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
ADEQ commits to initiating changes to
the rules or to the permit as soon as
possible.
Special Measure: A violation of the
secondary NAAQS (i.e., a second
exceedance in a calendar year) triggers
the implementation of a special measure
within 24 hours of the monitored
violation that requires the source to
reduce its operating rate by the same
percentage as that by which the 3-hour
standard was exceeded. These
circumstances also require that the
source comply with first action level
requirements and, if necessary, second
action level requirements. A second and
higher concentration violation of the
secondary NAAQS within the same
calendar year requires that the operating
rate be recalculated accordingly.
Upon review of the contingency plan
in the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan
summarized above, we find that ADEQ
has established a workable contingency
plan, including trigger levels,
notification procedures, and appropriate
actions, for promptly correcting any
violations of the SO2 NAAQS that occur
after the redesignation of the Miami area
to attainment and thereby satisfies the
requirements of CAA section 175A(d).
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan
Revisions
As noted previously, CAA section
175A(b) requires states to submit a
subsequent maintenance plan revision
eight years after the redesignation
request is approved by EPA. The
subsequent maintenance plan is to
provide for maintenance of the NAAQS
for an additional 10 years following the
first 10-year maintenance period. ADEQ
has made a commitment to submit a
subsequent maintenance plan to EPA
eight years into the initial 10-year
maintenance period (see page 53 of the
submitted plan) and thereby satisfies
CAA section 175A(b).
7. Conclusion
ADEQ’s Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan
adequately addresses the five basic
topics that such plans should address,
including attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring
network, verification of continued
attainment, and contingency plan, and
also provides for submittal of a
subsequent maintenance plan.
Therefore, we approve the Miami SO2
Maintenance Plan as a revision to the
Arizona SIP and thereby satisfy the
related redesignation criterion of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv).
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3071
V. Boundary Correction
A. Background
Under section 107(d) of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977, each State
was directed to submit to EPA a list
identifying the NAAQS attainment
status for all areas within the State. EPA
was required under section 107(d)(2) of
the 1977 Amended Act to promulgate
the State lists, with any necessary
modifications, within 60 days of their
submittal. In 1978, in the absence of
recommendations from the State of
Arizona, EPA promulgated the original
area designations for Arizona for each of
the NAAQS. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3,
1978).14 EPA selected counties as the
geographic basis for the original
nonattainment area designations for SO2
in Arizona and designated all of Gila
County as a nonattainment area for the
SO2 NAAQS. See 43 FR 8962, at 8968.
On August 15, 1978, the State of
Arizona submitted its area designations
to EPA with the intent that EPA
redesignate the original EPApromulgated nonattainment areas to
reflect the State’s recommendations.
The State’s August 15, 1978 submittal
included a background document
prepared by the Arizona Department of
Health Services and entitled,
‘‘Identification of Areas within Arizona
that do or do not meet National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (August 1, 1978)’’
(referred to herein as the ‘‘State’s
designations background report’’). The
State’s designations background report
identifies townships, or identifiable
portions thereof, as the smallest
geographic unit defining air quality
planning areas in Arizona.
With respect to SO2 in the Miami
area, the State’s designations
background report includes a map
showing a nonattainment area
comprised by a total of nine townships:
two townships in which the major
source of SO2 emissions in the area (i.e.,
the primary copper smelter) is located
(T1N, R14E and T1N, R15E) and seven
adjacent townships (or portions thereof)
to the east, west, north and south. The
State’s map also shows six additional
adjacent townships with the designation
of ‘‘cannot be classified.’’
In the State’s designations background
report, the State provided a specific list
of townships defining the
nonattainment and ‘‘cannot be
classified’’ areas. However, the list of
townships and the map illustrating the
areas are not entirely consistent with
14 EPA has codified the designations for air
quality planning areas at 40 CFR part 81. The
Arizona area designations are codified at 40 CFR
81.303.
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
3072
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
one another. The State’s list of
townships for the Miami SO2
nonattainment area includes, among
others, the following townships moving
west to east: T1N, R13E; T1N, R14E;
T1N, R15E; and T1N, R16E. The
township immediately east of T1N,
R15E, however, is T1N, R151⁄2E not
T1N, R16E, and thus the list
inadvertently created a noncontiguous
nonattainment area with a single
township (T1N, R16E) isolated from the
rest of the larger designated area.15 In
contrast, the map submitted as part of
the designations background report
shows the nonattainment area boundary
as a single contiguous area including
both T1N, R151⁄2E and the western half
of T1N, R16E. On April 10, 1979 (44 FR
21261), we approved the redesignation
request by Arizona for the Miami SO2
nonattainment area without
modification and thereby codified the
State’s submitted list of townships (not
the map) as the geographic definition for
the Miami SO2 nonattainment area
thereby creating a noncontiguous
nonattainment area (i.e., one township
isolated from the rest of the townships
comprising the nonattainment area). In
its June 26, 2002 submittal of the Miami
SO2 Maintenance Plan and
supplemental June 30, 2004 submittal,
ADEQ requested that we redesignate the
boundaries under CAA section
107(d)(3)(D) to create a single,
contiguous planning area and to exclude
tribal lands from the planning area. By
letter dated June 26, 2006, however,
ADEQ withdrew the boundary
redesignation request as previously
formulated but requested that EPA act to
correct the boundary under section
110(k)(6) of the Act instead. As
explained further below, we agree with
ADEQ that a boundary correction is
warranted, and we make the related
corrections to the boundary in today’s
notice.
Also, while our April 10, 1979 final
rule redesignating nonattainment areas
in Arizona correctly listed T1S, R141⁄2E
as one of the townships comprising the
Miami SO2 nonattainment area, the
1979 version of 40 CFR part 81 included
a transcription error and listed this
particular township as ‘‘T1S, R141⁄4E’’
instead of ‘‘T1S, R141⁄2E.’’ We are
15 Township T1N, R16E straddles the boundary of
the San Carlos Indian Reservation. Most of the
township (roughly 31 or 32 of the 36 square miles)
lies within the reservation and is characterized by
rugged mountainous terrain traversed in places by
jeep trails. The 4 to 5 square miles of land that lie
within State jurisdiction have similar characterisics
as the portion within the reservation. No population
centers are found within this township. ADEQ
indicates that no permits have been issued to any
stationary source within the portion of the
township that lies within State jurisdiction.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
correcting the transcription error in this
notice as well.
B. Authority for Correcting Errors
Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act,
as amended in 1990, provides,
‘‘Whenever the Administrator
determines that the Administrator’s
action approving, disapproving, or
promulgating any plan or plan revision
(or part thereof), area designation,
redesignation, classification or
reclassification was in error, the
Administrator may in the same manner
as the approval, disapproval, or
promulgation revise such action as
appropriate without requiring any
further submission from the State. Such
determination and the basis thereof
shall be provided to the State and the
public.’’
We interpret this provision to
authorize the Agency to make
corrections to a promulgated regulation
when it is shown to our satisfaction that
(1) we clearly erred in failing to
consider or in inappropriately
considering information made available
to EPA at the time of the promulgation,
or the information made available at the
time of promulgation is subsequently
demonstrated to have been clearly
inadequate, and (2) other information
persuasively supports a change in the
regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763
(November 30, 1992).
In this instance, we have found clear
error in our 1979 consideration of the
State of Arizona’s submitted
recommendations for area
redesignations and believe that
correction of the error to be appropriate
at this time in support of the State’s
submittal of a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the SO2 NAAQS
within the Miami air quality planning
area.
