Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for Redesignation to Attainment, 3396-3405 [E8-803]

Download as PDF 3396 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations Dated: November 29, 2007. Wayne Nastri, 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 DD—Nevada 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(65) to read as follows: I § 52.1470 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (65) The following plan was submitted on May 30, 2007 by the Governor’s designee. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Washoe County District Health Department, Air Quality Management Division. (1) Maintenance Plan for the Washoe County 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Area (April 2007), Washoe County District Health Department, excluding appendices. * * * * * [FR Doc. E8–743 Filed 1–17–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0214; FRL–8514–7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for Redesignation to Attainment Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under the Clean Air Act to approve the Final State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007 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 San Manuel, Arizona area and to request VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 redesignation of the area to attainment. 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 San Manuel area from nonattainment to attainment for the sulfur dioxide standards. 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 San Manuel, Arizona sulfur dioxide nonattainment area to attainment, and to provide for maintenance of the standard for the tenyear period following redesignation. DATES: This rule is effective on March 18, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 19, 2008. 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–2006–0214, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: robin.marty@epa.gov. 3. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin (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 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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: Marty Robin, Air Planning Office, (415) 972–3961 or by e-mail at robin.marty@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. The SO2 NAAQS B. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) C. History of SO2 Planning in Arizona 1. Development of the SO2 SIP 2. San Manuel SO2 Nonattainment Area D. Sources of SO2 Emissions in the San Manuel Area III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the San Manuel, 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 E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 2. Maintenance Demonstration 3. Monitoring Network 4. Verification of Continued Attainment 5. Contingency Plan 6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions 7. Conclusion V. Public Comment and EPA’s Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary of Today’s Direct Final Action On June 7, 2007, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (‘‘ADEQ’’ or ‘‘State’’) submitted to EPA Region IX its Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, San E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM 18JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 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. II. Introduction The following section discusses the NAAQS for SO2, CAA requirements for state implementation plans, SO2 planning in Arizona generally and in the San Manuel area more specifically, and sources of emissions in the San Manuel area. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007 and its request for redesignation to attainment (‘‘San Manuel SO2 Maintenance Plan’’ or ‘‘submittal’’). The submittal summarizes the progress the State has made in attaining the 24-hour and annual average sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Manuel nonattainment area in Pima and Pinal Counties, Arizona (‘‘San Manuel area’’) and includes a plan to assure continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for at least the next 10 years. The State’s June 2007 submittal also requested the withdrawal of the June 2002 Final San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan. The June 2007 submittal updated the SIP to account for the closure of the dominant source of SO2 emissions, the BHP Billiton copper smelter. The March 2007 SIP revision contains current information and analyses which supercede the obsolete information in the June 2002 SIP. In today’s direct final action, we are approving ADEQ’s June 7, 2007 submittal as a revision to the Arizona SIP and redesignating the San Manuel area from nonattainment to attainment for the SO2 NAAQS because we find that the San Manuel SO2 Maintenance Plan meets the requirements for maintenance plans under section 175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and that the San Manuel area qualifies for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). C. History of SO2 Planning in Arizona A. The 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 B. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 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. Upon our approval, a SIP revision becomes federally enforceable. 1. Development of the SO2 SIP In the early 1970s, soon after the CAA Amendments of 1970 were passed, Arizona began developing air quality regulations that applied to all Arizona primary copper smelters, including the one operating at that time in San Manuel. 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 limits 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 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 3397 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 San Manuel) because they lacked a strategy for addressing fugitive sources of SO2.1 On November 1, 2004, EPA approved several revisions to the SO2 SIP, including fugitive emissions standards, site-specific requirements, and compliance and monitoring for existing primary copper smelters. See 69 FR 63321. In that same notice, EPA promulgated a limited approval/limited disapproval of Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) 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, effective June 12, 2006. See 71 FR 18624. 2. San Manuel SO2 Nonattainment Area Initially, the air quality planning area we refer to as the San Manuel SO2 nonattainment area comprised all of Pima and Pinal Counties (43 FR 8969; March 3, 1978) but at the request of the State of Arizona, the boundaries were subsequently reduced to eleven townships around the primary copper smelter located near San Manuel (44 FR 21261, April 10, 1979). In addition, four adjacent townships were designated as unclassified.2 All but one of the townships that define the nonattainment area are located in southeastern Pinal County, with the remaining southernmost township located in neighboring Pima County. The current boundaries of the nonattainment and unclassified areas are codified at 40 CFR 81.303 and are defined as follows: ‘‘Does Not Meet Primary Standards’’: T8S, R16E; T8S, R17E; T8S, R18E; T9S, R15E; T9S, R16E; T9S, R17E; T9S, R18E; T10S, R15E; T10S, R16E; T10S, R17E; T11S, R16E, and ‘‘Cannot Be Classified’’: T10S, R18E; T11S, R17E; T12S, R16E; T12S, R17E. In June of 2002, ADEQ submitted the Final San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan and redesignation request. Since then, the San Manuel copper smelter, the 1 ‘‘Fugitive’’ in this context refers to emissions that could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent or a functionally equivalent opening. 2 Following the enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, the San Manuel area was classified by operation of law as nonattainment for the primary SO2 standards, effective on November 15, 1990. E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM 18JAR1 3398 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations dominant source of emissions in the area, has permanently ceased operation. In January 2005, BHP Copper Inc. (BHP Billiton) notified ADEQ that the company intended to permanently cease operating the San Manuel smelter. As indicated in Appendix B of the current SIP submittal, in March 2005, ADEQ terminated the permit for the facility. The smelter stacks were dismantled in January 2007. The smelting facility cannot reopen without submitting New Source Review (NSR) and Title V (Part 70) permit applications to ADEQ. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES D. Sources of SO2 Emissions in the San Manuel Area Emissions inventories for the San Manuel Nonattainment Area demonstrate that, although there were other sources of SO2 emissions, the primary source of SO2 emissions in the San Manuel area while it was operating was the San Manuel smelter, which comprised more than 99.5 percent of total SO2 emissions in the nonattainment area. Data show that no other point, area, or mobile sources have contributed in the past or currently contribute to the same levels of SO2 emissions in the San Manuel Nonattainment Area as those attributed to the smelter. Figure 4.1 on page 30 of the SIP illustrates sulfur dioxide emissions levels for the San Manuel smelter from 1972 through 2005. Implementation of new emissions control technologies at the smelter in the mid 1970s and again in the late 1980s are clearly reflected in the resulting emissions reductions for these periods. Closure of the smelter reduced emissions by more than 10,000 tons of SO2 per year. III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans Arizona has requested that we redesignate the San Manuel SO2 nonattainment area to attainment. Any redesignation from nonattainment to attainment requires EPA to determine whether the requirements of CAA 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 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 San Manuel area, we relied upon the Clean Air Act, 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 the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the San Manuel, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 began ambient SO2 monitoring in the San Manuel area as early as 1969. 3 Over time, an extensive monitoring network was developed with more than eighteen stationary and mobile monitoring sites. This ambient SO2 network, comprised of EPA, state, and facility monitors, was developed as the result of extensive efforts to identify maximum ambient impact areas using diffusion modeling, monitored atmospheric dispersion parameters, citizen observations, and ambient SO2 concentrations. Further refinement of the monitoring network was required by the adoption of the MPR rules that established stack emissions limits for the smelter in 1979 based on permanent controls. Placement of additional monitors was accomplished with EPA consultation to further evaluate ambient impacts. Following implementation of continuous emissions control technology and compliance with emissions limits as defined in AAC R18–2–715(F) at the San Manuel smelter, the number of permanent monitors was gradually reduced to a network of four: LDS Church, Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital. These were all high impact ambient monitor sites found to be representative of air quality for the area. The Dorm Site and Hospital monitors were primarily fugitive impact sites. The Townsite and the LDS Church site were primarily stack impact sites. The Townsite monitor was the ‘‘limiting site’’ for the original MPR analysis. 