# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 73 Fed. Reg. 3396 2008

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Jul 31 18:25:34 2014

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 13/Friday, January 18, 2008 /Rules and Regulations

Dated: November 29, 2007. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, RegionIX.

a Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

n 1.The authority citation forpart 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart DD-Nevada

* 2: Section 52.1470 is amendedby adding paragraph (c)(65) to read as follows:
§52.1470 Identificationof plan.

(c) * * * (65) The following planwas submitted onMay 30, 2007 by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A)Washoe County District Health Department, Air Quality Management Division. (1) Maintenance Plan for the Washoe County 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Area (April 2007), Washoe County District Health Department, excluding appendices.

[FRDoc. E8-743 Filed 1-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0214; FRL-8514-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; San Manuel Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for Redesignation toAttainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under the Clean Air Act to approve the FinalStateImplementation PlanRevision, SanManuelSulfur DioxideNonattainment Area,March 2007as a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan. The Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality developed this plan to maintain the sulfur dioxide national ambient air quality standards in the San Manuel, Arizona area and to request redesignation ofthe area to attainment. The maintenance plan contains various elements, including contingency provisions that willbe implemented if measured ambient concentrations of sulfur dioxide are above certain trigger levels. EPA is also approving the State ofArizona'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 AirAct that obligate the Agency to approve or disapprove submittals ofrevisions to state implementation plans and requests. forredesignation. The intended effect is
to redesignate the San Manuel, Arizona sulfur dioxide nonattainment area to attainment, and toprovide for maintenance of the standard forthe tenyear period following redesignation. DATES: This ruleis effective on March 18, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 19, 2008. Ifwe receive such comments, we willpublish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09- OAR-2006-0214, by one ofthe following methods: 1.FederaleRulemakingPortal: www.regulations.gov.Follow the on-line instructions.

2. E-mail:robin.marty@epa.gov. 3.Mail ordeliver:Marty Robin (Air2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

'Instructions:All comments willbe included inthe public docket without change and maybe made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is restrictedby statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected shouldbe clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the www.regulations.govor e-mail. www.regulations.govis an "anonymous access" system, andEPA will notknow
your identity orcontact information unless you provide it inthe body of your comment. Ifyou send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address willbe automatically captured and included as partof the public comment. IfEPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you forclarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Docket:The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.govand inhard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and

some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an °appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marty Robin, Air Planning Office, (415) 972-3961 or by e-mail at robin.marty@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elsewhere inthis Federal Register, we are proposing approval and soliciting' written comment onthis action. Throughout this document, the words

we, "us," or "our" mean U.S. EPA.

Table ofContents
I.Summary ofToday's Direct Final Action II.Introduction

A. The SO2NAAQS B.State Implementation Plans (SIPs) C.History ofSO2Planning in Arizona 1.Development ofthe SO2 SIP 2. SanManuel SO 2Nonattainment Area D. Sources of SO2Emissions inthe San

Manuel Area III. CAA Requirements forRedesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans IV. EPA's Evaluation ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the San Manuel, Arizona SO2Nonattainment
Area A.The Area MustBeAttaining the SO2

NAAQS B.The Area's Applicable Implementation

Plan MustBe FullyApproved Under Section-110(k) C.The Improvement in Air Quality Must

BeDue to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions inEmissions D. The Area Must HaveMet AllApplicable

Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D 1. Section 110 Requirements 2.Part D Requirements E. The Area Must Have a FullyApproved

Maintenance Plan 1.Attainment Emissions Inventory 2.Maintenance Demonstration 3.MonitoringNetwork 4. Verification ofContinued Attainment 5.Contingency Plan 6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions 7.Conclusion V. Public Comment andEPA's Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary ofToday's Direct Final Action

On June 7, 2007, the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality ("ADEQ" or "State") submitted to EPA Region IX itsFinal Arizona State ImplementationPlanRevision, San 

### 3396Federal Register/ Vol. 73, No. 13/Friday, January 18, 2008/Rules and Regulations

ManuelSulfurDioxideNonattainment Area,March 2007 andits request for redesignation to attainment ("San Manuel SO 2 Maintenance Plan" or "submittal"). The submittal summarizes the progress the State has made in attaining the 24-hour and annual average sulfur dioxide (SO 2)national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Manuel nonattainment area inPima and Pinal Counties, Arizona ("San Manuel area") and includes a plan to assure continued attainment of the SO 2NAAQS for at least the next 10 years. The State's June 2007 submittal also requested the withdrawal ofthe June 2002 FinalSanManuelSulfur DioxideNonattainment Area State ImplementationandMaintenance Plan. The June 2007 submittal updated the SIP to account forthe closure of the dominant source ofSO2 emissions, the BHP Billiton copper smelter. The March 2007 SIP revision contains current information and analyses which supercede the obsolete information in the June 2002 SIP.

In today's direct final action, we are approving ADEQ's June 7, 2007 submittal as a revisionto the Arizona SIP andredesignating the San Manuel

area from nonattainment to attainment forthe SO 2 NAAQS because we find that the San Manuel SO 2 Maintenance Plan meets the requirements for maintenance plans under section 175A ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) and that the SanManuel area qualifies for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). 

