```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2239-2248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31637]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0287; FRL-9957-64-Region 9]

Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revisions; Ajo and Morenci, Arizona; 
Second 10-Year Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Plans and Technical 
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule and technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
second 10-year maintenance plans for the Ajo and Morenci areas in 
Arizona for the 1971 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or 
``standards'') for sulfur dioxide (SO2), and correcting an 
error in the description of the Ajo SO2 maintenance area in 
the Code of Federal Regulations. Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we 
are proposing approval and soliciting written comment on these actions. 
If we receive adverse comments on this direct final rule, resulting in 
withdrawal of the entire rule or any part(s) of it, we will address 
those comments when we finalize the proposal. The EPA does not plan to 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

DATES: This rule is effective March 10, 2017, without further notice, 
unless we receive adverse comments by February 8, 2017. If the EPA 
receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register to notify the public that some or all of the 
provisions in this direct final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0287 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Wienke 
Tax, Air Planning Office at tax.wienke@epa.gov. For comments submitted 
at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from 
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish 
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically 
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or 
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    You may inspect and copy the rulemaking docket for this notice at 
the following location during normal business hours: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region IX, Air Division, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Copies of the 
State Implementation Plan materials are also available for inspection 
at the address listed here: Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street, First Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85007, 
Phone: (602) 771-4335.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we are 
proposing approval and soliciting written comment on this action. 
Throughout this document, the words ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' mean 
EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Action
II. Background
    A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards are considered in 
this rulemaking?
    B. What is a State Implementation Plan?
    C. What is the background for this action?
    D. What are the applicable provisions for second 10-year 
maintenance plans for SO2?
III. The EPA's evaluation of the Arizona State submittals
    A. Did the State meet the CAA procedural requirements?
    B. Has the State met the substantive maintenance plan 
requirements?
IV. Technical Correction
    A. History of the Ajo Nonattainment and Maintenance Area 
Boundary
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Action

    We are approving the second 10-year maintenance plans for the Ajo 
and Morenci, Arizona SO2 maintenance areas and correcting an 
error in the boundary description of the Ajo maintenance area in the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the definition of the Ajo maintenance area, see 40 CFR 
81.303. Ajo is a town located in northwestern Pima County, in the 
southwestern portion of Arizona. The EPA designated the entire area 
of Pima County as nonattainment for SO2 on March 3, 1978 
for lack of a State recommendation. The EPA approved the State's 
request that the SO2-affected portion of Pima County be 
limited to the townships surrounding Ajo on April 10, 1979 (44 FR 
21261). Townships T11S, R6W; T11S, R5W; T12S, R6W; T12S, R5W; and 
T13S, R6W comprised the nonattainment area. Townships T11S, R7W; 
T12S, R7W; T13S, R5W; and T13S, R7W were designated as ``cannot be 
classified.'' At the time of our redesignation, we incorrectly 
identified the maintenance area as all townships and ranges T11S-
13S, R5W-R6W as ``better than national standards.'' However, T11S, 
R7W; T12S, R7W; T13S, R7W; and T13S, R5W were originally designated 
as ``cannot be classified'' and should have remained such. Today, we 
are correcting that error.
    \2\ For the definition of the Morenci maintenance area, see 40 
CFR 81.303. Morenci is a town in eastern Greenlee County near the 
border of Arizona and New Mexico. The EPA designated the entire area 
of Greenlee County as nonattainment for SO2 on March 3, 
1978 for lack of a State recommendation. The EPA approved the 
State's request that the SO2-affected portion of Greenlee 
County be limited to the townships surrounding Morenci on April 10, 
1979 (44 FR 21261). Within Greenlee County, Townships T3S, R28E; 
T3S, R29E; T3S, R30E; T4S, R28E; T4S, R29E; T4S, R30E; T5S, R28E; 
and T5S, R29E comprise the maintenance area. Township T5S, R30E is 
designated as ``cannot be classified.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards are considered in this 
rulemaking?

    Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the pollutant that is the 
subject of this action. The NAAQS are health-based and welfare-based 
standards for certain ambient air pollutants. SO2 is among 
the ambient air pollutants for which we have established a health-based 
standard. SO2 causes adverse health effects by reducing lung 
function, increasing respiratory illness, altering the lung's defenses 
and aggravating existing cardiovascular disease. Children, the elderly, 
and people with asthma are the most vulnerable. SO2 has a 
variety of additional impacts, including acidic deposition, damage to 
crops and vegetation, and corrosion of natural and man-made materials.
    In 1971, the EPA established both short- and long-term primary 
NAAQS

[[Page 2240]]

for SO2. The short-term (24-hour) standard of 0.14 parts per 
million (ppm) was not to be exceeded more than once per year. The long-
term standard specifies an annual arithmetic mean not to exceed 0.030 
ppm.\3\ See 40 CFR 50.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Secondary NAAQS are promulgated to protect welfare. The 
secondary 1971 SO2 NAAQS (3-hour) of 0.50 ppm is not to 
be exceeded more than once per year. The Ajo and Morenci areas are 
not classified nonattainment for the secondary standard, and this 
action relates only to the primary 1971 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, the EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS by 
establishing a new 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). The 
EPA revoked the existing 1971 primary standards at that time because 
they would not provide additional public health protection. See 75 FR 
35550 (June 22, 2010). This action relates only to the revoked 1971 
NAAQS. The State has requested that we take action on these maintenance 
plans.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This action is consistent with the CAA's anti-backsliding 
provisions. EPA's proposed rule on revocation of the 1971 
SO2 NAAQS discussed that maintenance SIPs would continue 
being implemented by states until such time as they are subsumed by 
new planning and control requirements associated with the revised 
NAAQS. See 74 FR 64810, 64863 (December 8, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is a State Implementation Plan?