C. Evaluation and Conclusion
Based on a comparison of the map
submitted by the State in its 1978
designations background report that
illustrates the nonattainment area with
the accompanying list of townships
defining the area, we find that the State
erred by assuming that the township
immediately east of T1N, R15E is T1N,
R16E when it is actually T1N, R151⁄2E
and by then including the former
instead of the latter in the list of
townships defining the nonattainment
area. Whereas T1N, R151⁄2E lies
immediately adjacent to one of the
townships in which the major source of
SO2 emissions is located, T1N, R16E lies
mostly within the San Carlos Indian
Reservation, is more distant from the
major source in the area, and has no
known source of SO2 emissions. EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
then erred in failing to discover this
error in our 1979 consideration and
approval of the State’s recommended
redesignation for the Miami SO2
nonattainment area. By virtue of the
State’s designations background report
submitted in August 15, 1978, EPA had
the relevant information necessary to
discover this error at the time of our
April 10, 1979 final rule but failed to do
so. The State has now requested
redesignation of the Miami SO2
nonattainment area to ‘‘attainment’’ and
submitted a maintenance plan, which if
approved as proposed herein, will begin
the next phase (‘‘maintenance’’) of air
quality planning in the Miami area.
We believe that correction of the error
that resulted in the creation of a
noncontiguous area would help provide
a solid regulatory foundation for the
maintenance phase of CAA planning in
the Miami area by eliminating the
noncontiguous portion of the otherwise
contiguous Miami air quality planning
area and by removing any uncertainties
as to the area designation status and
applicable requirements for township
T1N, R16E. Furthermore, ADEQ’s
redesignation request and maintenance
plan for the Miami area do not rely on
any control measure within T1N, R16E
to demonstrate attainment and
maintenance of the SO2 standard in the
Miami area. We are therefore taking
direct final action under CAA section
110(k)(6) to correct the designation for
T1N, R16E and thereby remove it from
the list of townships comprising the
Miami SO2 nonattainment area (which
we are herein taking direct final action
to redesignate to attainment).
Specifically, we are correcting the error
by revising the designation of T1N,
R16E from ‘‘does not meet primary
standards’’ to ‘‘cannot be classified’’ in
the listing for Miami in the Arizona SO2
table in 40 CFR 81.303. We are changing
the designation of the township to
‘‘cannot be classified’’ for the SO2
standard consistent with the State’s
1978 approach for areas that, while in
the general proximity of a recommended
SO2 nonattainment area, would be
unlikely to experience violations of the
standard because of the distance from
the source and the terrain. For example,
using this rationale, the State
recommended, and we approved,
‘‘cannot be classified’’ designations for
townships T2N, R16E and T1S, R16E.
Rather than reclassifying township
T1N, R151⁄2E as part of this
redesignation action, we have decided
to retain its current air quality planning
status of ‘‘cannot be classified.’’ First,
establishing township T1N, R151⁄2E as
part of a future Miami maintenance area
(and no longer as part of the ‘‘rest of
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
state’’ area) could have unintended
effects on SO2 increment tracking under
the State’s prevention of significant
deterioration permitting program.
Second, no control measures in T1N,
R151⁄2E have been relied upon for
attainment or maintenance of the SO2
standard in the Miami area. Third,
including township T1N, R151⁄2E in the
maintenance area would
inappropriately subject projects in that
township to certain CAA requirements,
such as general conformity, that are
intended only to apply within
nonattainment areas and former
nonattainment areas that have been
redesignated to attainment. See CAA
section 176(c)(5).
In addition to the correction described
above, we are taking direct final action
to correct the transcription error
introduced first in the 1979 version of
40 CFR part 81 by replacing T1S,
R141⁄4E with T1S, R141⁄2E in the list of
townships comprising the Miami SO2
air quality planning area.
VI. Public Comment and Final Action
As authorized under section 110(k)(3)
of the Act, EPA is approving the Miami
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area
State Implementation and Maintenance
Plan, as submitted by ADEQ on June 26,
2002, corrected by the submittal dated
June 30, 2004, and amended by the
submittal dated June 20, 2006, as a
revision to the Arizona state
implementation plan. In so doing, we
find that the maintenance plan meets
the requirements for such plans under
CAA section 175A.
EPA is also approving the State of
Arizona’s request for redesignation of
the Miami area from nonattainment to
attainment for the SO2 NAAQS based on
our conclusion that all of the
redesignation criteria in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) have been satisfied.
Specifically, we find that (1) the Miami
area has attained the SO2 NAAQS; (2)
Arizona has a fully approved SIP for the
Miami area; (3) the improvements in air
quality in the Miami area are due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of EPA-approved
smelter rules and title V permit
conditions; (4) Arizona has met all of
the nonattainment area requirements
applicable to the Miami area; and (5) the
State’s submitted maintenance plan
meets all relevant CAA requirements
and is being approved in this notice.
Lastly, under CAA section 110(k)(6)
and for the reasons stated above in
section V of this notice, EPA is
correcting the boundary of the Miami
SO2 nonattainment area to exclude a
noncontiguous township that was
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
erroneously included in the original
description of the nonattainment area.
Specifically, we are correcting the error
by revising the designation of township
T1N, R16E as listed in the Arizona SO2
table in 40 CFR 81.303 from ‘‘does not
meet primary standards’’ to ‘‘cannot be
classified.’’ We are also correcting the
erroneous transcription of one of the
townships in the Miami SO2 planning
area in 40 CFR 81.303 by replacing
‘‘T1S, R141⁄4E’’ with ‘‘T1S, R141⁄2E.’’
EPA is finalizing this action without
proposing it in advance because the
Agency views this action as
noncontroversial and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the
Proposed Rules section of this Federal
Register, we are simultaneously
proposing approval of the same
maintenance plan and request for
redesignation and proposing the same
corrections to the list of townships
comprising the Miami, AZ SO2 area. If
we receive adverse comments by
February 23, 2007, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that the
direct final approval will not take effect
and we will address the comments in a
subsequent final action based on the
proposal. If we do not receive timely
adverse comments, the direct final
approval will be effective without
further notice on March 26, 2007. This
will approve the redesignation request
and maintenance plan submitted by
Arizona on June 26, 2002, as amended
by submittals dated June 30, 2004 and
June 20, 2006, and to revise the
designation of township T1N, R16E as
listed in the Arizona SO2 table in 40
CFR 81.303 from ‘‘does not meet
primary standards’’ to ‘‘cannot be
classified’’ and replace the township
incorrectly listed as ‘‘T1S, R141⁄4E’’ with
‘‘T1S, R141⁄2E’’.
Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if
that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Review
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
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3073
a state plan and redesignation request as
meeting Federal requirements and
corrects a long-standing error in the
boundary of an air quality planning
area. It imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Nonetheless, EPA has contacted the San
Carlos Apache tribe to provide an
opportunity to discuss the implications
of exclusion of that portion of township
T1N, R16E that lies within the
reservation from the Miami SO2
nonattainment area. In letters dated
November 20, 2006 and December 12,
2006, EPA transmitted a fact sheet with
background information on this issue
and a map illustrating the air quality
planning area boundary change.
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 plan and redesignation
request implementing a Federal
standard and corrects a long-standing
error in the boundary of an air quality
planning area. It 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,
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
3074
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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 March 26, 2007.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 22, 2006.
Sally Seymour,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D—Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(132) to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.120
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(132) The following plan revision was
submitted on June 26, 2002, by the
Governor’s designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
(1) Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area State
Implementation and Maintenance Plan
(June 2002), chapter 7 (‘‘Maintenance
Plan’’), adopted on June 26, 2002 by the
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
(1) Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area State
Implementation and Maintenance Plan
(June 2002), excluding the cover page,
and pages iii, 2, 3, 4, and 49; chapter 7
(‘‘Maintenance Plan’’); appendix A
(‘‘SIP Support Information’’), sections
A.1 (‘‘Pertinent Sections of the Arizona
Administrative Code’’) and A.2
(‘‘Information Regarding Revisions to
AAC R18–2–715 and R18–2–715.01,
‘Standards of Performance for Primary
Copper Smelters: Site Specific
Requirements; Compliance and
Monitoring’ ’’); and appendix D (‘‘SIP
Public Hearing Documentation’’),
adopted on June 26, 2002 by the
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality.