### II. Introduction

The following section discusses the NAAQS for SO 2,CAA requirements for
state implementation plans, SO 2 planning in Arizona generally and in the San Manuel area more specifically, and sources ofemissions in the San Manuel area.
A. TheS0 2 NAAQS

The NAAQS for SO 2 consists ofthree standards: two primary standards for the protection ofpublic health and a secondary standard for protection of public welfare. The primary SO2 standards address 24-hour average and annual average ambient SO 2 concentrations. The secondary standard addresses 3-hour average ambient SO 2 concentrations. The level ofthe annual SO 2 standard is 0.030 parts per million (ppm), which is equivalent to 80 micrograms per cubic meter (tg/m3), not to be exceeded in acalendar year. The level ofthe 24-hour standard is 0.14 ppm (365 pg/m3), not to be exceeded

more than once per calendar year. The level ofthe secondary SO 2 standard is a 3-hour standard of0.5 ppm (1,300 .g/

m 3), not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. See 40 CFR 50.2- 50.5.

B. StateImplementationPlans(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 forapproval, and, once approved, become part ofthe State Implementation Plan (orSIP) for that State. SIPs are compilations ofregulatory and nonregulatory elements adopted, submitted, and approved at different times to address various types ofchanges 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 soutces; (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 ifan 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 publichearing, and
must formally adopt the changes before submitting them to EPA forapproval. Upon our approval, a SIP revision becomes federally enforceable.
C.Historyof S0 2 Planning inArizona

1. Development ofthe SO 2 SIP
* In the early 1970s, soon after the CAA Amendments of 1970 were passed, Arizona began developing air quality regulations that applied to all Arizona primary copper smelters, including the

one operating atthat time in San Manuel. These regulations focused on establishing an air qualitymonitoring network inthe areas surrounding the smelters and determining the allowable emission rates from the smelters so that the SO 2 NAAQS could be attained and maintained. Arizona submitted various SIP revisions during the 1970s to establish approvable emission limits for the primary copper smelters operating in the state. On September 20, 1979, the State submitted its SIP revision to EPA Which contained its multi-point rollback (MPR) technique to establish operating limitations on smelters. After EPA's proposed conditional approval on November 30, 1981 (46 FR 58098), Arizona made necessary changes which corrected identified deficiencies. EPA granted full approval of the MPR-based SIP submittal on January 14, 1983 (48 FR 1717), but was notable to grant full approval to the SO 2 SIPs for six smelter

areas (including San Manuel)because they lacked a strategy for addressing fugitive sources ofSO 2.1

OnNovember 1, 2004, EPA approved several revisions to the SO 2 SIP, including fugitive emissions standards, site-specific requirements, and compliance and monitoring for existing primary copper smelters. See 69 FR 63321. In that same notice, EPA promulgated a limited approval/limited disapproval ofArizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-Appendix 8, which
sets outprocedures for calculating sulfur emissions using a sulfur balance method. ADEQ subsequently corrected the identified deficiencies and EPA approved the new version ofR18-2- Appendix 8 as a SIP revision on April 12, 2006, effective June 12, 2006. See 71 FR 18624.

2. San Manuel SO 2 Nonattainment Area

Initially, the air quality planning area

we refer to as the San Manuel SO2 nonattainment area comprised all of Pima and Pinal Counties (43 FR 8969; March 3, 1978) but atthe request of the State ofArizona, the boundaries were subsequently reduced to eleven townships around the primary copper smelter located near San Manuel (44 FR 21261, April 10, 1979). In addition, four adjacent townships were designated as unclassified.2 All but one ofthe townships that define the nonattainment area are located in southeastern Pinal County, with the remaining southernmost township located in neighboring Pima County. The current boundaries ofthe nonattainment andunclassified areas
are codified at 40 CFR 81.303 and are defined as follows: "Does Not Meet Primary Standards": T8S, R16E; T8S, R17E; T8S, R18E; T9S, R15E; T9S, R16E; T9S, R17E; T9S, R18E; T1OS, R15E; T10S, R16E; T10S, R17E; T11S, R16E, and "Cannot Be Classified": T10S, R18E; TlS,R17E; T12S, R16E; T12S, R17E.

InJune of2002, ADEQ submitted the FinalSanManuelSulfurDioxide Nonattainment AreaState ImplementationandMaintenance Plan andredesignation request. Since then, the SanManuel copper smelter, the

"Fugitive" in this context refers to emissions that could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, ventor afunctionally equivalent opening.

2Following the enactment ofthe 1990 CAA Amendments, the SanManuel area was classified by operation oflaw as nonattainment for the primary SO2 standards, effective on November 15,
1990. 

### 3397Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 13/Friday, January 18, 2008/Rules and Regulations

dominant source of emissions in the
area, has permanently ceased operation. In January 2005, BHP Copper Inc. (BHP Billiton)notified ADEQthat the
company intended to permanently cease operating the San Manuel smelter. As indicated in Appendix B of the current SIP submittal, inMarch 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 TitleV (Part 70) permit applications to ADEQ.

D:Sources

### dfS02 Emissionsin theSan ManuelArea

Emissions inventories forthe San Manuel Nonattainment Area demonstrate that, although there were other sources ofSO 2 emissions, the primary source ofSO 2 emissions inthe San Manuel area while itwas operating

was the San Manuel smelter, which comprised more than 99.5 percent of total SO 2 emissions inthe nonattainment area. Data show that no other point, area, or mobile sources have contributed in the past or currently contribute to the same levels of SO 2 emissions in the San Manuel Nonattainment Area as those attributed
to the smelter. Figure 4.1 on page 30 of the SIP illustrates sulfur dioxide

- emissions levels for the San Manuel smelter from 1972 through 2005. Implementation ofnew emissions control technologies at the smelter in the mid 1970s and again inthe late 1980s are clearly reflected inthe resulting emissions reductions forthese periods. Closure ofthe smelter reduced emissions bymore than 10,000 tons of SO2 per year. 