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requires states to attain and 
maintain ambient air quality equal to or better than the NAAQS. The 
state's commitments for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS are 
outlined in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for that state. The SIP 
is a planning document that, when implemented, is designed to ensure 
the achievement of the NAAQS. The Act requires that SIP revisions be 
made periodically as necessary to provide continued compliance with the 
standards.
    SIPs include, among other things, the following: (1) An inventory 
of emission sources; (2) statutes and regulations adopted by the state 
legislature and executive agencies; (3) air quality analyses that 
include demonstrations that adequate controls are in place to meet the 
NAAQS; and (4) contingency measures to be undertaken if an area fails 
to attain the standard or make reasonable progress toward attainment by 
the required date, or a contingency plan if the area fails to maintain 
the NAAQS once redesignated. The state must make the SIP available for 
public review and comment through a public hearing and the SIP must be 
adopted by the state and submitted to us by the governor or her/his 
designee.
    The EPA takes action on the SIP submittal, thus rendering the rules 
and regulations federally enforceable. The approved SIP serves as the 
state's commitment to take actions that will reduce or eliminate air 
quality problems. Any subsequent revisions to the SIP must go through 
the formal SIP revision process specified in the Act.

C. What is the background for this action?

1. When were the nonattainment areas established?
Ajo
    Ajo is located in northwestern Pima County. On March 3, 1978, at 43 
FR 8968, for lack of a State recommendation, we designated Pima County 
as a primary SO2 nonattainment area based on monitored 
violations of the primary SO2 NAAQS in the area between 1975 
and 1977. At the request of the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality (ADEQ), the nonattainment area was subsequently reduced to five 
townships in and around Ajo. See 44 FR 21261 (April 10, 1979). As a 
result, townships T11S, R6W; T11S, R5W; T12S, R6W; T12s, R5W; and T13S, 
R6W made up the nonattainment area. Townships T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; 
T13S, R7W; and T13S, R5W were classified as ``cannot be classified'' 
areas.
Morenci
    Morenci is a town in eastern Greenlee County near the border of 
Arizona and New Mexico. On March 3, 1978, at 43 FR 8968, for lack of a 
state recommendation, we designated Greenlee County as a primary 
SO2 nonattainment area based on monitored violations of the 
primary SO2 NAAQS in the area between 1975 and 1977. At the 
request of the ADEQ, the nonattainment area was subsequently reduced to 
the townships in and around Morenci. See 44 FR 21261 (April 10, 1979). 
As a result, within Greenlee County townships T3S, R28E; T3S, R29E; 
T3S, R30E; T4S, R28E; T4S, R29E; T4S, R30E; T5S, R28E; and T5S, R29E 
made up the nonattainment area. Township T5S, R30E was classified as a 
``cannot be classified'' area.
    On the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, SO2 
areas meeting the conditions of section 107(d) of the Act were 
designated nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS by operation of 
law. Section 107(d) describes the processes by which nonattainment 
areas are designated, including the pre-existing SO2 
nonattainment areas. Thus, the Ajo and Morenci areas remained 
nonattainment for the primary SO2 NAAQS following enactment 
of the 1990 CAA Amendments on November 15, 1990.
2. When were the Ajo and Morenci areas redesignated for SO2?
    In 2004, we redesignated the Ajo and Morenci areas under the 
criteria used for areas with shut-down smelters and discontinued 
monitoring described in a memorandum from John Seitz to Regional Office 
Air Division Directors titled ``Redesignation of Sulfur Dioxide 
Nonattainment Areas in the Absence of Monitored Data,'' dated October 
18, 2000 (``Seitz Memo'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 68 FR 62239 (November 3, 2003) for Ajo and 69 FR 22447 
(April 26, 2004) for Morenci.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ajo
    Phelps Dodge Mining Company's Ajo Incorporated (PDAI) operation was 
the largest point source in the Ajo SO2 nonattainment area. 
On April 4, 1985, the PDAI smelter was permanently deactivated. 
Dismantling of the Ajo facility began in 1995. By February 1996, the 
facility was completely dismantled. On October 15, 1997, ADEQ confirmed 
that the facility was dismantled and no longer existed at the former 
site. On November 3, 2003, the EPA finalized approval of the 
maintenance plan and redesignation request for the Ajo area, effective 
January 2, 2004 (see 68 FR 62239). At that time, we incorrectly 
identified the maintenance area as townships and ranges T11S-T13S, R5W-
R6W as ``better than national standards.'' However, T13S, R5W was 
originally designated as ``cannot be classified'' and should have 
remained such. Additionally, townships T13S, R5W; T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; 
and T13S, R7W were dropped from the CFR, and should be listed in 40 CFR 
81.303 as ``cannot be classified,'' as they were upon Ajo's original 
designation in 1979. Today, we are correcting those errors.
Morenci
    The Phelps Dodge Morenci Incorporated (PDMI) operation was the 
largest SO2 point source in the Morenci nonattainment area 
during its operation. PDMI was located next to the Morenci copper mine, 
one of the largest copper producing operations in North America. PDMI 
was located close to the community of Morenci, in eastern Greenlee 
County, near the Arizona/New Mexico border.
    On December 31, 1984, the PDMI smelter was permanently deactivated. 
Dismantling of the Morenci facility began in 1995 and was complete by 
December 1996. On October 29, 1997, ADEQ confirmed that the facility 
was dismantled and no longer existed at the former site. On April 26, 
2004, the EPA finalized approval of the maintenance

[[Page 2241]]

plan and redesignation request for the Morenci area, effective June 25, 
2004 (see 69 FR 22447).
