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
<![CDATA[
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
https://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 https://
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: https://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 https://
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................................. ...