### M. CAA Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans

Arizona has requested that we redesignate the San Manuel SO 2

- nonattainment area to attainment. Any

redesignation fromnonattainment to attainment requires EPA to determine whether the requirements ofCAA section 107(d)(3)(E) have been met. These criteria are:'(1) At the time ofthe redesignation, we must find that the

area has attained the relevant NAAQS; (2) the state must have a fully approved SIP for the area; (3) we must determine that the improvements in air quality are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe SIP and applicable federal regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the state musthave met all the nonattainment area requirements applicable to the area; and (5) we must have fully approved a maintenance plan for the area under CAA.section 175A.

To evaluate the State's redesignation request forthe SanManuel 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 ofthe 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 (partD NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment," dated October 14, 1994, from Mary D.Nichols ("Nichols Memo").

IV. EPA'sEvaluation ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan forthe San Manuel, Arizona S02 Nonattainment Area

A. The AreaMustBeAttainingtheS02 NAAQS

Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i), in order for an area to be redesignated, we must determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. The air quality data should be representative of the area ofhighest concentration and should be measured by monitors that remain atthe same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. The data should be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database (AQS) to be available for public review. Under 40 CFR part 58, States certify data that is entered into AQS on an annual basis.

For the purposes ofdetermining whether an area has attained the SO2 NAAQS, we require no fewer than two consecutive years ofclean data (i.e., no violations) as recorded in AQS. In addition, to qualify for attainment determination purposes, the annual average and second-highest 24-hour average concentrations must be based upon hourly data that are at least 75 percent complete ineach calendar quarter. See 40 CFR 50.4.

The State ofArizona began ambient SO 2 monitoring in the San Manuel area

as early as 1969.3 Over time, an extensive monitoring network was developed with more than eighteen stationary and mobile monitoring sites. This ambient SO2 network, comprised ofEPA, state, and facility monitors, was developed as the result of extensive efforts toidentify maximum ambient impact areas using diffusion modeling, monitored atmospheric dispersion parameters, citizen observations, and ambient SO 2 concentrations.

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

Following the shutdown ofsmelting operations in 1999, the facility-operated Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital monitors were closed. ADEQcontinues
to operate a monitor a! the LDS Church site. Table 1 summarizes ambient SO 2 air quality monitoring from 1997 to 2005.

SulfurDioxideMonitoringNetworkStudy, Arizona State Department of Health, Environmental Health Services, Division ofAirPollution Control,
1969.

4See UltimateSulfurDioxide LimitsforArizona Copper Smelters,Moyers and Peterson, September 14, 1979. 

### 3398Federal Register/ Vol. 73, No. 13/ Friday, January 18, 2008/ Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.-SUMMARY OF SAN MANUEL, SULFUR DIOXIDE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA, 1997-2005 (IN ig/m 3) [Primary NAAQS: Annual average 80 gig/m 3 [0.030 ppm], 24-hour average 365 gig/m 3 [0.14 ppm]: 3-hour 1300 gg/m3 [0.5 ppm]]

Annual Max value Max value Data Site or city 3-hl Maveae 24-Hour recovery* averagav erage average (valid hourly samples)

2005: LDS Church

....................................................................................................... 5 16 8 8,716 2004: LDS Church

....................................................................................................... 4 26 9 8,742 2003: LDS Church

....................................................................................................... 4 15 8.5 8,711 2002: LDS Church (opened 3/02)

............................................................................... 4 24 8 6,827 1999: LDS Church (closed 10/99)

.................................................................................. 9 204.5 56.5 6,121 Townsite

............................................................................................................... 4 272.5 63 n/a Dorm Site

.............................................................................................................. 4 258.5 53 n/a Hospital

................................................................................................................. 8 416 111.5 n/a 1998: LDS Church

.......................................................................................................... 21 487.5 88 8,469 Townsite

............................................................................................................... 8 406.5 93 8,656 Dorm Site

.............................................................................................................. 8 258.5 98.5 8,714 Hospital

................................................................................................................. 11 464 184 8,642 1997: LDS Church

.......................................................................................................... 12 252 63 8,589 Townsite

............................................................................................................... 33 313.5 93 8,725 Dorm Site

............................................................................................. ................ 11 386 66.5 8,751 Hospital

................................................................................................................. 32 654.5 180 8,742

*Note: Does not include Golf Course site for 1997 (site closed August 1997). Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital data are as contained in BHP's monthly reports. The facility reported zero concentrations for the period 2000-2001 at the Townsite, Dorm Site, and Hospital locations. LDS Church site data for 2002-2005 were obtained from ADEQ Annual Reports. LDS Church site data for 1997-1999 were calculated from data in EPA's Air Quality System Report (October 3, 2006) by multiplying sulfur dioxide values in parts per million by 2620 to convert to micrograms per cubic meter.

After reviewing the historic ambient
S02 monitoring data, EPA concludes the data was collected in accordance with EPA guidelines. The monitoring sites

were found to.berepresentative of air quality forthe area. As required for redesignation, the nonattainment area has recorded more than eight current, consecutive quarters ofquality-assured monitoring data that is free ofNAAQS violations.

