Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
EPA ID: [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0214; FRL-8514-7]
NOTICE: RULES
ACTION: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for Redesignation to Attainment
DATES: This rule is effective on March 18, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 19, 2008. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under the Clean Air Act to approve the Final State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007 as a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality developed this plan to maintain the sulfur dioxide national ambient air quality standards in the San Manuel, Arizona area and to request redesignation of the area to attainment. The maintenance plan contains various elements, including contingency provisions that will be implemented if measured ambient concentrations of sulfur dioxide are above certain trigger levels. EPA is also approving the State of Arizona's request for redesignation of the San Manuel area from nonattainment to attainment for the sulfur dioxide standards.
EPA is taking these actions consistent with provisions in the Clean Air Act that obligate the Agency to approve or disapprove submittals of revisions to state implementation plans and requests for redesignation. The intended effect is to redesignate the San Manuel, Arizona sulfur dioxide nonattainment area to attainment, and to provide for maintenance of the standard for the tenyear period following redesignation.
SUMMARY: Arizona; San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for Redesignation to Attainment,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we are proposing approval and soliciting written comment on this action. Throughout this document, the words ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' mean U.S. EPA.Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today's Direct Final Action
II. Introduction
A. The SO
B. State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
C. History of SO
1. Development of the SO
2. San Manuel SO
D. Sources of SO
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan for the San Manuel, Arizona SO
A. The Area Must Be Attaining the SO
B. The Area's Applicable Implementation Plan Must Be Fully Approved Under Section 110(k)
C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D
1. Section 110 Requirements
2. Part D Requirements
E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
5. Contingency Plan
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
7. Conclusion
V. Public Comment and EPA's Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Today's Direct Final Action
On June 7, 2007, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(``ADEQ'' or ``State'') submitted to EPA Region IX its Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, San
[[Page 3397]]
Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007 and its request
for redesignation to attainment (``San Manuel SO
In today's direct final action, we are approving ADEQ's June 7,
2007 submittal as a revision to the Arizona SIP and redesignating the
San Manuel area from nonattainment to attainment for the SO
II. Introduction
The following section discusses the NAAQS for SO
A. The SO
The NAAQS for SO
B. State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
The CAA requires states to implement, maintain, and enforce ambient
air quality equal to or better than the NAAQS. A state's strategies for
implementing, maintaining, and enforcing the NAAQS are submitted to EPA
for approval, and, once approved, become part of the State
Implementation Plan (or SIP) for that State. SIPs are compilations of
regulatory and nonregulatory elements adopted, submitted, and approved at different times to address various types of changes in
circumstances, such as new or revised NAAQS or amendments to the CAA.
SIPs include, among other things, the following: (1) An inventory of
emission sources; (2) statutes and regulations adopted by the state
legislature and executive agencies; (3) air quality analyses that
include demonstrations that adequate controls are in place to meet the
NAAQS; and (4) contingency measures to be undertaken if an area fails
to attain the standard or make reasonable progress toward attainment by
the required date. The state must make proposed changes to the SIP
available for public review and comment through a public hearing, and
must formally adopt the changes before submitting them to EPA for
approval. Upon our approval, a SIP revision becomes federally enforceable.
C. History of SO
1. Development of the SO
In the early 1970s, soon after the CAA Amendments of 1970 were
passed, Arizona began developing air quality regulations that applied
to all Arizona primary copper smelters, including the one operating at
that time in San Manuel. These regulations focused on establishing an
air quality monitoring network in the areas surrounding the smelters
and determining the allowable emission rates from the smelters so that
the SO
On November 1, 2004, EPA approved several revisions to the SO
requirements, and compliance and monitoring for existing primary copper
smelters. See 69 FR 63321. In that same notice, EPA promulgated a
limited approval/limited disapproval of Arizona Administrative Code
(AAC) R182Appendix 8, which sets out procedures for calculating
sulfur emissions using a sulfur balance method. ADEQ subsequently
corrected the identified deficiencies and EPA approved the new version
of R182Appendix 8 as a SIP revision on April 12, 2006, effective June 12, 2006. See 71 FR 18624.
