Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 3061 

compliance, please contact Sector 

Buffalo (see ADDRESSES). 

Small businesses may send comments 

on actions of Federal employees who 

enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This rule would call for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule would not result in 

such an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule would not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

The Coast Guard has analyzed this 

rule under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and does not concern an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that may disproportionately affect 

children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. It has not been designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. Therefore, it 

does not require a Statement of Energy 

Effects under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedure; and related management 

system practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. This rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are not 

required for this rule because we are 

disestablishing a safety zone. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation no. 0170.1. 

§ 165.917 [Removed] 

■ 2. Section 165.917 is removed. 

Dated: January 4, 2007. 

S.J. Ferguson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Buffalo, Sector Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. E7–1004 Filed 1–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0580; FRL–8270–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Arizona; Miami 

Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation 

Plan and Request for Redesignation to 

Attainment; Correction of Boundary of 

Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action under the Clean Air Act to 

approve the Miami Sulfur Dioxide 

Nonattainment Area State 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3062 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Implementation and Maintenance Plan 

as a revision to the Arizona state 

implementation plan. The Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

developed this plan to maintain the 

sulfur dioxide national ambient air 

quality standards in the Miami (Gila 

County) area. The maintenance plan 

contains various elements, including 

contingency provisions that will be 

implemented if measured ambient 

concentrations of sulfur dioxide are 

above certain trigger levels. EPA is also 

approving the State of Arizona’s request 

for redesignation of the Miami area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

sulfur dioxide standards. Lastly, EPA is 

correcting the boundary of the Miami 

sulfur dioxide nonattainment area to 

exclude a noncontiguous township that 

was erroneously included in the 

description of the area and to fix a 

transcription error in the listing of one 

of the other townships. 

EPA is taking these actions consistent 

with provisions in the Clean Air Act 

that obligate the Agency to approve or 

disapprove submittals of revisions to 

state implementation plans and requests 

for redesignation. The intended effect is 

to redesignate the Miami, Arizona sulfur 

dioxide nonattainment area to 

attainment, provide for maintenance of 

the standard for the ten-year period 

following redesignation, and correct 

long-standing errors in the codified 

description of the area. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

26, 2007 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

February 23, 2007. If we receive such 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that this direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–0580, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas 

(Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office, 

(415) 972–3964 or by e-mail at 

vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elsewhere 

in this Federal Register, we are 

proposing approval and soliciting 

written comment on this action. 

Throughout this document, the words 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Direct Final Action 

II. Introduction 

A. SO2 NAAQS 

B. State Implementation Plan 

C. History of SO2 Planning in Arizona 

1. Development of the SO2 SIP 

2. Miami SO2 Nonattainment Area 

D. Sources of SO2 Emissions in the Miami 

Area 

III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation 

Requests and Maintenance Plans 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan for the 

Miami, Arizona SO2 Nonattainment Area 

A. The Area Must Be Attaining the SO2

NAAQS 

B. The Area’s Applicable Implementation 

Plan Must Be Fully Approved Under 

Section 110(k) 

C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must 

Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions 

D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D 

1. Section 110 Requirements 

2. Part D Requirements 

a. Section 172 

b. Section 176 

c. Subpart 5 

E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan 

1. Attainment Inventory 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

3. Monitoring Network 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

5. Contingency Plan 

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions 

7. Conclusion 

V. Boundary Correction 

A. Background 

B. Authority for Correcting Errors 

C. Evaluation and Conclusion 

VI. Public Comment and Final Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. Summary of Today’s Direct Final 

Action 

On June 26, 2002, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(‘‘ADEQ’’ or ‘‘State’’) submitted to EPA 

Region IX its Miami Sulfur Dioxide 

State Implementation and Maintenance 

Plan and its request for redesignation to 

attainment (‘‘Miami SO2 Maintenance 

Plan’’ or ‘‘submittal’’). The submittal 

summarizes the progress the State has 

made in attaining the sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) in the Miami 

nonattainment area (Gila County, 

Arizona) (‘‘Miami area’’) and includes a 

plan to assure continued attainment of 

the SO2 NAAQS for at least the next 10 

years. The June 26, 2002 submittal also 

includes a request for redesignation of 

the boundary of the area and for 

redesignation of the status of the area, 

as amended, to ‘‘attainment’’ under 

section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(‘‘Act’’ or CAA). On June 30, 2004, 

ADEQ submitted certain replacement 

pages correcting errors in the June 26, 

2002 submittal. On June 20, 2006, 

ADEQ submitted a letter withdrawing 

the boundary redesignation request and 

requesting EPA to address the boundary 

issue as an error correction under CAA 

section 110(k)(6) instead. 

In today’s direct final action, because 

we find that the Miami SO2

Maintenance Plan meets the 

requirements for maintenance plans 

under section 175A of the Act and that 

the Miami area qualifies for 

redesignation under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E), we are approving the 

submittal (as amended by the submittals 

dated June 30, 2004 and June 20, 2006) 

as a revision to the Arizona SIP and 

redesignating the Miami area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the SO2

NAAQS. Also, based on a review of the 

relevant State and EPA materials from 

the late 1970’s, we are correcting errors 

under CAA section 110(k)(6) in the 

listing of the townships that comprise 

the Miami SO2 nonattainment area to 

exclude a noncontiguous township and 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 3063 

1 ‘‘Fugitive’’ in this context refers to emissions 

that could not reasonably pass through a stack, 

chimney, vent for a functionally equivalent 

opening. 

2The nine townships that comprise the Miami 

SO2 nonattainment area are: T2N, R14E; T2N, R15E; 

T1N, R13E (only that portion in Gila County); T1N, 

R14E; T1N, R15E; T1N, R16E; T1S, R14E (only that 

portion in Gila County); T1S, R141⁄4E; and T1S, 

R15E. Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, part 81, 

section 303 (40 CFR 81.303) also identifies six other 

townships as areas that ‘‘cannot be classified.’’ 

These six townships are: T2N, R13E (only that 

portion in Gila County); T2N, R16E; T1S, R13E 

(only that portion in Gila County); T1S, R16E; T2S, 

R14E (only that portion in Gila County); and T2S, 

R15E. All of the townships discussed in this notice 

relate to the Gila and Salt River Base Line. In 

section V of this notice, we discuss our decision to 

amend 40 CFR 81.303 to correct the boundary of the 

Miami area to exclude a noncontiguous township 

and to fix a typographical error. 

to fix a transcription error in one of the 

other townships so listed. 