3. What is the current status of the areas?
    The Ajo and Morenci areas remain sparsely settled, and only minor 
industrial or commercial activities that produce small quantities of 
SO2 emissions are located in or near the nonattainment 
areas.
Ajo
    In Ajo, the only remaining SO2 point sources consist of 
emergency generators run by Freeport-McMoRan Corporation and Minerals 
Research and Recovery, which have a potential to emit (PTE) of 0.374 
tons per year (tpy) of SO2.\6\ The 50 kilometer (km) buffer 
area required to be evaluated by the Seitz Memo includes an Arizona 
Public Service emergency generator, a paper mill, the Gila Bend Air 
Force Auxiliary Field, and a cotton gin, with a combined PTE of 7.388 
tpy.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, 
Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur Dioxide Planning Area (1971 
NAAQS) (2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan), page (p.) 23, Table 4.6.
    \7\ 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 24, Table 4.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, no ambient SO2 monitors operate in the Ajo 
area. However, we do not expect the cumulative impact of the sources in 
and around Ajo to cause a violation of the NAAQS because the area's 
emissions are so low. No significant new sources have located in the 
area since our redesignation of the area to attainment in 2003.
Morenci
    Minor industrial or commercial activities such as Freeport-McMoRan 
mining operations and emergency generators for the Morenci wastewater 
treatment plant operate in the area. The 50 km area around the 
nonattainment area also contains a construction company, well fields, 
and several other sources that all still have active permits and 
together produce about 135 tpy of SO2 emissions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Proposed Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, 
Maintenance Plan for the Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Planning Area (1971 
NAAQS), p. 20, active permits only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, no ambient SO2 monitors operate in the 
Morenci area. However, we do not expect the cumulative impact of the 
sources in and around Morenci to cause a violation of the NAAQS. No 
significant new sources have located in the area, and the smelter was 
the cause of past violations.

D. What are the applicable provisions for second 10-year maintenance 
plans for SO2?

1. What are the statutory provisions?
    Section 175A of the CAA provides the general framework for 
maintenance plans. The initial 10-year maintenance plan must provide 
for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation, 
including any additional control measures as may be necessary to ensure 
such maintenance. In addition, maintenance plans are to contain such 
contingency provisions as we deem necessary to assure the prompt 
correction of a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 
The contingency measures must include, at a minimum, a requirement that 
the state will implement all control measures contained in the 
nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation.
    Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires states to submit a subsequent 
maintenance plan revision (second 10-year maintenance plan) eight years 
after redesignation. The Act requires only that this second 10-year 
maintenance plan maintain the applicable NAAQS for ten years after the 
expiration of the first 10-year maintenance plan. Beyond these 
provisions, however, section 175A of the CAA does not define the 
content of a second 10-year maintenance plan.
2. What general EPA guidance applies to SO2 maintenance 
plans?
    Our primary general guidance on maintenance plans and redesignation 
requests is a September 4, 1992 memo from John Calcagni, titled 
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment'' (``Calcagni Memo''). Specific guidance on SO2 
redesignations also appears in a January 26, 1995 memo from Sally L. 
Shaver, titled ``Attainment Determination Policy for Sulfur Dioxide 
Nonattainment Areas'' (``Shaver Memo'').
    Guidance on SO2 maintenance plan requirements for an 
area lacking monitored ambient data, if the area's historic violations 
were caused by a major point source that is no longer in operation, is 
found in the Seitz Memo at section II.C.2 and footnote 4. The Seitz 
Memo exempts eligible areas from the maintenance plan requirements of 
continued ambient air quality monitoring.
    While the Seitz Memo primarily addresses redesignations, we find it 
is appropriate to apply the Seitz Memo to second 10-year maintenance 
plans for areas that were redesignated in accordance with the memo and 
continue to experience similar conditions to those at the time of 
redesignation.
3. What are the requirements for maintenance plans for single-source 
SO2 nonattainment areas in the absence of monitored data?
    Our historic redesignation policy for SO2 has called for 
eight quarters of clean ambient air quality data as a necessary 
prerequisite to redesignation of any area to attainment. The Seitz Memo 
provides guidance on SO2 maintenance plan requirements for 
an area lacking monitored ambient data, if the area's historic 
violations were caused by a major point source that is no longer in 
operation. To allow for these areas to qualify for redesignation to 
attainment, this policy requires that the maintenance plan address 
otherwise applicable provisions, and include:
    (1) Emissions inventories representing actual emissions when 
violations occurred; current emissions; and emissions projected to the 
10th year after redesignation; all three inventories should include 
estimates of emissions in a 50 km buffer zone around the nonattainment 
area;
    (2) dispersion modeling showing that no NAAQS violations will occur 
over the next 10 years and that the shut-down source was the dominant 
cause of the high concentrations in the past;
    (3) evidence that if the shut-down source resumes operation, it 
would be considered a new source and be required to obtain a permit 
under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions of 
the CAA; and
    (4) a commitment to resume monitoring before any major 
SO2 source commences operation.

III. The EPA's Evaluation of the Arizona State Submittals

A. Did the State meet the CAA procedural requirements?

Ajo
    On February 22, 2013, ADEQ submitted to the EPA the ``Final Arizona 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur 
Dioxide Planning Area (1971 NAAQS)'' (``2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan''). 
The State verified that it had adhered to its SIP adoption procedures 
in Appendix E to the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, which includes the 
notice of public hearing, the agenda for the February 7, 2013 public 
hearing, the sign in sheet, the public hearing officer certification 
and transcript of the hearing, and the State's responsiveness summary.
    On August 22, 2013, the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan was deemed 
complete by operation of law. See 40

[[Page 2242]]

CFR part 51, appendix V, for the EPA's completeness criteria, which 
must be satisfied before EPA formal review.