2. San Manuel SO
Initially, the air quality planning area we refer to as the San
Manuel SO
\2\ Following the enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, the San
Manuel area was classified by operation of law as nonattainment for
the primary SO
In June of 2002, ADEQ submitted the Final San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan and
redesignation request. Since then, the San Manuel copper smelter, the [[Page 3398]]
dominant source of emissions in the area, has permanently ceased
operation. In January 2005, BHP Copper Inc. (BHP Billiton) notified
ADEQ that the company intended to permanently cease operating the San
Manuel smelter. As indicated in Appendix B of the current SIP
submittal, in March 2005, ADEQ terminated the permit for the facility.
The smelter stacks were dismantled in January 2007. The smelting
facility cannot reopen without submitting New Source Review (NSR) and Title V (Part 70) permit applications to ADEQ.
D. Sources of SO
Emissions inventories for the San Manuel Nonattainment Area
demonstrate that, although there were other sources of SO
III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans
Arizona has requested that we redesignate the San Manuel SO
To evaluate the State's redesignation request for the San Manuel
area, we relied upon the Clean Air Act, particularly section 110 and
part D (of title I), EPA's NAAQS and SIP regulations in 40 CFR parts 50
and 51, and guidance set forth in ``General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57
FR 13498, April 16, 1992), and in the following EPA guidance documents:
``Procedures for Processing Requests To Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' dated September 4, 1992, from John Calcagni, (``Calcagni
Memo''), ``Attainment Determination Policy for Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' dated January 26, 1995, from Sally L. Shaver,
(``Shaver Memo''), and ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR)
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' dated October 14, 1994, from Mary D. Nichols (``Nichols Memo'').
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
for the San Manuel, Arizona SO
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i), in order for an area to be redesignated, we must determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. The air quality data should be representative of the area of highest concentration and should be measured by monitors that remain at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. The data should be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database (AQS) to be available for public review. Under 40 CFR part 58, States certify data that is entered into AQS on an annual basis.
For the purposes of determining whether an area has attained the
SO
The State of Arizona began ambient SO
Further refinement of the monitoring network was required by the
adoption of the MPR rules that established stack emissions limits for
the smelter in 1979 based on permanent controls. Placement of
additional monitors was accomplished with EPA consultation to further
evaluate ambient impacts. Following implementation of continuous
emissions control technology and compliance with emissions limits as
defined in AAC R182715(F) at the San Manuel smelter, the number of
permanent monitors was gradually reduced to a network of four: LDS
Church, Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital. These were all high impact
ambient monitor sites found to be representative of air quality for the
area. The Dorm Site and Hospital monitors were primarily fugitive
impact sites. The Townsite and the LDS Church site were primarily stack
impact sites. The Townsite monitor was the ``limiting site'' for the
original MPR analysis. \4\ These monitoring site decisions were made by ADEQ in accordance with EPA guidance.
\4\ See Ultimate Sulfur Dioxide Limits for Arizona Copper Smelters, Moyers and Peterson, September 14, 1979.
Following the shutdown of smelting operations in 1999, the
facilityoperated Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital monitors were
closed. ADEQ continues to operate a monitor at the LDS Church site.