II. Introduction 

The following section discusses the 

NAAQS for SO2, CAA requirements for 

state implementation plans, SO2

planning in Arizona generally and in 

the Miami area more specifically, and 

sources of emissions in the Miami area. 

A. SO2 NAAQS 

The NAAQS for SO2 consists of three 

standards: Two primary standards for 

the protection of public health and a 

secondary standard for protection of 

public welfare. The primary SO2

standards address 24-hour average and 

annual average ambient SO2

concentrations. The secondary standard 

addresses 3-hour average ambient SO2

concentrations. The level of the annual 

SO2 standard is 0.030 parts per million 

(ppm), which is equivalent to 80 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), not 

to be exceeded in a calendar year. The 

level of the 24-hour standard is 0.14 

ppm (365 μg/m3), not to be exceeded 

more than once per calendar year. The 

level of the secondary SO2 standard is 

a 3-hour standard of 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/ 

m3), not to be exceeded more than once 

per calendar year. See 40 CFR 50.2– 

50.5. 

B. State Implementation Plan 

The CAA requires states to 

implement, maintain, and enforce 

ambient air quality equal to or better 

than the NAAQS. A state’s strategies for 

implementing, maintaining, and 

enforcing the NAAQS are submitted to 

EPA for approval, and, once approved, 

become part of the State Implementation 

Plan (or SIP) for that State. SIPs are 

compilations of regulatory and nonregulatory elements adopted, submitted, 

and approved at different times to 

address various types of changes in 

circumstances, such as new or revised 

NAAQS or amendments to the CAA. 

SIPs include, among other things, the 

following: (1) An inventory of emission 

sources; (2) statutes and regulations 

adopted by the state legislature and 

executive agencies; (3) air quality 

analyses that include demonstrations 

that adequate controls are in place to 

meet the NAAQS; and (4) contingency 

measures to be undertaken if an area 

fails to attain the standard or make 

reasonable progress toward attainment 

by the required date. The state must 

make proposed changes to the SIP 

available for public review and 

comment through a public hearing, and 

must formally adopt the changes before 

submitting them to EPA for approval. 

Upon our approval, a SIP revision 

becomes federally enforceable. 

C. History of SO2 Planning in Arizona 

1. Development of the SO2 SIP 

In the early 1970’s, soon after the 

Clean Air Amendments of 1970 were 

passed, Arizona began developing air 

quality regulations that applied to all 

Arizona primary copper smelters, 

including the one operating in the 

Miami area. These regulations focused 

on establishing an air quality 

monitoring network in the areas 

surrounding the smelters and 

determining the allowable emission 

rates from the smelters so that the SO2

NAAQS could be attained and 

maintained. Arizona submitted various 

SIP revisions during the 1970s to 

establish approvable emission 

limitations for the primary copper 

smelters operating in the state. On 

September 20, 1979, the State submitted 

its SIP revision to EPA which contained 

its multi-point rollback (MPR) technique 

to establish operating limitations on 

smelters. After EPA’s proposed 

conditional approval on November 30, 

1981 (46 FR 58098), Arizona made 

necessary changes which corrected 

identified deficiencies. EPA granted full 

approval of the MPR-based SIP 

submittal on January 14, 1983 (48 FR 

1717), but was not able to grant full 

approval to the SO2 SIPs for six smelter 

areas (including Miami) because they 

lacked a strategy for addressing fugitive1

sources of SO2. 

On November 1, 2004, EPA approved 

several revisions to the SO2 SIP, 

including site-specific requirements, 

compliance and monitoring, and 

fugitive emissions standards for existing 

primary copper smelters. See 69 FR 

63321. In that same notice, EPA 

promulgated a limited approval/limited 

disapproval of R18–2–Appendix 8, 

which sets out procedures for 

calculating sulfur emissions using a 

sulfur balance method. ADEQ 

subsequently corrected the identified 

deficiencies and EPA approved the new 

version of R18–2–Appendix 8 as a SIP 

revision on April 12, 2006. See 71 FR 

18624. The effective date for our April 

12, 2006 final approval is June 12, 2006. 

2. Miami SO2 Nonattainment Area 

Originally, the air quality planning 

area we refer to as the Miami SO2

nonattainment area was not separately 

defined but rather was included in a 

county-wide SO2 nonattainment area 

(see 43 FR 8969, March 3, 1978). At the 

request of the state of Arizona, the 

boundaries were reduced to nine 

townships in and around the city of 

Miami (44 FR 21261, April 10, 1979). 

See also, 40 CFR 81.303.2 In addition, 

six adjacent townships were designated 

as ‘‘cannot be classified’’. Section 

107(d)(1)(C) of the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments (CAAA) brought forward, 

by operation of law, the nonattainment 

designations for areas, such as the 

Miami SO2 area, that continued to be 

designated as nonattainment at the time 

of enactment of the CAAA, i.e., areas 

that had not been redesignated to 

‘‘attainment’’ prior to November 1990. 

D. Sources of SO2 Emissions in the 

Miami Area 

The dominant source of SO2

emissions in the Miami area is the 

Phelps-Dodge Miami primary copper 

smelter (‘‘Miami smelter’’). Combined 

stack and fugitive SO2 emissions from 

the smelter are limited under the 

source-specific EPA-approved rule (i.e., 

R18–2–7–715) to 2,420 pounds per hour 

annual average, which amounts to 

approximately 10,368 tons per year 

based on 357 days of operation (set forth 

for the permit for this facility) or 

approximately 10,600 tons per year 

assuming 365 days per year of smelter 

operation. Between 1996 and 2000, the 

smelter’s actual SO2 emissions ranged 

from 5,737 tons per year to 7,819 tons 

per year and represented 97 to 99% of 

the total stationary source SO2

emissions in the Miami nonattainment 

area. See tables 4.1, 4.3, and 5.2 of the 

Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan. There are 

several other point sources of SO2 in the 

Miami area, all of which are relatively 

minor: BHP Copper, Pinto Valley; BHP 

Copper, Miami East Unit; Carlota 

Copper Company Mine; and the PhelpsDodge Miami Mine. Viewed 

collectively, these sources are permitted 

to emit a total of approximately 100 tons 

per year. Actual emissions, however, are 

generally less than 10 tons per year. SO2

emissions from area and mobile sources 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3064 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

are about 150 tons per year. See sections 4.1 and 4.3 of the Miami SO2

Maintenance Plan and table 1, below. 