ADEQhad included monitoring data in Chapter 3 ofthe SIP. ADEQ's review ofhistoric ambient S02 monitoring data in the SanManuel area collected by ADHS, BAQC, andADEQ confirms that the primary S02 NAAQS has not been violated since 1979 and the secondary
S02 NAAQS has not been violated since 1985.

In the San Manuel SIP submittal, ADEQproposes to close the San Manuel SO2 monitoring site effective December 31, 2007. Federal regulations at40 CFR 58.14 allows sites to be closed under specific circumstances. ADEQ believes that the closure ofthe San Manuel SO 2 site meets these criteria. Specifically, the option under 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3) allows for discontinuation ofa monitor within an attainment, nonattainment, or maintenance area, "* * provided the monitor has not measured violations of the applicable NAAQS inthe previous five years, andthe approved SIP provides for a specific, reproducible approach to representing the air quality ofthe affected county in the absence of actual monitoring data." This position is supported with the information provided below.

Monitoring datafor 2002 through 2006 indicate that maximum ambient concentrations were three percent or less ofthe NAAQS for the 3-hour standard; fivepercent or less of the NAAQS forthe 24-hour standard; and less than seven percent of the NAAQS for the annual standard. Following the shutdown ofthe San Manuel ambient
S02monitor, ADEQ will continue to demonstrate attainment and maintenance ofthe SO 2 NAAQS through updates to the emissions inventory as described inthe San Manuel SO2 Maintenance Plan, March 2007. Analyses contained in the SIP demonstrate that, although there were other sources ofSO 2 emissions, the San Manuel copper smelter, which permanently closed in 2005, was the primary emissions source in the nonattainment area and comprised more than 99.5 percent oftotal emissions while it was operating. The more than 99 percent emissions reduction due to the closure of the smelter corresponds to

a greater than 92 percent reduction in 3- hour average and 24-hour average ambient SO 2 concentrations.

With the permanent closure ofthe San Manuel smelter, no major point sources exist inthe 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 inwhich 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 dueto construction of additional SO 2point sources, the ADEQ, Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD), and Pima County Department ofEnvironmental Quality (PDEQ)permit programs limit all emissions aspart ofconstruction of new point sources or upgrading ofexisting

sources. ADEQcommits to re-establish

an appropriate networkbefore any major source ofSO 2 begins operations in the San Manuel planning area.

Maintenance ofthe SO2 NAAQS in San Manuel area willbe tracked through updates to the emissions inventory and permit applications received for SO 2 emitting sources.

Therefore, ADEQhas demonstrated, and we concur, thatthe closure ofthe San Manuel SO 2 site meets the criteria
set forth in 40 CFR 5 8.14 .5 We also

5EPA sets outrequirements forambient air quality surveillance in40 CFRpart 58. After the closure ofthe SanManuel SO 2monitoring site, ADEQ will continue tomonitor SO 2emissions at Continued



### 3399

### Federal Register/ Vol. 73, No. 13/Friday, January 18, 2008/Rules and Regulations

conclude that the area has attained the
SO 2 NAAQS.

B. TheArea'sApplicable ImplementationPlanMustBeFully Approved UnderCAA 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) ofthe Act. We examined the applicable SIP forArizona and also looked atthe disappiovals listed in40 CFR 52.125 and have determined that

no disapprovals listed remain relevant tothe applicable SIP. Arizona has a fully approved SIP with respect to SO 2 inthe SanManuel area.
C. TheImprovement inAir Quality Must Be DuetoPermanentandEnforceable Reductionsin 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 ofthe SIP and/or applicable federal measures. As shown inTable 1, as required for redesignation, the nonattainment area has recorded

more than eight current, consecutive quarters ofquality-assured, violationfree data. Monitoring data for 1997 through 1999, while the San Manuel smelter was still operating, indicate that maximum ambient concentrations were less than 55 percent ofthe NAAQS for the 3-hour standard, less than 59 percent ofthe NAAQS for the 24-hour standard, and less than 33 percent ofthe NAAQS for the annual standard.

Closure ofthe smelterin 1999 further reduced emissions and resultant ambient SO2 concentrations. Monitoring data for 2004 through 2005 indicate that maximum ambient concentrations were two percent ofthe NAAQS for the 3- hour standard and less than three percent for the 24-hour standard; and lessthan sevenpercent ofthe NAAQS for the annual standard. Monitoring network data for theperiod 1997 through 2005 are presented in Table 1. Closure ofthe smelter has resulted in permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, as required by the CAA.

D. TheAreaMustHaveMetAll ApplicableRequirements UnderSection 110 andPartD

Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v),

we must determine whether the State of

several othersites within the state. For more information about the airmonitoring system in place in Arizona, the reader may wishto consult
the State of ArizonaAirMonitoringNetwork Plan Forthe Year2007submitted by ADEQ to EPA. This report can be found on Arizona's Web site at http://www.azdeq.govlenvironlairlmonitoringl download/airmonitoring.pdf. Arizona has met all requirements under section 110 and under partD (oftitle I) ofthe CAA applicable to the San Manuel SO 2nonattainment area.
1. Section 110 Requirements

CAA section 110 contains the general requirements for SIPs (enforceable emissions limits, ambient monitoring, permitting ofnew sources, adequate funding, etc.). EPA's guidance for implementing section 110 ofthe Act is discussed in the General Preamble to Title 1(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Over the years, we have approved Arizona's SIP asmeeting these basic requirements. The SIP includes enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing ofambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review ofnew major stationary sources andmajor modifications to existing ones; provides. foradequate funding, staff, and associatedresources necessary to implement its requirements; and requires stationary source emission monitoring andreporting.