(2) Submittal of Corrections to the
Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area State
Implementation and Maintenance Plan
(June 2002), letter and enclosures
(replacement pages for the cover page
and pages iii, 2, 3, 4 and 49), dated June
30, 2004.
(3) Letter from Stephen A. Owens,
Director, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, dated June 20,
2006, withdrawing a section
107(d)(3)(D) boundary redesignation
request included in the Miami Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area State
Implementation and Maintenance Plan
and requesting a section 110(k)(6) error
correction.
*
*
*
*
*
I Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 81—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C—[Amended]
2. In § 81.303, the table entitled
‘‘Arizona—SO2’’ is amended by revising
the entry for Miami to read as follows:
I
§ 81.303
*
Arizona.
*
*
*
*
ARIZONA—SO2
Does not meet
primary
standards
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Designated area
*
*
*
*
Miami:
T2N, R14E ................................................................................................
T2N, R15E ................................................................................................
T1N, R13E 1 ..............................................................................................
T1N, R14E ................................................................................................
T1N, R15E ................................................................................................
T1S, R14E 1 ..............................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:42 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Does not meet
secondary
standards
*
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Sfmt 4700
Cannot be
classified
*
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Better than
national
standards
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
3075
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
ARIZONA—SO2—Continued
Does not meet
primary
standards
Designated area
T1S, R141⁄2E .............................................................................................
T1S, R15E .................................................................................................
T2N, R13E 1 ..............................................................................................
T2N, R16E ................................................................................................
T1N, R16E ................................................................................................
T1S, R13E 1 ..............................................................................................
T1S, R16E .................................................................................................
T2S, R14E 1 ..............................................................................................
T2S, R15E .................................................................................................
*
1Only
*
*
*
Cannot be
classified
Better than
national
standards
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
*
*
*
*
that portion in Gila County.
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E7–996 Filed 1–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0667; FRL–8110–3]
Spiromesifen; Pesticide Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Does not meet
secondary
standards
SUMMARY: This regulation revises a
tolerance for combined residues of
spiromesifen in or on vegetables,
fruiting, group 8 and establishes
tolerances for inadvertent or indirect
combined residues in or on oat (grain,
forage, hay, straw). Interregional
Research Project No. 4 (IR–4) and Bayer
CropScience (respectively) requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996 (FQPA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
January 24, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before March 26, 2007, and must
be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0667. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the
docket. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400,
One Potomac Yard (South Building),
2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.
The Docket Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas C. Harris, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–9423; e-mail address:
harris.thomas@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g.,
agricultural workers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS 112),
e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy
cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311),
e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
32532), e.g., agricultural workers;
commercial applicators; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; residential users.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies
of this Document?
In addition to accessing an electronic
copy of this Federal Register document
through the electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may
also access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s pilot e-CFR site at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing
Request?
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as
amended by the FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this
regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA
procedural regulations which govern the
submission of objections and requests
for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178.
You must file your objection or request
a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0667 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
requests must be in writing, and must be
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3061-3075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-996]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0580; FRL-8270-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; Miami
Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for Redesignation
to Attainment; Correction of Boundary of Miami Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under the Clean Air Act to
approve the Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State
[[Page 3062]]
Implementation and Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Arizona state
implementation plan. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
developed this plan to maintain the sulfur dioxide national ambient air
quality standards in the Miami (Gila County) area. The maintenance plan
contains various elements, including contingency provisions that will
be implemented if measured ambient concentrations of sulfur dioxide are
above certain trigger levels. EPA is also approving the State of
Arizona's request for redesignation of the Miami area from
nonattainment to attainment for the sulfur dioxide standards. Lastly,
EPA is correcting the boundary of the Miami sulfur dioxide
nonattainment area to exclude a noncontiguous township that was
erroneously included in the description of the area and to fix a
transcription error in the listing of one of the other townships.
EPA is taking these actions consistent with provisions in the Clean
Air Act that obligate the Agency to approve or disapprove submittals of
revisions to state implementation plans and requests for redesignation.
The intended effect is to redesignate the Miami, Arizona sulfur dioxide
nonattainment area to attainment, provide for maintenance of the
standard for the ten-year period following redesignation, and correct
long-standing errors in the codified description of the area.
DATES: This rule is effective on March 26, 2007 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 23, 2007. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0580, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
2. E-mail: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through the www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA
will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide
it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office,
(415) 972-3964 or by e-mail at vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we are
proposing approval and soliciting written comment on this action.
Throughout this document, the words ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' mean
U.S. EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today's Direct Final Action
II. Introduction
A. SO2 NAAQS
B. State Implementation Plan
C. History of SO2 Planning in Arizona
1. Development of the SO2 SIP
2. Miami SO2 Nonattainment Area
D. Sources of SO2 Emissions in the Miami Area
III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance
Plans
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
for the Miami, Arizona SO2 Nonattainment Area
A. The Area Must Be Attaining the SO2 NAAQS
B. The Area's Applicable Implementation Plan Must Be Fully
Approved Under Section 110(k)
C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D
1. Section 110 Requirements
2. Part D Requirements
a. Section 172
b. Section 176
c. Subpart 5
E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
1. Attainment Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
5. Contingency Plan
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
7. Conclusion
V. Boundary Correction
A. Background
B. Authority for Correcting Errors
C. Evaluation and Conclusion
VI. Public Comment and Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review
I. Summary of Today's Direct Final Action
On June 26, 2002, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(``ADEQ'' or ``State'') submitted to EPA Region IX its Miami Sulfur
Dioxide State Implementation and Maintenance Plan and its request for
redesignation to attainment (``Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan''
or ``submittal''). The submittal summarizes the progress the State has
made in attaining the sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Miami nonattainment area (Gila
County, Arizona) (``Miami area'') and includes a plan to assure
continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for at least the next
10 years. The June 26, 2002 submittal also includes a request for
redesignation of the boundary of the area and for redesignation of the
status of the area, as amended, to ``attainment'' under section 107(d)
of the Clean Air Act (``Act'' or CAA). On June 30, 2004, ADEQ submitted
certain replacement pages correcting errors in the June 26, 2002
submittal. On June 20, 2006, ADEQ submitted a letter withdrawing the
boundary redesignation request and requesting EPA to address the
boundary issue as an error correction under CAA section 110(k)(6)
instead.
In today's direct final action, because we find that the Miami
SO2 Maintenance Plan meets the requirements for maintenance
plans under section 175A of the Act and that the Miami area qualifies
for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), we are approving the
submittal (as amended by the submittals dated June 30, 2004 and June
20, 2006) as a revision to the Arizona SIP and redesignating the Miami
area from nonattainment to attainment for the SO2 NAAQS.
Also, based on a review of the relevant State and EPA materials from
the late 1970's, we are correcting errors under CAA section 110(k)(6)
in the listing of the townships that comprise the Miami SO2
nonattainment area to exclude a noncontiguous township and
[[Page 3063]]
to fix a transcription error in one of the other townships so listed.
II. Introduction
The following section discusses the NAAQS for SO2, CAA
requirements for state implementation plans, SO2 planning in
Arizona generally and in the Miami area more specifically, and sources
of emissions in the Miami area.