TABLE 1.—POINT, AREA, AND MOBILE SOURCES OF SO2 EMISSIONS IN THE MIAMI SO2 NONATTAINMENT AREA (TONS PER

YEAR, TPY) 

Source name or type Allowable 

emissions 

Actual emissions (1999) 

Stationary Sources (not including Phelps-Dodge primary copper smelter): 

BHP Copper, Pinto Valley Unit ........................................................................................................................ 6a <1 

BHP Copper, Miami East Unit .......................................................................................................................... <1 <1 

Carlotta Copper Company Mine ....................................................................................................................... 1 0 

Phelps-Dodge Miami Mine ............................................................................................................................... 92 7 

Area and Mobile ............................................................................................................................................... NA 149 

Phelps-Dodge Miami Smelting Operations ...................................................................................................... 10,368 7,819 

Total From All Sources ............................................................................................................................. NA 7,975 

aWhen burning diesel; lower limits exist for other fuels. 

NA = not applicable. 

Source: Sections 4.1 and 4.3 from the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan. 

III. CAA Requirements for 

Redesignation Requests and 

Maintenance Plans 

As stated in the summary section of 

this rule, Arizona has requested that we 

redesignate the Miami SO2

nonattainment area to attainment. Any 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment requires EPA to determine 

whether the requirements of Clean Air 

Act section 107(d)(3)(E), have been met. 

These criteria are: (1) At the time of the 

redesignation, we must find that the 

area has attained the relevant NAAQS; 

(2) the State must have a fully approved 

SIP for the area; (3) we must determine 

that the improvements in air quality are 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP and 

applicable federal regulations and other 

permanent and enforceable reductions; 

(4) the state must have met all the 

nonattainment area requirements 

applicable to the area; and (5) we must 

have fully approved a maintenance plan 

for the area under CAA section 175A. 

To evaluate the State’s redesignation 

request for the Miami area, we relied 

upon the Clean Air Act itself, 

particularly section 110 and part D (of 

title I), EPA’s NAAQS and SIP 

regulations in 40 CFR parts 50 and 51, 

and guidance set forth in ‘‘General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992), 

and in the following EPA guidance 

documents: ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ dated September 4, 1992, 

from John Calcagni, (‘‘Calcagni Memo’’), 

‘‘Attainment Determination Policy for 

Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Areas,’’

dated January 26, 1995, from Sally L. 

Shaver, (‘‘Shaver Memo’’), and ‘‘Part D 

New Source Review (part D NSR) 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment,’’ dated 

October 14, 1994, from Mary D. Nichols 

(‘‘Nichols Memo’’). 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan for the 

Miami, Arizona SO2 Nonattainment 

Area 

A. The Area Must Be Attaining the SO2

NAAQS 

Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i), in 

order for an area to be redesignated, we 

must determine that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS. The air 

quality data should be representative of 

the area of highest concentration and 

should be measured by monitors that 

remain at the same location for the 

duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

The data should be collected and 

quality-assured in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA’s Air 

Quality System database (AQS) to be 

available for public review. Under 40 

CFR part 58, States certify data that is 

entered into AQS on an annual basis. 

For the purposes of determining 

whether an area has attained the SO2

NAAQS, we require no fewer than two 

consecutive years of ‘‘clean’’ data (i.e., 

no violations) as recorded in AQS. In 

addition, to qualify for attainment 

determination purposes, the annual 

average and second-highest 24-hour 

average concentrations must be based 

upon hourly data that are at least 75 

percent complete in each calendar 

quarter. See 40 CFR 50.4. 

The State of Arizona initiated ambient 

monitoring of SO2 in the Miami area in 

1970. In order to establish coverage 

sufficient to evaluate the ambient 

impact of smelter emissions, this initial 

effort was expanded. Eventually more 

than sixteen stationary monitoring sites 

were established, with as many as seven 

monitors operating concurrently. 

Historic ambient SO2 monitoring site 

locations and periods of operation are 

provided in Table 3.1, and Figures 3.1 

and 3.2 of the State’s submittal. 

Following the Miami smelter’s 

compliance with stack emissions limits 

(using continuous control technology) 

as required under Arizona 

Administrative Code (AAC) R9–3–515, 

which was submitted and approved by 

EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP in 

the 1980’s (but since amended and recodified as R18–2–7–715), the number 

of SO2 monitors has decreased. Between 

1990 and 1996, the number of monitors 

varied from three to four and several 

monitoring locations changed, but since 

1997, the three presently-operating 

monitors have remained at their current 

locations: the Jones Ranch monitor 

along Cherry Flats Road, the Ridgeline 

monitor along Linden Street, and the 

Townsite monitor along Sullivan Street. 

All three presently-operating monitors 

are located south of the smelter, but 

vary in distance and elevation relative 

to smelter sources. The Townsite 

monitor lies closest to the smelter and 

at the lowest elevation among the three 

sites while the Jones Ranch monitor lies 

furthest from the smelter but at the 

highest elevation. The Jones Ranch and 

Townsite monitors are operated by 

Phelps Dodge using Thermal Electron 

pulsed fluorescent (TECO) samplers, 

and the Ridgeline monitor is operated 

by ADEQ using a Thermo pulse 

fluorescence analyzer. 

Table 2 below summarizes the SO2

monitoring data collected at the various 

monitors operated by ADEQ (or, in the 

case of Jones Ranch, ADEQ or the 

smelter operator) from 1988 through 

2005. ADEQ ended its monitoring at 

Jones Ranch in 1994, but the smelter 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 3065 

operator continues to monitor SO2 at 

that location. Table 3 below presents 

estimated annual SO2 emissions from 

the smelter over the same time period. 