Morenci
    On December 18, 2014, ADEQ submitted to the EPA the ``Proposed 
Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan for the 
Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Planning Area (1971 NAAQS)'' (``2014 Morenci 
Maintenance Plan''). The State verified that it had adhered to its SIP 
adoption procedures in Appendix E to the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, 
which includes the notice of public hearing, the agenda for the 
December 15, 2014 public hearing, the sign in sheet, the public hearing 
officer certification and transcript of the hearing, and the State's 
responsiveness summary.
    On May 10, 2015, the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan was deemed 
complete by operation of law. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, for the 
EPA's completeness criteria, which must be satisfied before EPA formal 
review.

B. Has the State met the substantive maintenance plan requirements?

1. Were the area's violations caused by a major point source of 
SO2 emissions that is no longer in operation?
    As discussed above, the only major source of SO2 
emissions within the Ajo nonattainment area was the Phelps Dodge Mining 
Company's PDAI copper smelter, which ceased operation in 1985 and was 
completely dismantled by February 1996. The last recorded 24-hour or 
annual average exceedances of the primary NAAQS at PDAI occurred in 
1984. During the monitoring network's history, annual average 
SO2 levels were generally half of the current NAAQS (0.030 
ppm). See 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, page (p.) 17. ADEQ removed the 
SO2 monitor in 1985, and the smelter operating permits 
expired. The smelting equipment was removed over a period of years, and 
the smelter was completely dismantled by February 1996. No new sources 
of SO2 of the magnitude of PDAI have located in the area. 
Thus, Ajo meets this criterion for review under the Seitz Memo.
    As discussed above, the only major source of SO2 
emissions within the Morenci nonattainment area was the Phelps Dodge 
Mining Company's PDMI copper smelter, which was permanently deactivated 
by December 31, 1984 and was completely dismantled by December 1996. 
The last recorded 24-hour or annual average exceedances of the primary 
NAAQS at PDMI occurred in 1984. During the monitoring network's 
history, annual average SO2 levels were generally half of 
the current NAAQS (0.030 ppm). See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, p. 
15-16. ADEQ removed the SO2 monitors in 1985, and the 
smelter operating permits expired. The smelting equipment was removed 
over a period of years, and the smelter was completely dismantled by 
December 1996. No new sources of SO2 of the magnitude of 
PDMI have located in the area. Thus, Morenci meets this criterion for 
review under the Seitz Memo.
2. Has the state met the requirements for second 10-year maintenance 
plans?
    The 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan and 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan 
both extend the maintenance period for ten years after the expiration 
of the first 10-year maintenance plans, as required by Section 175A(b) 
of the CAA. As discussed below, the State has addressed the 
requirements in the Seitz Memo for emissions inventories, modeling, 
permitting of major new sources, and agreement to commence monitoring 
if a new major source locates in either the Ajo or Morenci areas. 
Therefore, the State has met the specific criteria in the Seitz Memo 
for approval of maintenance plans and redesignation requests where a 
single source was the historic cause of violations and the source is 
now shut down. We provide more details on each requirement and how the 
2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan and the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan meet 
each requirement in the following sections.
Ajo
a. Emissions Inventories
    In addition to reproducing the emissions inventories in the Ajo 
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan and 
Maintenance Plan (June 18, 2002) (``2002 Ajo maintenance plan''), the 
2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan includes new emissions inventories for 2008, 
representing an updated ``current'' emissions inventory (the most 
recent National Emissions Inventory (NEI) available at the time), 2010, 
2015, 2020, and 2025 for the second 10-year maintenance period.\9\ 
Continued maintenance of the Ajo area for 10 years following the 
initial 10-year maintenance period is demonstrated in part by showing 
that future SO2 emissions in the area are not expected to 
exceed the level of the attainment emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The State provided the three emissions inventories specified 
in the Seitz Memo for the sources in, and within 50 kilometers of, 
the Ajo nonattainment area in the 2002 Ajo maintenance plan. For a 
representative year when the copper smelter was in operation (1981), 
direct SO2 emissions from smelting operations were 39,596 
tpy. ADEQ's 2002 submittal identified only a single existing point 
source within the Ajo Area, the Phelps Dodge Generator Station. 
Phelps Dodge has since shut down the generators and no longer uses 
them as emergency/back up electric supply. See 2013 Ajo Maintenance 
Plan, p. 32 and Appendix C-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions inventories in the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan include 
estimates of SO2 from all relevant source categories, which 
the 2013 Plan divides among stationary, and area and mobile. Point 
source information was received from the Pima County Department of 
Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Maricopa County Air Quality 
Division's annual emissions inventory data. The Ajo maintenance area 
contains two point sources (i.e., Freeport-McMoRan Corporation Childs 
Well Field Emergency Generator, and Minerals Research and Recovery, 
Inc.), which together emit less than 1 tpy SO2. The 50 km 
buffer area contains four point sources, including a cotton gin, a 
paper mill, an Air Force auxiliary field, and an emergency generator. 
The 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan includes a description of current 
facility types, emitting equipment, permitted emissions limits, 
operating rates, and emissions calculation methods.
    Area and mobile sources in ADEQ's 2008 and subsequent year 
inventories were derived from the EPA's NEI and local agency records. 
Historical and 2008 emissions inventories demonstrate that no 
significant area or mobile sources existed in the Ajo area prior to or 
subsequent to the smelter operation, which closed in 1985.
