Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revisions; Ajo and Morenci, Arizona; Second 10-Year Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Plans and Technical Correction, 2239-2248 [2016-31637]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
§ 52.2075
[Removed and Reserved]
3. Section 52.2075 is removed and
reserved.
■
§ 52.2078
[Removed and Reserved]
4. Section 52.2078 is removed and
reserved.
■
[FR Doc. 2016–31444 Filed 1–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0287; FRL–9957–64–
Region 9]
Approval of Arizona Air Plan
Revisions; Ajo and Morenci, Arizona;
Second 10-Year Sulfur Dioxide
Maintenance Plans and Technical
Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule and technical
correction.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving the second
10-year maintenance plans for the Ajo
and Morenci areas in Arizona for the
1971 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and correcting an
error in the description of the Ajo SO2
maintenance area in the Code of Federal
Regulations. Elsewhere in this Federal
Register, we are proposing approval and
soliciting written comment on these
actions. If we receive adverse comments
on this direct final rule, resulting in
withdrawal of the entire rule or any
part(s) of it, we will address those
comments when we finalize the
proposal. The EPA does not plan to
institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time.
DATES: This rule is effective March 10,
2017, without further notice, unless we
receive adverse comments by February
8, 2017. If the EPA receives adverse
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that some or all of the
provisions in this direct final rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2016–0287 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office at
tax.wienke@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
cannot be removed or edited from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
You may inspect and copy the
rulemaking docket for this notice at the
following location during normal
business hours: Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, Air
Division, Air Planning Office (AIR–2),
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105–3901. Copies of the State
Implementation Plan materials are also
available for inspection at the address
listed here: Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, 1110 W.
Washington Street, First Floor, Phoenix,
AZ 85007, Phone: (602) 771–4335.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4192, tax.wienke@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 EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Action
II. Background
A. What National Ambient Air Quality
Standards are considered in this
rulemaking?
B. What is a State Implementation Plan?
C. What is the background for this action?
D. What are the applicable provisions for
second 10-year maintenance plans for
SO2?
III. The EPA’s evaluation of the Arizona State
submittals
A. Did the State meet the CAA procedural
requirements?
B. Has the State met the substantive
maintenance plan requirements?
IV. Technical Correction
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2239
A. History of the Ajo Nonattainment and
Maintenance Area Boundary
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Action
We are approving the second 10-year
maintenance plans for the Ajo and
Morenci, Arizona SO2 maintenance
areas and correcting an error in the
boundary description of the Ajo
maintenance area in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).1 2
II. Background
A. What National Ambient Air Quality
Standards are considered in this
rulemaking?
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the pollutant
that is the subject of this action. The
NAAQS are health-based and welfarebased standards for certain ambient air
pollutants. SO2 is among the ambient air
pollutants for which we have
established a health-based standard. SO2
causes adverse health effects by
reducing lung function, increasing
respiratory illness, altering the lung’s
defenses and aggravating existing
cardiovascular disease. Children, the
elderly, and people with asthma are the
most vulnerable. SO2 has a variety of
additional impacts, including acidic
deposition, damage to crops and
vegetation, and corrosion of natural and
man-made materials.
In 1971, the EPA established both
short- and long-term primary NAAQS
1 For the definition of the Ajo maintenance area,
see 40 CFR 81.303. Ajo is a town located in
northwestern Pima County, in the southwestern
portion of Arizona. The EPA designated the entire
area of Pima County as nonattainment for SO2 on
March 3, 1978 for lack of a State recommendation.
The EPA approved the State’s request that the SO2affected portion of Pima County be limited to the
townships surrounding Ajo on April 10, 1979 (44
FR 21261). Townships T11S, R6W; T11S, R5W;
T12S, R6W; T12S, R5W; and T13S, R6W comprised
the nonattainment area. Townships T11S, R7W;
T12S, R7W; T13S, R5W; and T13S, R7W were
designated as ‘‘cannot be classified.’’ At the time of
our redesignation, we incorrectly identified the
maintenance area as all townships and ranges
T11S–13S, R5W–R6W as ‘‘better than national
standards.’’ However, T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W;
T13S, R7W; and T13S, R5W were originally
designated as ‘‘cannot be classified’’ and should
have remained such. Today, we are correcting that
error.
2 For the definition of the Morenci maintenance
area, see 40 CFR 81.303. Morenci is a town in
eastern Greenlee County near the border of Arizona
and New Mexico. The EPA designated the entire
area of Greenlee County as nonattainment for SO2
on March 3, 1978 for lack of a State
recommendation. The EPA approved the State’s
request that the SO2-affected portion of Greenlee
County be limited to the townships surrounding
Morenci on April 10, 1979 (44 FR 21261). Within
Greenlee County, Townships T3S, R28E; T3S, R29E;
T3S, R30E; T4S, R28E; T4S, R29E; T4S, R30E; T5S,
R28E; and T5S, R29E comprise the maintenance
area. Township T5S, R30E is designated as ‘‘cannot
be classified.’’
E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM
09JAR1
2240
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
for SO2. The short-term (24-hour)
standard of 0.14 parts per million (ppm)
was not to be exceeded more than once
per year. The long-term standard
specifies an annual arithmetic mean not
to exceed 0.030 ppm.3 See 40 CFR 50.4.
In 2010, the EPA revised the primary
SO2 NAAQS by establishing a new 1hour standard of 75 parts per billion
(ppb). The EPA revoked the existing
1971 primary standards at that time
because they would not provide
additional public health protection. See
75 FR 35550 (June 22, 2010). This action
relates only to the revoked 1971
NAAQS. The State has requested that
we take action on these maintenance
plans.4
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
B. What is a State Implementation Plan?
The Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’)
requires states to attain and maintain
ambient air quality equal to or better
than the NAAQS. The state’s
commitments for attaining and
maintaining the NAAQS are outlined in
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
that state. The SIP is a planning
document that, when implemented, is
designed to ensure the achievement of
the NAAQS. The Act requires that SIP
revisions be made periodically as
necessary to provide continued
compliance with the standards.
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, or a contingency
plan if the area fails to maintain the
NAAQS once redesignated. The state
must make the SIP available for public
review and comment through a public
hearing and the SIP must be adopted by
the state and submitted to us by the
governor or her/his designee.
The EPA takes action on the SIP
submittal, thus rendering the rules and
regulations federally enforceable. The
3 Secondary NAAQS are promulgated to protect
welfare. The secondary 1971 SO2 NAAQS (3-hour)
of 0.50 ppm is not to be exceeded more than once
per year. The Ajo and Morenci areas are not
classified nonattainment for the secondary
standard, and this action relates only to the primary
1971 SO2 NAAQS.
4 This action is consistent with the CAA’s antibacksliding provisions. EPA’s proposed rule on
revocation of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS discussed that
maintenance SIPs would continue being
implemented by states until such time as they are
subsumed by new planning and control
requirements associated with the revised NAAQS.
See 74 FR 64810, 64863 (December 8, 2009).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
approved SIP serves as the state’s
commitment to take actions that will
reduce or eliminate air quality
problems. Any subsequent revisions to
the SIP must go through the formal SIP
revision process specified in the Act.
C. What is the background for this
action?
1. When were the nonattainment areas
established?
Ajo
Ajo is located in northwestern Pima
County. On March 3, 1978, at 43 FR
8968, for lack of a State
recommendation, we designated Pima
County as a primary SO2 nonattainment
area based on monitored violations of
the primary SO2 NAAQS in the area
between 1975 and 1977. At the request
of the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the
nonattainment area was subsequently
reduced to five townships in and
around Ajo. See 44 FR 21261 (April 10,
1979). As a result, townships T11S,
R6W; T11S, R5W; T12S, R6W; T12s,
R5W; and T13S, R6W made up the
nonattainment area. Townships T11S,
R7W; T12S, R7W; T13S, R7W; and
T13S, R5W were classified as ‘‘cannot
be classified’’ areas.
Morenci
Morenci is a town in eastern Greenlee
County near the border of Arizona and
New Mexico. On March 3, 1978, at 43
FR 8968, for lack of a state
recommendation, we designated
Greenlee County as a primary SO2
nonattainment area based on monitored
violations of the primary SO2 NAAQS in
the area between 1975 and 1977. At the
request of the ADEQ, the nonattainment
area was subsequently reduced to the
townships in and around Morenci. See
44 FR 21261 (April 10, 1979). As a
result, within Greenlee County
townships T3S, R28E; T3S, R29E; T3S,
R30E; T4S, R28E; T4S, R29E; T4S, R30E;
T5S, R28E; and T5S, R29E made up the
nonattainment area. Township T5S,
R30E was classified as a ‘‘cannot be
classified’’ area.
On the date of enactment of the 1990
CAA Amendments, SO2 areas meeting
the conditions of section 107(d) of the
Act were designated nonattainment for
the SO2 NAAQS by operation of law.
Section 107(d) describes the processes
by which nonattainment areas are
designated, including the pre-existing
SO2 nonattainment areas. Thus, the Ajo
and Morenci areas remained
nonattainment for the primary SO2
NAAQS following enactment of the
1990 CAA Amendments on November
15, 1990.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. When were the Ajo and Morenci areas
redesignated for SO2?
In 2004, we redesignated the Ajo and
Morenci areas under the criteria used
for areas with shut-down smelters and
discontinued monitoring described in a
memorandum from John Seitz to
Regional Office Air Division Directors
titled ‘‘Redesignation of Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Areas in the Absence of
Monitored Data,’’ dated October 18,
2000 (‘‘Seitz Memo’’).5
Ajo
Phelps Dodge Mining Company’s Ajo
Incorporated (PDAI) operation was the
largest point source in the Ajo SO2
nonattainment area. On April 4, 1985,
the PDAI smelter was permanently
deactivated. Dismantling of the Ajo
facility began in 1995. By February
1996, the facility was completely
dismantled. On October 15, 1997, ADEQ
confirmed that the facility was
dismantled and no longer existed at the
former site. On November 3, 2003, the
EPA finalized approval of the
maintenance plan and redesignation
request for the Ajo area, effective
January 2, 2004 (see 68 FR 62239). At
that time, we incorrectly identified the
maintenance area as townships and
ranges T11S–T13S, R5W–R6W as
‘‘better than national standards.’’
However, T13S, R5W was originally
designated as ‘‘cannot be classified’’ and
should have remained such.
Additionally, townships T13S, R5W;
T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; and T13S, R7W
were dropped from the CFR, and should
be listed in 40 CFR 81.303 as ‘‘cannot
be classified,’’ as they were upon Ajo’s
original designation in 1979. Today, we
are correcting those errors.
Morenci
The Phelps Dodge Morenci
Incorporated (PDMI) operation was the
largest SO2 point source in the Morenci
nonattainment area during its operation.
PDMI was located next to the Morenci
copper mine, one of the largest copper
producing operations in North America.
PDMI was located close to the
community of Morenci, in eastern
Greenlee County, near the Arizona/New
Mexico border.
On December 31, 1984, the PDMI
smelter was permanently deactivated.
Dismantling of the Morenci facility
began in 1995 and was complete by
December 1996. On October 29, 1997,
ADEQ confirmed that the facility was
dismantled and no longer existed at the
former site. On April 26, 2004, the EPA
finalized approval of the maintenance
5 See 68 FR 62239 (November 3, 2003) for Ajo and
69 FR 22447 (April 26, 2004) for Morenci.
E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM
09JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
plan and redesignation request for the
Morenci area, effective June 25, 2004
(see 69 FR 22447).