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA—MIAMI, ARIZONA: 1988–2005 

Year Averaging period 

Concentrations (μg/m3) at individual sites 

Jones ranch Cities services 

bldg. Little acres Ridgeline 

1988 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 655 413 153 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 180 73 29 —

Annual ............................................................. 21 13 6 —

1989 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 814 169 86 —

Max 24-hour .................................................... 133 29 18 —

Annual ............................................................. 17 4 3 —

1990 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 715 — — —

Max 24-hour .................................................... 136 — — —

Annual ............................................................. *16 — — —

1991 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 767 — — —

Max 24-hour .................................................... 143 — — —

Annual ............................................................. *18 — — —

1992 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 875 — — —

Max 24-hour .................................................... 128 — — —

Annual ............................................................. *8 — — —

1993 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 721 — — —

Max 24-hour .................................................... 123 — — —

Annual ............................................................. 10 — — —

1994 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 566 — — —

Max 24-hour .................................................... 121 — — —

Annual ............................................................. 16 — — —

1995 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 433 — — 244 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 122 — — 89 

Annual ............................................................. 8 — — 10 

1996 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 593 — — 338 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 146 — — 110 

Annual ............................................................. 11 — — 8 

1997 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 820 — — 524 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 138 — — 92 

Annual ............................................................. 10 — — 5 

1998 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 840 — — 175 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 123 — — 40 

Annual ............................................................. 10 — — 8 

1999 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 897 — — 198 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 152 — — 65 

Annual ............................................................. 8 — — 14 

2000 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 895 — — 307 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 133 — — 70 

Annual ............................................................. 11 — — 17 

2001 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 577 — — 338 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 145 — — 110 

Annual ............................................................. 19 — — 19 

2002 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 628 — — 174 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 184 — — 78 

Annual ............................................................. 16 — — 18 

2003 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 578 — — 250 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 152 — — 70 

Annual ............................................................. 21 — — 13 

2004 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... 326 — — 291 

Max 24-hour .................................................... 99 — — 78 

Annual ............................................................. 13 — — 11 

2005 ................................... Max 3-hour ...................................................... — — — 250 

Max 24-hour .................................................... — — — 78 

Annual ............................................................. — — — 12 

Notes: The primary NAAQS for SO2 are 365 μg/m3, 24-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year, and 80 μg/m3, 

annual average. The secondary NAAQS for SO2 is 1,300 μg/m3, 3-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The * 

indicates that the annual average does not satisfy summary criteria. The — indicates little or no data in a given year from a given monitor. EPA’s 

AQS database is the source of data shown in italics. ADEQ’s Air Quality Annual Reports are the sources of the non-italicized data shown in this 

table. 

Monitoring Sites: 

• The Jones Ranch monitoring site is located along Cherry Flats Road, approximately 1.8 miles south-southeast of the smelter stack at an elevation of 4,100 feet above sea level. ADEQ operated a monitor at this site through 1994. From 1991 through 1994, the State-operated monitor at 

Jones Ranch was referred to as ‘‘Nolan Ranch’’. More recent data shown in this table for Jones Ranch was collected and compiled by the smelter operator. 

• The Cities Services Building monitoring site was located approximately 2.2 miles east-northeast of the smelter stack. ADEQ operated a monitor at this site through 1989. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3066 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

3ADEQ has committed to working with PhelpsDodge to begin entering SO2 monitoring data 

collected at the Jones Ranch site to AQS beginning 

with the first quarter of 2008. See letter from Nancy 

C. Wrona, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to 

Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA—

Region IX, dated October 18, 2006. 

4There is one significant point source located 

outside the Miami nonattainment area but within 

50 kilometers of the Miami nonattainment area. The 

ASARCO Hayden Smelter is located approximately 

46 kilometers south of the Miami smelter. However, 

because the ASARCO Hayden smelter is 

geographically separated from the Miami area by 

the 7,000 foot Pinal Mountains, its emissions do not 

have an impact on air quality in the Miami area. 

• The Little Acres monitoring site was located approximately 2 miles southeast of the smelter. ADEQ operated a monitor at this site through 

1989. 

• The Ridgeline monitoring site, which is the current ADEQ monitoring site for SO2 in the Miami area, is located along Linden Street at an elevation of 3,600 feet. 

TABLE 3.—MIAMI SMELTER SULFUR

DIOXIDE EMISSIONS: 1988–2005 

Year 

Sulfur dioxide 

emissions tons 

per year 

1988 ...................................... 3,988 

1989 ...................................... 6,398 

1990 ...................................... 4,141 

1991 ...................................... 11,145 

1992 ...................................... 4,813 

1993 ...................................... 7,678 

1994 ...................................... 9,260 

1995 ...................................... 5,108 

1996 ...................................... 5,737 

1997 ...................................... 6,368 

1998 ...................................... 6,097 

1999 ...................................... 7,819 

2000 ...................................... 6,810 

2001 ...................................... 9,062 

2002 ...................................... 5,667 

2003 ...................................... 8,005 

2004 ...................................... 8,754 

2005 ...................................... 7,366 

Sources: Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan, 

page 35; e-mail correspondence from Bruce 

Friedl, ADEQ, dated September 29, 2006. 

Review of historic data supports 

identification of the Jones Ranch 

monitor as the monitoring location 

where the highest concentrations are 

recorded among the network of 

monitoring locations selected to 

measure the impact of smelter-related 

emissions on ambient air quality. We 

note that the Jones Ranch monitoring 

site was determined to be the ‘‘limiting 

site’’ for the purposes of establishing 

emissions limits for the smelter. ADEQ 

closed its monitoring site at Jones Ranch 

in 1994, and while Phelps-Dodge 

continues to operate an SO2 monitor at 

that site, the data is not recorded in 

AQS.3 In 1995, ADEQ began monitoring 

at the Ridgeline site, and no 

exceedances have ever been recorded 

there. 

Based on a review of the data from the 

Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan as well as 

tables 2 and 3 presented above, we find 

that the Miami nonattainment area has 

attained the SO2 NAAQS and thereby 

meets the first criterion for 

redesignation. Our conclusion is based 

on six basic interrelated facts: 

• Ambient SO2 concentrations in the 

Miami air quality planning area are 

determined by emissions from the 

Phelps-Dodge primary copper smelter 4

and local meteorological and 

topographic characteristics, and all 

other SO2 sources have essentially no 

effect on ambient levels in the planning 

area; 

• The monitor at the Jones Ranch site 

records SO2 concentrations that are 

representative of the highest ambient 

levels in the nonattainment area; 

• There are two consecutive and 

complete years of ‘‘clean’’ data from the 

Jones Ranch monitor, i.e., the limiting 

site, as recorded in AQS (1988 and 

1989); 

• During the 1988–1989 period, 

maximum concentrations were 

approximately 60% of the 3-houraverage secondary NAAQS and 

approximately 50% of the 24-houraverage primary NAAQS, and the 

highest of the annual-average 

concentrations measured in the area 

during this period was approximately 

30% of the corresponding primary 

NAAQS; 

• While annual emissions from the 

smelter have varied from year to year, 

they have generally been no higher than 

50% above those that occurred during 

the 1988–1989 period; and 

• No SO2 exceedances have been 

measured at any of the monitoring sites 

over the 1988 to 2005 period. 