Table 1 summarizes ambient SO
[[Page 3399]]
Table 1.Summary of San Manuel, Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Data, 19972005 (in [mu]g/m\3\)
[Primary NAAQS: Annual average 80 [mu]g/m\3\ [0.030 ppm], 24hour average 365 [mu]g/m\3\ [0.14 ppm]: 3hour 1300
[mu]g/m\3\ [0.5 ppm]]
Data
Max value 24 recovery *
Site or city Annual Max value 3 Hour (valid
average hr average average hourly
samples)
2005: LDS Church.......................................... 5 16 8 8,716
2004: LDS Church.......................................... 4 26 9 8,742
2003: LDS Church.......................................... 4 15 8.5 8,711
2002: LDS Church (opened 3/02)............................ 4 24 8 6,827 1999:
LDS Church (closed 10/99)............................. 9 204.5 56.5 6,121
Townsite.............................................. 4 272.5 63 n/a
Dorm Site............................................. 4 258.5 53 n/a
Hospital.............................................. 8 416 111.5 n/a 1998:
LDS Church............................................ 21 487.5 88 8,469
Townsite.............................................. 8 406.5 93 8,656
Dorm Site............................................. 8 258.5 98.5 8,714
Hospital.............................................. 11 464 184 8,642 1997:
LDS Church............................................ 12 252 63 8,589
Townsite.............................................. 33 313.5 93 8,725
Dorm Site............................................. 11 386 66.5 8,751
Hospital.............................................. 32 654.5 180 8,742 * Note: Does not include Golf Course site for 1997 (site closed August 1997). Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital data are as contained in BHP's monthly reports. The facility reported zero concentrations for the period 2000 2001 at the Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital locations. LDS Church site data for 20022005 were obtained from ADEQ Annual Reports. LDS Church site data for 19971999 were calculated from data in EPA's Air Quality System Report (October 3, 2006) by multiplying sulfur dioxide values in parts per million by 2620 to convert to micrograms per cubic meter.
After reviewing the historic ambient SO
ADEQ had included monitoring data in Chapter 3 of the SIP. ADEQ's
review of historic ambient SO
In the San Manuel SIP submittal, ADEQ proposes to close the San
Manuel SO
Monitoring data for 2002 through 2006 indicate that maximum ambient
concentrations were three percent or less of the NAAQS for the 3hour
standard; five percent or less of the NAAQS for the 24hour standard;
and less than seven percent of the NAAQS for the annual standard.
Following the shutdown of the San Manuel ambient SO
With the permanent closure of the San Manuel smelter, no major point sources exist in the nonattainment area. Sulfur dioxide emissions in 2017 are projected to be less than 0.5 percent of 1997 and 1998 total nonattainment area emissions, a period in which the San Manuel smelter was operating full time.
Arizona does not anticipate any substantial increase in existing
point source emissions between now and 2017 for the nonattainment area.
Should any growth occur due to construction of additional SO
Maintenance of the SO
Therefore, ADEQ has demonstrated, and we concur, that the closure
of the San Manuel SO
[[Page 3400]]
conclude that the area has attained the SO
surveillance in 40 CFR part 58. After the closure of the San Manuel
SO
B. The Area's Applicable Implementation Plan Must Be Fully Approved Under CAA Section 110(k)
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), the SIP for the San Manuel area
must be fully approved under CAA section 110(k) of the Act. We examined
the applicable SIP for Arizona and also looked at the disapprovals
listed in 40 CFR 52.125 and have determined that no disapprovals listed
remain relevant to the applicable SIP. Arizona has a fully approved SIP with respect to SO
C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that EPA determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and/or applicable federal measures. As shown in Table 1, as required for redesignation, the nonattainment area has recorded more than eight current, consecutive quarters of qualityassured, violationfree data. Monitoring data for 1997 through 1999, while the San Manuel smelter was still operating, indicate that maximum ambient concentrations were less than 55 percent of the NAAQS for the 3hour standard, less than 59 percent of the NAAQS for the 24hour standard, and less than 33 percent of the NAAQS for the annual standard.
Closure of the smelter in 1999 further reduced emissions and
resultant ambient SO
D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), we must determine whether the
State of Arizona has met all requirements under section 110 and under
part D (of title I) of the CAA applicable to the San Manuel SO
1. Section 110 Requirements
CAA section 110 contains the general requirements for SIPs (enforceable emissions limits, ambient monitoring, permitting of new sources, adequate funding, etc.). EPA's guidance for implementing section 110 of the Act is discussed in the General Preamble to Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Over the years, we have approved Arizona's SIP as meeting these basic requirements. The SIP includes enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing of ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of new major stationary sources and major modifications to existing ones; provides for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources necessary to implement its requirements; and requires stationary source emission monitoring and reporting.
2. Part D Requirements
Before an area can be redesignated to attainment, it must have
fulfilled the applicable requirements under part D (of title I). For
this area, the relevant requirements are found in subparts 1 and 5 of
part D. Subpart 1 of part D specifies the basic requirements applicable
to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 5 sets out additional provisions
for areas designated nonattainment for SO
CAA section 172 contains the general requirements for nonattainment SIPs. A thorough discussion of the requirements of 172(c) can be found in the General Preamble for the implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Additional guidance can be found in the Calcagni memo.