4 These monitoring site decisions were made by ADEQ in accordance with EPA guidance. Following the shutdown of smelting operations in 1999, the facility-operated Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital monitors were closed. ADEQ continues to operate a monitor at the LDS Church site. Table 1 summarizes ambient SO2 air quality monitoring from 1997 to 2005. 3 Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Network Study, Arizona State Department of Health, Environmental Health Services, Division of Air Pollution Control, 1969. 4 See Ultimate Sulfur Dioxide Limits for Arizona Copper Smelters, Moyers and Peterson, September 14, 1979. E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM 18JAR1 3399 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF SAN MANUEL, SULFUR DIOXIDE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA, 1997–2005 (IN µg/m3) [Primary NAAQS: Annual average 80 µg/m3 [0.030 ppm], 24-hour average 365 µg/m3 [0.14 ppm]: 3-hour 1300 µg/m3 [0.5 ppm]] Annual average Site or city 2005: LDS Church ....................................................................................................... 2004: LDS Church ....................................................................................................... 2003: LDS Church ....................................................................................................... 2002: LDS Church (opened 3/02) ............................................................................... 1999: LDS Church (closed 10/99) .................................................................................. Townsite ............................................................................................................... Dorm Site .............................................................................................................. Hospital ................................................................................................................. 1998: LDS Church .......................................................................................................... Townsite ............................................................................................................... Dorm Site .............................................................................................................. Hospital ................................................................................................................. 1997: LDS Church .......................................................................................................... Townsite ............................................................................................................... Dorm Site .............................................................................................................. Hospital ................................................................................................................. Max value 3-hr average 5 4 4 4 16 26 15 24 9 4 4 8 Max value 24-Hour average Data recovery * (valid hourly samples) 8 9 8.5 8 8,716 8,742 8,711 6,827 204.5 272.5 258.5 416 56.5 63 53 111.5 6,121 n/a n/a n/a 21 8 8 11 487.5 406.5 258.5 464 88 93 98.5 184 8,469 8,656 8,714 8,642 12 33 11 32 252 313.5 386 654.5 63 93 66.5 180 8,589 8,725 8,751 8,742 rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES * Note: Does not include Golf Course site for 1997 (site closed August 1997). Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital data are as contained in BHP’s monthly reports. The facility reported zero concentrations for the period 2000–2001 at the Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital locations. LDS Church site data for 2002–2005 were obtained from ADEQ Annual Reports. LDS Church site data for 1997–1999 were calculated from data in EPA’s Air Quality System Report (October 3, 2006) by multiplying sulfur dioxide values in parts per million by 2620 to convert to micrograms per cubic meter. After reviewing the historic ambient SO2 monitoring data, EPA concludes the data was collected in accordance with EPA guidelines. The monitoring sites were found to be representative of air quality for the area. As required for redesignation, the nonattainment area has recorded more than eight current, consecutive quarters of quality-assured monitoring data that is free of NAAQS violations. ADEQ had included monitoring data in Chapter 3 of the SIP. ADEQ’s review of historic ambient SO2 monitoring data in the San Manuel area collected by ADHS, BAQC, and ADEQ confirms that the primary SO2 NAAQS has not been violated since 1979 and the secondary SO2 NAAQS has not been violated since 1985. In the San Manuel SIP submittal, ADEQ proposes to close the San Manuel SO2 monitoring site effective December 31, 2007. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 58.14 allows sites to be closed under specific circumstances. ADEQ believes that the closure of the San Manuel SO2 site meets these criteria. Specifically, the option under 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3) allows for discontinuation of a monitor within an attainment, nonattainment, or maintenance area, ‘‘* * * provided the monitor has not measured violations of the applicable NAAQS in the previous five years, and the approved SIP provides for a specific, reproducible VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 approach to representing the air quality of the affected county in the absence of actual monitoring data.’’ This position is supported with the information provided below. Monitoring data for 2002 through 2006 indicate that maximum ambient concentrations were three percent or less of the NAAQS for the 3-hour standard; five percent or less of the NAAQS for the 24-hour standard; and less than seven percent of the NAAQS for the annual standard. Following the shutdown of the San Manuel ambient SO2 monitor, ADEQ will continue to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS through updates to the emissions inventory as described in the San Manuel SO2 Maintenance Plan, March 2007. Analyses contained in the SIP demonstrate that, although there were other sources of SO2 emissions, the San Manuel copper smelter, which permanently closed in 2005, was the primary emissions source in the nonattainment area and comprised more than 99.5 percent of total emissions while it was operating. The more than 99 percent emissions reduction due to the closure of the smelter corresponds to a greater than 92 percent reduction in 3hour average and 24-hour average ambient SO2 concentrations. With the permanent closure of the San Manuel smelter, no major point PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 sources exist in the nonattainment area. Sulfur dioxide emissions in 2017 are projected to be less than 0.5 percent of 1997 and 1998 total nonattainment area emissions, a period in which the San Manuel smelter was operating full time. Arizona does not anticipate any substantial increase in existing point source emissions between now and 2017 for the nonattainment area. Should any growth occur due to construction of additional SO2 point sources, the ADEQ, Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD), and Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) permit programs limit all emissions as part of construction of new point sources or upgrading of existing sources. ADEQ commits to re-establish an appropriate network before any major source of SO2 begins operations in the San Manuel planning area. Maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in San Manuel area will be tracked through updates to the emissions inventory and permit applications received for SO2 emitting sources. Therefore, ADEQ has demonstrated, and we concur, that the closure of the San Manuel SO2 site meets the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 58.14.5 We also 5 EPA sets out requirements for ambient air quality surveillance in 40 CFR part 58. After the closure of the San Manuel SO2 monitoring site, ADEQ will continue to monitor SO2 emissions at E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM Continued 18JAR1 3400 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations conclude that the area has attained the SO2 NAAQS. 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 San Manuel 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 San Manuel 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. As shown in Table 1, as required for redesignation, the nonattainment area has recorded more than eight current, consecutive quarters of quality-assured, violationfree data. Monitoring data for 1997 through 1999, while the San Manuel smelter was still operating, indicate that maximum ambient concentrations were less than 55 percent of the NAAQS for the 3-hour standard, less than 59 percent of the NAAQS for the 24-hour standard, and less than 33 percent of the NAAQS for the annual standard. Closure of the smelter in 1999 further reduced emissions and resultant ambient SO2 concentrations. Monitoring data for 2004 through 2005 indicate that maximum ambient concentrations were two percent of the NAAQS for the 3hour standard and less than three percent for the 24-hour standard; and less than seven percent of the NAAQS for the annual standard. Monitoring network data for the period 1997 through 2005 are presented in Table 1. Closure of the smelter has resulted in permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, as required by the CAA. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES 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 several other sites within the state. For more information about the air monitoring system in place in Arizona, the reader may wish to consult the State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan For the Year 2007 submitted by ADEQ to EPA. This report can be found on Arizona’s Web site at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/monitoring/ download/airmonitoring.pdf. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 Arizona has met all requirements under section 110 and under part D (of title I) of the CAA applicable to the San Manuel 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 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 San Manuel 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 San Manuel area is attaining the SO2 standard. Furthermore, the State has not sought to PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 exercise options that would trigger section 172(c)(4) (identification of certain emissions increases). Thus, this provision is 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 A.A.C. R9–3–315, a predecessor to the State’s current smelter rules codified at A.A.C. R18–2– 715. See 48 FR 1717 (January 14, 1983). This rule limited stack emissions from primary copper smelters, including the smelter which was located in the San Manuel 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).6 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 San Manuel area. Under ADEQ’s rules, all new major sources and modifications to existing major 6 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). E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM 18JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations sources are subject to the NSR requirements of these rules. We have not yet fully approved the ADEQ NSR rules.7 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.8 We have determined that the maintenance demonstration for San Manuel 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 or reconstructed major stationary sources or major modifications to existing major stationary sources to undergo preconstruction review and to apply best available control technology. In addition, sources are required to review air quality and other impacts, which includes analysis of PSD increment consumption and undertake preconstruction modeling ADEQ has an EPA-approved PSD permitting program AAC R18–2–406 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 partiallyapproved, partially-delegated PSD program will apply automatically to new major sources or major modifications to existing sources of SO2 in the San Manuel area once the area is redesignated to attainment.9 rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES 7 ADEQ’s NSR rules are included in the preconstruction review and permitting provisions of 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 30200). 8 See memorandum from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994 (‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.’’) 9 PSD also applies to new major sources or major modifications in Pima County. One township of the nonattainment area is in the Pima County. The federal PSD program applies with Pima County. See 40 CFR 52.144; 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 1983). PDEQ was delegated authority for the federal PDS program in 1994. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 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 San Manuel portion of the Arizona SIP meets these requirements. 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 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 San Manuel 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 San Manuel 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 San Manuel 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. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 3401 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. 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. 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. 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. ADEQ has made a commitment to submit a subsequent maintenance plan to EPA eight years into the initial 10year maintenance period (see page 15 of the submitted plan) and thereby satisfies the requirements of Section 175A(b). 1. Attainment Emissions Inventory As required in the Calcagni memo as one of the core provisions necessary to ensure maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in an area seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment, the San Manuel Maintenance Plan includes an emissions inventory for point sources, area sources, and mobile sources for 1997 through 2005 as well as a projection of emissions to 2017. E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM 18JAR1 3402 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2.—SAN MANUEL NONATTAINMENT AREA SO2 EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS, ALL SOURCES (TONS): 1997–2017 Area and mobile 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2015 2017 ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... Point 30 30 38 36 33 26 n/a n/a 27 29 30 31 11482 10409 3625 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.6 4.3 4.3 4.3 Annual totals 11512 10439 3663 36.7 33.9 26.3 ≥0.2 ≥0.7 27.6 33.3 34.3 35.3 Note: Sulfur dioxide emissions in 2017 are projected to be less than 0.5 percent of 1997 and 1998 total nonattainment area emissions, a period in which the San Manuel smelter was operating full time. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES Based on our review of the submitted plan, we conclude that the current and projected emissions inventories are based on reasonable methods and assumptions and are 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.10 When ADEQ first submitted a maintenance plan for the San Manuel area in 2002, the plan contained a modeling exercise. In January 2005, BHP Copper Inc. (BHP Billiton) notified ADEQ of the company’s intent to permanently cease operations and remove all equipment and buildings at their San Manuel smelting facility. In March 2005, ADEQ terminated the permit for the facility. Closure of the smelter reduced SO2 emissions in the San Manuel area by more than 10,000 tons per year. Based on monitored data, the area had already attained the SO2 ambient air quality standards. Annual ambient concentrations measured from 1997 through 1999 were less than 42 percent of the NAAQS and maximum 24-hour concentrations were less than 59 percent of the NAAQS.11 ADEQ subsequently withdrew the 2002 maintenance plan, but included the modeling exercise in Appendix A of the current submittal. Since the modeling exercise demonstrated that the area could maintain the standard while the smelter was operating, we concur with the state that maintenance of the 10 See 11 See Calcagni Memo., at p. 9. page 8 of Appendix A of ADEQ’s submittal. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 standard will continue since the smelter is no longer operating. In addition, the projected inventory from the San Manuel SO2 Maintenance Plan shows that emissions in the area are estimated to remain well below attainment period levels in 2017, the 10th year after redesignation. Although there is slight growth in total emissions from 2005 to 2017, projected 2017 emissions are 0.3 percent of 1998 emissions levels, due largely to the cessation of smelter operations. Therefore, we conclude that the San Manuel SO2 maintenance plan contains an adequate maintenance demonstration. 3. Monitoring Network Once an area has been redesignated, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, the State is required to continue operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring network to verify the attainment status of the area. The maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors that will provide such verification. EPA allows a state to discontinue a monitor within a nonattainment or maintenance area provided the monitor has not measured violations of the applicable NAAQS in the previous five years, and the approved SIP provides for a specific, reproducible approach to representing the air quality of the affected area in the absence of actual monitoring data. Because the primary source of SO2 emissions in the nonattainment area permanently closed and recorded air quality data for 2002 through 2005 indicate that maximum ambient concentrations are less than seven percent of the primary and secondary NAAQS, ADEQ intends to discontinue monitoring at this site. EPA concurs with ADEQ’s decision to discontinue SO2 monitoring in the San PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Manuel area. Since the main source of SO2 emissions has been permanently shut down and dismantled there is no longer any reason to monitor for this pollutant at this time. Section 7.2 of the SIP states that ADEQ commits to reestablishing an appropriate SO2 monitoring network in the San Manuel area before any future major source of SO2 begins operations in the San Manuel planning area. 4. Verification of Continued Attainment ADEQ intends to track the progress of the San Manuel 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. ADEQ anticipates no relaxation of any implemented control measures used to attain and maintain the ambient air quality standards. Maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in San Manuel area will be tracked through updates to the emissions inventory and permit applications received from SO2 emitting sources. The projected inventory from the San Manuel SO2 Maintenance Plan shows that emissions in the area are estimated to remain well below attainment period levels in 2017, the 10th year after redesignation. Although there is slight growth in total emissions from 2005 to 2017, projected 2017 emissions are 0.3 percent of 1998 emissions levels, due largely to the cessation of smelter operations. The PCAQCD and PDEQ have authority for sources under their jurisdiction. Considered together, the submitted plan and relevant state and local EPAapproved regulations adequately provide for verification of continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the San Manuel area. E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM 18JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES 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. The only threat to the SO2 NAAQS in this planning area is from new sources. Because the primary source of SO2 emissions in the San Manuel area is permanently closed, measures to ensure continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS are PSD permitting requirements. Any new source proposing to operate in the San Manuel area is subject to the provisions of A.A.C. R18–2–403, ‘‘Permits for Sources Located in Nonattainment Areas,’’ and those in A.A.C. R18–2–406, ‘‘Permit Requirements for Sources Located in Attainment and Unclassified Areas.’’ With our redesignation of San Manuel, they will only be subject to A.A.C. R18– 2–406. These programs address NSR and PSD requirements applicable to SO2 sources. Under the PSD program, new major stationary or major modifications to existing major sources are required to undergo preconstruction review before the facility is constructed, modified, or reconstructed, and to apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT). If a new source is not a major source, it may still be required to obtain a permit under minor source permitting rules at AAC R18–2-Article 3.12 Upon review of the contingency plan summarized above, we find that ADEQ has established a workable contingency plan for the San Manuel area. Since 12 Pima and Pinal counties have their own air pollution control agencies and have jurisdiction over stationary sources of air pollutants within their counties, except for refineries, copper smelters, coal-fired power plants, Portland cement plants, or portable sources that will operate in multiple counties. These sources must obtain permits from ADEQ. Facilities located on most Indian lands in Arizona are under the jurisdiction of U.S. EPA. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 ADEQ anticipates no relaxation of any implemented control measures, and commits to submit to us any changes to rules or emission limits applicable to SO2 sources, as well as committing to maintain the necessary resources to promptly correct any violations of the SO2 NAAQS that occur after the redesignation of the San Manuel area to attainment, the State 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 15 of the submitted plan) and thereby satisfies CAA section 175A(b). 7. Conclusion ADEQ’s Final State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007 adequately addresses the five basic topics that maintenance 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 San Manuel SO2 Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Arizona SIP and thereby satisfy the related redesignation criteria of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). V. Public Comment and EPA’s Final Action As authorized under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is approving the Final State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March, 2007 as submitted by ADEQ on June 7, 2007, as a revision to the Arizona SIP. 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 San Manuel 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 San PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 3403 Manuel area has attained the SO2 NAAQS; (2) Arizona has a fully approved SIP for the San Manuel area; (3) the improvements in air quality in the San Manuel area are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the permanent closure of the smelter and from implementation of EPA’s Title V permit conditions; (4) Arizona has met all of the nonattainment area requirements applicable to the San Manuel area; and (5) the State’s submitted maintenance plan meets all relevant CAA requirements and is being approved in this notice. 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 of the San Manuel, AZ SO2 area. If we receive adverse comments by February 19, 2008, 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 18, 2008. This will approve the redesignation request and maintenance plan submitted by Arizona on June 7, 2007. 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. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM 18JAR1 3404 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 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). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 18, 2008. 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: December 20, 2007. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are 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)(140) to read as follows: I § 52.120 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (140) The following plan was submitted on June 7, 2007 by the Governor’s designee. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (1) Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 4. In § 81.303 the table entitled ‘‘Arizona—SO2’’ is amended by revising the entry for the ‘‘San Manuel’’ area to read as follows: I § 81.303 * Arizona. * * * * ARIZONA—SO2 Does not meet primary standards rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES Designated area * San Manuel: T8S, R16E T8S, R17E T8S, R18E T9S, R15E T9S, R16E T9S, R17E VerDate Aug<31>2005 * * * * ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. 14:58 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Does not meet secondary standards ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ Sfmt 4700 Cannot be classified * ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM 18JAR1 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ Better than national standards * X X X X X X 3405 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations ARIZONA—SO2—Continued Does not meet primary standards Designated area T9S, R18E ................................................................................................. T10S, R15E ............................................................................................... T10S, R16E ............................................................................................... T10S, R17E ............................................................................................... T11S, R16E ............................................................................................... T10S, R18E ............................................................................................... T11S, R17E ............................................................................................... T12S, R16E ............................................................................................... T12S, R17E ............................................................................................... * * * [FR Doc. E8–803 Filed 1–17–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 488 [CMS–2278–IFC3] RIN 0938–AP22 Revisit User Fee Program for Medicare Survey and Certification Activities Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Interim final rule with comment period. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: This interim final rule with comment period implements the continuation of the revisit user fee program for Medicare Survey and Certification activities, in accordance with the statutory authority in the Continuing Appropriations Resolution entitled, ‘‘Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for all other purposes,’’ Public Law 110–137 (‘‘Continuing Resolution’’) passed by the Congress and signed by the President on December 14, 2007. On September 19, 2007, we published a final rule that established a system of revisit user fees applicable to health care facilities that have been cited for deficiencies during initial certification, recertification or substantiated complaint surveys and require a revisit to confirm that previously-identified deficiencies have been corrected. DATES: Effective date: These regulations are effective January 18, 2008, and applicable beginning December 14, 2007. Comment date: To be assured consideration, comments must be VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 Does not meet secondary standards Cannot be classified Better than national standards ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X X X X X X X X X * * received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on March 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS–2278–IFC3. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please): 1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on specific issues in this regulation to http:// www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. Click on the link ‘‘Submit electronic comments on CMS regulations with an open comment period.’’ (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.) 2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS–2278– IFC3, P.O. Box 8010, Baltimore, MD 21244–8016. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period. 3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS–2278-IFC3, Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the close of the comment period to one of the following addresses. If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number (410) 786– 7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members. Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * * Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. (Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.) Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period. For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Tinsley, (410) 786–6664. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submitting Comments: As the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the substance of the rule during the comment period prior to the publication of the September 19, 2007 final rule, and as the substance of the rule is not changed by this interim final rule with comment period, we are accepting comments only to the extent that they pertain to the applicability of the new authority for the rule. You can assist us by referencing the file code CMS–2278–IFC3. Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ eRulemaking. Click on the link ‘‘Electronic Comments on CMS E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM 18JAR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3396-3405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-803]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0214; FRL-8514-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; San 
Manuel Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for 
Redesignation to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under the Clean Air Act to 
approve the Final State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur 
Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007 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 San Manuel, Arizona area and to 
request redesignation of the area to attainment. 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 San Manuel area from 
nonattainment to attainment for the sulfur dioxide standards.
    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 San Manuel, Arizona sulfur 
dioxide nonattainment area to attainment, and to provide for 
maintenance of the standard for the ten-year period following 
redesignation.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 18, 2008 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 19, 2008. 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-
2006-0214, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail: robin.marty@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin (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: Marty Robin, Air Planning Office, 
(415) 972-3961 or by e-mail at robin.marty@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. The SO2 NAAQS
    B. State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
    C. History of SO2 Planning in Arizona
    1. Development of the SO2 SIP
    2. San Manuel SO2 Nonattainment Area
    D. Sources of SO2 Emissions in the San Manuel Area
III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance 
Plans
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance 
Plan for the San Manuel, 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
    E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
    1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    2. Maintenance Demonstration
    3. Monitoring Network
    4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    5. Contingency Plan
    6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    7. Conclusion
V. Public Comment and EPA's Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today's Direct Final Action