B. The Area’s Applicable 

Implementation Plan Must Be Fully 

Approved Under CAA Section 110(k) 

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

the SIP for the Miami area must be fully 

approved under CAA section 110(k) of 

the Act. We examined the applicable 

SIP for Arizona and also looked at the 

disapprovals listed in 40 CFR 52.125 

and have determined that no 

disapprovals listed remain relevant to 

the applicable SIP. Arizona has a fully 

approved SIP with respect to SO2 in the 

Miami area. 

C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must 

Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires 

that EPA determine that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP and/or 

applicable federal measures. Figure 6.1 

of the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan (as 

amended in ADEQ’s submittal dated 

June 30, 2004) illustrates the significant 

decline in emissions from the Miami 

smelter since the 1970’s in inverse 

proportion to the level of control over 

smelter emissions sources. 

Control over the smelter’s SO2

emissions has been made permanent 

and enforceable through EPA approval 

of State rules limiting such emissions as 

a revision to the Arizona SIP 

(specifically, R18–2–715, R18–2–715.01, 

R18–2–715.02, and R18–2–Appendix 8) 

and through ADEQ’s issuance of a title 

V permit for the Miami smelter. 

Arizona’s primary copper smelter rules 

and ADEQ’s title V permit contain 

enforceable emission limitations that 

cap emissions at a level that has been 

shown to be protective of the NAAQS. 

Any relaxation to the SIP-approved 

limits must be approved by EPA as a 

revision to the Arizona SIP, and EPA 

may not approve any such SIP revision 

without a demonstration that the 

relaxation in the limits would not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. See CAA 

section 110(l). Therefore, we find that 

the improvement in ambient SO2

concentrations in the Miami, AZ area is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP. 

D. The Area Must Have Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D 

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

we must determine whether the State of 

Arizona has met all requirements under 

section 110 and under part D (of title I) 

of the CAA applicable to the Miami SO2

nonattainment area. 

1. Section 110 Requirements 

CAA section 110 contains the general 

requirements for SIPs (enforceable 

emissions limits, ambient monitoring, 

permitting of new sources, adequate 

funding, etc.). EPA’s guidance for 

implementing section 110 of the Act is 

discussed in the General Preamble to 

Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). 

Over the years, we have approved 

Arizona’s SIP as meeting these basic 

requirements. The SIP includes 

enforceable emission limitations; 

requires monitoring, compiling, and 

analyzing of ambient air quality data; 

requires preconstruction review of new 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 3067 

5A more extensive summary of the regulatory 

history of copper smelters in Arizona is included 

in EPA’s proposed action on these rules. See 69 FR 

26786 (May 14, 2004). 

6ADEQ’s NSR rules are included in the 

preconstruction review and permitting provisions 

of Arizona Administrative Code (AAC), Title 18, 

Chapter 2, Articles 3 and 4. EPA approved an 

earlier version of ADEQ’s NSR requirements (AAC 

R9–3–302) on May 5, 1982 (47 FR 19328) and 

August 10, 1988 (53 FR 30220). 

major stationary sources and major 

modifications to existing ones; provides 

for adequate funding, staff, and 

associated resources necessary to 

implement its requirements; and 

requires stationary source emission 

monitoring and reporting. 

2. Part D Requirements 

Before an area can be redesignated to 

attainment, it must have fulfilled the 

applicable requirements under part D 

(of title I). For this area, the relevant 

requirements are found in subparts 1 

and 5 of part D. Subpart 1 of part D 

specifies the basic requirements 

applicable to all nonattainment areas. 

Subpart 5 sets out additional provisions 

for areas designated nonattainment for 

SO2. As discussed below, EPA finds that 

Arizona has met the requirements of 

subpart 1 of part D, specifically sections 

172(c) and 176, and subpart 5 as 

applicable for the Miami SO2

nonattainment area. 

a. Section 172 

CAA section 172 contains the general 

requirements for nonattainment SIPs. A 

thorough discussion of the requirements 

of 172(c) can be found in the General 

Preamble for the implementation of title 

I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). 

Additional guidance can be found in the 

Calcagni memo. 

EPA has interpreted the requirements 

of CAA sections 172(c)(2) (reasonable 

further progress—RFP), 172(c)(6) (other 

measures), and 172(c)(9) (contingency 

measures) as not relevant to a 

redesignation request because they only 

have meaning for an area that is not 

attaining the standard (see the General 

Preamble and the Calcagni Memo), and 

as discussed above in section IV.A. of 

this notice, we find that the Miami area 

is attaining the SO2 standard. 

Furthermore, the State has not sought to 

exercise options that would trigger 

section 172(c)(4) (identification of 

certain emissions increases). Thus, this 

provision is also not relevant to this 

redesignation request. The other 

provisions under 172(c) are discussed 

below. 

Reasonably available control 

measures. Under CAA section 172(c)(1), 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), which include requirements 

for reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), are required for 

existing sources in nonattainment areas. 

In 1983, we approved the State’s 

submittal of Rule R9–3–315, a 

predecessor to the State’s current 

smelter rules codified at Arizona 

Administrative Code (AAC) R18–2–715. 

See 48 FR 1717 (January 14, 1983). This 

rule limited stack emissions from 

primary copper smelters, including the 

smelter in the Miami area. We 

concluded, however, that the control 

strategy for SO2 in Arizona’s six SO2

nonattainment areas was incomplete 

due to the failure to address fugitive 

emissions problems. See 48 FR 1717 

(January 14, 1983) and 40 CFR 

52.125(a)(1). 

In 1998, 2003, and 2006, the State 

submitted amended rules (AAC R18–2–

715 (sections F, G, and H), R18–2–

715.01, R18–2–715.02, and R18–2–

Appendix 8).5 These rules address both 

fugitive and stack emissions from 

smelters and, in approving the rules, we 

found that the amended rules met the 

RACT requirement under CAA sections 

172(c)(1) and 191(b). See 69 FR 26789 

at 26788 (May 14, 2004), 69 FR 63321 

(November 2, 2004), and 71 FR 18624 at 

18625 (April 12, 2006). Furthermore, 

because the area has attained the 

standard, no further demonstration that 

RACM has been implemented need be 

submitted by the State. 