2. Part D Requirements

Before an area can be redesignated to attainment, itmusthave fulfilled the applicable requirements under partD (oftitle I). For this area,the relevant requirements are found insubparts 1 and 5 ofpart D. Subpart I ofpartD specifiesthe basic requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 5 sets out additional provisions for areas designated nonattainment for SO2.As discussed below, EPA'finds that Arizona has met therequirements of subpart 1 ofpart D, specifically sections 172(c) and 176, and subpart 5 as applicable forthe SanManuel SO2 nonattainment area.

a. Section 172

CAA section 172 contains the general requirements fornonattainment SIPs. A thorough discussion ofthe requirements of 172(c) can be found inthe General Preamble for the implementation of title 1 (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Additional guidance can be found in the Calcagni memo.

EPA has interpreted therequirements ofCAA sections 172(c)(2) (reasonable further progress-RFP), 172(c)(6) (other measures), and 172(c)(9) (contingency measures) as notrelevant to a redesignation request because they only have meaning foran area thatis not attainingthe standard (see the General Preamble andthe Calcagni Memo), and

as discussed above in section IV.A. of this notice, we find that the San Manuel

area is attaining the SO2 standard. Furthermore, the Statehas not sought to exercise options that would trigger section 172(c)(4) (identification of certain emissions increases). Thus, this provision is not relevant to this redesidnation request. The other provisions under 172(c) are discussed below.

Reasonablyavailablecontrol

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 ofA.A.C. R9--3-315, a predecessor to the State's current smelter rules codified at A.A.C. R18-2- 715. See 48 FR 1717 (January 14, 1983). This rule limited stack emissions from primary copper smelters, including the smelter which was located inthe San Manuel area. We concluded, however, thatthe control strategy for SO 2 in Arizona's six SO2 nonattainment areas
was incomplete due tothe failure to address fugitive emissions problems:
See 48 FR 1717 (January 14, 1983) and 40 CFR 52.125(a)(1).

In 1998, 2003, and 2006, the State submitted amended rules (AAC R18-2- 715 (sectionsF, G, and H), R18-2- 715.01, R18-2-715.02, and R18-.2- Appendix 8).6 These rules address both fugitive and stack emissions from smelters and, in approving therules, we found thatthe amended rules metthe 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 hasbeen implemented need be submitted bythe State.

Emissionsinventory.The emissions inventory requirement ofsection 172(c)(3) is satisfied by the maintenance plan inventory requirements. The maintenance plan inventory is evaluated below, in section IV.E.1.

NSRpermitprogram.Section 172(c)(5) requires new source review (NSR) permits for the construction and operation ofnew and modified major stationary sources located in nonattainment areas. ADEQ isthe agency responsible forimplementing the nonattainment area NSR permit program in the San Manuel area. Under ADEQ's rules, all new major sources and modifications to existing major

6A moreextensive summary oftheregulatory history ofcopper smelters inArizona is included in EPA's proposed action onthese rules. See69 FR 26786 (May 14, 2004). I 

### 3400Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 13/Friday, January 18, 2008/Rules and Regulations

sources are subject to the NSR requirements ofthese rules.

We have notyet fully approved the ADEQNSR rules.7 We have, however, determined that an area being redesignated from nonattainment to attainment does not need tohave an approved NSR program prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance ofthe standard without nonattainment NSR in effect.8 We have determined that the maintenance demonstration for San Manuel does not rely on nonattainment NSR.

Prevention ofsignificant 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 majormodifications to existing major stationary sources to undergo preconstruction review and to apply best available control technology. In addition, sources drerequired toreview air quality and other impacts, which includes analysis ofPSD increment consumption and undertake preconstruction modeling ADEQ has an EPA-approved PSD permitting program AAC R18-2-406 for all criteria pollutants except respirable particulate matter (PM10). See 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 1983). The federal PSD program for PM10 was delegated to the State on March 12, 1999. ADEQ's partiallyapproved, partially-delegated PSD program will apply automatically to

newmajor sources or major modifications to existing sources of SO 2 in the San Manuel area once the area is redesignated to attainment.9

7ADEQ's NSR rules are included in the preconstruction review and permitting provisions ofAAC, Title 18, Chapter'2, Articles 3 and 4. EPA approved an earlier version ofADEQ's NSR requirements (AAC R9-3-302) on May 5, 1982 (47 FR 19328) and August 10, 1988 (53 FR 30200).

8See memorandum from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994 ("PartD New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.")