    Based on our review of the emissions inventories in the 2013 Ajo 
Maintenance Plan and the supporting information in Appendix C, we 
conclude that the inventories are complete, accurate, and consistent 
with applicable CAA provisions and the Seitz Memo.
b. Dispersion Modeling
    Past EPA policy memoranda on SO2 redesignations all 
recommend dispersion modeling to show that the NAAQS is met and will be 
maintained. The Seitz Memo recommends dispersion modeling of all point 
sources within 50 km of the nonattainment area boundary. Screening 
modeling can be used to conservatively show that non-smelter sources 
have only an insignificant contribution to average SO2 
concentrations in a nonattainment area.

[[Page 2243]]

    For the 2002 Ajo Maintenance Plan, screening dispersion modeling 
was performed using the SCREEN3 model run with conservative assumptions 
about source parameters and meteorology. At the time of the 2002 Ajo 
Maintenance Plan, the Ajo nonattainment area had one minor point source 
of SO2 emissions (i.e., Phelps-Dodge Generating Station) and 
one permitted minor point source in the 50 km buffer (i.e., the 
proposed Gila Bend Regional Landfill). The model predicted that the 
impact from these two sources would not exceed 66% of the 1971 
SO2 NAAQS, even assuming constant worst-case conditions 
about high-sulfur content fuel use.
    The Seitz Memo also requires a modeling analysis that shows that 
the point sources that were shutdown were the dominant sources 
contributing to high SO2 concentrations in the airshed. 
Since the emissions of non-smelter sources in the area had changed 
relatively little since the time that emission controls were placed on 
the smelter, this same screening modeling was used to show that the 
non-smelter sources were insignificant in the past, and thus the 
smelter was the dominant source contributing to past high 
SO2 concentrations.
    ADEQ did not conduct a new modeling analysis for the 2013 Ajo 
Maintenance Plan. As described above, the modeling for the 2002 Ajo 
Maintenance Plan modeled the existing two sources at maximum projected 
emissions rates from 2004 to 2015 and showed the area would not exceed 
66% of the NAAQS. Since that modeling analysis was conducted, the 
Phelps-Dodge Generating Station has shut down, the Gila Bend Regional 
Landfill was never constructed, and the permit for the landfill was 
allowed to expire.
    Currently, only two sources operate within the nonattainment area 
(i.e., Freeport-McMoRan Incorporated Childs Well Field Emergency 
Generator, and Minerals Research and Recovery), and they are permitted 
to emit less than 1% of the emissions modeled in the 2002 Ajo 
Maintenance Plan. Point sources within the 50 km buffer surrounding the 
nonattainment area emit about 25% of emissions modeled in the 2002 Ajo 
Maintenance Plan. 2025 projections show that these low emissions are 
expected to persist through the second 10-year maintenance period. See 
2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, pp. 33 and 34.
    ADEQ proposes, and we concur, that because current emissions in the 
maintenance area and the 50 km buffer are a small fraction of modeled 
emissions from 2002, the ambient SO2 modeling requirement 
for second 10-year maintenance plans is met by the prior modeling, and 
the State has demonstrated that the 1971 SO2 NAAQS is 
adequately protected.
c. Treatment of New Sources of SO2 Emissions
    In nonattainment areas, section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires New 
Source Review (NSR) permits prior to the construction and operation of 
new major stationary sources and major modifications at existing major 
stationary sources. However, in attainment areas, section 165 of the 
CAA requires major sources and major modifications to obtain PSD 
permits. The PSD program requires stationary sources to apply the best 
available control technology and ensure that projects will not cause or 
contribute to a violation of a NAAQS or maximum allowable increase.
    ADEQ and the PDEQ have PSD permitting programs (i.e., Arizona 
Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-2-406 and Pima County Code 17.16.590) 
that were established to preserve the air quality in areas where 
ambient standards have been met. The State's updated PSD program was 
approved into the SIP on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67319). PDEQ's PSD 
program is not SIP-approved, but the federal PSD permitting program at 
40 CFR 52.21 was delegated to PDEQ effective April 14, 1994.
    The PSD program has applied to any major source or major 
modification in the Ajo area since the area was redesignated to 
attainment for SO2 in 2003, except for coarse particulate 
(PM10), for which the area is designated nonattainment. 
Under section 172(c)(5) of the CAA, major sources and major 
modifications of PM10 in the Ajo area remain subject to the 
nonattainment NSR program, while all other NSR regulated pollutants are 
subject to the PSD program. Thus the existing ADEQ and PDEQ PSD and NSR 
programs satisfy the preconstruction permit provision of the Seitz Memo 
as one of the prerequisites to redesignation for the Ajo SO2 
nonattainment area.
d. Commitment to Resume Monitoring
    ADEQ commits to resume monitoring before any major source of 
SO2 commences to operate in the Ajo maintenance area. See 
2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 38. This addresses the monitoring 
provision of the Seitz Memo.
Morenci
a. Emissions Inventory
    The 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan includes historical inventories 
that were submitted as part of the Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment 
Area State Implementation Plan and Maintenance Plan (submitted June 21, 
2002) (``2002 Morenci maintenance plan'') as well as a current-year 
inventory for 2011 (the most recent NEI available at the time), and 
projected inventories for 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030 for the second 10-
year maintenance period.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan, the State provided 
the three emissions inventories specified in the Seitz Memo for the 
sources in, and within 50 kilometers of, the Morenci nonattainment 
area. For a representative year when the copper smelter was in 
operation (1984), direct actual SO2 emissions from 
smelting operations were 82,432 tpy. During its operation, the 
Morenci primary copper smelter was the only major point source in 
the area. The 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan included inventories for 
1984 (a year the smelter was in operation), 1999 (a year the area 
was attaining the SO2 standard), and 2015 (the projected 
inventory for the horizon year of the maintenance period). Sources 
in the 50 km buffer around the Morenci area were estimated to emit 
186.5 tpy in 1999, based on PTE, but had actual emissions 
significantly lower, at 1.2 tpy. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, 
p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions inventories in the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan 
include estimates of SO2 emissions from all relevant source 
categories, which are divided among stationary, area, and mobile source 
categories. Additional information on how the inventories were 
developed, including activity data and emissions calculations, is 
provided in Appendix C of the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan. Point 
source information was developed by ADEQ from permit information and 
the NEI. The 2011 inventory identifies two existing point sources 
within the Morenci maintenance area: The Freeport-McMoRan Morenci mine 
with 2011 actual emissions of 48.5 tpy SO2, and the Morenci 
Townsite Wastewater Treatment Plant Emergency Generators with 2011 
actual emissions of 0.003 tpy SO2. In 2011, 13 point 
additional sources with actual emissions of 38.05 tpy SO2 
were located within 50 km of the Morenci maintenance area boundary. As 
of 2014, six of these sources had terminated their permits, resulting 
in slightly lower emissions.