Emissions inventory. The emissions 

inventory requirement of section 

172(c)(3) is satisfied by the maintenance 

plan inventory requirements. The 

maintenance plan inventory is 

evaluated below, in section IV.E.1. 

NSR permit program. Section 

172(c)(5) requires new source review 

(NSR) permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources located in 

nonattainment areas. ADEQ is the 

agency responsible for implementing 

the nonattainment area NSR permit 

program in the Miami area. Under 

ADEQ’s rules, all new major sources 

and modifications to existing major 

sources are subject to the NSR 

requirements of these rules. 

We have not yet fully approved the 

ADEQ NSR rules.6 We have, however, 

determined that an area being 

redesignated from nonattainment to 

attainment does not need to have an 

approved NSR program prior to 

redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

standard without nonattainment NSR in 

effect. See memorandum from Mary 

Nichols dated October 14, 1994 (‘‘Part D 

New Source Review (part D NSR) 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’) We have 

determined that the maintenance 

demonstration for Miami does not rely 

on nonattainment NSR. 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) is the permitting program that 

applies in attainment areas. PSD was 

established to preserve air quality in 

areas that are meeting the NAAQS. The 

PSD program requires new, modified, or 

reconstructed stationary sources to 

undergo preconstruction review and to 

apply best available control technology. 

In addition, sources are required to 

review PSD increment consumption and 

undertake preconstruction modeling. 

ADEQ has an EPA-approved PSD 

permitting program (Arizona Air 

Pollution Rule R9–3–304) for all criteria 

pollutants except respirable particulate 

matter (PM10). See 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 

1983). The federal PSD program for 

PM10 was delegated to the State on 

March 12, 1999. ADEQ’s partially 

approved, partially delegated PSD 

program will apply automatically to 

new major sources or major 

modifications to existing sources of SO2

in the Miami area once the area is 

redesignated to attainment. 

Compliance with section 110(a)(2). 

Under section 172(c)(7), plan provisions 

submitted to satisfy part D must meet 

the applicable provisions of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted in 

section IV.B. above, the Miami portion 

of the Arizona SIP meets these 

requirements. 

Equivalent techniques. Under section 

172(c)(8), EPA may allow the use of 

equivalent modeling, emission 

inventory, and planning procedures, 

unless EPA determines that the 

proposed techniques are, in the 

aggregate, less effective than the 

methods specified by EPA. The Miami 

SO2 Maintenance Plan relies on an 

equivalent modeling technique referred 

to as Multipoint Rollback (MPR). MPR 

was used to derive emissions limits for 

the Miami smelter that provide for 

attainment and maintenance of the SO2

NAAQS. The State’s rules containing 

MPR-derived emission limits for the 

Miami smelter were approved by EPA 

on January 14, 1983 (48 FR 1717) and 

amended versions of the rules were 

approved by EPA on November 1, 2004 

(69 FR 63321). 

b. Section 176 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects developed, funded or approved 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3068 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

7See Calcagni Memo, at p. 9. 8See appendix B of submitted plan. 

under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal 

Transit Laws (‘‘transportation 

conformity’’) as well as to all other 

federally supported or funded projects 

(‘‘general conformity’’). Because EPA 

does not consider SO2 a transportationrelated pollutant, only the requirements 

related to general conformity apply to 

the Miami SO2 area. The State of 

Arizona adopted general conformity 

criteria and procedures as a revision to 

the Arizona SIP. EPA approved 

Arizona’s general conformity SIP on 

April 23, 1999 (64 FR 19916). Thus, the 

requirements of CAA section 176 have 

been satisfied. 

c. Subpart 5 

Subpart 5 of part D contains 

additional provisions for areas 

designated nonattainment for SO2. 

Under CAA section 191(b), States with 

existing nonattainment areas for the 

primary SO2 NAAQS where those areas 

lack fully approved SIPs, including part 

D plans, must submit implementation 

plans meeting the requirements of 

subpart 1 of part D. As discussed in 

section IV.D.2.a of this notice, the State 

of Arizona has met the requirements of 

subpart 1 of part D for the Miami area. 

Under CAA section 192(b), such areas 

were required to meet the primary SO2

NAAQS as expeditiously as possibly but 

no later than November 15, 1995. As 

discussed in section IV.A of this notice, 

the Miami SO2 nonattainment area met 

the primary SO2 standards well before 

the applicable attainment date of 

November 15, 1995 and has continued 

to attain since then. 

E. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act 

makes EPA approval of a maintenance 

plan meeting the requirements of 

section 175A another prerequisite to 

redesignation. Under section 175A, a 

maintenance plan must provide for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 

10 years after redesignation, and include 

any additional control measures as may 

be necessary to ensure such 

maintenance. In addition, maintenance 

plans are to contain such contingency 

provisions as EPA deems necessary to 

assure the prompt correction of a 

violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The contingency 

measures must include, at a minimum, 

a requirement that the state will 

implement all control measures 

contained in the nonattainment SIP 

prior to redesignation. 

The Calcagni Memo contains EPA 

guidance on the contents of 

maintenance plans submitted for the 

purposes of meeting section 175A. 

Generally, such plans should address 

the following five topics: the attainment 

emissions inventory, maintenance 

demonstration, monitoring network, 

verification of continued attainment, 

and a contingency plan. 

Lastly, under CAA section 175A(b), 

states are required to submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan eight 

years after redesignation providing for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for an 

additional 10-year period beyond the 

initial 10-year maintenance period. 

1. Attainment Inventory 

The Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan 

includes an emissions inventory for 

point sources, area sources, and mobile 

sources for 1999 and 2000 as well as a 

projection of emissions to 2015. See 

table 4 below. As discussed in section 

IV.A of this notice, the Miami area has 

continued to attain the SO2 NAAQS 

since at least 1990 and thus 1999 and 

2000 are acceptable as the basis upon 

which to develop an ‘‘attainment 

emissions inventory’’ for the purposes 

of a maintenance plan. 

ADEQ developed the area and mobile 

source estimates shown in table 4 based 

on EPA’s AIRData for Gila County. Point 

source estimates are based on ADEQ 

annual emissions inventory data. See 

section 4.0 and appendix B of the Miami 

SO2 Maintenance Plan. Sulfur dioxide 

emissions from the Phelps-Dodge 

smelter copper smelter itself are based 

on continuous emission monitoring 

systems and the assumption that stack 

emissions represent 25 percent of the 

facility’s total annual (i.e., stack plus 

fugitive) SO2 emissions. The actual 

percentage of total facility emissions 

emanating from the stacks varies from 

year to year (e.g., from 19 percent to 33 

percent over the 1996 to 2000 period) 

but the 25 percent assumption is a 

reasonable average annual value based 

on material balance calculation 

methods. 