D. What are the applicable provisions
for second 10-year maintenance plans
for SO2?
3. What is the current status of the
areas?
1. What are the statutory provisions?
The Ajo and Morenci areas remain
sparsely settled, and only minor
industrial or commercial activities that
produce small quantities of SO2
emissions are located in or near the
nonattainment areas.
Ajo
In Ajo, the only remaining SO2 point
sources consist of emergency generators
run by Freeport-McMoRan Corporation
and Minerals Research and Recovery,
which have a potential to emit (PTE) of
0.374 tons per year (tpy) of SO2.6 The 50
kilometer (km) buffer area required to be
evaluated by the Seitz Memo includes
an Arizona Public Service emergency
generator, a paper mill, the Gila Bend
Air Force Auxiliary Field, and a cotton
gin, with a combined PTE of 7.388 tpy.7
Currently, no ambient SO2 monitors
operate in the Ajo area. However, we do
not expect the cumulative impact of the
sources in and around Ajo to cause a
violation of the NAAQS because the
area’s emissions are so low. No
significant new sources have located in
the area since our redesignation of the
area to attainment in 2003.
Morenci
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Minor industrial or commercial
activities such as Freeport-McMoRan
mining operations and emergency
generators for the Morenci wastewater
treatment plant operate in the area. The
50 km area around the nonattainment
area also contains a construction
company, well fields, and several other
sources that all still have active permits
and together produce about 135 tpy of
SO2 emissions.8
Currently, no ambient SO2 monitors
operate in the Morenci area. However,
we do not expect the cumulative impact
of the sources in and around Morenci to
cause a violation of the NAAQS. No
significant new sources have located in
the area, and the smelter was the cause
of past violations.
6 Final Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision, Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur
Dioxide Planning Area (1971 NAAQS) (2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan), page (p.) 23, Table 4.6.
7 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 24, Table 4.7.
8 Proposed Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision, Maintenance Plan for the Morenci Sulfur
Dioxide Planning Area (1971 NAAQS), p. 20, active
permits only.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
Section 175A of the CAA provides the
general framework for maintenance
plans. The initial 10-year maintenance
plan must provide for maintenance of
the NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation, including any additional
control measures as may be necessary to
ensure such maintenance. In addition,
maintenance plans are to contain such
contingency provisions as we deem
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.
Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires
states to submit a subsequent
maintenance plan revision (second 10year maintenance plan) eight years after
redesignation. The Act requires only
that this second 10-year maintenance
plan maintain the applicable NAAQS
for ten years after the expiration of the
first 10-year maintenance plan. Beyond
these provisions, however, section 175A
of the CAA does not define the content
of a second 10-year maintenance plan.
2. What general EPA guidance applies to
SO2 maintenance plans?
Our primary general guidance on
maintenance plans and redesignation
requests is a September 4, 1992 memo
from John Calcagni, titled ‘‘Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment’’ (‘‘Calcagni
Memo’’). Specific guidance on SO2
redesignations also appears in a January
26, 1995 memo from Sally L. Shaver,
titled ‘‘Attainment Determination Policy
for Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment
Areas’’ (‘‘Shaver Memo’’).
Guidance on SO2 maintenance plan
requirements for an area lacking
monitored ambient data, if the area’s
historic violations were caused by a
major point source that is no longer in
operation, is found in the Seitz Memo
at section II.C.2 and footnote 4. The
Seitz Memo exempts eligible areas from
the maintenance plan requirements of
continued ambient air quality
monitoring.
While the Seitz Memo primarily
addresses redesignations, we find it is
appropriate to apply the Seitz Memo to
second 10-year maintenance plans for
areas that were redesignated in
accordance with the memo and
continue to experience similar
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2241
conditions to those at the time of
redesignation.
3. What are the requirements for
maintenance plans for single-source SO2
nonattainment areas in the absence of
monitored data?
Our historic redesignation policy for
SO2 has called for eight quarters of clean
ambient air quality data as a necessary
prerequisite to redesignation of any area
to attainment. The Seitz Memo provides
guidance on SO2 maintenance plan
requirements for an area lacking
monitored ambient data, if the area’s
historic violations were caused by a
major point source that is no longer in
operation. To allow for these areas to
qualify for redesignation to attainment,
this policy requires that the
maintenance plan address otherwise
applicable provisions, and include:
(1) Emissions inventories representing
actual emissions when violations
occurred; current emissions; and
emissions projected to the 10th year
after redesignation; all three inventories
should include estimates of emissions
in a 50 km buffer zone around the
nonattainment area;
(2) dispersion modeling showing that
no NAAQS violations will occur over
the next 10 years and that the shutdown source was the dominant cause of
the high concentrations in the past;
(3) evidence that if the shut-down
source resumes operation, it would be
considered a new source and be
required to obtain a permit under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) provisions of the CAA; and
(4) a commitment to resume
monitoring before any major SO2 source
commences operation.
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of the
Arizona State Submittals
A. Did the State meet the CAA
procedural requirements?
Ajo
On February 22, 2013, ADEQ
submitted to the EPA the ‘‘Final Arizona
State Implementation Plan Revision,
Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur
Dioxide Planning Area (1971 NAAQS)’’
(‘‘2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan’’). The
State verified that it had adhered to its
SIP adoption procedures in Appendix E
to the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan,
which includes the notice of public
hearing, the agenda for the February 7,
2013 public hearing, the sign in sheet,
the public hearing officer certification
and transcript of the hearing, and the
State’s responsiveness summary.
On August 22, 2013, the 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan was deemed
complete by operation of law. See 40
E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM
09JAR1
2242
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
CFR part 51, appendix V, for the EPA’s
completeness criteria, which must be
satisfied before EPA formal review.
Morenci
On December 18, 2014, ADEQ
submitted to the EPA the ‘‘Proposed
Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision, Maintenance Plan for the
Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Planning Area
(1971 NAAQS)’’ (‘‘2014 Morenci
Maintenance Plan’’). The State verified
that it had adhered to its SIP adoption
procedures in Appendix E to the 2014
Morenci Maintenance Plan, which
includes the notice of public hearing,
the agenda for the December 15, 2014
public hearing, the sign in sheet, the
public hearing officer certification and
transcript of the hearing, and the State’s
responsiveness summary.
On May 10, 2015, the 2014 Morenci
Maintenance Plan was deemed
complete by operation of law. See 40
CFR part 51, appendix V, for the EPA’s
completeness criteria, which must be
satisfied before EPA formal review.
B. Has the State met the substantive
maintenance plan requirements?
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
1. Were the area’s violations caused by
a major point source of SO2 emissions
that is no longer in operation?
As discussed above, the only major
source of SO2 emissions within the Ajo
nonattainment area was the Phelps
Dodge Mining Company’s PDAI copper
smelter, which ceased operation in 1985
and was completely dismantled by
February 1996. The last recorded 24hour or annual average exceedances of
the primary NAAQS at PDAI occurred
in 1984. During the monitoring
network’s history, annual average SO2
levels were generally half of the current
NAAQS (0.030 ppm). See 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan, page (p.) 17. ADEQ
removed the SO2 monitor in 1985, and
the smelter operating permits expired.
The smelting equipment was removed
over a period of years, and the smelter
was completely dismantled by February
1996. No new sources of SO2 of the
magnitude of PDAI have located in the
area. Thus, Ajo meets this criterion for
review under the Seitz Memo.
As discussed above, the only major
source of SO2 emissions within the
Morenci nonattainment area was the
Phelps Dodge Mining Company’s PDMI
copper smelter, which was permanently
deactivated by December 31, 1984 and
was completely dismantled by
December 1996. The last recorded 24hour or annual average exceedances of
the primary NAAQS at PDMI occurred
in 1984. During the monitoring
network’s history, annual average SO2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
levels were generally half of the current
NAAQS (0.030 ppm). See 2014 Morenci
Maintenance Plan, p. 15–16. ADEQ
removed the SO2 monitors in 1985, and
the smelter operating permits expired.
The smelting equipment was removed
over a period of years, and the smelter
was completely dismantled by
December 1996. No new sources of SO2
of the magnitude of PDMI have located
in the area. Thus, Morenci meets this
criterion for review under the Seitz
Memo.
2. Has the state met the requirements for
second 10-year maintenance plans?
The 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan and
2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan both
extend the maintenance period for ten
years after the expiration of the first 10year maintenance plans, as required by
Section 175A(b) of the CAA. As
discussed below, the State has
addressed the requirements in the Seitz
Memo for emissions inventories,
modeling, permitting of major new
sources, and agreement to commence
monitoring if a new major source locates
in either the Ajo or Morenci areas.
Therefore, the State has met the specific
criteria in the Seitz Memo for approval
of maintenance plans and redesignation
requests where a single source was the
historic cause of violations and the
source is now shut down. We provide
more details on each requirement and
how the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan and
the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan
meet each requirement in the following
sections.
Ajo
a. Emissions Inventories
In addition to reproducing the
emissions inventories in the Ajo Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area State
Implementation Plan and Maintenance
Plan (June 18, 2002) (‘‘2002 Ajo
maintenance plan’’), the 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan includes new
emissions inventories for 2008,
representing an updated ‘‘current’’
emissions inventory (the most recent
National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
available at the time), 2010, 2015, 2020,
and 2025 for the second 10-year
maintenance period.9 Continued
9 The State provided the three emissions
inventories specified in the Seitz Memo for the
sources in, and within 50 kilometers of, the Ajo
nonattainment area in the 2002 Ajo maintenance
plan. For a representative year when the copper
smelter was in operation (1981), direct SO2
emissions from smelting operations were 39,596
tpy. ADEQ’s 2002 submittal identified only a single
existing point source within the Ajo Area, the
Phelps Dodge Generator Station. Phelps Dodge has
since shut down the generators and no longer uses
them as emergency/back up electric supply. See
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
maintenance of the Ajo area for 10 years
following the initial 10-year
maintenance period is demonstrated in
part by showing that future SO2
emissions in the area are not expected
to exceed the level of the attainment
emissions inventory.
The emissions inventories in the 2013
Ajo Maintenance Plan include estimates
of SO2 from all relevant source
categories, which the 2013 Plan divides
among stationary, and area and mobile.
Point source information was received
from the Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the
Maricopa County Air Quality Division’s
annual emissions inventory data. The
Ajo maintenance area contains two
point sources (i.e., Freeport-McMoRan
Corporation Childs Well Field
Emergency Generator, and Minerals
Research and Recovery, Inc.), which
together emit less than 1 tpy SO2. The
50 km buffer area contains four point
sources, including a cotton gin, a paper
mill, an Air Force auxiliary field, and an
emergency generator. The 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan includes a
description of current facility types,
emitting equipment, permitted
emissions limits, operating rates, and
emissions calculation methods.
Area and mobile sources in ADEQ’s
2008 and subsequent year inventories
were derived from the EPA’s NEI and
local agency records. Historical and
2008 emissions inventories demonstrate
that no significant area or mobile
sources existed in the Ajo area prior to
or subsequent to the smelter operation,
which closed in 1985.
Based on our review of the emissions
inventories in the 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan and the supporting
information in Appendix C, we
conclude that the inventories are
complete, accurate, and consistent with
applicable CAA provisions and the Seitz
Memo.
b. Dispersion Modeling
Past EPA policy memoranda on SO2
redesignations all recommend
dispersion modeling to show that the
NAAQS is met and will be maintained.