9PSD also applies to newmajor sources or major modifications in Pima County. One township ofthe nonattainment area is in the Pima County. The federal PSD program applies with Pima County. See 40CFR 52.144; 48FR 19878 (May 3, 1983). PDEQ

was delegated authority for the federal PDS program in 1994. Compliancewith section 11O(a)(2). Under section 172(c)(7), plan provisions submitted to satisfy part D mustmeet the applicable provisions ofsection 110(a)(2) ofthe CAA. As noted in section IV.B. above, the San Manuel portion ofthe Arizona SIP meets these requirements.

b. Section 176
Section 176(c) ofthe 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 2 a transportationrelated pollutant, only the requirements related to general conformity apply to the San Manuel SO 2 area. The State of Arizona adopted general conformity criteria andprocedures as a revision to the Arizona SIP. EPA approved Arizona's general conformity SIP on April 23, 1999 (64 FR 19916). Thus, the requirements of CAA section 176 have been satisfied.

c. Subpart 5

Subpart 5 ofpart D contains additional provisions for areas designated nonattainment for SO2. Under CAA section 191(b), States with existing nonattainment areas for the primary SO 2 NAAQS where those areas lack fully approved SIPs, including part D plans, must submit implementation plans meeting the requirements of subpart 1 ofpart D. As discussed in section IV.D.2.a ofthis notice, the State ofArizona has mettherequirements of subpart I ofpartD for the SanManuel

area. Under CAA section 192(b), such

areas were required to meet theprimary SO2 NAAQS asexpeditiously as possibly but no later than November 15, 1995. As discussed in section IV.A of this notice, the San Manuel SO 2 nonattainment area met the primary SO 2 standards well before the applicable attainment date ofNovember 15, 1995 andhas continued to attain since then. E. TheAreaMustHavea Fully ApprovedMaintenance Plan

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) ofthe 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 ofthe NAAQS forat least 10 years afterredesignation, and include any additional control measures as may be necessary to ensure such maintenance. The Calcagni Memo contains EPA guidance on the contents ofmaintenance plans submitted for the purposes ofmeeting section 175A. Generally, such plans should address the following five topics: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification ofcontinued attainment,.and a contingency plan. Maintenance plans areto contain such contingency provisions as EPA deems necessary to assure the prompt correction ofa violation ofthe NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The contingency measures must include, at

aminimum, a requirement thatthe state will implement all control measures contained inthe 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 ofthe NAAQS foran additional 10-year period beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period. ADEQ has made a commitment to submit a subsequent maintenance plan to EPA eight years into the initial 10- year maintenance period (see page 15 of the submitted plan) andthereby satisfies the requirements of Section 175A(b).

1.Attainment Emissions Inventory

As required in the Calcagni memo as
one ofthe core provisions necessary to

ensure maintenance ofthe relevant NAAQS in an area seeking redesignation fromnonattainment to attainment, the San Manuel Maintenance Plan includes an emissions inventory forpoint sources,
area sources, andmobile sources for 1997 through 2005 as well as a projection ofemissions to 2017. 

### 3401Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 13/Friday, January 18, 2008 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2.-SAN MANUEL NONATTAINMENT AREA SO 2 EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS, ALL SOURCES (TONS): 

### 1997-2017

Area and Point Annual totals mobile

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 lessthan 0.5 percent of 1997 and riod in which the San Manuel smelter was operating fulltime.

Based on our review ofthe 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 ofthe NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level ofthe attainment inventory, orby modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will notcause a violation ofthe NAAQS. 1° When ADEQ first submitted

amaintenance plan for the San Manuel

area in 2002, the plan contained a modeling exercise. In January 2005, BHP Copper Inc. (BHP Billitoji)notified ADEQ ofthe company's intent to permanently cease operations and.

remove all equipment and buildings at their San Manuel smelting facility. In March 2005, ADEQterminated the permit for the facility. Closure ofthe smelter reduced SO 2 emissions in.the San Manuel area by more than 10,000 tonsper year. Based on monitored data, the area had already attained the SO 2 ambient air quality standards. Annual ambient concentrations measured from 1997 through 1999 were less than 42 percent ofthe NAAQS and maximum 24-hour concentrations were less than 59 percent ofthe NAAQS.11 ADEQ subsequently withdrew the 2002 maintenance plan, but included the modeling exercise in Appendix A of the
current submittal. Since the modeling exercise demonstrated that the area could maintain the standard while the smelterwas operating, we concur with the state that maintenance ofthe

10See Calcagni Memo., at p. 9. "See page 8 ofAppendix A ofADEQ's submittal. standard will continue since the smelter is no longer operating.

In addition, the projected inventory from the San Manuel SO 2 Maintenance Plan shows that emissions in the area
are estimated to remain well below attainment period levels in 2017, the 10th year after redesignation. Although there is slight growth intotal emissions from 2005 to 2017, projected 2017 emissions are 0.3 percent of 1998 emissions levels, due largely to the cessation of smelteroperations. Therefore, we conclude that the San Manuel SO 2 maintenance plan contains

an adequate maintenance demonstration.

3. Monitoring Network

Once an area has been redesignated, in accordance with 40 CFRPart 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 ofair quality monitors that will provide such verification.

EPA allows astate to discontinue a monitor within a nonattainment or maintenance area provided the monitor has not measured violations ofthe applicable NAAQS inthe 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 ofactual monitoring data. Because the primary

source ofSO 2 emissions in the nonattainment area permanently closed and recorded air quality data for 2002 through 2005 indicate thatmaximum ambient concentrations are less than

seven percent ofthe primary and secondary NAAQS, ADEQ intends to discontinue monitoring at this site.

EPA concurs with ADEQ's decision to discontinue SO 2 monitoring in the San 1998 total nonattainment area emissions, a peManuel area. Since the main source of SO 2 emissions has been permanently shut down and dismantled there is no longer any reason to monitor for this pollutant at this time. Section 7.2 ofthe SIP states that ADEQ commits to reestablishing an appropriate S02 monitoring network in the San Manuel

area before any future major source of SO2 begins operations in the San Manuel planning area.