TABLE 4.—SO2 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR 1999, 2000, AND PROJECTED INVENTORY FOR 2015 FOR THE MIAMI AREA

(IN TPY) 

Source type 1999 2000 2015 

Area and Mobile .......................................................................................................................... 149 150 162 

Point (excluding Miami smelter) .................................................................................................. 7 4 9 

Miami Smelter .............................................................................................................................. 7,819 6,810 8,000 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 7,975 6,964 8,171 

Source: Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan, tables 4.4 and 4.6. 

Based on our review of the submitted 

plan, we conclude that the emissions 

inventory is based on reasonable 

methods and assumptions and is 

comprehensive and accurate. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

EPA allows states to demonstrate 

maintenance of the NAAQS by either 

showing that future emissions of a 

pollutant or its precursors will not 

exceed the level of the attainment 

inventory, or by modeling to show that 

the future mix of sources and emission 

rates will not cause a violation of the 

NAAQS.7 In the case of the Miami 

nonattainment area, the demonstration 

of maintenance relies on both a 

projected emissions inventory for future 

years of 2005, 2010, and 2015 for 

sources in the Miami nonattainment 

area as well as SO2 emission limits for 

the Miami smelter that were developed 

using a variant of Multipoint Rollback 

(MPR) modeling and intended to 

minimize the probability of an 

exceedance of the SO2 NAAQS due to 

smelter emissions. 

The inventory from the Miami SO2

Maintenance Plan shows that about 

98% of the total SO2 emissions in the 

Miami nonattainment area are generated 

by the smelter.8 Projections for the 

Miami smelter itself anticipate a minor 

increase from those in 1999 [7,819 tons 

per year (tpy)] to 2005 and beyond 

(8,000 tpy). The remaining point sources 

in the nonattainment area have existing 

permits that limit their allowable 

emissions to less than 100 tpy. 

Projections for area and mobile sources 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 3069 

9The most recent quality assured inventory is 

from 1996. The 1999 SO2 inventory for area and 

mobile sources is based on economic growth 

activity. 

10See table 4.6 of submitted plan. 

11See EPA Final Rule, ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona 

Plan Revision: Sulfur Oxides Control Strategy and 

Regulations for Existing Nonferrous Smelters,’’ 48 

FR 1717 (January 14, 1983); and the SO2 Guideline 

Document, EPA–452/R–94–008, February 1994, 

section 6.4.4. 

12Emissions from each hour of 1999 were 

averaged with the corresponding hour in 2000, 

which represents a minor departure from how 

original MPR was carried out; i.e., using all data in 

a single distribution. EPA believes any resulting 

changes to the calculations are insignificant in the 

context of the Miami MPR analysis and finds this 

to be an acceptable approach. 

(increasing from 149 tpy 9 to 162 tpy) 

are based on anticipated moderate 

increases in population and the 

assumption that SO2 emissions from 

such sources are proportionate to the 

population. Total projected actual 

emissions of point, area, and mobile 

sources are expected to remain 

relatively constant, with total SO2

emissions projected to be less than 24 

tons on a daily basis and approximately 

8,200 tons on annual basis by 2015.10

This represents an increase of only 

about 2 percent from 1999 levels. Thus, 

throughout the maintenance period, the 

Miami smelter is expected to continue 

to be the overwhelming source of SO2

emissions in the area. 

The emissions projections for the 

smelter (from 7,819 tpy) in 1999 to 

8,000 tpy in 2005 and beyond are based 

on the expectation that, through 2015, 

the copper industry will not expand. 

While the expectation of continued low 

price pressures on copper may well 

have been reasonable in 2002 when the 

maintenance plan was adopted, changes 

in the copper market in fact have 

occurred over the past several years 

raising the price for copper thereby 

leading to a reasonable expectation of 

higher production levels at the Miami 

smelter than anticipated in the Miami 

SO2 Maintenance Plan. 

Nonetheless, the demonstration of 

maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in the 

Miami area does not rely solely on the 

emissions projections, but also on the 

SO2 emission limits established under 

SIP rule AAC R18–2–715 (approved by 

EPA in 2004 and, as amended, in 2006) 

and incorporated into the title V 

operating permit for the Phelps-Dodge 

Miami smelter. These limits cap stack 

emissions at 604 pounds per hour (lbs/ 

hr) on an annual average basis and total 

facility (i.e., stacks plus fugitives) 

emissions at 2,420 lbs/hr on an annual 

basis. SIP rule AAC R18–2–715 also 

establishes a cumulative occurrence 

table that caps the number of 

occurrences of 3-hour average emissions 

above various levels with, for example, 

only two occurrences allowed per year 

of stack SO2 emissions greater than 

5,900 lbs/hr, 3-hour average. The total 

facility emissions cap (2,420 lbs/hr) 

corresponds to approximately 10,600 

tpy assuming round-the-clock, yearround operation (the permit however 

cites 10,400 tpy based on 357 work days 

in a given year). 

As explained below, ADEQ has 

demonstrated that the new limits are 

protective of the SO2 NAAQS. In order 

to increase the smelter’s emissions 

limits the State would have to submit a 

SIP revision that demonstrates that, 

consistent with CAA section 110(l), the 

revision does not interfere with 

maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. 

Therefore, the emission limits for the 

smelter, supported by the emissions 

inventory projections that show that the 

smelter will remain the overwhelming 

source of SO2 emissions in the area for 

the foreseeable future, in essence 

provide the demonstration necessary to 

show that the Miami area will continue 

to attain the SO2 standard indefinitely, 

and thereby comply with CAA section 

175A(a), which requires maintenance 

plans to provide for maintenance of the 

NAAQS for at least 10 years after 

redesignation. 