EPA has interpreted the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2)
(reasonable further progressRFP), 172(c)(6) (other measures), and
172(c)(9) (contingency measures) as not relevant to a redesignation
request because they only have meaning for an area that is not
attaining the standard (see the General Preamble and the Calcagni
Memo), and as discussed above in section IV.A. of this notice, we find
that the San Manuel area is attaining the SO
Reasonably available control measures. Under CAA section 172(c)(1),
reasonably available control measures (RACM), which include
requirements for reasonably available control technology (RACT), are
required for existing sources in nonattainment areas. In 1983, we
approved the State's submittal of A.A.C. R93315, a predecessor to the
State's current smelter rules codified at A.A.C. R182715. See 48 FR
1717 (January 14, 1983). This rule limited stack emissions from primary
copper smelters, including the smelter which was located in the San
Manuel area. We concluded, however, that the control strategy for
SO
In 1998, 2003, and 2006, the State submitted amended rules (AAC
R182715 (sections F, G, and H), R182715.01, R182715.02, and R18
2Appendix 8).\6\ These rules address both fugitive and stack emissions
from smelters and, in approving the rules, we found that the amended
rules met the RACT requirement under CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 191(b).
See 69 FR 26789 at 26788 (May 14, 2004), 69 FR 63321 (November 2,
2004), and 71 FR 18624 at 18625 (April 12, 2006). Furthermore, because
the area has attained the standard, no further demonstration that RACM has been implemented need be submitted by the State.
\6\ A more extensive summary of the regulatory history of copper
smelters in Arizona is included in EPA's proposed action on these rules. See 69 FR 26786 (May 14, 2004).
Emissions inventory. The emissions inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) is satisfied by the maintenance plan inventory requirements. The maintenance plan inventory is evaluated below, in section IV.E.1.
NSR permit program. Section 172(c)(5) requires new source review
(NSR) permits for the construction and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources located in nonattainment areas. ADEQ is the
agency responsible for implementing the nonattainment area NSR permit
program in the San Manuel area. Under ADEQ's rules, all new major sources and modifications to existing major
[[Page 3401]]
sources are subject to the NSR requirements of these rules.
We have not yet fully approved the ADEQ NSR rules.\7\ We have,
however, determined that an area being redesignated from nonattainment
to attainment does not need to have an approved NSR program prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without nonattainment NSR in effect.\8\ We have determined
that the maintenance demonstration for San Manuel does not rely on nonattainment NSR.
\7\ ADEQ's NSR rules are included in the preconstruction review
and permitting provisions of AAC, Title 18, Chapter 2, Articles 3
and 4. EPA approved an earlier version of ADEQ's NSR requirements
(AAC R93302) on May 5, 1982 (47 FR 19328) and August 10, 1988 (53 FR 30200).
\8\ See memorandum from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994
(``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'')
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) is the permitting
program that applies in attainment areas. PSD was established to
preserve air quality in areas that are meeting the NAAQS. The PSD
program requires new or reconstructed major stationary sources or major
modifications to existing major stationary sources to undergo
preconstruction review and to apply best available control technology.
In addition, sources are required to review air quality and other
impacts, which includes analysis of PSD increment consumption and
undertake preconstruction modeling ADEQ has an EPAapproved PSD
permitting program AAC R182406 for all criteria pollutants except
respirable particulate matter (PM10). See 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 1983).
The federal PSD program for PM10 was delegated to the State on March
12, 1999. ADEQ's partiallyapproved, partiallydelegated PSD program
will apply automatically to new major sources or major modifications to
existing sources of SO
\9\ PSD also applies to new major sources or major modifications
in Pima County. One township of the nonattainment area is in the
Pima County. The federal PSD program applies with Pima County. See
40 CFR 52.144; 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 1983). PDEQ was delegated authority for the federal PDS program in 1994.