    On June 7, 2007, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
(``ADEQ'' or ``State'') submitted to EPA Region IX its Final Arizona 
State Implementation Plan Revision, San

[[Page 3397]]

Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007 and its request 
for redesignation to attainment (``San Manuel SO2 
Maintenance Plan'' or ``submittal''). The submittal summarizes the 
progress the State has made in attaining the 24-hour and annual average 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) in the San Manuel nonattainment area in Pima and Pinal 
Counties, Arizona (``San Manuel area'') and includes a plan to assure 
continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for at least the next 
10 years. The State's June 2007 submittal also requested the withdrawal 
of the June 2002 Final San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area 
State Implementation and Maintenance Plan. The June 2007 submittal 
updated the SIP to account for the closure of the dominant source of 
SO2 emissions, the BHP Billiton copper smelter. The March 
2007 SIP revision contains current information and analyses which 
supercede the obsolete information in the June 2002 SIP.
    In today's direct final action, we are approving ADEQ's June 7, 
2007 submittal as a revision to the Arizona SIP and redesignating the 
San Manuel area from nonattainment to attainment for the SO2 
NAAQS because we find that the San Manuel SO2 Maintenance 
Plan meets the requirements for maintenance plans under section 175A of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and that the San Manuel area qualifies for 
redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).

II. Introduction

    The following section discusses the NAAQS for SO2, CAA 
requirements for state implementation plans, SO2 planning in 
Arizona generally and in the San Manuel area more specifically, and 
sources of emissions in the San Manuel area.

A. The 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/m\3\), not to be exceeded in a 
calendar year. The level of the 24-hour standard is 0.14 ppm (365 
[mu]g/m\3\), 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/m\3\), not to be exceeded more than once per 
calendar year. See 40 CFR 50.2-50.5.

B. State Implementation Plans (SIPs)

    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 1970s, soon after the CAA Amendments of 1970 were 
passed, Arizona began developing air quality regulations that applied 
to all Arizona primary copper smelters, including the one operating at 
that time in San Manuel. 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 limits 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 San Manuel) because they lacked a 
strategy for addressing fugitive sources of SO2.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Fugitive'' in this context refers to emissions that could 
not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent or a functionally 
equivalent opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 1, 2004, EPA approved several revisions to the SO2 
SIP, including fugitive emissions standards, site-specific 
requirements, and compliance and monitoring for existing primary copper 
smelters. See 69 FR 63321. In that same notice, EPA promulgated a 
limited approval/limited disapproval of Arizona Administrative Code 
(AAC) 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, effective June 
12, 2006. See 71 FR 18624.
2. San Manuel SO2 Nonattainment Area
    Initially, the air quality planning area we refer to as the San 
Manuel SO2 nonattainment area comprised all of Pima and 
Pinal Counties (43 FR 8969; March 3, 1978) but at the request of the 
State of Arizona, the boundaries were subsequently reduced to eleven 
townships around the primary copper smelter located near San Manuel (44 
FR 21261, April 10, 1979). In addition, four adjacent townships were 
designated as unclassified.\2\ All but one of the townships that define 
the nonattainment area are located in southeastern Pinal County, with 
the remaining southernmost township located in neighboring Pima County. 
The current boundaries of the nonattainment and unclassified areas are 
codified at 40 CFR 81.303 and are defined as follows: ``Does Not Meet 
Primary Standards'': T8S, R16E; T8S, R17E; T8S, R18E; T9S, R15E; T9S, 
R16E; T9S, R17E; T9S, R18E; T10S, R15E; T10S, R16E; T10S, R17E; T11S, 
R16E, and ``Cannot Be Classified'': T10S, R18E; T11S, R17E; T12S, R16E; 
T12S, R17E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Following the enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, the San 
Manuel area was classified by operation of law as nonattainment for 
the primary SO2 standards, effective on November 15, 
1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June of 2002, ADEQ submitted the Final San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide 
Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan and 
redesignation request. Since then, the San Manuel copper smelter, the

[[Page 3398]]

dominant source of emissions in the area, has permanently ceased 
operation. In January 2005, BHP Copper Inc. (BHP Billiton) notified 
ADEQ that the company intended to permanently cease operating the San 
Manuel smelter. As indicated in Appendix B of the current SIP 
submittal, in March 2005, ADEQ terminated the permit for the facility. 
The smelter stacks were dismantled in January 2007. The smelting 
facility cannot reopen without submitting New Source Review (NSR) and 
Title V (Part 70) permit applications to ADEQ.