A. SO2 NAAQS
The NAAQS for SO2 consists of three standards: Two
primary standards for the protection of public health and a secondary
standard for protection of public welfare. The primary SO2
standards address 24-hour average and annual average ambient
SO2 concentrations. The secondary standard addresses 3-hour
average ambient SO2 concentrations. The level of the annual
SO2 standard is 0.030 parts per million (ppm), which is
equivalent to 80 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3), not
to be exceeded in a calendar year. The level of the 24-hour standard is
0.14 ppm (365 [mu]g/m3), not to be exceeded more than once
per calendar year. The level of the secondary SO2 standard
is a 3-hour standard of 0.5 ppm (1,300 [mu]g/m3), not to be
exceeded more than once per calendar year. See 40 CFR 50.2-50.5.
B. State Implementation Plan
The CAA requires states to implement, maintain, and enforce ambient
air quality equal to or better than the NAAQS. A state's strategies for
implementing, maintaining, and enforcing the NAAQS are submitted to EPA
for approval, and, once approved, become part of the State
Implementation Plan (or SIP) for that State. SIPs are compilations of
regulatory and non-regulatory elements adopted, submitted, and approved
at different times to address various types of changes in
circumstances, such as new or revised NAAQS or amendments to the CAA.
SIPs include, among other things, the following: (1) An inventory of
emission sources; (2) statutes and regulations adopted by the state
legislature and executive agencies; (3) air quality analyses that
include demonstrations that adequate controls are in place to meet the
NAAQS; and (4) contingency measures to be undertaken if an area fails
to attain the standard or make reasonable progress toward attainment by
the required date. The state must make proposed changes to the SIP
available for public review and comment through a public hearing, and
must formally adopt the changes before submitting them to EPA for
approval. Upon our approval, a SIP revision becomes federally
enforceable.
C. History of SO2 Planning in Arizona
1. Development of the SO2 SIP
In the early 1970's, soon after the Clean Air Amendments of 1970
were passed, Arizona began developing air quality regulations that
applied to all Arizona primary copper smelters, including the one
operating in the Miami area. These regulations focused on establishing
an air quality monitoring network in the areas surrounding the smelters
and determining the allowable emission rates from the smelters so that
the SO2 NAAQS could be attained and maintained. Arizona
submitted various SIP revisions during the 1970s to establish
approvable emission limitations for the primary copper smelters
operating in the state. On September 20, 1979, the State submitted its
SIP revision to EPA which contained its multi-point rollback (MPR)
technique to establish operating limitations on smelters. After EPA's
proposed conditional approval on November 30, 1981 (46 FR 58098),
Arizona made necessary changes which corrected identified deficiencies.
EPA granted full approval of the MPR-based SIP submittal on January 14,
1983 (48 FR 1717), but was not able to grant full approval to the
SO2 SIPs for six smelter areas (including Miami) because
they lacked a strategy for addressing fugitive\1\ sources of
SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Fugitive'' in this context refers to emissions that could
not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent for a
functionally equivalent opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 1, 2004, EPA approved several revisions to the
SO2 SIP, including site-specific requirements, compliance
and monitoring, and fugitive emissions standards for existing primary
copper smelters. See 69 FR 63321. In that same notice, EPA promulgated
a limited approval/limited disapproval of R18-2-Appendix 8, which sets
out procedures for calculating sulfur emissions using a sulfur balance
method. ADEQ subsequently corrected the identified deficiencies and EPA
approved the new version of R18-2-Appendix 8 as a SIP revision on April
12, 2006. See 71 FR 18624. The effective date for our April 12, 2006
final approval is June 12, 2006.
2. Miami SO2 Nonattainment Area
Originally, the air quality planning area we refer to as the Miami
SO2 nonattainment area was not separately defined but rather
was included in a county-wide SO2 nonattainment area (see 43
FR 8969, March 3, 1978). At the request of the state of Arizona, the
boundaries were reduced to nine townships in and around the city of
Miami (44 FR 21261, April 10, 1979). See also, 40 CFR 81.303.\2\ In
addition, six adjacent townships were designated as ``cannot be
classified''. Section 107(d)(1)(C) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) brought forward, by operation of law, the nonattainment
designations for areas, such as the Miami SO2 area, that
continued to be designated as nonattainment at the time of enactment of
the CAAA, i.e., areas that had not been redesignated to ``attainment''
prior to November 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The nine townships that comprise the Miami SO2
nonattainment area are: T2N, R14E; T2N, R15E; T1N, R13E (only that
portion in Gila County); T1N, R14E; T1N, R15E; T1N, R16E; T1S, R14E
(only that portion in Gila County); T1S, R14\1/4\E; and T1S, R15E.
Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, part 81, section 303 (40 CFR
81.303) also identifies six other townships as areas that ``cannot
be classified.'' These six townships are: T2N, R13E (only that
portion in Gila County); T2N, R16E; T1S, R13E (only that portion in
Gila County); T1S, R16E; T2S, R14E (only that portion in Gila
County); and T2S, R15E. All of the townships discussed in this
notice relate to the Gila and Salt River Base Line. In section V of
this notice, we discuss our decision to amend 40 CFR 81.303 to
correct the boundary of the Miami area to exclude a noncontiguous
township and to fix a typographical error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Sources of SO2 Emissions in the Miami Area
The dominant source of SO2 emissions in the Miami area
is the Phelps-Dodge Miami primary copper smelter (``Miami smelter'').
Combined stack and fugitive SO2 emissions from the smelter
are limited under the source-specific EPA-approved rule (i.e., R18-2-7-
715) to 2,420 pounds per hour annual average, which amounts to
approximately 10,368 tons per year based on 357 days of operation (set
forth for the permit for this facility) or approximately 10,600 tons
per year assuming 365 days per year of smelter operation. Between 1996
and 2000, the smelter's actual SO2 emissions ranged from
5,737 tons per year to 7,819 tons per year and represented 97 to 99% of
the total stationary source SO2 emissions in the Miami
nonattainment area. See tables 4.1, 4.3, and 5.2 of the Miami
SO2 Maintenance Plan. There are several other point sources
of SO2 in the Miami area, all of which are relatively minor:
BHP Copper, Pinto Valley; BHP Copper, Miami East Unit; Carlota Copper
Company Mine; and the Phelps-Dodge Miami Mine. Viewed collectively,
these sources are permitted to emit a total of approximately 100 tons
per year. Actual emissions, however, are generally less than 10 tons
per year. SO2 emissions from area and mobile sources
[[Page 3064]]
are about 150 tons per year. See sections 4.1 and 4.3 of the Miami
SO2 Maintenance Plan and table 1, below.
Table 1.--Point, Area, and Mobile Sources of SO2 Emissions in the Miami
SO2 Nonattainment Area (Tons per year, TPY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual
Source name or type Allowable emissions
emissions (1999)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources (not including Phelps-
Dodge primary copper smelter):
BHP Copper, Pinto Valley Unit....... 6a <1
BHP Copper, Miami East Unit......... <1 <1
Carlotta Copper Company Mine........ 1 0
Phelps-Dodge Miami Mine............. 92 7
Area and Mobile..................... NA 149
Phelps-Dodge Miami Smelting 10,368 7,819
Operations.........................
-------------------------------
Total From All Sources.......... NA 7,975
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a When burning diesel; lower limits exist for other fuels.
NA = not applicable.
Source: Sections 4.1 and 4.3 from the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan.
III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans
As stated in the summary section of this rule, Arizona has
requested that we redesignate the Miami SO2 nonattainment
area to attainment. Any redesignation from nonattainment to attainment
requires EPA to determine whether the requirements of Clean Air Act
section 107(d)(3)(E), have been met. These criteria are: (1) At the
time of the redesignation, we must find that the area has attained the
relevant NAAQS; (2) the State must have a fully approved SIP for the
area; (3) we must determine that the improvements in air quality are
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP and applicable federal regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the state must have met all
the nonattainment area requirements applicable to the area; and (5) we
must have fully approved a maintenance plan for the area under CAA
section 175A.