Compliance with section 110(a)(2). Under section 172(c)(7), plan provisions submitted to satisfy part D must meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted in section IV.B. above, the San Manuel portion of the Arizona SIP meets these requirements.
b. Section 176
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23
U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws (``transportation conformity'') as
well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (``general
conformity''). Because EPA does not consider SO
c. Subpart 5
Subpart 5 of part D contains additional provisions for areas
designated nonattainment for SO
E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act makes EPA approval of a maintenance plan meeting the requirements of section 175A another prerequisite to redesignation. Under section 175A, a maintenance plan must provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation, and include any additional control measures as may be necessary to ensure such maintenance. The Calcagni Memo contains EPA guidance on the contents of maintenance plans submitted for the purposes of meeting section 175A. Generally, such plans should address the following five topics: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Maintenance plans are to contain such contingency provisions as EPA deems necessary to assure the prompt correction of a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The contingency measures must include, at a minimum, a requirement that the state will implement all control measures contained in the nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation.
Lastly, under CAA Section 175A(b), states are required to submit a subsequent maintenance plan eight years after redesignation providing for maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional 10year period beyond the initial 10year maintenance period. ADEQ has made a commitment to submit a subsequent maintenance plan to EPA eight years into the initial 10year maintenance period (see page 15 of the submitted plan) and thereby satisfies the requirements of Section 175A(b).
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
As required in the Calcagni memo as one of the core provisions
necessary to ensure maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in an area
seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment, the San Manuel
Maintenance Plan includes an emissions inventory for point sources,
area sources, and mobile sources for 1997 through 2005 as well as a projection of emissions to 2017.
[[Page 3402]]
Table 2.San Manuel Nonattainment Area SO2 Emissions and Emissions Projections, All Sources (Tons): 19972017
Area and
mobile Point Annual totals
1997.......................................................... 30 11482 11512
1998.......................................................... 30 10409 10439
1999.......................................................... 38 3625 3663
2000.......................................................... 36 0.7 36.7
2001.......................................................... 33 0.9 33.9
2002.......................................................... 26 0.3 26.3
2003.......................................................... n/a 0.2 >=0.2
2004.......................................................... n/a 0.7 >=0.7
2005.......................................................... 27 0.6 27.6
2010.......................................................... 29 4.3 33.3
2015.......................................................... 30 4.3 34.3
2017.......................................................... 31 4.3 35.3
Note: Sulfur dioxide emissions in 2017 are projected to be less than 0.5 percent of 1997 and 1998 total
nonattainment area emissions, a period in which the San Manuel smelter was operating full time.
Based on our review of the submitted plan, we conclude that the current and projected emissions inventories are based on reasonable methods and assumptions and are comprehensive and accurate. 2. Maintenance Demonstration
EPA allows states to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either
showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not
exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show
that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS.\10\ When ADEQ first submitted a maintenance
plan for the San Manuel area in 2002, the plan contained a modeling
exercise. In January 2005, BHP Copper Inc. (BHP Billiton) notified ADEQ
of the company's intent to permanently cease operations and remove all
equipment and buildings at their San Manuel smelting facility. In March
2005, ADEQ terminated the permit for the facility. Closure of the
smelter reduced SO
\10\ See Calcagni Memo., at p. 9.
\11\ See page 8 of Appendix A of ADEQ's submittal.
In addition, the projected inventory from the San Manuel
SO
Once an area has been redesignated, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, the State is required to continue operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring network to verify the attainment status of the area. The maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors that will provide such verification.
EPA allows a state to discontinue a monitor within a nonattainment
or maintenance area provided the monitor has not measured violations of
the applicable NAAQS in the previous five years, and the approved SIP
provides for a specific, reproducible approach to representing the air
quality of the affected area in the absence of actual monitoring data.
Because the primary source of SO
EPA concurs with ADEQ's decision to discontinue SO
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
ADEQ intends to track the progress of the San Manuel SO
Maintenance of the SO
Considered together, the submitted plan and relevant state and
local EPAapproved regulations adequately provide for verification of
continued attainment of the SO
[[Page 3403]]
5. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that maintenance plans include contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. The Calcagni memo provides additional guidance, noting that although a State is not required to have fullyadopted contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the State in order for the maintenance plan to be approved, the maintenance plan should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expediently once they are triggered. Specifically, the maintenance plan should clearly identify the measures to be adopted, include a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the measures, and contain a specific time limit for action by the State. In addition, the State should identify specific indicators, or triggers, that will be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented.