The Seitz Memo recommends
dispersion modeling of all point sources
within
50 km of the nonattainment area
boundary. Screening modeling can be
used to conservatively show that nonsmelter sources have only an
insignificant contribution to average
SO2 concentrations in a nonattainment
area.
2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 32 and Appendix C–
1.
E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM
09JAR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
For the 2002 Ajo Maintenance Plan,
screening dispersion modeling was
performed using the SCREEN3 model
run with conservative assumptions
about source parameters and
meteorology. At the time of the 2002 Ajo
Maintenance Plan, the Ajo
nonattainment area had one minor point
source of SO2 emissions (i.e., PhelpsDodge Generating Station) and one
permitted minor point source in the 50
km buffer (i.e., the proposed Gila Bend
Regional Landfill). The model predicted
that the impact from these two sources
would not exceed 66% of the 1971 SO2
NAAQS, even assuming constant worstcase conditions about high-sulfur
content fuel use.
The Seitz Memo also requires a
modeling analysis that shows that the
point sources that were shutdown were
the dominant sources contributing to
high SO2 concentrations in the airshed.
Since the emissions of non-smelter
sources in the area had changed
relatively little since the time that
emission controls were placed on the
smelter, this same screening modeling
was used to show that the non-smelter
sources were insignificant in the past,
and thus the smelter was the dominant
source contributing to past high SO2
concentrations.
ADEQ did not conduct a new
modeling analysis for the 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan. As described above,
the modeling for the 2002 Ajo
Maintenance Plan modeled the existing
two sources at maximum projected
emissions rates from 2004 to 2015 and
showed the area would not exceed 66%
of the NAAQS. Since that modeling
analysis was conducted, the PhelpsDodge Generating Station has shut
down, the Gila Bend Regional Landfill
was never constructed, and the permit
for the landfill was allowed to expire.
Currently, only two sources operate
within the nonattainment area (i.e.,
Freeport-McMoRan Incorporated Childs
Well Field Emergency Generator, and
Minerals Research and Recovery), and
they are permitted to emit less than 1%
of the emissions modeled in the 2002
Ajo Maintenance Plan. Point sources
within the 50 km buffer surrounding the
nonattainment area emit about 25% of
emissions modeled in the 2002 Ajo
Maintenance Plan. 2025 projections
show that these low emissions are
expected to persist through the second
10-year maintenance period. See 2013
Ajo Maintenance Plan, pp. 33 and 34.
ADEQ proposes, and we concur, that
because current emissions in the
maintenance area and the 50 km buffer
are a small fraction of modeled
emissions from 2002, the ambient SO2
modeling requirement for second 10-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
year maintenance plans is met by the
prior modeling, and the State has
demonstrated that the 1971 SO2 NAAQS
is adequately protected.
c. Treatment of New Sources of SO2
Emissions
In nonattainment areas, section
172(c)(5) of the CAA requires New
Source Review (NSR) permits prior to
the construction and operation of new
major stationary sources and major
modifications at existing major
stationary sources. However, in
attainment areas, section 165 of the
CAA requires major sources and major
modifications to obtain PSD permits.
The PSD program requires stationary
sources to apply the best available
control technology and ensure that
projects will not cause or contribute to
a violation of a NAAQS or maximum
allowable increase.
ADEQ and the PDEQ have PSD
permitting programs (i.e., Arizona
Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18–2–
406 and Pima County Code 17.16.590)
that were established to preserve the air
quality in areas where ambient
standards have been met. The State’s
updated PSD program was approved
into the SIP on November 2, 2015 (80
FR 67319). PDEQ’s PSD program is not
SIP-approved, but the federal PSD
permitting program at 40 CFR 52.21 was
delegated to PDEQ effective April 14,
1994.
The PSD program has applied to any
major source or major modification in
the Ajo area since the area was
redesignated to attainment for SO2 in
2003, except for coarse particulate
(PM10), for which the area is designated
nonattainment. Under section 172(c)(5)
of the CAA, major sources and major
modifications of PM10 in the Ajo area
remain subject to the nonattainment
NSR program, while all other NSR
regulated pollutants are subject to the
PSD program. Thus the existing ADEQ
and PDEQ PSD and NSR programs
satisfy the preconstruction permit
provision of the Seitz Memo as one of
the prerequisites to redesignation for the
Ajo SO2 nonattainment area.
d. Commitment to Resume Monitoring
ADEQ commits to resume monitoring
before any major source of SO2
commences to operate in the Ajo
maintenance area. See 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan, p. 38. This addresses
the monitoring provision of the Seitz
Memo.
Morenci
a. Emissions Inventory
The 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan
includes historical inventories that were
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2243
submitted as part of the Morenci Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area State
Implementation Plan and Maintenance
Plan (submitted June 21, 2002) (‘‘2002
Morenci maintenance plan’’) as well as
a current-year inventory for 2011 (the
most recent NEI available at the time),
and projected inventories for 2015,
2020, 2025, and 2030 for the second 10year maintenance period.10
The emissions inventories in the 2014
Morenci Maintenance Plan include
estimates of SO2 emissions from all
relevant source categories, which are
divided among stationary, area, and
mobile source categories. Additional
information on how the inventories
were developed, including activity data
and emissions calculations, is provided
in Appendix C of the 2014 Morenci
Maintenance Plan. Point source
information was developed by ADEQ
from permit information and the NEI.
The 2011 inventory identifies two
existing point sources within the
Morenci maintenance area: The
Freeport-McMoRan Morenci mine with
2011 actual emissions of 48.5 tpy SO2,
and the Morenci Townsite Wastewater
Treatment Plant Emergency Generators
with 2011 actual emissions of 0.003 tpy
SO2. In 2011, 13 point additional
sources with actual emissions of 38.05
tpy SO2 were located within 50 km of
the Morenci maintenance area
boundary. As of 2014, six of these
sources had terminated their permits,
resulting in slightly lower emissions.
Area and mobile source emissions in
ADEQ’s 2011 and subsequent year
inventories were derived from the NEI.
The year 2011 was a historically high
wildfire year, and included the largest
wildfire in Arizona history (i.e., the
Wallow fire), which burned in Greenlee
County and surrounding areas.11 ADEQ
10 In the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan, the
State provided the three emissions inventories
specified in the Seitz Memo for the sources in, and
within 50 kilometers of, the Morenci nonattainment
area. For a representative year when the copper
smelter was in operation (1984), direct actual SO2
emissions from smelting operations were 82,432
tpy. During its operation, the Morenci primary
copper smelter was the only major point source in
the area. The 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan
included inventories for 1984 (a year the smelter
was in operation), 1999 (a year the area was
attaining the SO2 standard), and 2015 (the projected
inventory for the horizon year of the maintenance
period). Sources in the 50 km buffer around the
Morenci area were estimated to emit 186.5 tpy in
1999, based on PTE, but had actual emissions
significantly lower, at 1.2 tpy. See 2014 Morenci
Maintenance Plan, p. 18.
11 National Interagency Fire Center’s Web site at
https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_
statistics.html, ‘‘Historical year-end statistics by
state,’’ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_
Arizona_wildfires. Acres burned in 2011 in Arizona
were more than 10 times higher than 2010 acres
burned in Arizona due to wildfires, and about five
E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM
Continued
09JAR1
2244
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
assumed the 2011 wildfire emissions
remained constant when projecting
emissions into the future.
Based on our review of the emissions
inventories in the 2014 Morenci
Maintenance Plan and the supporting
information in Appendix C, we
conclude that the inventories are
complete, accurate, and consistent with
applicable CAA provisions and the Seitz
Memo.
b. Dispersion Modeling
The EPA policy memoranda on SO2
redesignations recommend dispersion
modeling to show that the NAAQS is
met and will be maintained. The Seitz
Memo recommends dispersion
modeling of all point sources within 50
km of the nonattainment area boundary.
For the 2002 Morenci Maintenance
Plan, screening dispersion modeling
was performed using the SCREEN3
model, which was run with
conservative assumptions about source
parameters and meteorology. The
modeling results indicated that the
impact of existing sources on
concentrations within the
nonattainment area would not exceed
25 percent of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS.
The Seitz Memo also requires a
modeling analysis that shows point
sources that were shutdown were the
dominant sources contributing to high
SO2 concentrations in the airshed. The
screening modeling described above
was used in the 2002 Morenci
Maintenance Plan to show that the nonsmelter sources have an insignificant
contribution, and thus the smelter was
the dominant source contributing to
past high SO2 concentrations.
For the 2014 Morenci Maintenance
Plan, ADEQ conducted a modeling
analysis similar to the analysis in the
2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan. The
two largest sources in the maintenance
area and within the 50 km buffer area
were modeled. The two sources are
Freeport-McMoRan Morenci Mine
(FMMM) in the maintenance area, with
a PTE of 88 tpy SO2, and the FreeportMcMoRan Safford Mine (FMSM) in the
50 km buffer area, with a PTE of 81 tpy
SO2. Other point sources were not
modeled because of their small or
negligible emissions.
The EPA dispersion model
AERSCREEN (version 11126) was used
to conservatively estimate the impact of
FMMM and FMSM on maintenance in
the Morenci planning area.12 The results
times higher than acres burned in Arizona in 2012
due to wildfires.
12 AERSCREEN has replaced SCREEN3 as the
EPA’s preferred screening model. See Memorandum
dated April 11, 2011, from Tyler Fox to the EPA
Regional Modeling Contacts, ‘‘AERSCREEN
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
of the AERSCREEN modeling indicated
that the impact of these existing sources
would have a cumulative potential
impact of 42–53% of the 1971 annual
and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS respectively.
See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, p.
29. Projections for 2030 show that this
low level of emissions is expected to
persist through the second maintenance
period. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance
Plan, p. 32. We therefore conclude that
the State has demonstrated that the 1971
SO2 NAAQS is adequately protected.
c. Treatment of New Sources of SO2
Emissions
In nonattainment areas, section
172(c)(5) of the CAA requires NSR
permits prior to the construction and
operation of new major stationary
sources and major modifications at
existing major stationary sources.
However, in attainment areas, section
165 of the CAA requires major sources
and major modifications to obtain PSD
permits. The PSD program requires
stationary sources to apply the best
available control technology and ensure
projects will not cause or contribute to
a violation of a NAAQS or maximum
allowable increase.
ADEQ has a PSD permitting program
(i.e., A.A.C. R18–2–406) that was
established to preserve the air quality in
areas where ambient standards have
been met. The State’s updated PSD
program was approved into the SIP on
November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67319). The
PSD program has applied to any major
source or major modification in the
Morenci area since the area was
redesignated to attainment for SO2 in
2004. Thus the ADEQ’s existing PSD
program satisfies the preconstruction
permit provision of the Seitz Memo as
one of the prerequisites to redesignation
for the Morenci SO2 nonattainment area.
d. Commitment To Resume Monitoring
ADEQ commits to resume monitoring
before any major source of SO2
commences to operate. See 2014
Morenci Maintenance Plan, p. 16. This
addresses the monitoring provision of
the Seitz Memo.
3. Other CAA Requirements
a. Contingency Plan
As discussed above, section 175A of
the CAA sets forth the statutory
requirements for maintenance plans,
and the Calcagni, Seitz and Shaver
Memos cited above contain specific EPA
guidance. The only maintenance plan
element not covered by the Seitz Memo
Released as EPA Recommended Screening Model’’
in the docket for this action. SCREEN3 was used for
the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
is the contingency provisions. Section
175A(d) of the CAA requires that
maintenance plans contain contingency
provisions deemed necessary by the
Administrator to assure that the state
will promptly correct any violation of
the standard which occurs after the
redesignation of the area as an
attainment area.