To evaluate the State's redesignation request for the Miami area,
we relied upon the Clean Air Act itself, particularly section 110 and
part D (of title I), EPA's NAAQS and SIP regulations in 40 CFR parts 50
and 51, and guidance set forth in ``General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57
FR 13498, April 16, 1992), and in the following EPA guidance documents:
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' dated September 4, 1992, from John Calcagni, (``Calcagni
Memo''), ``Attainment Determination Policy for Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' dated January 26, 1995, from Sally L. Shaver,
(``Shaver Memo''), and ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR)
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' dated
October 14, 1994, from Mary D. Nichols (``Nichols Memo'').
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for
the Miami, Arizona SO2 Nonattainment Area
A. The Area Must Be Attaining the SO2 NAAQS
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i), in order for an area to be
redesignated, we must determine that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS. The air quality data should be representative of the
area of highest concentration and should be measured by monitors that
remain at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment. The data should be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's
Air Quality System database (AQS) to be available for public review.
Under 40 CFR part 58, States certify data that is entered into AQS on
an annual basis.
For the purposes of determining whether an area has attained the
SO2 NAAQS, we require no fewer than two consecutive years of
``clean'' data (i.e., no violations) as recorded in AQS. In addition,
to qualify for attainment determination purposes, the annual average
and second-highest 24-hour average concentrations must be based upon
hourly data that are at least 75 percent complete in each calendar
quarter. See 40 CFR 50.4.
The State of Arizona initiated ambient monitoring of SO2
in the Miami area in 1970. In order to establish coverage sufficient to
evaluate the ambient impact of smelter emissions, this initial effort
was expanded. Eventually more than sixteen stationary monitoring sites
were established, with as many as seven monitors operating
concurrently. Historic ambient SO2 monitoring site locations
and periods of operation are provided in Table 3.1, and Figures 3.1 and
3.2 of the State's submittal.
Following the Miami smelter's compliance with stack emissions
limits (using continuous control technology) as required under Arizona
Administrative Code (AAC) R9-3-515, which was submitted and approved by
EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP in the 1980's (but since amended
and re-codified as R18-2-7-715), the number of SO2 monitors
has decreased. Between 1990 and 1996, the number of monitors varied
from three to four and several monitoring locations changed, but since
1997, the three presently-operating monitors have remained at their
current locations: the Jones Ranch monitor along Cherry Flats Road, the
Ridgeline monitor along Linden Street, and the Townsite monitor along
Sullivan Street.
All three presently-operating monitors are located south of the
smelter, but vary in distance and elevation relative to smelter
sources. The Townsite monitor lies closest to the smelter and at the
lowest elevation among the three sites while the Jones Ranch monitor
lies furthest from the smelter but at the highest elevation. The Jones
Ranch and Townsite monitors are operated by Phelps Dodge using Thermal
Electron pulsed fluorescent (TECO) samplers, and the Ridgeline monitor
is operated by ADEQ using a Thermo pulse fluorescence analyzer.
Table 2 below summarizes the SO2 monitoring data
collected at the various monitors operated by ADEQ (or, in the case of
Jones Ranch, ADEQ or the smelter operator) from 1988 through 2005. ADEQ
ended its monitoring at Jones Ranch in 1994, but the smelter
[[Page 3065]]
operator continues to monitor SO2 at that location. Table 3
below presents estimated annual SO2 emissions from the
smelter over the same time period.
Table 2.--Summary of Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Air Quality Data--Miami, Arizona: 1988-2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\) at individual sites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Year Averaging period Cities
Jones ranch services bldg. Little acres Ridgeline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988.......................... Max 3-hour...... 655 413 153 ..............
Max 24-hour..... 180 73 29 --
Annual.......... 21 13 6 --
1989.......................... Max 3-hour...... 814 169 86 --
Max 24-hour..... 133 29 18 --
Annual.......... 17 4 3 --
1990.......................... Max 3-hour...... 715 -- -- --
Max 24-hour..... 136 -- -- --
Annual.......... *16 -- -- --
1991.......................... Max 3-hour...... 767 -- -- --
Max 24-hour..... 143 -- -- --
Annual.......... *18 -- -- --
1992.......................... Max 3-hour...... 875 -- -- --
Max 24-hour..... 128 -- -- --
Annual.......... *8 -- -- --
1993.......................... Max 3-hour...... 721 -- -- --
Max 24-hour..... 123 -- -- --
Annual.......... 10 -- -- --
1994.......................... Max 3-hour...... 566 -- -- --
Max 24-hour..... 121 -- -- --
Annual.......... 16 -- -- --
1995.......................... Max 3-hour...... 433 -- -- 244
Max 24-hour..... 122 -- -- 89
Annual.......... 8 -- -- 10
1996.......................... Max 3-hour...... 593 -- -- 338
Max 24-hour..... 146 -- -- 110
Annual.......... 11 -- -- 8
1997.......................... Max 3-hour...... 820 -- -- 524
Max 24-hour..... 138 -- -- 92
Annual.......... 10 -- -- 5
1998.......................... Max 3-hour...... 840 -- -- 175
Max 24-hour..... 123 -- -- 40
Annual.......... 10 -- -- 8
1999.......................... Max 3-hour...... 897 -- -- 198
Max 24-hour..... 152 -- -- 65
Annual.......... 8 -- -- 14
2000.......................... Max 3-hour...... 895 -- -- 307
Max 24-hour..... 133 -- -- 70
Annual.......... 11 -- -- 17
2001.......................... Max 3-hour...... 577 -- -- 338
Max 24-hour..... 145 -- -- 110
Annual.......... 19 -- -- 19
2002.......................... Max 3-hour...... 628 -- -- 174
Max 24-hour..... 184 -- -- 78
Annual.......... 16 -- -- 18
2003.......................... Max 3-hour...... 578 -- -- 250
Max 24-hour..... 152 -- -- 70
Annual.......... 21 -- -- 13
2004.......................... Max 3-hour...... 326 -- -- 291
Max 24-hour..... 99 -- -- 78
Annual.......... 13 -- -- 11
2005.......................... Max 3-hour...... -- -- -- 250
Max 24-hour..... -- -- -- 78
Annual.......... -- -- -- 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The primary NAAQS for SO2 are 365 [mu]g/m3, 24-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per
calendar year, and 80 [mu]g/m3, annual average. The secondary NAAQS for SO2 is 1,300 [mu]g/m3, 3-hour average,
not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The * indicates that the annual average does not satisfy
summary criteria. The -- indicates little or no data in a given year from a given monitor. EPA's AQS database
is the source of data shown in italics. ADEQ's Air Quality Annual Reports are the sources of the non-
italicized data shown in this table.
Monitoring Sites:
The Jones Ranch monitoring site is located along Cherry Flats Road, approximately 1.8 miles south-
southeast of the smelter stack at an elevation of 4,100 feet above sea level. ADEQ operated a monitor at this
site through 1994. From 1991 through 1994, the State-operated monitor at Jones Ranch was referred to as
``Nolan Ranch''. More recent data shown in this table for Jones Ranch was collected and compiled by the
smelter operator.
The Cities Services Building monitoring site was located approximately 2.2 miles east-northeast of the
smelter stack. ADEQ operated a monitor at this site through 1989.
[[Page 3066]]
The Little Acres monitoring site was located approximately 2 miles southeast of the smelter. ADEQ
operated a monitor at this site through 1989.
The Ridgeline monitoring site, which is the current ADEQ monitoring site for SO2 in the Miami area, is
located along Linden Street at an elevation of 3,600 feet.