The only threat to the SO
\12\ Pima and Pinal counties have their own air pollution
control agencies and have jurisdiction over stationary sources of
air pollutants within their counties, except for refineries, copper
smelters, coalfired power plants, Portland cement plants, or
portable sources that will operate in multiple counties. These
sources must obtain permits from ADEQ. Facilities located on most
Indian lands in Arizona are under the jurisdiction of U.S. EPA.
Upon review of the contingency plan summarized above, we find that
ADEQ has established a workable contingency plan for the San Manuel
area. Since ADEQ anticipates no relaxation of any implemented control
measures, and commits to submit to us any changes to rules or emission
limits applicable to SO
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
As noted previously, CAA section 175A(b) requires states to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision eight years after the redesignation request is approved by EPA. The subsequent maintenance plan is to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional 10 years following the first 10year maintenance period. ADEQ has made a commitment to submit a subsequent maintenance plan to EPA eight years into the initial 10year maintenance period (see page 15 of the submitted plan) and thereby satisfies CAA section 175A(b).
7. Conclusion
ADEQ's Final State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007 adequately addresses the five
basic topics that maintenance plans should address, including
attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network,
verification of continued attainment, and contingency plan, and also
provides for submittal of a subsequent maintenance plan. Therefore, we
approve the San Manuel SO
V. Public Comment and EPA's Final Action
As authorized under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is approving the Final State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, March, 2007 as submitted by ADEQ on June 7, 2007, as a revision to the Arizona SIP. In so doing, we find that the maintenance plan meets the requirements for such plans under CAA section 175A.
EPA is also approving the State of Arizona's request for
redesignation of the San Manuel area from nonattainment to attainment
for the SO
EPA is finalizing this action without proposing it in advance
because the Agency views this action as noncontroversial and
anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of
the same maintenance plan and request for redesignation of the San
Manuel, AZ SO
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
[[Page 3404]]
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 1044). This rule also does not have tribal implications
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 18, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Dated: December 20, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 52[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart DArizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(140) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(140) The following plan was submitted on June 7, 2007 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (1) Final Arizona
State Implementation Plan Revision, San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area, March 2007, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
PART 81[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
4. In Sec. 81.303 the table entitled ``ArizonaSO
Sec. 81.303 Arizona.
* * * * *
ArizonaSO2
Does not meet Does not meet Better than
Designated area primary secondary Cannot be national
standards standards classified standards
* * * * * * * San Manuel:
T8S, R16E................................. .............. .............. ............... X
T8S, R17E................................. .............. .............. ............... X
T8S, R18E................................. .............. .............. ............... X
T9S, R15E................................. .............. .............. ............... X
T9S, R16E................................. .............. .............. ............... X
T9S, R17E................................. .............. .............. ............... X [[Page 3405]]
T9S, R18E................................. .............. .............. ............... X
T10S, R15E................................ .............. .............. ............... X
T10S, R16E................................ .............. .............. ............... X
T10S, R17E................................ .............. .............. ............... X
T11S, R16E................................ .............. .............. ............... X
T10S, R18E................................ .............. .............. ............... X
T11S, R17E................................ .............. .............. ............... X
T12S, R16E................................ .............. .............. ............... X
T12S, R17E................................ .............. .............. ............... X
* * * * * * * [FR Doc. E8803 Filed 11708; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Marty Robin, Air Planning Office, (415) 9723961 or by email at robin.marty@epa.gov.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 50 CFR Part 17 33 CFR Part 117 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 26 CFR Part 301 50 CFR Part 622 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 44 CFR Part 65 50 CFR Part 660 40 CFR Part 271 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 47 CFR Part 64 50 CFR Part 665 49 CFR Part 571 44 CFR Part 64 21 CFR Part 522 14 CFR Part 23 47 CFR Part 76