Ajo
The 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan
includes the State’s commitment to
continue to track maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS through updates to the
emissions inventory. Additionally,
ADEQ commits to reestablish an
appropriate air quality monitoring
network before any major source of SO2
begins operations in the Ajo
maintenance area. See 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan, p. 38.
Since the primary cause of future
violations of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS in
the area would be from modified or new
point sources, ADEQ’s current operating
permit program places limits on SO2
emissions from existing sources. Should
a new facility be constructed in the Ajo
area or an existing facility want to
upgrade or increase SO2 emissions, the
facility would also be subject to PSD as
required in the Calcagni Memo.
The Calcagni Memo emphasizes the
importance of specific contingency
measures, schedules for adoption, and
action levels to trigger implementation
of the contingency plan. Since there are
no remaining sources of SO2 emissions
of the magnitude of the PDAI smelter,
and there is no SO2 monitoring in the
Ajo area, we agree with the State that
the level of specificity recommended in
the Calcagni Memo is not necessary, and
we conclude that the State’s
commitment satisfactorily addresses the
CAA provisions. We find that the State’s
commitment to continue to track
maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS
through updates to the emissions
inventory and the State’s PSD
permitting programs are sufficient to
assure that the Ajo area will not violate
the NAAQS.
Morenci
The 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan
includes the State’s commitment to
continue to demonstrate maintenance of
the SO2 NAAQS through updates to the
emissions inventory. Additionally,
ADEQ commits to reestablish an
appropriate air quality monitoring
network before any major source of SO2
begins operations in the Morenci
maintenance area. See 2014 Morenci
Maintenance Plan, p. 32.
Since the primary cause of future
violations of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS in
E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM
09JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
the area would be from modified or new
point sources, ADEQ’s current operating
permit program places limits on SO2
emissions from existing sources. Should
a new facility be constructed in the
Morenci area or an existing facility want
to upgrade or increase SO2 emissions,
the facility would also be subject to PSD
as required in the Calcagni Memo.
The Calcagni Memo emphasizes the
importance of specific contingency
measures, schedules for adoption, and
action levels to trigger implementation
of the contingency plan. Since there are
no remaining sources of SO2 emissions
of the magnitude of the PDMI smelter,
and there is no SO2 monitoring in the
Morenci area, we agree with the State
that the level of specificity
recommended in the Calcagni Memo is
not necessary, and we conclude that the
State’s commitment satisfactorily
addresses the CAA provisions. We find
that the State’s commitment to continue
to track maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS
through updates to the emissions
inventory and the State’s PSD
permitting programs are sufficient to
assure that the Morenci area will not
violate the NAAQS.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
b. Transportation and General
Conformity
Conformity is required under section
176(c) of the CAA to ensure that federal
actions are consistent with (‘‘conform
to’’) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity
to the purpose of the SIP means that
federal activities will not cause new air
quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of
the relevant NAAQS or interim
reductions and milestones. Conformity
applies to areas that are designated
nonattainment and to maintenance
areas. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs and projects developed,
funded, or approved under Title 23
U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act
(‘‘Transportation conformity’’) as well as
to other federally supported or funded
projects (‘‘general conformity’’).
Transportation conformity applies to
projects that require Federal Highway
Administration or Federal Transit
Administration funding. 40 CFR part 93
describes the requirements for federal
actions related to transportation plans,
programs, and projects to conform to the
purposes of the SIP. Because the EPA
does not consider SO2 a transportationrelated criteria pollutant,13 only the
requirements related to general
conformity apply to the Ajo and
Morenci areas.
13 40
CFR 93.102(b)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jan 06, 2017
Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA
establishes the framework for general
conformity. Besides ensuring that
federal actions not covered by the
transportation conformity rule will not
interfere with the SIP, the general
conformity regulations encourage
consultation between the federal agency
and the state or local air pollution
control agencies before and during the
environmental review process, as well
as public notification of and access to
federal agency conformity
determinations, and allows for air
quality review of individual federal
actions.
Section 176(c) of the CAA required
the states to revise their SIPs to establish
criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally supported or funded projects
in nonattainment and maintenance
areas ‘‘conform’’ to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. SIP
revisions intended to meet the
conformity requirements in section
176(c) are referred to as ‘‘conformity
SIPs.’’ In 2005, Congress amended
section 176(c), and under the amended
conformity provisions, states are no
longer required to submit conformity
SIPs for general conformity, and the
conformity SIP requirements for
transportation conformity have been
reduced to include only those relating to
consultation, enforcement, and
enforceability. CAA section 176(c)(4)(E).
The EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of a redesignation request
under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) because
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and Federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. See Wall v.
EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. Because
both Ajo and Morenci have already been
redesignated for this standard, we
believe it is reasonable to apply the
interpretation of conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for the
purposes of redesignation to the
approval of second ten-year
maintenance plans.
Criteria for making determinations
and provisions for general conformity
are contained in Arizona Administrative
Code R18–2–1438. Arizona has an
approved general conformity SIP.14
Ajo
ADEQ commits in the 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan to review and
comment, as appropriate, on any federal
agency draft general conformity
determination it receives consistent
14 64
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
FR 19916, April 23, 1999.
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2245
with 40 CFR 93.155 for any federal
plans or actions in this planning area,
although none are currently planned for
the area. See 2013 Ajo Maintenance
Plan, p. 13.
Morenci
ADEQ commits in the 2014 Morenci
Maintenance Plan to review and
comment, as appropriate, on any federal
agency draft general conformity
determination it receives consistent
with 40 CFR 93.155 for any federal
plans or actions in this planning area,
although none are currently planned for
the area. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance
Plan, p. 11.
IV. Technical Correction
A. History of the Ajo Nonattainment
and Maintenance Area Boundary
On November 3, 2003, the EPA
finalized approval of the maintenance
plan and redesignation request for the
Ajo area, effective January 2, 2004 (see
68 FR 62239). To codify this
rulemaking, we amended 40 CFR 81.303
that lists the designations for air quality
planning areas in Arizona, but we
incorrectly identified the Ajo
maintenance area in the Arizona SO2
table by dropping township T13S, R5W
from the maintenance area, and
inadvertently deleted other townships
and ranges in the ‘‘cannot be classified’’
description. Township T13S, R5W as
well as townships T11S, R7W; T12S,
R7W; and T13S, R7W should have
remained ‘‘cannot be classified.’’
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides
that when the EPA’s action approving
any plan or plan revision (or part
thereof), area designation, redesignation,
classification, or reclassification was in
error, the EPA may in the same manner
revise such action. Under the EPA’s
authority under section 110(k)(6) of the
Act, we are taking direct final action to
amend the Arizona-SO2 table in 40 CFR
81.303 by re-codifying and correcting
the previous detailed descriptions of the
Ajo maintenance area and townships
identified as ‘‘cannot be classified.’’
The maintenance area consists of
townships T11S, R6W; T11S, R5W;
T12S, R6W; T12S, R5W; and T13S,
R6W. In addition, townships T13S,
R5W; T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; and
T13S, R7W are listed in 40 CFR 81.303
as ‘‘cannot be classified,’’ as they were
upon the Ajo area’s original designation
in 1979.
V. Final Action
We are approving the second 10-year
SO2 maintenance plans for the Ajo and
Morenci areas in Arizona under sections
110 and 175A of the CAA and correcting
E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM
09JAR1
2246
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
an error made in the description of the
Ajo maintenance area and in the
identification of townships as ‘‘cannot
be classified’’ in the CFR when we
redesignated the area in 2003. As
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the
Act, the EPA is fully approving the
submitted SIPs because we believe they
fulfill all relevant requirements. We do
not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without
proposing it in advance. However, in
the Proposed Rules section of this
Federal Register, we are simultaneously
proposing approval of the same
submitted SIPs. If we receive adverse
comments by February 8, 2017, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public
that some or all of the provisions of 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 10, 2017. This
will incorporate these SIPs into the
federally enforceable SIP.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
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 10, 2017.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register, rather than file
an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
the EPA can withdraw this direct final
rule and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. 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 dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Dated: December 15, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D—Arizona
2. Section 52.120 in paragraph (e),
table 1 is amended by:
■ a. Adding an entry for ‘‘ ‘Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision,
Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur
Dioxide Area (1971 NAAQS), (February
2013) excluding Appendix C,
‘‘Overview of Point Source Emissions
Limits and Potential to Emit’’ after the
heading ‘‘Part D Elements and Plans
(Other than for the Metropolitan
Phoenix and Tucson Areas)’ ’’; and
■ b. Adding an entry for ‘‘Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision,
Maintenance Plan for the Morenci
Sulfur Dioxide Area (1971 NAAQS),
(December 2014)’’ after the entry for
‘‘Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area State
Implementation and Maintenance Plan
(June 2002)(revised May 26, 2004),
excluding appendix A (‘‘SIP Support
Information’’), sections A.1 (‘‘Pertinent
■
E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM
09JAR1
2247
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Sections of the Arizona Administrative
Code’’) and A.2 (‘‘Information Regarding
Revisions to AAC R18–2–715 and R18–
2–715.01, ‘Standards of Performance for
Primary Copper Smelters: Site Specific
Requirements; Compliance and
Monitoring’’’); and appendix D (‘‘SIP
Public Hearing Documentation’’)’’.
The additions read as follows:
§ 52.120
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area or title/
subject
Name of SIP provision
State submittal date
EPA approval date
Explanation
The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Part D Elements and Plans (Other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas)
Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan for the Ajo
Sulfur Dioxide Area
(1971 NAAQS), (February 2013), excluding
Appendix C, ‘‘Overview
of Point Source Emissions Limits and Potential to Emit’’.
Ajo Sulfur Dioxide Air
Quality Planning Area.
February 22, 2013 ............
1/9/2017, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Adopted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality on February 22, 2013. Fulfills
requirements for second
ten-year maintenance
plans. The SIP includes
a request to correct the
maintenance area
boundary.
*
Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan for the
Morenci Sulfur Dioxide
Area (1971 NAAQS),
(December 2014).
*
*
Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Air
Quality Planning Area.
*
December 18, 2014 ..........
*
*
January 9, 2017, [Insert
Federal Register citation].
*
Adopted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality on December 18, 2014. Fulfills
requirements for second
ten-year maintenance
plans.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1 Table
1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and
Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.
*
*
*
*
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
*
PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PURPOSES
3. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 81.303
4. Section 81.303 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Arizona—1971 Sulfur Dioxide
NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)’’ by
revising the entry for ‘‘Ajo’’ to read as
follows:
■
*
Arizona.
*
*
*
*
ARIZONA—1971 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Does not meet primary standards
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Designated area
Ajo:
T11S,
T11S,
T12S,
T12S,
T13S,
T11S,
T12S,
T13S,
T13S,
R5W
R6W
R5W
R6W
R6W
R7W
R7W
R5W
R7W
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
Does not meet secondary
standards
Cannot be
classified
Better than
national
standards
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
X
X
X
........................
X
X
X
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
*
16:50 Jan 06, 2017
*
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM
*
09JAR1
*
2248
*
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
Regulatory Analysis and Notices
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR PART 503
[Docket No. 16–18]
RIN 3072–AC66
Amendments to Regulations
Governing Access to Commission
Information and Records; Freedom of
Information Act
Federal Maritime Commission.