D. Sources of SO2 Emissions in the San Manuel Area

    Emissions inventories for the San Manuel Nonattainment Area 
demonstrate that, although there were other sources of SO2 
emissions, the primary source of SO2 emissions in the San 
Manuel area while it was operating was the San Manuel smelter, which 
comprised more than 99.5 percent of total SO2 emissions in 
the nonattainment area. Data show that no other point, area, or mobile 
sources have contributed in the past or currently contribute to the 
same levels of SO2 emissions in the San Manuel Nonattainment 
Area as those attributed to the smelter. Figure 4.1 on page 30 of the 
SIP illustrates sulfur dioxide emissions levels for the San Manuel 
smelter from 1972 through 2005. Implementation of new emissions control 
technologies at the smelter in the mid 1970s and again in the late 
1980s are clearly reflected in the resulting emissions reductions for 
these periods. Closure of the smelter reduced emissions by more than 
10,000 tons of SO2 per year.

III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans

    Arizona has requested that we redesignate the San Manuel SO2 
nonattainment area to attainment. Any redesignation from nonattainment 
to attainment requires EPA to determine whether the requirements of CAA 
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 San Manuel 
area, we relied upon the Clean Air Act, 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 the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan 
for the San Manuel, 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 began ambient SO2 monitoring in the 
San Manuel area as early as 1969. \3\ Over time, an extensive 
monitoring network was developed with more than eighteen stationary and 
mobile monitoring sites. This ambient SO2 network, comprised 
of EPA, state, and facility monitors, was developed as the result of 
extensive efforts to identify maximum ambient impact areas using 
diffusion modeling, monitored atmospheric dispersion parameters, 
citizen observations, and ambient SO2 concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Network Study, Arizona State 
Department of Health, Environmental Health Services, Division of Air 
Pollution Control, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further refinement of the monitoring network was required by the 
adoption of the MPR rules that established stack emissions limits for 
the smelter in 1979 based on permanent controls. Placement of 
additional monitors was accomplished with EPA consultation to further 
evaluate ambient impacts. Following implementation of continuous 
emissions control technology and compliance with emissions limits as 
defined in AAC R18-2-715(F) at the San Manuel smelter, the number of 
permanent monitors was gradually reduced to a network of four: LDS 
Church, Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital. These were all high impact 
ambient monitor sites found to be representative of air quality for the 
area. The Dorm Site and Hospital monitors were primarily fugitive 
impact sites. The Townsite and the LDS Church site were primarily stack 
impact sites. The Townsite monitor was the ``limiting site'' for the 
original MPR analysis. \4\ These monitoring site decisions were made by 
ADEQ in accordance with EPA guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Ultimate Sulfur Dioxide Limits for Arizona Copper 
Smelters, Moyers and Peterson, September 14, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the shutdown of smelting operations in 1999, the 
facility-operated Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital monitors were 
closed. ADEQ continues to operate a monitor at the LDS Church site. 
Table 1 summarizes ambient SO2 air quality monitoring from 
1997 to 2005.

[[Page 3399]]



                       Table 1.--Summary of San Manuel, Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Air Quality
                                   Monitoring Data, 1997-2005 (in [mu]g/m\3\)
[Primary NAAQS: Annual average 80 [mu]g/m\3\ [0.030 ppm], 24-hour average 365 [mu]g/m\3\ [0.14 ppm]: 3-hour 1300
                                              [mu]g/m\3\ [0.5 ppm]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Data
                                                                                       Max value 24-  recovery *
                       Site or city                            Annual    Max value  3-     Hour         (valid
                                                              average     hr average      average       hourly
                                                                                                       samples)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005: LDS Church..........................................            5          16             8          8,716
2004: LDS Church..........................................            4          26             9          8,742
2003: LDS Church..........................................            4          15             8.5        8,711
2002: LDS Church (opened 3/02)............................            4          24             8          6,827
1999:
    LDS Church (closed 10/99).............................            9         204.5          56.5        6,121
    Townsite..............................................            4         272.5          63            n/a
    Dorm Site.............................................            4         258.5          53            n/a
    Hospital..............................................            8         416           111.5          n/a
1998:
    LDS Church............................................           21         487.5          88          8,469
    Townsite..............................................            8         406.5          93          8,656
    Dorm Site.............................................            8         258.5          98.5        8,714
    Hospital..............................................           11         464           184          8,642
1997:
    LDS Church............................................           12         252            63          8,589
    Townsite..............................................           33         313.5          93          8,725
    Dorm Site.............................................           11         386            66.5        8,751
    Hospital..............................................           32         654.5         180         8,742
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Does not include Golf Course site for 1997 (site closed August 1997). Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital
  data are as contained in BHP's monthly reports. The facility reported zero concentrations for the period 2000-
  2001 at the Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital locations. LDS Church site data for 2002-2005 were obtained from
  ADEQ Annual Reports. LDS Church site data for 1997-1999 were calculated from data in EPA's Air Quality System
  Report (October 3, 2006) by multiplying sulfur dioxide values in parts per million by 2620 to convert to
  micrograms per cubic meter.

    After reviewing the historic ambient SO2 monitoring 
data, EPA concludes the data was collected in accordance with EPA 
guidelines. The monitoring sites were found to be representative of air 
quality for the area. As required for redesignation, the nonattainment 
area has recorded more than eight current, consecutive quarters of 
quality-assured monitoring data that is free of NAAQS violations.
    ADEQ had included monitoring data in Chapter 3 of the SIP. ADEQ's 
review of historic ambient SO2 monitoring data in the San 
Manuel area collected by ADHS, BAQC, and ADEQ confirms that the primary 
SO2 NAAQS has not been violated since 1979 and the secondary 
SO2 NAAQS has not been violated since 1985.
    In the San Manuel SIP submittal, ADEQ proposes to close the San 
Manuel SO2 monitoring site effective December 31, 2007. 
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 58.14 allows sites to be closed under 
specific circumstances. ADEQ believes that the closure of the San 
Manuel SO2 site meets these criteria. Specifically, the 
option under 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3) allows for discontinuation of a monitor 
within an attainment, nonattainment, or maintenance area, ``* * * 
provided the monitor has not measured violations of the applicable 
NAAQS in the previous five years, and the approved SIP provides for a 
specific, reproducible approach to representing the air quality of the 
affected county in the absence of actual monitoring data.'' This 
position is supported with the information provided below.
    Monitoring data for 2002 through 2006 indicate that maximum ambient 
concentrations were three percent or less of the NAAQS for the 3-hour 
standard; five percent or less of the NAAQS for the 24-hour standard; 
and less than seven percent of the NAAQS for the annual standard. 
Following the shutdown of the San Manuel ambient SO2 
monitor, ADEQ will continue to demonstrate attainment and maintenance 
of the SO2 NAAQS through updates to the emissions inventory 
as described in the San Manuel SO2 Maintenance Plan, March 
2007. Analyses contained in the SIP demonstrate that, although there 
were other sources of SO2 emissions, the San Manuel copper 
smelter, which permanently closed in 2005, was the primary emissions 
source in the nonattainment area and comprised more than 99.5 percent 
of total emissions while it was operating. The more than 99 percent 
emissions reduction due to the closure of the smelter corresponds to a 
greater than 92 percent reduction in 3-hour average and 24-hour average 
ambient SO2 concentrations.
    With the permanent closure of the San Manuel smelter, no major 
point sources exist in the nonattainment area. Sulfur dioxide emissions 
in 2017 are projected to be less than 0.5 percent of 1997 and 1998 
total nonattainment area emissions, a period in which the San Manuel 
smelter was operating full time.
    Arizona does not anticipate any substantial increase in existing 
point source emissions between now and 2017 for the nonattainment area. 
Should any growth occur due to construction of additional SO2 
point sources, the ADEQ, Pinal County Air Quality Control District 
(PCAQCD), and Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) 
permit programs limit all emissions as part of construction of new 
point sources or upgrading of existing sources. ADEQ commits to re-
establish an appropriate network before any major source of SO2 
begins operations in the San Manuel planning area.
    Maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in San Manuel area will be 
tracked through updates to the emissions inventory and permit 
applications received for SO2 emitting sources.
    Therefore, ADEQ has demonstrated, and we concur, that the closure 
of the San Manuel SO2 site meets the criteria set forth in 
40 CFR 58.14.\5\ We also