Table 3.--Miami Smelter Sulfur Dioxide Emissions: 1988-2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur dioxide
Year emissions tons
per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988.................................................... 3,988
1989.................................................... 6,398
1990.................................................... 4,141
1991.................................................... 11,145
1992.................................................... 4,813
1993.................................................... 7,678
1994.................................................... 9,260
1995.................................................... 5,108
1996.................................................... 5,737
1997.................................................... 6,368
1998.................................................... 6,097
1999.................................................... 7,819
2000.................................................... 6,810
2001.................................................... 9,062
2002.................................................... 5,667
2003.................................................... 8,005
2004.................................................... 8,754
2005.................................................... 7,366
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan, page 35; e-mail correspondence from
Bruce Friedl, ADEQ, dated September 29, 2006.
Review of historic data supports identification of the Jones Ranch
monitor as the monitoring location where the highest concentrations are
recorded among the network of monitoring locations selected to measure
the impact of smelter-related emissions on ambient air quality. We note
that the Jones Ranch monitoring site was determined to be the
``limiting site'' for the purposes of establishing emissions limits for
the smelter. ADEQ closed its monitoring site at Jones Ranch in 1994,
and while Phelps-Dodge continues to operate an SO2 monitor
at that site, the data is not recorded in AQS.\3\ In 1995, ADEQ began
monitoring at the Ridgeline site, and no exceedances have ever been
recorded there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ADEQ has committed to working with Phelps-Dodge to begin
entering SO2 monitoring data collected at the Jones Ranch
site to AQS beginning with the first quarter of 2008. See letter
from Nancy C. Wrona, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to
Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA--Region IX, dated October
18, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a review of the data from the Miami SO2
Maintenance Plan as well as tables 2 and 3 presented above, we find
that the Miami nonattainment area has attained the SO2 NAAQS
and thereby meets the first criterion for redesignation. Our conclusion
is based on six basic interrelated facts:
Ambient SO2 concentrations in the Miami air
quality planning area are determined by emissions from the Phelps-Dodge
primary copper smelter \4\ and local meteorological and topographic
characteristics, and all other SO2 sources have essentially
no effect on ambient levels in the planning area;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ There is one significant point source located outside the
Miami nonattainment area but within 50 kilometers of the Miami
nonattainment area. The ASARCO Hayden Smelter is located
approximately 46 kilometers south of the Miami smelter. However,
because the ASARCO Hayden smelter is geographically separated from
the Miami area by the 7,000 foot Pinal Mountains, its emissions do
not have an impact on air quality in the Miami area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monitor at the Jones Ranch site records SO2
concentrations that are representative of the highest ambient levels in
the nonattainment area;
There are two consecutive and complete years of ``clean''
data from the Jones Ranch monitor, i.e., the limiting site, as recorded
in AQS (1988 and 1989);
During the 1988-1989 period, maximum concentrations were
approximately 60% of the 3-hour-average secondary NAAQS and
approximately 50% of the 24-hour-average primary NAAQS, and the highest
of the annual-average concentrations measured in the area during this
period was approximately 30% of the corresponding primary NAAQS;
While annual emissions from the smelter have varied from
year to year, they have generally been no higher than 50% above those
that occurred during the 1988-1989 period; and
No SO2 exceedances have been measured at any of
the monitoring sites over the 1988 to 2005 period.
B. The Area's Applicable Implementation Plan Must Be Fully Approved
Under CAA Section 110(k)
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), the SIP for the Miami area must
be fully approved under CAA section 110(k) of the Act. We examined the
applicable SIP for Arizona and also looked at the disapprovals listed
in 40 CFR 52.125 and have determined that no disapprovals listed remain
relevant to the applicable SIP. Arizona has a fully approved SIP with
respect to SO2 in the Miami area.
C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that EPA determine that the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and/or
applicable federal measures. Figure 6.1 of the Miami SO2
Maintenance Plan (as amended in ADEQ's submittal dated June 30, 2004)
illustrates the significant decline in emissions from the Miami smelter
since the 1970's in inverse proportion to the level of control over
smelter emissions sources.
Control over the smelter's SO2 emissions has been made
permanent and enforceable through EPA approval of State rules limiting
such emissions as a revision to the Arizona SIP (specifically, R18-2-
715, R18-2-715.01, R18-2-715.02, and R18-2-Appendix 8) and through
ADEQ's issuance of a title V permit for the Miami smelter. Arizona's
primary copper smelter rules and ADEQ's title V permit contain
enforceable emission limitations that cap emissions at a level that has
been shown to be protective of the NAAQS. Any relaxation to the SIP-
approved limits must be approved by EPA as a revision to the Arizona
SIP, and EPA may not approve any such SIP revision without a
demonstration that the relaxation in the limits would not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. See CAA section 110(l).
Therefore, we find that the improvement in ambient SO2
concentrations in the Miami, AZ area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of
the SIP.
D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110
and Part D
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), we must determine whether the
State of Arizona has met all requirements under section 110 and under
part D (of title I) of the CAA applicable to the Miami SO2
nonattainment area.
1. Section 110 Requirements
CAA section 110 contains the general requirements for SIPs
(enforceable emissions limits, ambient monitoring, permitting of new
sources, adequate funding, etc.). EPA's guidance for implementing
section 110 of the Act is discussed in the General Preamble to Title I
(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Over the years, we have approved
Arizona's SIP as meeting these basic requirements. The SIP includes
enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and
analyzing of ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review
of new
[[Page 3067]]
major stationary sources and major modifications to existing ones;
provides for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources
necessary to implement its requirements; and requires stationary source
emission monitoring and reporting.
2. Part D Requirements
Before an area can be redesignated to attainment, it must have
fulfilled the applicable requirements under part D (of title I). For
this area, the relevant requirements are found in subparts 1 and 5 of
part D. Subpart 1 of part D specifies the basic requirements applicable
to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 5 sets out additional provisions
for areas designated nonattainment for SO2. As discussed
below, EPA finds that Arizona has met the requirements of subpart 1 of
part D, specifically sections 172(c) and 176, and subpart 5 as
applicable for the Miami SO2 nonattainment area.
a. Section 172
CAA section 172 contains the general requirements for nonattainment
SIPs. A thorough discussion of the requirements of 172(c) can be found
in the General Preamble for the implementation of title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992). Additional guidance can be found in the Calcagni memo.
EPA has interpreted the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2)
(reasonable further progress--RFP), 172(c)(6) (other measures), and
172(c)(9) (contingency measures) as not relevant to a redesignation
request because they only have meaning for an area that is not
attaining the standard (see the General Preamble and the Calcagni
Memo), and as discussed above in section IV.A. of this notice, we find
that the Miami area is attaining the SO2 standard.
Furthermore, the State has not sought to exercise options that would
trigger section 172(c)(4) (identification of certain emissions
increases). Thus, this provision is also not relevant to this
redesignation request. The other provisions under 172(c) are discussed
below.
Reasonably available control measures. Under CAA section 172(c)(1),
reasonably available control measures (RACM), which include
requirements for reasonably available control technology (RACT), are
required for existing sources in nonattainment areas. In 1983, we
approved the State's submittal of Rule R9-3-315, a predecessor to the
State's current smelter rules codified at Arizona Administrative Code
(AAC) R18-2-715. See 48 FR 1717 (January 14, 1983). This rule limited
stack emissions from primary copper smelters, including the smelter in
the Miami area. We concluded, however, that the control strategy for
SO2 in Arizona's six SO2 nonattainment areas was
incomplete due to the failure to address fugitive emissions problems.
See 48 FR 1717 (January 14, 1983) and 40 CFR 52.125(a)(1).