    Area and mobile source emissions in ADEQ's 2011 and subsequent year 
inventories were derived from the NEI. The year 2011 was a historically 
high wildfire year, and included the largest wildfire in Arizona 
history (i.e., the Wallow fire), which burned in Greenlee County and 
surrounding areas.\11\ ADEQ

[[Page 2244]]

assumed the 2011 wildfire emissions remained constant when projecting 
emissions into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ National Interagency Fire Center's Web site at https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html, ``Historical year-
end statistics by state,'' and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arizona_wildfires. Acres burned in 2011 in Arizona were more 
than 10 times higher than 2010 acres burned in Arizona due to 
wildfires, and about five times higher than acres burned in Arizona 
in 2012 due to wildfires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the emissions inventories in the 2014 
Morenci Maintenance Plan and the supporting information in Appendix C, 
we conclude that the inventories are complete, accurate, and consistent 
with applicable CAA provisions and the Seitz Memo.
b. Dispersion Modeling
    The EPA policy memoranda on SO2 redesignations recommend 
dispersion modeling to show that the NAAQS is met and will be 
maintained. The Seitz Memo recommends dispersion modeling of all point 
sources within 50 km of the nonattainment area boundary. For the 2002 
Morenci Maintenance Plan, screening dispersion modeling was performed 
using the SCREEN3 model, which was run with conservative assumptions 
about source parameters and meteorology. The modeling results indicated 
that the impact of existing sources on concentrations within the 
nonattainment area would not exceed 25 percent of the 1971 
SO2 NAAQS.
    The Seitz Memo also requires a modeling analysis that shows point 
sources that were shutdown were the dominant sources contributing to 
high SO2 concentrations in the airshed. The screening 
modeling described above was used in the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan 
to show that the non-smelter sources have an insignificant 
contribution, and thus the smelter was the dominant source contributing 
to past high SO2 concentrations.
    For the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, ADEQ conducted a modeling 
analysis similar to the analysis in the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan. 
The two largest sources in the maintenance area and within the 50 km 
buffer area were modeled. The two sources are Freeport-McMoRan Morenci 
Mine (FMMM) in the maintenance area, with a PTE of 88 tpy 
SO2, and the Freeport-McMoRan Safford Mine (FMSM) in the 50 
km buffer area, with a PTE of 81 tpy SO2. Other point 
sources were not modeled because of their small or negligible 
emissions.
    The EPA dispersion model AERSCREEN (version 11126) was used to 
conservatively estimate the impact of FMMM and FMSM on maintenance in 
the Morenci planning area.\12\ The results of the AERSCREEN modeling 
indicated that the impact of these existing sources would have a 
cumulative potential impact of 42-53% of the 1971 annual and 24-hour 
SO2 NAAQS respectively. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, 
p. 29. Projections for 2030 show that this low level of emissions is 
expected to persist through the second maintenance period. See 2014 
Morenci Maintenance Plan, p. 32. We therefore conclude that the State 
has demonstrated that the 1971 SO2 NAAQS is adequately 
protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ AERSCREEN has replaced SCREEN3 as the EPA's preferred 
screening model. See Memorandum dated April 11, 2011, from Tyler Fox 
to the EPA Regional Modeling Contacts, ``AERSCREEN Released as EPA 
Recommended Screening Model'' in the docket for this action. SCREEN3 
was used for the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Treatment of New Sources of SO2 Emissions
    In nonattainment areas, section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires NSR 
permits prior to the construction and operation of new major stationary 
sources and major modifications at existing major stationary sources. 
However, in attainment areas, section 165 of the CAA requires major 
sources and major modifications to obtain PSD permits. The PSD program 
requires stationary sources to apply the best available control 
technology and ensure projects will not cause or contribute to a 
violation of a NAAQS or maximum allowable increase.
    ADEQ has a PSD permitting program (i.e., A.A.C. R18-2-406) that was 
established to preserve the air quality in areas where ambient 
standards have been met. The State's updated PSD program was approved 
into the SIP on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67319). The PSD program has 
applied to any major source or major modification in the Morenci area 
since the area was redesignated to attainment for SO2 in 
2004. Thus the ADEQ's existing PSD program satisfies the 
preconstruction permit provision of the Seitz Memo as one of the 
prerequisites to redesignation for the Morenci SO2 
nonattainment area.
d. Commitment To Resume Monitoring
    ADEQ commits to resume monitoring before any major source of 
SO2 commences to operate. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, 
p. 16. This addresses the monitoring provision of the Seitz Memo.
3. Other CAA Requirements
a. Contingency Plan
    As discussed above, section 175A of the CAA sets forth the 
statutory requirements for maintenance plans, and the Calcagni, Seitz 
and Shaver Memos cited above contain specific EPA guidance. The only 
maintenance plan element not covered by the Seitz Memo is the 
contingency provisions. Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that 
maintenance plans contain contingency provisions deemed necessary by 
the Administrator to assure that the state will promptly correct any 
violation of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the 
area as an attainment area.