Final rule.
PART 503—PUBLIC INFORMATION
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
*
[FR Doc. 2016–31637 Filed 1–6–17; 8:45 am]
■
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires an agency to review regulations
to assess their impact on small entities
and prepare an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, unless the agency
determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This final rule will affect only persons
who file FOIA requests, and therefore,
the Commission certifies that this final
rule will not have a significant or
negative economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities.
AGENCY:
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
ACTION:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
requires an agency to seek and receive
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) before making most
requests for information if the agency is
requesting information from more than
ten persons. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency
must submit collections of information
in proposed rules to OMB in
conjunction with the publication of the
proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11.
This final rule does not impose any
collections of information, as defined by
44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
The Federal Maritime
Commission amends its regulations for
processing requests for information and
records under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). The regulations
are being revised to incorporate changes
brought by amendments to the FOIA
under the FOIA Improvement Act of
2016. The Act requires agencies to
review their FOIA regulations and issue
regulations implementing the
amendments no later than 180 days after
enactment.
DATES: This rule is effective January 30,
2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant
Secretary, Federal Maritime
Commission, 800 North Capitol Street
NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001.
Phone: (202) 523–5725. Email:
secretary@fmc.gov.
SUMMARY:
On June
30, 2016, the President signed into law
the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The
Act prescribes a range of procedural
requirements that affect the
Commission’s FOIA regulations, and
which this final rule implements,
including requirements that the
Commission:
• Provide publically available
documents and its FOIA Annual
Reports in an electronic format;
• provide FOIA requesters the right to
seek dispute resolution services from
the Commission’s FOIA Public Liaison
and/or the Office of Government
Information Services during the FOIA
process;
• provide a minimum of 90 days for
FOIA requesters to file an
administrative appeal; and
• not apply the deliberative process
privilege to records created 25 years or
more before the date on which the
records were requested.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
This final rule will have no physical
impact upon the environment, and
therefore, will not require any further
review under NEPA.
Regulation Identifier Number
The Commission assigns a regulation
identifier number (RIN) to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda).
The Regulatory Information Service
Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN
contained in the heading of this
document may be used to find this
action in the Unified Agenda, available
at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaMain.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 503
Administrative practices and
procedures, Archives and records,
Classified information, Confidential
business information, Freedom of
information, Information, Privacy,
Records, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sunshine Act.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Federal Maritime
Commission amends 46 CFR part 503 as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1. The authority citation for part 503
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 552b, 553;
31 U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 13526, 75 FR 707, 3
CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 298.
Subpart C—Records, Information and
Materials Generally Available to the
Public Without Resort to Freedom of
Information Act Procedures
2. Amend § 503.21 by revising
paragraphs (a) introductory text and (c)
introductory text to read as follows:
■
§ 503.21
Mandatory public records.
(a) The Commission, as required by
the Freedom of Information Act, 5
U.S.C. 552, is responsible for
determining which of its records must
be made publicly available, for
identifying additional records of interest
to the public that are appropriate for
public disclosure, for posting and
indexing such records, and for
reviewing and updating posted records
and indices on an ongoing basis. The
Commission makes the following
materials available for public inspection
in electronic format on its Web site at
www.fmc.gov:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The Commission maintains and
makes available for public inspection in
an electronic format, a current log or
index providing identifying information
for the public as to any matter which is
issued, adopted, or promulgated, and
which is required by paragraph (a) of
this section to be made available or
published.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart D—Requests for Records
Under the Freedom of Information Act
3. Amend § 503.32 by revising
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (a)(3)(i)(B),
and (b)(3) to read as follows:
■
§ 503.32 Procedures for responding to
requests made under the Freedom of
Information Act.
(a) * * *
(1) Such determination shall be made
by the Secretary within twenty (20)
business days after receipt of such
request, except as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (e)(4) of this section,
and the Secretary shall immediately
notify the requester of:
(i) Such determination and the
reasons therefor;
(ii) The right of such person to seek
assistance from the agency’s FOIA
Public Liaison; and
(iii) In the case of an adverse
determination, the right of such
E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM
09JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2239-2248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31637]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0287; FRL-9957-64-Region 9]
Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revisions; Ajo and Morenci, Arizona;
Second 10-Year Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Plans and Technical
Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule and technical correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
second 10-year maintenance plans for the Ajo and Morenci areas in
Arizona for the 1971 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') for sulfur dioxide (SO2), and correcting an
error in the description of the Ajo SO2 maintenance area in
the Code of Federal Regulations. Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we
are proposing approval and soliciting written comment on these actions.
If we receive adverse comments on this direct final rule, resulting in
withdrawal of the entire rule or any part(s) of it, we will address
those comments when we finalize the proposal. The EPA does not plan to
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.
DATES: This rule is effective March 10, 2017, without further notice,
unless we receive adverse comments by February 8, 2017. If the EPA
receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that some or all of the
provisions in this direct final rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0287 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Wienke
Tax, Air Planning Office at tax.wienke@epa.gov. For comments submitted
at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
You may inspect and copy the rulemaking docket for this notice at
the following location during normal business hours: Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, Air Division, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Copies of the
State Implementation Plan materials are also available for inspection
at the address listed here: Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street, First Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85007,
Phone: (602) 771-4335.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4192, tax.wienke@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
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Action
II. Background
A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards are considered in
this rulemaking?
B. What is a State Implementation Plan?
C. What is the background for this action?
D. What are the applicable provisions for second 10-year
maintenance plans for SO2?
III. The EPA's evaluation of the Arizona State submittals
A. Did the State meet the CAA procedural requirements?
B. Has the State met the substantive maintenance plan
requirements?
IV. Technical Correction
A. History of the Ajo Nonattainment and Maintenance Area
Boundary
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Action
We are approving the second 10-year maintenance plans for the Ajo
and Morenci, Arizona SO2 maintenance areas and correcting an
error in the boundary description of the Ajo maintenance area in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the definition of the Ajo maintenance area, see 40 CFR
81.303. Ajo is a town located in northwestern Pima County, in the
southwestern portion of Arizona. The EPA designated the entire area
of Pima County as nonattainment for SO2 on March 3, 1978
for lack of a State recommendation. The EPA approved the State's
request that the SO2-affected portion of Pima County be
limited to the townships surrounding Ajo on April 10, 1979 (44 FR
21261). Townships T11S, R6W; T11S, R5W; T12S, R6W; T12S, R5W; and
T13S, R6W comprised the nonattainment area. Townships T11S, R7W;
T12S, R7W; T13S, R5W; and T13S, R7W were designated as ``cannot be
classified.'' At the time of our redesignation, we incorrectly
identified the maintenance area as all townships and ranges T11S-
13S, R5W-R6W as ``better than national standards.'' However, T11S,
R7W; T12S, R7W; T13S, R7W; and T13S, R5W were originally designated
as ``cannot be classified'' and should have remained such. Today, we
are correcting that error.
\2\ For the definition of the Morenci maintenance area, see 40
CFR 81.303. Morenci is a town in eastern Greenlee County near the
border of Arizona and New Mexico. The EPA designated the entire area
of Greenlee County as nonattainment for SO2 on March 3,
1978 for lack of a State recommendation. The EPA approved the
State's request that the SO2-affected portion of Greenlee
County be limited to the townships surrounding Morenci on April 10,
1979 (44 FR 21261). Within Greenlee County, Townships T3S, R28E;
T3S, R29E; T3S, R30E; T4S, R28E; T4S, R29E; T4S, R30E; T5S, R28E;
and T5S, R29E comprise the maintenance area. Township T5S, R30E is
designated as ``cannot be classified.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards are considered in this
rulemaking?
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the pollutant that is the
subject of this action. The NAAQS are health-based and welfare-based
standards for certain ambient air pollutants. SO2 is among
the ambient air pollutants for which we have established a health-based
standard. SO2 causes adverse health effects by reducing lung
function, increasing respiratory illness, altering the lung's defenses
and aggravating existing cardiovascular disease. Children, the elderly,
and people with asthma are the most vulnerable. SO2 has a
variety of additional impacts, including acidic deposition, damage to
crops and vegetation, and corrosion of natural and man-made materials.
In 1971, the EPA established both short- and long-term primary
NAAQS
[[Page 2240]]
for SO2. The short-term (24-hour) standard of 0.14 parts per
million (ppm) was not to be exceeded more than once per year. The long-
term standard specifies an annual arithmetic mean not to exceed 0.030
ppm.\3\ See 40 CFR 50.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Secondary NAAQS are promulgated to protect welfare. The
secondary 1971 SO2 NAAQS (3-hour) of 0.50 ppm is not to
be exceeded more than once per year. The Ajo and Morenci areas are
not classified nonattainment for the secondary standard, and this
action relates only to the primary 1971 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, the EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS by
establishing a new 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). The
EPA revoked the existing 1971 primary standards at that time because
they would not provide additional public health protection. See 75 FR
35550 (June 22, 2010). This action relates only to the revoked 1971
NAAQS. The State has requested that we take action on these maintenance
plans.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This action is consistent with the CAA's anti-backsliding
provisions. EPA's proposed rule on revocation of the 1971
SO2 NAAQS discussed that maintenance SIPs would continue
being implemented by states until such time as they are subsumed by
new planning and control requirements associated with the revised
NAAQS. See 74 FR 64810, 64863 (December 8, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is a State Implementation Plan?
The Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requires states to attain and
maintain ambient air quality equal to or better than the NAAQS. The
state's commitments for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS are
outlined in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for that state. The SIP
is a planning document that, when implemented, is designed to ensure
the achievement of the NAAQS. The Act requires that SIP revisions be
made periodically as necessary to provide continued compliance with the
standards.
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, or a contingency plan if the area fails to maintain
the NAAQS once redesignated. The state must make the SIP available for
public review and comment through a public hearing and the SIP must be
adopted by the state and submitted to us by the governor or her/his
designee.
The EPA takes action on the SIP submittal, thus rendering the rules
and regulations federally enforceable. The approved SIP serves as the
state's commitment to take actions that will reduce or eliminate air
quality problems. Any subsequent revisions to the SIP must go through
the formal SIP revision process specified in the Act.
C. What is the background for this action?
1. When were the nonattainment areas established?
Ajo
Ajo is located in northwestern Pima County. On March 3, 1978, at 43
FR 8968, for lack of a State recommendation, we designated Pima County
as a primary SO2 nonattainment area based on monitored
violations of the primary SO2 NAAQS in the area between 1975
and 1977. At the request of the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ), the nonattainment area was subsequently reduced to five
townships in and around Ajo. See 44 FR 21261 (April 10, 1979). As a
result, townships T11S, R6W; T11S, R5W; T12S, R6W; T12s, R5W; and T13S,
R6W made up the nonattainment area. Townships T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W;
T13S, R7W; and T13S, R5W were classified as ``cannot be classified''
areas.
Morenci
Morenci is a town in eastern Greenlee County near the border of
Arizona and New Mexico. On March 3, 1978, at 43 FR 8968, for lack of a
state recommendation, we designated Greenlee County as a primary
SO2 nonattainment area based on monitored violations of the
primary SO2 NAAQS in the area between 1975 and 1977. At the
request of the ADEQ, the nonattainment area was subsequently reduced to
the townships in and around Morenci. See 44 FR 21261 (April 10, 1979).