In 1998, 2003, and 2006, the State submitted amended rules (AAC
R18-2-715 (sections F, G, and H), R18-2-715.01, R18-2-715.02, and R18-
2-Appendix 8).\5\ These rules address both fugitive and stack emissions
from smelters and, in approving the rules, we found that the amended
rules met the RACT requirement under CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 191(b).
See 69 FR 26789 at 26788 (May 14, 2004), 69 FR 63321 (November 2,
2004), and 71 FR 18624 at 18625 (April 12, 2006). Furthermore, because
the area has attained the standard, no further demonstration that RACM
has been implemented need be submitted by the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A more extensive summary of the regulatory history of copper
smelters in Arizona is included in EPA's proposed action on these
rules. See 69 FR 26786 (May 14, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions inventory. The emissions inventory requirement of section
172(c)(3) is satisfied by the maintenance plan inventory requirements.
The maintenance plan inventory is evaluated below, in section IV.E.1.
NSR permit program. Section 172(c)(5) requires new source review
(NSR) permits for the construction and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources located in nonattainment areas. ADEQ is the
agency responsible for implementing the nonattainment area NSR permit
program in the Miami area. Under ADEQ's rules, all new major sources
and modifications to existing major sources are subject to the NSR
requirements of these rules.
We have not yet fully approved the ADEQ NSR rules.\6\ We have,
however, determined that an area being redesignated from nonattainment
to attainment does not need to have an approved NSR program prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without nonattainment NSR in effect. See memorandum from Mary
Nichols dated October 14, 1994 (``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR)
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'') We
have determined that the maintenance demonstration for Miami does not
rely on nonattainment NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ADEQ's NSR rules are included in the preconstruction review
and permitting provisions of Arizona Administrative Code (AAC),
Title 18, Chapter 2, Articles 3 and 4. EPA approved an earlier
version of ADEQ's NSR requirements (AAC R9-3-302) on May 5, 1982 (47
FR 19328) and August 10, 1988 (53 FR 30220).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) is the permitting
program that applies in attainment areas. PSD was established to
preserve air quality in areas that are meeting the NAAQS. The PSD
program requires new, modified, or reconstructed stationary sources to
undergo preconstruction review and to apply best available control
technology. In addition, sources are required to review PSD increment
consumption and undertake preconstruction modeling. ADEQ has an EPA-
approved PSD permitting program (Arizona Air Pollution Rule R9-3-304)
for all criteria pollutants except respirable particulate matter
(PM\10\). See 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 1983). The federal PSD program for
PM\10\ was delegated to the State on March 12, 1999. ADEQ's partially
approved, partially delegated PSD program will apply automatically to
new major sources or major modifications to existing sources of
SO2 in the Miami area once the area is redesignated to
attainment.
Compliance with section 110(a)(2). Under section 172(c)(7), plan
provisions submitted to satisfy part D must meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted in section IV.B.
above, the Miami portion of the Arizona SIP meets these requirements.
Equivalent techniques. Under section 172(c)(8), EPA may allow the
use of equivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planning
procedures, unless EPA determines that the proposed techniques are, in
the aggregate, less effective than the methods specified by EPA. The
Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan relies on an equivalent modeling
technique referred to as Multipoint Rollback (MPR). MPR was used to
derive emissions limits for the Miami smelter that provide for
attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. The State's
rules containing MPR-derived emission limits for the Miami smelter were
approved by EPA on January 14, 1983 (48 FR 1717) and amended versions
of the rules were approved by EPA on November 1, 2004 (69 FR 63321).
b. Section 176
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects developed, funded or approved
[[Page 3068]]
under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws (``transportation
conformity'') as well as to all other federally supported or funded
projects (``general conformity''). Because EPA does not consider
SO2 a transportation-related pollutant, only the
requirements related to general conformity apply to the Miami
SO2 area. The State of Arizona adopted general conformity
criteria and procedures as a revision to the Arizona SIP. EPA approved
Arizona's general conformity SIP on April 23, 1999 (64 FR 19916). Thus,
the requirements of CAA section 176 have been satisfied.
c. Subpart 5
Subpart 5 of part D contains additional provisions for areas
designated nonattainment for SO2. Under CAA section 191(b),
States with existing nonattainment areas for the primary SO2
NAAQS where those areas lack fully approved SIPs, including part D
plans, must submit implementation plans meeting the requirements of
subpart 1 of part D. As discussed in section IV.D.2.a of this notice,
the State of Arizona has met the requirements of subpart 1 of part D
for the Miami area. Under CAA section 192(b), such areas were required
to meet the primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as possibly
but no later than November 15, 1995. As discussed in section IV.A of
this notice, the Miami SO2 nonattainment area met the
primary SO2 standards well before the applicable attainment
date of November 15, 1995 and has continued to attain since then.
E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act makes EPA approval of a
maintenance plan meeting the requirements of section 175A another
prerequisite to redesignation. Under section 175A, a maintenance plan
must provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation, and include any additional control measures as may be
necessary to ensure such maintenance. In addition, maintenance plans
are to contain such contingency provisions as EPA deems necessary to
assure the prompt correction of a violation of the NAAQS that occurs
after redesignation. The contingency measures must include, at a
minimum, a requirement that the state will implement all control
measures contained in the nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation.
The Calcagni Memo contains EPA guidance on the contents of
maintenance plans submitted for the purposes of meeting section 175A.
Generally, such plans should address the following five topics: the
attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.
Lastly, under CAA section 175A(b), states are required to submit a
subsequent maintenance plan eight years after redesignation providing
for maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional 10-year period beyond
the initial 10-year maintenance period.
1. Attainment Inventory
The Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan includes an emissions
inventory for point sources, area sources, and mobile sources for 1999
and 2000 as well as a projection of emissions to 2015. See table 4
below. As discussed in section IV.A of this notice, the Miami area has
continued to attain the SO2 NAAQS since at least 1990 and
thus 1999 and 2000 are acceptable as the basis upon which to develop an
``attainment emissions inventory'' for the purposes of a maintenance
plan.
ADEQ developed the area and mobile source estimates shown in table
4 based on EPA's AIRData for Gila County. Point source estimates are
based on ADEQ annual emissions inventory data. See section 4.0 and
appendix B of the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan. Sulfur dioxide
emissions from the Phelps-Dodge smelter copper smelter itself are based
on continuous emission monitoring systems and the assumption that stack
emissions represent 25 percent of the facility's total annual (i.e.,
stack plus fugitive) SO2 emissions. The actual percentage of
total facility emissions emanating from the stacks varies from year to
year (e.g., from 19 percent to 33 percent over the 1996 to 2000 period)
but the 25 percent assumption is a reasonable average annual value
based on material balance calculation methods.
Table 4.--SO2 Emissions Inventories for 1999, 2000, and Projected Inventory for 2015 for the Miami Area (in TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source type 1999 2000 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area and Mobile................................................. 149 150 162
Point (excluding Miami smelter)................................. 7 4 9
Miami Smelter................................................... 7,819 6,810 8,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 7,975 6,964 8,171
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan, tables 4.4 and 4.6.