[[Page 3400]]

conclude that the area has attained the SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA sets out requirements for ambient air quality 
surveillance in 40 CFR part 58. After the closure of the San Manuel 
SO2 monitoring site, ADEQ will continue to monitor 
SO2 emissions at several other sites within the state. 
For more information about the air monitoring system in place in 
Arizona, the reader may wish to consult the State of Arizona Air 
Monitoring Network Plan For the Year 2007 submitted by ADEQ to EPA. 
This report can be found on Arizona's Web site at http://
www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/monitoring/download/airmonitoring.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 San Manuel 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 San Manuel 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. As shown in Table 1, as required for 
redesignation, the nonattainment area has recorded more than eight 
current, consecutive quarters of quality-assured, violation-free data. 
Monitoring data for 1997 through 1999, while the San Manuel smelter was 
still operating, indicate that maximum ambient concentrations were less 
than 55 percent of the NAAQS for the 3-hour standard, less than 59 
percent of the NAAQS for the 24-hour standard, and less than 33 percent 
of the NAAQS for the annual standard.
    Closure of the smelter in 1999 further reduced emissions and 
resultant ambient SO2 concentrations. Monitoring data for 
2004 through 2005 indicate that maximum ambient concentrations were two 
percent of the NAAQS for the 3-hour standard and less than three 
percent for the 24-hour standard; and less than seven percent of the 
NAAQS for the annual standard. Monitoring network data for the period 
1997 through 2005 are presented in Table 1. Closure of the smelter has 
resulted in permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, as required 
by the CAA.

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 San Manuel 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 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 San Manuel 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 San Manuel 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 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 A.A.C. R9-3-315, a predecessor to the 
State's current smelter rules codified at A.A.C. R18-2-715. See 48 FR 
1717 (January 14, 1983). This rule limited stack emissions from primary 
copper smelters, including the smelter which was located in the San 
Manuel 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).\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 San Manuel area. Under ADEQ's rules, all new major 
sources and modifications to existing major

[[Page 3401]]

sources are subject to the NSR requirements of these rules.
    We have not yet fully approved the ADEQ NSR rules.\7\ 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.\8\ We have determined 
that the maintenance demonstration for San Manuel does not rely on 
nonattainment NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ADEQ's NSR rules are included in the preconstruction review 
and permitting provisions of 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 30200).
    \8\ See memorandum from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994 
(``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 or reconstructed major stationary sources or major 
modifications to existing major stationary sources to undergo 
preconstruction review and to apply best available control technology. 
In addition, sources are required to review air quality and other 
impacts, which includes analysis of PSD increment consumption and 
undertake preconstruction modeling ADEQ has an EPA-approved PSD 
permitting program AAC R18-2-406 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 San Manuel area once the area 
is redesignated to attainment.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ PSD also applies to new major sources or major modifications 
in Pima County. One township of the nonattainment area is in the 
Pima County. The federal PSD program applies with Pima County. See 
40 CFR 52.144; 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 1983). PDEQ was delegated 
authority for the federal PDS program in 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 San Manuel portion of the Arizona SIP meets these 
requirements.
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 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 San Manuel 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 San Manuel 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 San Manuel 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. 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. 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.
    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. ADEQ has made a commitment to 
submit a subsequent maintenance plan to EPA eight years into the 
initial 10-year maintenance period (see page 15 of the submitted plan) 
and thereby satisfies the requirements of Section 175A(b).
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    As required in the Calcagni memo as one of the core provisions 
necessary to ensure maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in an area 
seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment, the San Manuel 
Maintenance Plan includes an emissions inventory for point sources, 
area sources, and mobile sources for 1997 through 2005 as well as a 
projection of emissions to 2017.

[[Page 3402]]



 Table 2.--San Manuel Nonattainment Area SO2 Emissions and Emissions Projections, All Sources (Tons): 1997-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Area and
                                                                    mobile           Point        Annual totals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997..........................................................              30          11482            11512
1998..........................................................              30          10409            10439
1999..........................................................              38           3625             3663
2000..........................................................              36              0.7             36.7
2001..........................................................              33              0.9             33.9
2002..........................................................              26              0.3             26.3
2003..........................................................             n/a              0.2            >=0.2
2004..........................................................             n/a              0.7            >=0.7
2005..........................................................              27              0.6             27.6
2010..........................................................              29              4.3             33.3
2015..........................................................              30              4.3             34.3
2017..........................................................              31              4.3             35.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Sulfur dioxide emissions in 2017 are projected to be less than 0.5 percent of 1997 and 1998 total
  nonattainment area emissions, a period in which the San Manuel smelter was operating full time.