4. Verification ofContinued Attainment

ADEQ intends to track the progress of the San Manuel SO 2 Maintenance Plan through implementation and enforcement ofthe monitoring, reporting, and certification procedures
to which permitted sources are subject under AAC R18-2-306 and R18-2-309. ADEQ anticipates no relaxation ofany implemented control measures used to attain and maintain the ambient air quality standards.

Maintenance ofthe SO 2 NAAQS in San Manuel area willbe tracked through updates to the emissions inventory and permit applications received from SO 2 emitting sources. The projected inventory fromthe San Manuel SO 2 Maintenance Plan shows that emissions in the area are estimated to remain well below attainment period levels in 2017, the loth year after redesignation. Although there is slight growth in total emissions from 2005 to 2017, projected 2017 emissions are 0.3percent of 1998 emissions levels, due largely to the cessation of smelteroperations. The PCAQCD and PDEQ have authority for

sources undertheir jurisdiction.

Considered together, the submitted plan andrelevant state and local EPAapproved regulations adequately provide for verification ofcontinued attainment of the SO 2 NAAQS in the San Manuel area. 

### 3402Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 13/Friday, January 18, 2008/Rules and Regulations.

5. Contingency Plan

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that maintenance plans include contingency provisions to promptly
correct any violation ofthe NAAQS that

occurs after redesignation ofthe area. The Calcagni memo provides additional guidance, noting that although a State is
not required to have fully-adopted contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the State in order for the maintenance plan to be approved, the maintenance plan should

ensure that the contingency measures

are adopted expediently once they are. triggered*Specifically, the maintenance plan should clearly identify the

measures to be adopted, include a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation ofthe measures, and contain a specific time limit for action by the State. In addition, the State should identify specific indicators,

ortriggers, that willbe used to determine when the contingency

measures need tobe implemented.

-

The only threatto the SO 2NAAQS in this planning area is from new sources. Because the primary source ofSO2 emissions in the SanManuel area is permanently closed, measures to-ensure continued attainment ofthe SO 2 NAAQS arePSD permitting requirements. Anynew source proposing 1o operate in the San Manuel

area is subject to the provisions of A.A.C. R18-2-403, "Permits forSources Located inNonattainment Areas," and those in A.A.C. R18-2-406, "Permit Requirements for Sources Located in Attainment and Unclassified Areas." With our redesignation ofSan Manuel,

.they will only be subject to A.A.C. R18- 2-406. These programs address NSR and PSD requirements applicable to SO 2
sources. Under the PSD program, new major stationary or majormodifications
to existing major sources are required to undergo preconstruction review before the facility is constructed, modified, or reconstructed, and to apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT). If anew source is not amajor source, it may still berequired to obtain a permit under minor source permitting rules at AAC R18-2-Article 3.12

Upon review ofthe contingency plan summarized above, we find that ADEQ has established a workable contingency plan for the San Manuel area. Since

12

Pima and Pinal counties have their own air pollution control agencies and have jurisdiction

over stationary sources ofairpollutants within their counties, except for refineries, copper smelters, coal-fired power plants, Portland cement plants, or portable sources that will operate in multiple
counties. These sources must obtain permits from ADEQ. Facilities located on most Indian lands in Arizona are under the jurisdiction ofU.S. EPA. ADEQ anticipates no relaxation ofany implemented control measures, and commits to submit to us any changes to rules or emission limits applicable to SO 2 sources, as well as committing to maintain the necessary resources to promptly correct any violations of the SO2 NAAQS that occur after the redesignation ofthe San Manuel area to attainment, the State thereby satisfies therequirements ofCAA section 175A(d).

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

As noted previously, CAA section 175A(b) requires states to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision eight years afterthe redesignation request is approved by EPA. The subsequent maintenance plan is to provide for maintenance ofthe NAAQS for an additional 10 years following the first 10-year maintenance period. ADEQ has made a commitment to submit a subsequent maintenance plan to EPA eight years into the initial 10-year maintenance period (see page 15 of the submitted plan) and thereby satisfies CAA section 175A(b).

7. Conclusion

ADEQ's FinalStateImplementation PlanRevision, SanManuelSulfur DioxideNonattainment Area,March 2007 adequately addresses the five basic topics thatmaintenance 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 2 Maintenance Plan as arevision to the Arizona SIP and thereby satisfy the related redesignation criteria ofCAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv).

V. Public Comment and EPA's Final Action

As authorized under section 110(k)(3) ofthe 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 tothe 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 forredesignation of the San Manuel area from nonattainment to attainment for the SO 2 NAAQS based on our conclusion that all ofthe redesignation criteria in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) havebeen satisfied. Specifically, we find that (1) the San Manuel area has attained the SO 2 NAAQS; (2) Arizona has a fully approved SIP for the San Manuel area; (3) the improvements in air quality in the San Manuel area are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting fromthe permanent closure ofthe smelter and from implementation ofEPA's Title V permit conditions; (4) Arizona has met all ofthe nonattainment area requirements applicable tothe San Manuel areai and (5) the State's submitted maintenance plan meets all relevant CAA requirements and is being approved in this notice.

EPA is finalizing this action without proposing itin 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 ofthe same maintenance plan andrequest for redesignation ofthe San Manuel, AZ SO 2 area. Ifwe receive adverse
comments by February 19, 2008, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the
comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. Ifwe donot receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice onMarch 18, 2008. This will approve the redesignation request andmaintenance plan submitted by Arizona onJune 7, 2007.