Based on our review of the submitted plan, we conclude that the
emissions inventory is based on reasonable methods and assumptions and
is comprehensive and accurate.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
EPA allows states to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either
showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not
exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show
that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS.\7\ In the case of the Miami nonattainment area,
the demonstration of maintenance relies on both a projected emissions
inventory for future years of 2005, 2010, and 2015 for sources in the
Miami nonattainment area as well as SO2 emission limits for
the Miami smelter that were developed using a variant of Multipoint
Rollback (MPR) modeling and intended to minimize the probability of an
exceedance of the SO2 NAAQS due to smelter emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Calcagni Memo, at p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inventory from the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan shows
that about 98% of the total SO2 emissions in the Miami
nonattainment area are generated by the smelter.\8\ Projections for the
Miami smelter itself anticipate a minor increase from those in 1999
[7,819 tons per year (tpy)] to 2005 and beyond (8,000 tpy). The
remaining point sources in the nonattainment area have existing permits
that limit their allowable emissions to less than 100 tpy. Projections
for area and mobile sources
[[Page 3069]]
(increasing from 149 tpy \9\ to 162 tpy) are based on anticipated
moderate increases in population and the assumption that SO2
emissions from such sources are proportionate to the population. Total
projected actual emissions of point, area, and mobile sources are
expected to remain relatively constant, with total SO2
emissions projected to be less than 24 tons on a daily basis and
approximately 8,200 tons on annual basis by 2015.\10\ This represents
an increase of only about 2 percent from 1999 levels. Thus, throughout
the maintenance period, the Miami smelter is expected to continue to be
the overwhelming source of SO2 emissions in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See appendix B of submitted plan.
\9\ The most recent quality assured inventory is from 1996. The
1999 SO2 inventory for area and mobile sources is based
on economic growth activity.
\10\ See table 4.6 of submitted plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions projections for the smelter (from 7,819 tpy) in 1999
to 8,000 tpy in 2005 and beyond are based on the expectation that,
through 2015, the copper industry will not expand. While the
expectation of continued low price pressures on copper may well have
been reasonable in 2002 when the maintenance plan was adopted, changes
in the copper market in fact have occurred over the past several years
raising the price for copper thereby leading to a reasonable
expectation of higher production levels at the Miami smelter than
anticipated in the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan.
Nonetheless, the demonstration of maintenance of the SO2
NAAQS in the Miami area does not rely solely on the emissions
projections, but also on the SO2 emission limits established
under SIP rule AAC R18-2-715 (approved by EPA in 2004 and, as amended,
in 2006) and incorporated into the title V operating permit for the
Phelps-Dodge Miami smelter. These limits cap stack emissions at 604
pounds per hour (lbs/hr) on an annual average basis and total facility
(i.e., stacks plus fugitives) emissions at 2,420 lbs/hr on an annual
basis. SIP rule AAC R18-2-715 also establishes a cumulative occurrence
table that caps the number of occurrences of 3-hour average emissions
above various levels with, for example, only two occurrences allowed
per year of stack SO2 emissions greater than 5,900 lbs/hr,
3-hour average. The total facility emissions cap (2,420 lbs/hr)
corresponds to approximately 10,600 tpy assuming round-the-clock, year-
round operation (the permit however cites 10,400 tpy based on 357 work
days in a given year).
As explained below, ADEQ has demonstrated that the new limits are
protective of the SO2 NAAQS. In order to increase the
smelter's emissions limits the State would have to submit a SIP
revision that demonstrates that, consistent with CAA section 110(l),
the revision does not interfere with maintenance of the SO2
NAAQS. Therefore, the emission limits for the smelter, supported by the
emissions inventory projections that show that the smelter will remain
the overwhelming source of SO2 emissions in the area for the
foreseeable future, in essence provide the demonstration necessary to
show that the Miami area will continue to attain the SO2
standard indefinitely, and thereby comply with CAA section 175A(a),
which requires maintenance plans to provide for maintenance of the
NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation.
Given the link then between the SO2 emission limits on
the Phelps-Dodge Miami smelter and the demonstration of maintenance,
the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan provides a detailed
explanation of how the limits were derived and how they minimize the
probability of exceedance of the SO2 NAAQS due to smelter
operations. See chapter 5 of the submitted plan. First, it is important
to note that ADEQ used a variant of the Multipoint Rollback (MPR)
method to derive these emissions limits. In brief, MPR uses the ratio
of monitored concentrations to the NAAQS to determine how much to scale
the smelter's existing hourly distribution of emission rates so that
they meet the NAAQS. Unlike simple rollback, which yields a single
maximum emission rate never to be exceeded, MPR yields limitations on
the number of times per year that the facility may exceed each of a
series of emission rates. In the resulting cumulative occurrence table,
the larger the emissions rate, the fewer number of occurrences are
allowed per year. The emission rates are chosen so that the full hourly
distribution results in attainment of the NAAQS on a probabilistic
basis. This approach has been approved by EPA for use with smelters
because of their highly variable emission rates.\11\ ADEQ used a
variant of MPR, as explained further below, to show that the new limits
are protective of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See EPA Final Rule, ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Arizona Plan Revision: Sulfur Oxides Control
Strategy and Regulations for Existing Nonferrous Smelters,'' 48 FR
1717 (January 14, 1983); and the SO2 Guideline Document,
EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994, section 6.4.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ derived the original emissions limits for the smelter in the
late 1970's using MPR, and adopted the original smelter SO2 emissions
rule in 1979. To derive new, enforceable limits on the smelter stacks,
it was necessary to distinguish stack emissions from total emissions,
which include fugitives (those emissions not vented through the stack).
The new emissions limits were derived by apportioning the old facility-
wide emission limits between the stack emissions and fugitive
emissions. Using mass balance, the total amount of emissions can be
calculated from the total mass of sulfur entering the plant in raw
materials. Stack emissions are monitored, and account for about 25% of
the total sulfur. The fugitive emissions were then determined by
subtracting the monitored stack emissions from the calculated total
emissions. Because the release height of the stack and fugitive
emissions is similar, and their emissions are fairly well-mixed by the
time they reach the monitor, the stack also accounts for 25% of the
observed concentration at the monitor, on average. Thus, 25% of the
existing facility-wide limits (2,420 lb/hr) are what the stack must be
limited to (605 lb/hr; the SIP rule caps the emissions at 604 lb/hr,
which is slightly more conservative) in order to meet the NAAQS.
This provides only an annual average emission rate. To derive MPR-
style limits on allowed occurrences of various emission rates (i.e., a
cumulative occurrence table), ADEQ used the shape of the current hourly
emission distribution \12\ and scaled it to match the required annual
average emission rate. Since the new average limit is 1.75 times the
current average actual emissions (604 lb/hr limit vs. 345 lb/hr current
average), the current distribution and occurrence emission levels were
scaled up by this factor. The result is new occurrence limits
consistent with the new average limit of 604 lb/hr, the level needed to
meet the NAAQS based upon the 1979 MPR analysis and the 25% stack
fraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Emissions from each hour of 1999 were averaged with the
corresponding hour in 2000, which represents a minor departure from
how original MPR was carried out; i.e., using all data in a single
distribution. EPA believes any resulting changes to the calculations
are insignificant in the context of the Miami MPR analysis and finds
this to be an acceptable approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, scaling according to the 1979 limits assumes that the 1979
relationship between emissions and ambient concentrations has not
changed. There have been substantial operational and emissions changes
at the smelter since the 1979 average
[[Page 3070]]
emission limit and occurrence table were derived, which could have
altered the shape of the emissions curve. If the current distribution
shape has a broader peak than the 1979 one, then there will be
relatively more instances of high ambient impacts, and so scaling of
the average will not guarantee NAAQS-protective limits on short-term
emissions.
In order to address this, ADEQ carried out a second step in the
submittal that is more consistent with the MPR procedure, in that it
incorporated the ambient effect of the current emissions distribution,
rather than relying on the 1979 relationship. ADEQ used monitoring data
from 1996-2000, and emissions during that same period. The new emission
limits, though a decrease from the old limits, represent an increase
over the current actual emissions, and so should be shown to be
consistent with the NAAQS. ADEQ assumed the smelter operated at the
higher emissions rate allowed in the new limits, and applied the
fractional emissions i