    Based on our review of the submitted plan, we conclude that the 
current and projected emissions inventories are based on reasonable 
methods and assumptions and are 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.\10\ When ADEQ first submitted a maintenance 
plan for the San Manuel area in 2002, the plan contained a modeling 
exercise. In January 2005, BHP Copper Inc. (BHP Billiton) notified ADEQ 
of the company's intent to permanently cease operations and remove all 
equipment and buildings at their San Manuel smelting facility. In March 
2005, ADEQ terminated the permit for the facility. Closure of the 
smelter reduced SO2 emissions in the San Manuel area by more 
than 10,000 tons per year. Based on monitored data, the area had 
already attained the SO2 ambient air quality standards. 
Annual ambient concentrations measured from 1997 through 1999 were less 
than 42 percent of the NAAQS and maximum 24-hour concentrations were 
less than 59 percent of the NAAQS.\11\ ADEQ subsequently withdrew the 
2002 maintenance plan, but included the modeling exercise in Appendix A 
of the current submittal. Since the modeling exercise demonstrated that 
the area could maintain the standard while the smelter was operating, 
we concur with the state that maintenance of the standard will continue 
since the smelter is no longer operating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Calcagni Memo., at p. 9.
    \11\ See page 8 of Appendix A of ADEQ's submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the projected inventory from the San Manuel 
SO2 Maintenance Plan shows that emissions in the area are 
estimated to remain well below attainment period levels in 2017, the 
10th year after redesignation. Although there is slight growth in total 
emissions from 2005 to 2017, projected 2017 emissions are 0.3 percent 
of 1998 emissions levels, due largely to the cessation of smelter 
operations. Therefore, we conclude that the San Manuel SO2 
maintenance plan contains an adequate maintenance demonstration.
3. Monitoring Network
    Once an area has been redesignated, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 
58, the State is required to continue operation of an appropriate air 
quality monitoring network to verify the attainment status of the area. 
The maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation 
of air quality monitors that will provide such verification.
    EPA allows a state to discontinue a monitor within a nonattainment 
or maintenance area provided the monitor has not measured violations of 
the applicable NAAQS in the previous five years, and the approved SIP 
provides for a specific, reproducible approach to representing the air 
quality of the affected area in the absence of actual monitoring data. 
Because the primary source of SO2 emissions in the 
nonattainment area permanently closed and recorded air quality data for 
2002 through 2005 indicate that maximum ambient concentrations are less 
than seven percent of the primary and secondary NAAQS, ADEQ intends to 
discontinue monitoring at this site.
    EPA concurs with ADEQ's decision to discontinue SO2 
monitoring in the San Manuel area. Since the main source of 
SO2 emissions has been permanently shut down and dismantled 
there is no longer any reason to monitor for this pollutant at this 
time. Section 7.2 of the SIP states that ADEQ commits to reestablishing 
an appropriate SO2 monitoring network in the San Manuel area 
before any future major source of SO2 begins operations in 
the San Manuel planning area.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    ADEQ intends to track the progress of the San Manuel 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. ADEQ anticipates 
no relaxation of any implemented control measures used to attain and 
maintain the ambient air quality standards.
    Maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in San Manuel area will be 
tracked through updates to the emissions inventory and permit 
applications received from SO2 emitting sources. The 
projected inventory from the San Manuel SO2 Maintenance Plan 
shows that emissions in the area are estimated to remain well below 
attainment period levels in 2017, the 10th year after redesignation. 
Although there is slight growth in total emissions from 2005 to 2017, 
projected 2017 emissions are 0.3 percent of 1998 emissions levels, due 
largely to the cessation of smelter operations. The PCAQCD and PDEQ 
have authority for sources under their jurisdiction.
    Considered together, the submitted plan and relevant state and 
local EPA-approved regulations adequately provide for verification of 
continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the San Manuel 
area.

[[Page 3403]]

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.
    The only threat to the SO2 NAAQS in this planning area 
is from new sources. Because the primary source of SO2 
emissions in the San Manuel area is permanently closed, measures to 
ensure continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS are PSD 
permitting requirements. Any new source proposing to operate in the San 
Manuel area is subject to the provisions of A.A.C. R18-2-403, ``Permits 
for Sources Located in Nonattainment Areas,'' and those in A.A.C. R18-
2-406, ``Permit Requirements for Sources Located in Attainment and 
Unclassified Areas.'' With our redesignation of San Manuel, they will 
only be subject to A.A.C. R18-2-406. These programs address NSR and PSD 
requirements applicable to SO2 sources. Under the PSD 
program, new major stationary or major modifications to existing major 
sources are required to undergo preconstruction review before the 
facility is constructed, modified, or reconstructed, and to apply Best 
Available Control Technology (BACT). If a new source is not a major 
source, it may still be required to obtain a permit under minor source 
permitting rules at AAC R18-2-Article 3.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Pima and Pinal counties have their own air pollution 
control agencies and have jurisdiction over stationary sources of 
air pollutants within their counties, except for refineries, copper 
smelters, coal-fired power plants, Portland cement plants, or 
portable sources that will operate in multiple counties. These 
sources must obtain permits from ADEQ. Facilities located on most 
Indian lands in Arizona are under the jurisdiction of U.S. EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon review of the contingency plan summarized above, we find that 
ADEQ has established a workable contingency plan for the San Manuel 
area. Since ADEQ anticipates no relaxation of any implemented control 
measures, and commits to submit to us any changes to rules or emission 
limits applicable to SO2 sources, as well as committing to 
maintain the necessary resources to promptly correct any violations of 
the SO2 NAAQS that occur after the redesignation of the San 
Manuel area to attainment, the State 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 15 of the 
submitted plan) and thereby satisfies CAA section 175A(b).
7. Conclusion
    ADEQ's Final State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur 
Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007 adequately addresses the five 
basic topics that maintenance 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 San Manuel SO2 Maintenance Plan as a revision to 
the Arizona SIP and thereby satisfy the related redesignation criteria 
of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv).

V. Public Comment and EPA's Final Action

    As authorized under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is approving 
the Final State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide 
Nonattainment Area, March, 2007 as submitted by ADEQ on June 7, 2007, 
as a revision to the Arizona SIP. 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 San Manuel 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 San Manuel area has attained the 
SO2 NAAQS; (2) Arizona has a fully approved SIP for the San 
Manuel area; (3) the improvements in air quality in the San Manuel area 
are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting 
from the permanent closure of the smelter and from implementation of 
EPA's Title V permit conditions; (4) Arizona has met all of the 
nonattainment area requirements applicable to the San Manuel area; and 
(5) the State's submitted maintenance plan meets all relevant CAA 
requirements and is being approved in this notice.
    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 of the San 
Manuel, AZ SO2 area. If we receive adverse comments by 
February 19, 2008, 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 18, 2008. This will approve the redesignation request 
and maintenance plan submitted by Arizona on June 7, 2007.
    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.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic

[[Page 3404]]

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). This action also 
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This 
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 18, 2008. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: December 20, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(140) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (140) The following plan was submitted on June 7, 2007 by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (1) Final Arizona 
State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide 
Nonattainment Area, March 2007, Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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


0
4. In Sec.  81.303 the table entitled ``Arizona--SO2'' is 
amended by revising the entry for the ``San Manuel'' area to read as 
follows:


Sec.  81.303  Arizona.

* * * * *

                                                  Arizona--SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Does not meet   Does not meet                     Better than
                Designated area                     primary        secondary       Cannot be         national
                                                   standards       standards       classified       standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
San Manuel:
    T8S, R16E.................................  ...