Please note that ifEPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of thisrule and if that provision may be severehl from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt

as final those provisions ofthe rulethat

arenot the subject ofan 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 toExecutive 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 

### 3403

### Federal Register /Vol. 73, No. 13/ Friday, January 18,, 2008/ Rules and Regulations

impact on a substantial number ofsmall 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 oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
nothave a substantial direct effect on
one prmore Indiantribes, onthe relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution ofpower 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 hgve substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, 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 ofpower andresponsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62FR 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 AirAct. 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. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS inplace ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean AirAct. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15U.S.C.. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996rgenerally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A majorrule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published inthe Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action mustbe filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit byMarch 18,2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later inproceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects

40CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFRPart81

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

Dated: December 20, 2007. Wayne Nastri, RegionalAdministrator, RegionLX.
* Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title40 of the Code ofFederal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

E 1.The authority citation forpart 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 6tseq. Subpart D-Arizona

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

### §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 StateImplementationPlan Revision, SanManuel SulfurDioxide Nonattainment Area, March 2007, Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality.

PART 81-[AMENDED]

* 3. The authority citation forpart 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.
* 4. In §81.303 the table entitled "Arizona-SO2" is amended byrevising the entry for the "San Manuel" areato read as follows: §81.303 Arizona.

ARIZONA-SO 2

Does not meet Does not meet cannot Better than Designated area primary secondary classified national standards standards stapdards

San Manuel: T8S,R16E

.......................................................................................................................... T8S,R17E

.............................................. ......... ......... ................ T8S,R18E

............................................................................................... ........................ T9S,R15E

................................................................................................. ........................ T9S,R16E

................................................................................................. ........................ T9S,R17E

................................................................................................. ....................... 

### 3404Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 13/Friday, January 18, 2008/Rules and Regulations

ARIZONA-SO 2-Continued

Does not meet Does not meet Cannot be Better than Designated area primary secondary classified national standards standards standards

T9S,R18E

................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ .................. X T10S,R15E

............................................................................................... ........................ ........................ .................. X TIOS,R16E

............................................................................................... ........................ ................................... X T10S,R17E

............................................................................................... ......................... ........................ ........................ X T11S,R16E

............................................................................................... ....................... ..

........................ .................. X T10S,R18E

............................................................................................... ........................ ........................ .................. X T11S, R17E

...................................................................................... X T12S,R16E

............................................................................................... ........................ ........................ .................. X T12S,R17E

............................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ....................... . X

[FR Doc. E8-803 Filed 1-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

42 CFR Part 488 [CMS-2278-1FC3]
RIN 0938-AP22

Revisit User Fee Program for Medicare Survey and Certification Activities

AGENCY: Centers forMedicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Interim final rule with comment period.

SUMMARY: This interim final rule with comment period implements the continuation ofthe revisit userfee program for Medicare Survey and Certification activities, in accordance with the statutory authority in the Continuing Appropriations Resolution entitled, "Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for all other purposes," Public Law 110-137 ("Continuing Resolution") passed by the Congress and signedby the President on December 14, 2007. On September 19, 2007, we published a final rule that established a system of revisit user fees applicable to health

care facilities that havebeen cited for deficiencies during initial certification, recertification or substantiated complaint surveys and require a revisit
to confirm that previously-identified deficiencies havebeen corrected. DATES: Effective date:These regulations

-are effective January 18, 2008, and applicable beginning December 14, 2007.

Commentdate:To be assured consideration, comments mustbe received at one ofthe addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on March 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-2278-IFC3. Because of staffandresource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.

You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please):

1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on specific issues in this regulation to http:// www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking.Click

onthe link "Submit electronic comments on CMS regulations with an open comment period." (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, orExcel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.)

2. By regular mail.You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare &Medicaid Services, Department ofHealth and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2278- IFC3, P.O. Box 8010, Baltimore, MID 21244-8016.

Please allow sufficient time for mailed
comments tobe received before the close ofthe comment period.

3. By express orovernight mail..You may send written comments (one original andtwo copies) to the following address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2278-IFC3, Mail Stop C4-26--05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

4. By handorcourier. If you prefer, you may deliver (byhand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the close ofthe
comment period to one ofthe following addresses. Ifyou intend to deliver your comments tothe Baltimore address, please call telephone number (410)786- 7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one ofour staff members. Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. (Because access to the interior ofthe HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification,
commenters are encouraged to leave theircomments in the CMS drop slots located inthe main lobby ofthe building.A stamp-in clock is available forpersons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in-and retaining an extra copy ofthe comments being filed.)

Comments mailed tothe addresses -Indicatedas appropriate forhand or courier delivery may be delayed and received afterthe comment period.

For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Tinsley, (410) 786-6664.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SubmittingComments:As the public

was provided an opportunity to comment on the substance ofthe rule during the comment period prior to the publication ofthe September 19, 2007 finalrule, and as the substance ofthe rule is not changed by this interim final rule with comment period, we are accepting comments only to the extent that they pertain to theapplicability of the new authority for the rule. You can assist us by referencing the file code CMS-2278-IFC3.

InspectionofPublicComments:All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in

a comment. We post all comments received before the close ofthe comment period on the following Web siteas soon as possible after theyhave been received: http://www.cms.hhs.govl eRulemaking.Click onthe link "Electronic Comments on CMS 

### 3405