As a result, within Greenlee County townships T3S, R28E; T3S, R29E;
T3S, R30E; T4S, R28E; T4S, R29E; T4S, R30E; T5S, R28E; and T5S, R29E
made up the nonattainment area. Township T5S, R30E was classified as a
``cannot be classified'' area.
On the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, SO2
areas meeting the conditions of section 107(d) of the Act were
designated nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS by operation of
law. Section 107(d) describes the processes by which nonattainment
areas are designated, including the pre-existing SO2
nonattainment areas. Thus, the Ajo and Morenci areas remained
nonattainment for the primary SO2 NAAQS following enactment
of the 1990 CAA Amendments on November 15, 1990.
2. When were the Ajo and Morenci areas redesignated for SO2?
In 2004, we redesignated the Ajo and Morenci areas under the
criteria used for areas with shut-down smelters and discontinued
monitoring described in a memorandum from John Seitz to Regional Office
Air Division Directors titled ``Redesignation of Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Areas in the Absence of Monitored Data,'' dated October
18, 2000 (``Seitz Memo'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 68 FR 62239 (November 3, 2003) for Ajo and 69 FR 22447
(April 26, 2004) for Morenci.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajo
Phelps Dodge Mining Company's Ajo Incorporated (PDAI) operation was
the largest point source in the Ajo SO2 nonattainment area.
On April 4, 1985, the PDAI smelter was permanently deactivated.
Dismantling of the Ajo facility began in 1995. By February 1996, the
facility was completely dismantled. On October 15, 1997, ADEQ confirmed
that the facility was dismantled and no longer existed at the former
site. On November 3, 2003, the EPA finalized approval of the
maintenance plan and redesignation request for the Ajo area, effective
January 2, 2004 (see 68 FR 62239). At that time, we incorrectly
identified the maintenance area as townships and ranges T11S-T13S, R5W-
R6W as ``better than national standards.'' However, T13S, R5W was
originally designated as ``cannot be classified'' and should have
remained such. Additionally, townships T13S, R5W; T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W;
and T13S, R7W were dropped from the CFR, and should be listed in 40 CFR
81.303 as ``cannot be classified,'' as they were upon Ajo's original
designation in 1979. Today, we are correcting those errors.
Morenci
The Phelps Dodge Morenci Incorporated (PDMI) operation was the
largest SO2 point source in the Morenci nonattainment area
during its operation. PDMI was located next to the Morenci copper mine,
one of the largest copper producing operations in North America. PDMI
was located close to the community of Morenci, in eastern Greenlee
County, near the Arizona/New Mexico border.
On December 31, 1984, the PDMI smelter was permanently deactivated.
Dismantling of the Morenci facility began in 1995 and was complete by
December 1996. On October 29, 1997, ADEQ confirmed that the facility
was dismantled and no longer existed at the former site. On April 26,
2004, the EPA finalized approval of the maintenance
[[Page 2241]]
plan and redesignation request for the Morenci area, effective June 25,
2004 (see 69 FR 22447).
3. What is the current status of the areas?
The Ajo and Morenci areas remain sparsely settled, and only minor
industrial or commercial activities that produce small quantities of
SO2 emissions are located in or near the nonattainment
areas.
Ajo
In Ajo, the only remaining SO2 point sources consist of
emergency generators run by Freeport-McMoRan Corporation and Minerals
Research and Recovery, which have a potential to emit (PTE) of 0.374
tons per year (tpy) of SO2.\6\ The 50 kilometer (km) buffer
area required to be evaluated by the Seitz Memo includes an Arizona
Public Service emergency generator, a paper mill, the Gila Bend Air
Force Auxiliary Field, and a cotton gin, with a combined PTE of 7.388
tpy.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision,
Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur Dioxide Planning Area (1971
NAAQS) (2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan), page (p.) 23, Table 4.6.
\7\ 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 24, Table 4.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, no ambient SO2 monitors operate in the Ajo
area. However, we do not expect the cumulative impact of the sources in
and around Ajo to cause a violation of the NAAQS because the area's
emissions are so low. No significant new sources have located in the
area since our redesignation of the area to attainment in 2003.
Morenci
Minor industrial or commercial activities such as Freeport-McMoRan
mining operations and emergency generators for the Morenci wastewater
treatment plant operate in the area. The 50 km area around the
nonattainment area also contains a construction company, well fields,
and several other sources that all still have active permits and
together produce about 135 tpy of SO2 emissions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Proposed Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision,
Maintenance Plan for the Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Planning Area (1971
NAAQS), p. 20, active permits only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, no ambient SO2 monitors operate in the
Morenci area. However, we do not expect the cumulative impact of the
sources in and around Morenci to cause a violation of the NAAQS. No
significant new sources have located in the area, and the smelter was
the cause of past violations.
D. What are the applicable provisions for second 10-year maintenance
plans for SO2?
1. What are the statutory provisions?
Section 175A of the CAA provides the general framework for
maintenance plans. The initial 10-year maintenance plan must provide
for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation,
including any additional control measures as may be necessary to ensure
such maintenance. In addition, maintenance plans are to contain such
contingency provisions as we deem 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.
Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires states to submit a subsequent
maintenance plan revision (second 10-year maintenance plan) eight years
after redesignation. The Act requires only that this second 10-year
maintenance plan maintain the applicable NAAQS for ten years after the
expiration of the first 10-year maintenance plan. Beyond these
provisions, however, section 175A of the CAA does not define the
content of a second 10-year maintenance plan.
2. What general EPA guidance applies to SO2 maintenance
plans?
Our primary general guidance on maintenance plans and redesignation
requests is a September 4, 1992 memo from John Calcagni, titled
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'' (``Calcagni Memo''). Specific guidance on SO2
redesignations also appears in a January 26, 1995 memo from Sally L.
Shaver, titled ``Attainment Determination Policy for Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Areas'' (``Shaver Memo'').
Guidance on SO2 maintenance plan requirements for an
area lacking monitored ambient data, if the area's historic violations
were caused by a major point source that is no longer in operation, is
found in the Seitz Memo at section II.C.2 and footnote 4. The Seitz
Memo exempts eligible areas from the maintenance plan requirements of
continued ambient air quality monitoring.
While the Seitz Memo primarily addresses redesignations, we find it
is appropriate to apply the Seitz Memo to second 10-year maintenance
plans for areas that were redesignated in accordance with the memo and
continue to experience similar conditions to those at the time of
redesignation.
3. What are the requirements for maintenance plans for single-source
SO2 nonattainment areas in the absence of monitored data?
Our historic redesignation policy for SO2 has called for
eight quarters of clean ambient air quality data as a necessary
prerequisite to redesignation of any area to attainment. The Seitz Memo
provides guidance on SO2 maintenance plan requirements for
an area lacking monitored ambient data, if the area's historic
violations were caused by a major point source that is no longer in
operation. To allow for these areas to qualify for redesignation to
attainment, this policy requires that the maintenance plan address
otherwise applicable provisions, and include:
(1) Emissions inventories representing actual emissions when
violations occurred; current emissions; and emissions projected to the
10th year after redesignation; all three inventories should include
estimates of emissions in a 50 km buffer zone around the nonattainment
area;
(2) dispersion modeling showing that no NAAQS violations will occur
over the next 10 years and that the shut-down source was the dominant
cause of the high concentrations in the past;
(3) evidence that if the shut-down source resumes operation, it
would be considered a new source and be required to obtain a permit
under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions of
the CAA; and
(4) a commitment to resume monitoring before any major
SO2 source commences operation.
III. The EPA's Evaluation of the Arizona State Submittals
A. Did the State meet the CAA procedural requirements?
Ajo
On February 22, 2013, ADEQ submitted to the EPA the ``Final Arizona
State Implementation Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur
Dioxide Planning Area (1971 NAAQS)'' (``2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan'').
The State verified that it had adhered to its SIP adoption procedures
in Appendix E to the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, which includes the
notice of public hearing, the agenda for the February 7, 2013 public
hearing, the sign in sheet, the public hearing officer certification
and transcript of the hearing, and the State's responsiveness summary.
On August 22, 2013, the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan was deemed
complete by operation of law. See 40
[[Page 2242]]
CFR part 51, appendix V, for the EPA's completeness criteria, which
must be satisfied before EPA formal review.
Morenci
On December 18, 2014, ADEQ submitted to the EPA the ``Proposed
Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan for the
Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Planning Area (1971 NAAQS)'' (``2014 Morenci
Maintenance Plan''). The State verified that it had adhered to its SIP
adoption procedures in Appendix E to the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan,
which includes the notice of public hearing, the agenda for the
December 15, 2014 public hearing, the sign in sheet, the public hearing
officer certification and transcript of the hearing, and the State's
responsiveness summary.
On May 10, 2015, the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan was deemed
complete by operation of law. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, for the
EPA's completeness criteria, which must be satisfied before EPA formal
review.
B. Has the State met the substantive maintenance plan requirements?
1. Were the area's violations caused by a major point source of
SO2 emissions that is no longer in operation?
As discussed above, the only major source of SO2
emissions within the Ajo nonattainment area was the Phelps Dodge Mining
Company's PDAI copper smelter, which ceased operation in 1985 and was
completely dismantled by February 1996. The last recorded 24-hour or
annual average exceedances of the primary NAAQS at PDAI occurred in
1984. During the monitoring network's history, annual average
SO2 levels were generally half of the current NAAQS (0.030
ppm). See 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, page (p.) 17. ADEQ removed the
SO2 monitor in 1985, and the smelter operating permits
expired. The smelting equipment was removed over a period of years, and
the smelter was completely dismantled by February 1996. No new sources
of SO2 of the magnitude of PDAI have located in the area.
Thus, Ajo meets this criterion for review under the Seitz Memo.
As discussed above, the only major source of SO2
emissions within the Morenci nonattainment area was the Phelps Dodge
Mining Company's PDMI copper smelter, which was permanently deactivated
by December 31, 1984 and was completely dismantled by December 1996.
The last recorded 24-hour or annual average exceedances of the primary
NAAQS at PDMI occurred in 1984. During the monitoring network's
history, annual average SO2 levels were generally half of
the current NAAQS (0.030 ppm). See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, p.
15-16. ADEQ removed the SO2 monitors in 1985, and the
smelter operating permits expired. The smelting equipment was removed
over a period of years, and the smelter was completely dismantled by
December 1996. No new sources of SO2 of the magnitude of
PDMI have located in the area. Thus, Morenci meets this criterion for
review under the Seitz Memo.
2. Has the state met the requirements for second 10-year maintenance
plans?
The 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan and 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan
both extend the maintenance period for ten years after the expiration
of the first 10-year maintenance plans, as required by Section 175A(b)
of the CAA. As discussed below, the State has addressed the
requirements in the Seitz Memo for emissions inventories, modeling,
permitting of major new sources, and agreement to commence monitoring
if a new major source locates in either the Ajo or Morenci areas.
Therefore, the State has met the specific criteria in the Seitz Memo
for approval of maintenance plans and redesignation requests where a
single source was the historic cause of violations and the source is
now shut down. We provide more details on each requirement and how the
2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan and the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan meet
each requirement in the following sections.