Ajo
    The 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan includes the State's commitment to 
continue to track maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS through 
updates to the emissions inventory. Additionally, ADEQ commits to 
reestablish an appropriate air quality monitoring network before any 
major source of SO2 begins operations in the Ajo maintenance 
area. See 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 38.
    Since the primary cause of future violations of the 1971 
SO2 NAAQS in the area would be from modified or new point 
sources, ADEQ's current operating permit program places limits on 
SO2 emissions from existing sources. Should a new facility 
be constructed in the Ajo area or an existing facility want to upgrade 
or increase SO2 emissions, the facility would also be 
subject to PSD as required in the Calcagni Memo.
    The Calcagni Memo emphasizes the importance of specific contingency 
measures, schedules for adoption, and action levels to trigger 
implementation of the contingency plan. Since there are no remaining 
sources of SO2 emissions of the magnitude of the PDAI 
smelter, and there is no SO2 monitoring in the Ajo area, we 
agree with the State that the level of specificity recommended in the 
Calcagni Memo is not necessary, and we conclude that the State's 
commitment satisfactorily addresses the CAA provisions. We find that 
the State's commitment to continue to track maintenance of the 
SO2 NAAQS through updates to the emissions inventory and the 
State's PSD permitting programs are sufficient to assure that the Ajo 
area will not violate the NAAQS.
Morenci
    The 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan includes the State's commitment 
to continue to demonstrate maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS 
through updates to the emissions inventory. Additionally, ADEQ commits 
to reestablish an appropriate air quality monitoring network before any 
major source of SO2 begins operations in the Morenci 
maintenance area. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, p. 32.
    Since the primary cause of future violations of the 1971 
SO2 NAAQS in

[[Page 2245]]

the area would be from modified or new point sources, ADEQ's current 
operating permit program places limits on SO2 emissions from 
existing sources. Should a new facility be constructed in the Morenci 
area or an existing facility want to upgrade or increase SO2 
emissions, the facility would also be subject to PSD as required in the 
Calcagni Memo.
    The Calcagni Memo emphasizes the importance of specific contingency 
measures, schedules for adoption, and action levels to trigger 
implementation of the contingency plan. Since there are no remaining 
sources of SO2 emissions of the magnitude of the PDMI 
smelter, and there is no SO2 monitoring in the Morenci area, 
we agree with the State that the level of specificity recommended in 
the Calcagni Memo is not necessary, and we conclude that the State's 
commitment satisfactorily addresses the CAA provisions. We find that 
the State's commitment to continue to track maintenance of the 
SO2 NAAQS through updates to the emissions inventory and the 
State's PSD permitting programs are sufficient to assure that the 
Morenci area will not violate the NAAQS.
b. Transportation and General Conformity
    Conformity is required under section 176(c) of the CAA to ensure 
that federal actions are consistent with (``conform to'') the purpose 
of the SIP. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that federal 
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing 
violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS or interim 
reductions and milestones. Conformity applies to areas that are 
designated nonattainment and to maintenance areas. The requirement to 
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and 
projects developed, funded, or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the 
Federal Transit Act (``Transportation conformity'') as well as to other 
federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity'').
    Transportation conformity applies to projects that require Federal 
Highway Administration or Federal Transit Administration funding. 40 
CFR part 93 describes the requirements for federal actions related to 
transportation plans, programs, and projects to conform to the purposes 
of the SIP. Because the EPA does not consider SO2 a 
transportation-related criteria pollutant,\13\ only the requirements 
related to general conformity apply to the Ajo and Morenci areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA establishes the framework for general 
conformity. Besides ensuring that federal actions not covered by the 
transportation conformity rule will not interfere with the SIP, the 
general conformity regulations encourage consultation between the 
federal agency and the state or local air pollution control agencies 
before and during the environmental review process, as well as public 
notification of and access to federal agency conformity determinations, 
and allows for air quality review of individual federal actions.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA required the states to revise their SIPs 
to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally supported 
or funded projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas ``conform'' 
to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. SIP revisions 
intended to meet the conformity requirements in section 176(c) are 
referred to as ``conformity SIPs.'' In 2005, Congress amended section 
176(c), and under the amended conformity provisions, states are no 
longer required to submit conformity SIPs for general conformity, and 
the conformity SIP requirements for transportation conformity have been 
reduced to include only those relating to consultation, enforcement, 
and enforceability. CAA section 176(c)(4)(E).
    The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP 
requirements as not applying for purposes of a redesignation request 
under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) because state conformity rules are still 
required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where 
state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th 
Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. Because both Ajo and Morenci 
have already been redesignated for this standard, we believe it is 
reasonable to apply the interpretation of conformity SIP requirements 
as not applying for the purposes of redesignation to the approval of 
second ten-year maintenance plans.
    Criteria for making determinations and provisions for general 
conformity are contained in Arizona Administrative Code R18-2-1438. 
Arizona has an approved general conformity SIP.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 64 FR 19916, April 23, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ajo
    ADEQ commits in the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan to review and 
comment, as appropriate, on any federal agency draft general conformity 
determination it receives consistent with 40 CFR 93.155 for any federal 
plans or actions in this planning area, although none are currently 
planned for the area. See 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 13.
Morenci
    ADEQ commits in the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan to review and 
comment, as appropriate, on any federal agency draft general conformity 
determination it receives consistent with 40 CFR 93.155 for any federal 
plans or actions in this planning area, although none are currently 
planned for the area. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, p. 11.