Ajo
a. Emissions Inventories
In addition to reproducing the emissions inventories in the Ajo
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan and
Maintenance Plan (June 18, 2002) (``2002 Ajo maintenance plan''), the
2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan includes new emissions inventories for 2008,
representing an updated ``current'' emissions inventory (the most
recent National Emissions Inventory (NEI) available at the time), 2010,
2015, 2020, and 2025 for the second 10-year maintenance period.\9\
Continued maintenance of the Ajo area for 10 years following the
initial 10-year maintenance period is demonstrated in part by showing
that future SO2 emissions in the area are not expected to
exceed the level of the attainment emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The State provided the three emissions inventories specified
in the Seitz Memo for the sources in, and within 50 kilometers of,
the Ajo nonattainment area in the 2002 Ajo maintenance plan. For a
representative year when the copper smelter was in operation (1981),
direct SO2 emissions from smelting operations were 39,596
tpy. ADEQ's 2002 submittal identified only a single existing point
source within the Ajo Area, the Phelps Dodge Generator Station.
Phelps Dodge has since shut down the generators and no longer uses
them as emergency/back up electric supply. See 2013 Ajo Maintenance
Plan, p. 32 and Appendix C-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions inventories in the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan include
estimates of SO2 from all relevant source categories, which
the 2013 Plan divides among stationary, and area and mobile. Point
source information was received from the Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Maricopa County Air Quality
Division's annual emissions inventory data. The Ajo maintenance area
contains two point sources (i.e., Freeport-McMoRan Corporation Childs
Well Field Emergency Generator, and Minerals Research and Recovery,
Inc.), which together emit less than 1 tpy SO2. The 50 km
buffer area contains four point sources, including a cotton gin, a
paper mill, an Air Force auxiliary field, and an emergency generator.
The 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan includes a description of current
facility types, emitting equipment, permitted emissions limits,
operating rates, and emissions calculation methods.
Area and mobile sources in ADEQ's 2008 and subsequent year
inventories were derived from the EPA's NEI and local agency records.
Historical and 2008 emissions inventories demonstrate that no
significant area or mobile sources existed in the Ajo area prior to or
subsequent to the smelter operation, which closed in 1985.
Based on our review of the emissions inventories in the 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan and the supporting information in Appendix C, we
conclude that the inventories are complete, accurate, and consistent
with applicable CAA provisions and the Seitz Memo.
b. Dispersion Modeling
Past EPA policy memoranda on SO2 redesignations all
recommend dispersion modeling to show that the NAAQS is met and will be
maintained. The Seitz Memo recommends dispersion modeling of all point
sources within 50 km of the nonattainment area boundary. Screening
modeling can be used to conservatively show that non-smelter sources
have only an insignificant contribution to average SO2
concentrations in a nonattainment area.
[[Page 2243]]
For the 2002 Ajo Maintenance Plan, screening dispersion modeling
was performed using the SCREEN3 model run with conservative assumptions
about source parameters and meteorology. At the time of the 2002 Ajo
Maintenance Plan, the Ajo nonattainment area had one minor point source
of SO2 emissions (i.e., Phelps-Dodge Generating Station) and
one permitted minor point source in the 50 km buffer (i.e., the
proposed Gila Bend Regional Landfill). The model predicted that the
impact from these two sources would not exceed 66% of the 1971
SO2 NAAQS, even assuming constant worst-case conditions
about high-sulfur content fuel use.
The Seitz Memo also requires a modeling analysis that shows that
the point sources that were shutdown were the dominant sources
contributing to high SO2 concentrations in the airshed.
Since the emissions of non-smelter sources in the area had changed
relatively little since the time that emission controls were placed on
the smelter, this same screening modeling was used to show that the
non-smelter sources were insignificant in the past, and thus the
smelter was the dominant source contributing to past high
SO2 concentrations.
ADEQ did not conduct a new modeling analysis for the 2013 Ajo
Maintenance Plan. As described above, the modeling for the 2002 Ajo
Maintenance Plan modeled the existing two sources at maximum projected
emissions rates from 2004 to 2015 and showed the area would not exceed
66% of the NAAQS. Since that modeling analysis was conducted, the
Phelps-Dodge Generating Station has shut down, the Gila Bend Regional
Landfill was never constructed, and the permit for the landfill was
allowed to expire.
Currently, only two sources operate within the nonattainment area
(i.e., Freeport-McMoRan Incorporated Childs Well Field Emergency
Generator, and Minerals Research and Recovery), and they are permitted
to emit less than 1% of the emissions modeled in the 2002 Ajo
Maintenance Plan. Point sources within the 50 km buffer surrounding the
nonattainment area emit about 25% of emissions modeled in the 2002 Ajo
Maintenance Plan. 2025 projections show that these low emissions are
expected to persist through the second 10-year maintenance period. See
2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, pp. 33 and 34.
ADEQ proposes, and we concur, that because current emissions in the
maintenance area and the 50 km buffer are a small fraction of modeled
emissions from 2002, the ambient SO2 modeling requirement
for second 10-year maintenance plans is met by the prior modeling, and
the State has demonstrated that the 1971 SO2 NAAQS is
adequately protected.
c. Treatment of New Sources of SO2 Emissions
In nonattainment areas, section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires New
Source Review (NSR) permits prior to the construction and operation of
new major stationary sources and major modifications at existing major
stationary sources. However, in attainment areas, section 165 of the
CAA requires major sources and major modifications to obtain PSD
permits. The PSD program requires stationary sources to apply the best
available control technology and ensure that projects will not cause or
contribute to a violation of a NAAQS or maximum allowable increase.
ADEQ and the PDEQ have PSD permitting programs (i.e., Arizona
Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-2-406 and Pima County Code 17.16.590)
that were established to preserve the air quality in areas where
ambient standards have been met. The State's updated PSD program was
approved into the SIP on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67319). PDEQ's PSD
program is not SIP-approved, but the federal PSD permitting program at
40 CFR 52.21 was delegated to PDEQ effective April 14, 1994.
The PSD program has applied to any major source or major
modification in the Ajo area since the area was redesignated to
attainment for SO2 in 2003, except for coarse particulate
(PM10), for which the area is designated nonattainment.
Under section 172(c)(5) of the CAA, major sources and major
modifications of PM10 in the Ajo area remain subject to the
nonattainment NSR program, while all other NSR regulated pollutants are
subject to the PSD program. Thus the existing ADEQ and PDEQ PSD and NSR
programs satisfy the preconstruction permit provision of the Seitz Memo
as one of the prerequisites to redesignation for the Ajo SO2
nonattainment area.
d. Commitment to Resume Monitoring
ADEQ commits to resume monitoring before any major source of
SO2 commences to operate in the Ajo maintenance area. See
2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 38. This addresses the monitoring
provision of the Seitz Memo.
Morenci
a. Emissions Inventory
The 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan includes historical inventories
that were submitted as part of the Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment
Area State Implementation Plan and Maintenance Plan (submitted June 21,
2002) (``2002 Morenci maintenance plan'') as well as a current-year
inventory for 2011 (the most recent NEI available at the time), and
projected inventories for 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030 for the second 10-
year maintenance period.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan, the State provided
the three emissions inventories specified in the Seitz Memo for the
sources in, and within 50 kilometers of, the Morenci nonattainment
area. For a representative year when the copper smelter was in
operation (1984), direct actual SO2 emissions from
smelting operations were 82,432 tpy. During its operation, the
Morenci primary copper smelter was the only major point source in
the area. The 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan included inventories for
1984 (a year the smelter was in operation), 1999 (a year the area
was attaining the SO2 standard), and 2015 (the projected
inventory for the horizon year of the maintenance period). Sources
in the 50 km buffer around the Morenci area were estimated to emit
186.5 tpy in 1999, based on PTE, but had actual emissions
significantly lower, at 1.2 tpy. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan,
p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions inventories in the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan
include estimates of SO2 emissions from all relevant source
categories, which are divided among stationary, area, and mobile source
categories. Additional information on how the inventories were
developed, including activity data and emissions calculations, is
provided in Appendix C of the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan. Point
source information was developed by ADEQ from permit information and
the NEI. The 2011 inventory identifies two existing point sources
within the Morenci maintenance area: The Freeport-McMoRan Morenci mine
with 2011 actual emissions of 48.5 tpy SO2, and the Morenci
Townsite Wastewater Treatment Plant Emergency Generators with 2011
actual emissions of 0.003 tpy SO2. In 2011, 13 point
additional sources with actual emissions of 38.05 tpy SO2
were located within 50 km of the Morenci maintenance area boundary. As
of 2014, six of these sources had terminated their permits, resulting
in slightly lower emissions.
Area and mobile source emissions in ADEQ's 2011 and subsequent year
inventories were derived from the NEI. The year 2011 was a historically
high wildfire year, and included the largest wildfire in Arizona
history (i.e., the Wallow fire), which burned in Greenlee County and
surrounding areas.\11\ ADEQ
[[Page 2244]]
assumed the 2011 wildfire emissions remained constant when projecting
emissions into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Interagency Fire Center's Web site at https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html, ``Historical year-
end statistics by state,'' and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arizona_wildfires. Acres burned in 2011 in Arizona were more
than 10 times higher than 2010 acres burned in Arizona due to
wildfires, and about five times higher than acres burned in Arizona
in 2012 due to wildfires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the emissions inventories in the 2014
Morenci Maintenance Plan and the supporting information in Appendix C,
we conclude that the inventories are complete, accurate, and consistent
with applicable CAA provisions and the Seitz Memo.
b. Dispersion Modeling
The EPA policy memoranda on SO2 redesignations recommend
dispersion modeling to show that the NAAQS is met and will be
maintained. The Seitz Memo recommends dispersion modeling of all point
sources within 50 km of the nonattainment area boundary. For the 2002
Morenci Maintenance Plan, screening dispersion modeling was performed
using the SCREEN3 model, which was run with conservative assumptions
about source parameters and meteorology. The modeling results indicated
that the impact of existing sources on concentrations within the
nonattainment area would not exceed 25 percent of the 1971
SO2 NAAQS.
The Seitz Memo also requires a modeling analysis that shows point
sources that were shutdown were the dominant sources contributing to
high SO2 concentrations in the airshed. The screening
modeling described above was used in the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan
to show that the non-smelter sources have an insignificant
contribution, and thus the smelter was the dominant source contributing
to past high SO2 concentrations.
For the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, ADEQ conducted a modeling
analysis similar to the analysis in the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan.
The two largest sources in the maintenance area and within the 50 km
buffer area were modeled. The two sources are Freeport-McMoRan Morenci
Mine (FMMM) in the maintenance area, with a PTE of 88 tpy
SO2, and the Freeport-McMoRan Safford Mine (FMSM) in the 50
km buffer area, with a PTE of 81 tpy SO2. Other point
sources were not modeled because of their small or negligible
emissions.
The EPA dispersion model AERSCREEN (version 11126) was used to
conservatively estimate the impact of FMMM and FMSM on maintenance in
the Morenci planning area.\12\ The results of the AERSCREEN modeling
indicated that the impact of these existing sources would have a
cumulative potential impact of 42-53% of the 1971 annual and 24-hour
SO2 NAAQS respectively. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan,
p. 29. Projections for 2030 show that this low level of emissions is
expected to persist through the second maintenance period. See 2014
Morenci Maintenance Plan, p. 32. We therefore conclude that the State
has demonstrated that the 1971 SO2 NAAQS is adequately
protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ AERSCREEN has replaced SCREEN3 as the EPA's preferred
screening model. See Memorandum dated April 11, 2011, from Tyler Fox
to the EPA Regional Modeling Contacts, ``AERSCREEN Released as EPA
Recommended Screening Model'' in the docket for this action. SCREEN3
was used for the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Treatment of New Sources of SO2 Emissions
In nonattainment areas, section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires NSR
permits prior to the construction and operation of new major stationary
sources and major modifications at existing major stationary sources.