IV. Technical Correction

A. History of the Ajo Nonattainment and Maintenance Area Boundary

    On November 3, 2003, the EPA finalized approval of the maintenance 
plan and redesignation request for the Ajo area, effective January 2, 
2004 (see 68 FR 62239). To codify this rulemaking, we amended 40 CFR 
81.303 that lists the designations for air quality planning areas in 
Arizona, but we incorrectly identified the Ajo maintenance area in the 
Arizona SO2 table by dropping township T13S, R5W from the 
maintenance area, and inadvertently deleted other townships and ranges 
in the ``cannot be classified'' description. Township T13S, R5W as well 
as townships T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; and T13S, R7W should have remained 
``cannot be classified.''
    Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides that when the EPA's action 
approving any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area 
designation, redesignation, classification, or reclassification was in 
error, the EPA may in the same manner revise such action. Under the 
EPA's authority under section 110(k)(6) of the Act, we are taking 
direct final action to amend the Arizona-SO2 table in 40 CFR 
81.303 by re-codifying and correcting the previous detailed 
descriptions of the Ajo maintenance area and townships identified as 
``cannot be classified.''
    The maintenance area consists of townships T11S, R6W; T11S, R5W; 
T12S, R6W; T12S, R5W; and T13S, R6W. In addition, townships T13S, R5W; 
T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; and T13S, R7W are listed in 40 CFR 81.303 as 
``cannot be classified,'' as they were upon the Ajo area's original 
designation in 1979.

V. Final Action

    We are approving the second 10-year SO2 maintenance 
plans for the Ajo and Morenci areas in Arizona under sections 110 and 
175A of the CAA and correcting

[[Page 2246]]

an error made in the description of the Ajo maintenance area and in the 
identification of townships as ``cannot be classified'' in the CFR when 
we redesignated the area in 2003. As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 
the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted SIPs because we 
believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone 
will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing 
it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal 
Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same 
submitted SIPs. If we receive adverse comments by February 8, 2017, we 
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the 
public that some or all of the provisions of the direct final approval 
will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent 
final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse 
comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further 
notice on March 10, 2017. This will incorporate these SIPs into the 
federally enforceable SIP.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 10, 2017. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final 
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel 
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed 
Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate 
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA 
can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the 
proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: December 15, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 in paragraph (e), table 1 is amended by:
0
a. Adding an entry for `` `Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, 
Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur Dioxide Area (1971 NAAQS), 
(February 2013) excluding Appendix C, ``Overview of Point Source 
Emissions Limits and Potential to Emit'' after the heading ``Part D 
Elements and Plans (Other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson 
Areas)' ''; and
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, 
Maintenance Plan for the Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Area (1971 NAAQS), 
(December 2014)'' after the entry for ``Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide 
Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan (June 
2002)(revised May 26, 2004), excluding appendix A (``SIP Support 
Information''), sections A.1 (``Pertinent

[[Page 2247]]

Sections of the Arizona Administrative Code'') and A.2 (``Information 
Regarding Revisions to AAC R18-2-715 and R18-2-715.01, `Standards of 
Performance for Primary Copper Smelters: Site Specific Requirements; 
Compliance and Monitoring'''); and appendix D (``SIP Public Hearing 
Documentation'')''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.120   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       Table 1--EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
       [Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
                                     geographic or      State submittal
      Name of SIP provision       nonattainment area         date          EPA approval date      Explanation
                                   or title/subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Part D Elements and Plans (Other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona State Implementation      Ajo Sulfur Dioxide  February 22, 2013.  1/9/2017, [Insert   Adopted by the
 Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan   Air Quality                             Federal Register    Arizona
 for the Ajo Sulfur Dioxide Area   Planning Area.                          citation].          Department of
 (1971 NAAQS), (February 2013),                                                                Environmental
 excluding Appendix C,                                                                         Quality on
 ``Overview of Point Source                                                                    February 22,
 Emissions Limits and Potential                                                                2013. Fulfills
 to Emit''.                                                                                    requirements for
                                                                                               second ten-year
                                                                                               maintenance
                                                                                               plans. The SIP
                                                                                               includes a
                                                                                               request to
                                                                                               correct the
                                                                                               maintenance area
                                                                                               boundary.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Arizona State Implementation      Morenci Sulfur      December 18, 2014.  January 9, 2017,    Adopted by the
 Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan   Dioxide Air                             [Insert Federal     Arizona
 for the Morenci Sulfur Dioxide    Quality Planning                        Register            Department of
 Area (1971 NAAQS), (December      Area.                                   citation].          Environmental
 2014).                                                                                        Quality on
                                                                                               December 18,
                                                                                               2014. Fulfills
                                                                                               requirements for
                                                                                               second ten-year
                                                                                               maintenance
                                                                                               plans.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements
  (excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or
  Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.

* * * * *

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

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

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

0
4. Section 81.303 is amended in the table for ``Arizona--1971 Sulfur 
Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' by revising the entry for 
``Ajo'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.303  Arizona.

* * * * *

                                       Arizona--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Better than
          Designated area               Does not meet         Does not meet        Cannot be         national
                                      primary standards    secondary standards     classified       standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajo:                                ....................  ....................  ...............  ...............
T11S, R5W.........................  ....................  ....................  ...............               X
T11S, R6W.........................  ....................  ....................  ...............               X
T12S, R5W.........................  ....................  ....................  ...............               X
T12S, R6W.........................  ....................  ....................  ...............               X
T13S, R6W.........................  ....................  ....................  ...............               X
T11S, R7W.........................  ....................  ....................               X   ...............
T12S, R7W.........................  ....................  ....................               X   ...............
T13S, R5W.........................  ....................  ....................               X   ...............
T13S, R7W.........................  ....................  ....................               X   ...............
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2248]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-31637 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```