However, in attainment areas, section 165 of the CAA requires major
sources and major modifications to obtain PSD permits. The PSD program
requires stationary sources to apply the best available control
technology and ensure projects will not cause or contribute to a
violation of a NAAQS or maximum allowable increase.
ADEQ has a PSD permitting program (i.e., A.A.C. R18-2-406) that was
established to preserve the air quality in areas where ambient
standards have been met. The State's updated PSD program was approved
into the SIP on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67319). The PSD program has
applied to any major source or major modification in the Morenci area
since the area was redesignated to attainment for SO2 in
2004. Thus the ADEQ's existing PSD program satisfies the
preconstruction permit provision of the Seitz Memo as one of the
prerequisites to redesignation for the Morenci SO2
nonattainment area.
d. Commitment To Resume Monitoring
ADEQ commits to resume monitoring before any major source of
SO2 commences to operate. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan,
p. 16. This addresses the monitoring provision of the Seitz Memo.
3. Other CAA Requirements
a. Contingency Plan
As discussed above, section 175A of the CAA sets forth the
statutory requirements for maintenance plans, and the Calcagni, Seitz
and Shaver Memos cited above contain specific EPA guidance. The only
maintenance plan element not covered by the Seitz Memo is the
contingency provisions. Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that
maintenance plans contain contingency provisions deemed necessary by
the Administrator to assure that the state will promptly correct any
violation of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the
area as an attainment area.
Ajo
The 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan includes the State's commitment to
continue to track maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS through
updates to the emissions inventory. Additionally, ADEQ commits to
reestablish an appropriate air quality monitoring network before any
major source of SO2 begins operations in the Ajo maintenance
area. See 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 38.
Since the primary cause of future violations of the 1971
SO2 NAAQS in the area would be from modified or new point
sources, ADEQ's current operating permit program places limits on
SO2 emissions from existing sources. Should a new facility
be constructed in the Ajo area or an existing facility want to upgrade
or increase SO2 emissions, the facility would also be
subject to PSD as required in the Calcagni Memo.
The Calcagni Memo emphasizes the importance of specific contingency
measures, schedules for adoption, and action levels to trigger
implementation of the contingency plan. Since there are no remaining
sources of SO2 emissions of the magnitude of the PDAI
smelter, and there is no SO2 monitoring in the Ajo area, we
agree with the State that the level of specificity recommended in the
Calcagni Memo is not necessary, and we conclude that the State's
commitment satisfactorily addresses the CAA provisions. We find that
the State's commitment to continue to track maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS through updates to the emissions inventory and the
State's PSD permitting programs are sufficient to assure that the Ajo
area will not violate the NAAQS.
Morenci
The 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan includes the State's commitment
to continue to demonstrate maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS
through updates to the emissions inventory. Additionally, ADEQ commits
to reestablish an appropriate air quality monitoring network before any
major source of SO2 begins operations in the Morenci
maintenance area. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, p. 32.
Since the primary cause of future violations of the 1971
SO2 NAAQS in
[[Page 2245]]
the area would be from modified or new point sources, ADEQ's current
operating permit program places limits on SO2 emissions from
existing sources. Should a new facility be constructed in the Morenci
area or an existing facility want to upgrade or increase SO2
emissions, the facility would also be subject to PSD as required in the
Calcagni Memo.
The Calcagni Memo emphasizes the importance of specific contingency
measures, schedules for adoption, and action levels to trigger
implementation of the contingency plan. Since there are no remaining
sources of SO2 emissions of the magnitude of the PDMI
smelter, and there is no SO2 monitoring in the Morenci area,
we agree with the State that the level of specificity recommended in
the Calcagni Memo is not necessary, and we conclude that the State's
commitment satisfactorily addresses the CAA provisions. We find that
the State's commitment to continue to track maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS through updates to the emissions inventory and the
State's PSD permitting programs are sufficient to assure that the
Morenci area will not violate the NAAQS.
b. Transportation and General Conformity
Conformity is required under section 176(c) of the CAA to ensure
that federal actions are consistent with (``conform to'') the purpose
of the SIP. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that federal
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS or interim
reductions and milestones. Conformity applies to areas that are
designated nonattainment and to maintenance areas. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded, or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the
Federal Transit Act (``Transportation conformity'') as well as to other
federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity'').
Transportation conformity applies to projects that require Federal
Highway Administration or Federal Transit Administration funding. 40
CFR part 93 describes the requirements for federal actions related to
transportation plans, programs, and projects to conform to the purposes
of the SIP. Because the EPA does not consider SO2 a
transportation-related criteria pollutant,\13\ only the requirements
related to general conformity apply to the Ajo and Morenci areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA establishes the framework for general
conformity. Besides ensuring that federal actions not covered by the
transportation conformity rule will not interfere with the SIP, the
general conformity regulations encourage consultation between the
federal agency and the state or local air pollution control agencies
before and during the environmental review process, as well as public
notification of and access to federal agency conformity determinations,
and allows for air quality review of individual federal actions.
Section 176(c) of the CAA required the states to revise their SIPs
to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally supported
or funded projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas ``conform''
to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. SIP revisions
intended to meet the conformity requirements in section 176(c) are
referred to as ``conformity SIPs.'' In 2005, Congress amended section
176(c), and under the amended conformity provisions, states are no
longer required to submit conformity SIPs for general conformity, and
the conformity SIP requirements for transportation conformity have been
reduced to include only those relating to consultation, enforcement,
and enforceability. CAA section 176(c)(4)(E).
The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of a redesignation request
under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) because state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th
Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. Because both Ajo and Morenci
have already been redesignated for this standard, we believe it is
reasonable to apply the interpretation of conformity SIP requirements
as not applying for the purposes of redesignation to the approval of
second ten-year maintenance plans.
Criteria for making determinations and provisions for general
conformity are contained in Arizona Administrative Code R18-2-1438.
Arizona has an approved general conformity SIP.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 64 FR 19916, April 23, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajo
ADEQ commits in the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan to review and
comment, as appropriate, on any federal agency draft general conformity
determination it receives consistent with 40 CFR 93.155 for any federal
plans or actions in this planning area, although none are currently
planned for the area. See 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 13.
Morenci
ADEQ commits in the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan to review and
comment, as appropriate, on any federal agency draft general conformity
determination it receives consistent with 40 CFR 93.155 for any federal
plans or actions in this planning area, although none are currently
planned for the area. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, p. 11.
IV. Technical Correction
A. History of the Ajo Nonattainment and Maintenance Area Boundary
On November 3, 2003, the EPA finalized approval of the maintenance
plan and redesignation request for the Ajo area, effective January 2,
2004 (see 68 FR 62239). To codify this rulemaking, we amended 40 CFR
81.303 that lists the designations for air quality planning areas in
Arizona, but we incorrectly identified the Ajo maintenance area in the
Arizona SO2 table by dropping township T13S, R5W from the
maintenance area, and inadvertently deleted other townships and ranges
in the ``cannot be classified'' description. Township T13S, R5W as well
as townships T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; and T13S, R7W should have remained
``cannot be classified.''
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides that when the EPA's action
approving any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area
designation, redesignation, classification, or reclassification was in
error, the EPA may in the same manner revise such action. Under the
EPA's authority under section 110(k)(6) of the Act, we are taking
direct final action to amend the Arizona-SO2 table in 40 CFR
81.303 by re-codifying and correcting the previous detailed
descriptions of the Ajo maintenance area and townships identified as
``cannot be classified.''
The maintenance area consists of townships T11S, R6W; T11S, R5W;
T12S, R6W; T12S, R5W; and T13S, R6W. In addition, townships T13S, R5W;
T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; and T13S, R7W are listed in 40 CFR 81.303 as
``cannot be classified,'' as they were upon the Ajo area's original
designation in 1979.
V. Final Action
We are approving the second 10-year SO2 maintenance
plans for the Ajo and Morenci areas in Arizona under sections 110 and
175A of the CAA and correcting
[[Page 2246]]
an error made in the description of the Ajo maintenance area and in the
identification of townships as ``cannot be classified'' in the CFR when
we redesignated the area in 2003. As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted SIPs because we
believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone
will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing
it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal
Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same
submitted SIPs. If we receive adverse comments by February 8, 2017, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the
public that some or all of the provisions of 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 10, 2017. This will incorporate these SIPs into the
federally enforceable SIP.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 10, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA
can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. 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 dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Dated: December 15, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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 in paragraph (e), table 1 is amended by:
0
a. Adding an entry for `` `Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision,
Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur Dioxide Area (1971 NAAQS),
(February 2013) excluding Appendix C, ``Overview of Point Source
Emissions Limits and Potential to Emit'' after the heading ``Part D
Elements and Plans (Other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson
Areas)' ''; and
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision,
Maintenance Plan for the Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Area (1971 NAAQS),
(December 2014)'' after the entry for ``Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan (June
2002)(revised May 26, 2004), excluding appendix A (``SIP Support
Information''), sections A.1 (``Pertinent
[[Page 2247]]
Sections of the Arizona Administrative Code'') and A.2 (``Information
Regarding Revisions to AAC R18-2-715 and R18-2-715.01, `Standards of
Performance for Primary Copper Smelters: Site Specific Requirements;
Compliance and Monitoring'''); and appendix D (``SIP Public Hearing
Documentation'')''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Table 1--EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
geographic or State submittal
Name of SIP provision nonattainment area date EPA approval date Explanation
or title/subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part D Elements and Plans (Other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona State Implementation Ajo Sulfur Dioxide February 22, 2013. 1/9/2017, [Insert Adopted by the
Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan Air Quality Federal Register Arizona
for the Ajo Sulfur Dioxide Area Planning Area. citation]. Department of
(1971 NAAQS), (February 2013), Environmental
excluding Appendix C, Quality on
``Overview of Point Source February 22,
Emissions Limits and Potential 2013. Fulfills
to Emit''. requirements for
second ten-year
maintenance
plans. The SIP
includes a
request to
correct the
maintenance area
boundary.
* * * * * * *
Arizona State Implementation Morenci Sulfur December 18, 2014. January 9, 2017, Adopted by the
Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan Dioxide Air [Insert Federal Arizona
for the Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Quality Planning Register Department of
Area (1971 NAAQS), (December Area. citation]. Environmental
2014). Quality on
December 18,
2014. Fulfills
requirements for
second ten-year
maintenance
plans.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements
(excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or
Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.
* * * * *
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. Section 81.303 is amended in the table for ``Arizona--1971 Sulfur
Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' by revising the entry for
``Ajo'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.303 Arizona.
* * * * *
Arizona--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better than
Designated area Does not meet Does not meet Cannot be national
primary standards secondary standards classified standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajo: .................... .................... ............... ...............
T11S, R5W......................... .................... .................... ............... X
T11S, R6W......................... .................... .................... ............... X
T12S, R5W......................... .................... .................... ............... X
T12S, R6W......................... .................... .................... ............... X
T13S, R6W......................... .................... .................... ............... X
T11S, R7W......................... .................... .................... X ...............
T12S, R7W......................... .................... .................... X ...............
T13S, R5W......................... .................... .................... X ...............
T13S, R7W......................... .................... .................... X ...............
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2248]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-31637 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