Given the link then between the SO2

emission limits on the Phelps-Dodge 

Miami smelter and the demonstration of 

maintenance, the Miami SO2

Maintenance Plan provides a detailed 

explanation of how the limits were 

derived and how they minimize the 

probability of exceedance of the SO2

NAAQS due to smelter operations. See 

chapter 5 of the submitted plan. First, it 

is important to note that ADEQ used a 

variant of the Multipoint Rollback 

(MPR) method to derive these emissions 

limits. In brief, MPR uses the ratio of 

monitored concentrations to the 

NAAQS to determine how much to 

scale the smelter’s existing hourly 

distribution of emission rates so that 

they meet the NAAQS. Unlike simple 

rollback, which yields a single 

maximum emission rate never to be 

exceeded, MPR yields limitations on the 

number of times per year that the 

facility may exceed each of a series of 

emission rates. In the resulting 

cumulative occurrence table, the larger 

the emissions rate, the fewer number of 

occurrences are allowed per year. The 

emission rates are chosen so that the full 

hourly distribution results in attainment 

of the NAAQS on a probabilistic basis. 

This approach has been approved by 

EPA for use with smelters because of 

their highly variable emission rates.11

ADEQ used a variant of MPR, as 

explained further below, to show that 

the new limits are protective of the 

NAAQS. 

ADEQ derived the original emissions 

limits for the smelter in the late 1970’s 

using MPR, and adopted the original 

smelter SO2 emissions rule in 1979. To 

derive new, enforceable limits on the 

smelter stacks, it was necessary to 

distinguish stack emissions from total 

emissions, which include fugitives 

(those emissions not vented through the 

stack). The new emissions limits were 

derived by apportioning the old facilitywide emission limits between the stack 

emissions and fugitive emissions. Using 

mass balance, the total amount of 

emissions can be calculated from the 

total mass of sulfur entering the plant in 

raw materials. Stack emissions are 

monitored, and account for about 25% 

of the total sulfur. The fugitive 

emissions were then determined by 

subtracting the monitored stack 

emissions from the calculated total 

emissions. Because the release height of 

the stack and fugitive emissions is 

similar, and their emissions are fairly 

well-mixed by the time they reach the 

monitor, the stack also accounts for 25% 

of the observed concentration at the 

monitor, on average. Thus, 25% of the 

existing facility-wide limits (2,420 lb/hr) 

are what the stack must be limited to 

(605 lb/hr; the SIP rule caps the 

emissions at 604 lb/hr, which is slightly 

more conservative) in order to meet the 

NAAQS. 

This provides only an annual average 

emission rate. To derive MPR-style 

limits on allowed occurrences of various 

emission rates (i.e., a cumulative 

occurrence table), ADEQ used the shape 

of the current hourly emission 

distribution 12 and scaled it to match the 

required annual average emission rate. 

Since the new average limit is 1.75 

times the current average actual 

emissions (604 lb/hr limit vs. 345 lb/hr 

current average), the current 

distribution and occurrence emission 

levels were scaled up by this factor. The 

result is new occurrence limits 

consistent with the new average limit of 

604 lb/hr, the level needed to meet the 

NAAQS based upon the 1979 MPR 

analysis and the 25% stack fraction. 

However, scaling according to the 

1979 limits assumes that the 1979 

relationship between emissions and 

ambient concentrations has not 

changed. There have been substantial 

operational and emissions changes at 

the smelter since the 1979 average 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3070 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

emission limit and occurrence table 

were derived, which could have altered 

the shape of the emissions curve. If the 

current distribution shape has a broader 

peak than the 1979 one, then there will 

be relatively more instances of high 

ambient impacts, and so scaling of the 

average will not guarantee NAAQSprotective limits on short-term 

emissions. 

In order to address this, ADEQ carried 

out a second step in the submittal that 

is more consistent with the MPR 

procedure, in that it incorporated the 

ambient effect of the current emissions 

distribution, rather than relying on the 

1979 relationship. ADEQ used 

monitoring data from 1996–2000, and 

emissions during that same period. The 

new emission limits, though a decrease 

from the old limits, represent an 

increase over the current actual 

emissions, and so should be shown to 

be consistent with the NAAQS. ADEQ 

assumed the smelter operated at the 

higher emissions rate allowed in the 

new limits, and applied the fractional 

emissions increase to ambient 3-hour, 

24-hour, and annual SO2

concentrations. This uses the current 

relationship between emissions and 

ambient concentration to show that the 

scaled-up emissions allowed in the new 

limits are consistent with the NAAQS. 

The result of this ‘‘rollback’’ scaling is 

shown in figure 5.4 of the Miami SO2

Maintenance Plan, and also in table 5 

below. 

TABLE 5.—PREDICTED AMBIENT SO2 CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON EMISSIONS LIMITS

Averaging time Predicted level 

μg/m3 NAAQS μg/m3 Percent of 

NAAQS 

3-hour ........................................................................................................................................... 1,180 1,300 91 

24-hour ......................................................................................................................................... 230 365 63 

Annual .......................................................................................................................................... 25 80 31 

Note: The predicted 3-hour and 24-hour average concentrations represent second-high values in a given year. Predicted levels listed in this 

table are derived from figure 5.4 of the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan. 

With this second verification step, 

ADEQ used a procedure consistent with 

MPR, an EPA-approved method for 

smelter attainment demonstrations, to 

show that the new limits are protective 

of the NAAQS. We find that the 

protection of the NAAQS provided by 

the smelter’s SO2 emissions limits, 

considered in the context of emissions 

projections that show that the smelter 

will remain the overwhelming source of 

SO2 emissions in the area for the 

foreseeable future, sufficient to 

demonstrate maintenance through the 

maintenance period and beyond. 

3. Monitoring Network 

Currently, there are three monitoring 

sites in the Miami nonattainment area: 

the Ridgeline monitor operated by 

ADEQ, and the Jones Ranch and 

Townsite monitors operated by PhelpsDodge. ADEQ and Phelps-Dodge Miami 

commit to continue monitoring ambient 

SO2 concentrations at their respective 

sites for at least 10 years following the 

approval of the Miami SO2 Maintenance 

Plan. Phelps-Dodge has the option of 

shutting down the monitors if the 

smelter has not operated for more than 

2 years but commits to resume 

monitoring at the two sites three months 

prior to restarting of smelting 

operations. In addition, ADEQ commits 

to discussing changes to monitor 

locations with EPA and indicates that 

all ambient monitoring data will 

continue to be quality-assured in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality 

Surveillance. See section 7.2 of the 

submitted plan. We find that the Miami 

SO2 Maintenance Plan adequately 

provides for continued monitoring of 

SO2 concentrations in the Miami area. 

At the present time, only the SO2

monitoring data collected at ADEQ’s 

Ridgeline site is certified and entered 

into AQS. However, because the Jones 

Ranch site has historically measured the 

highest SO2 concentrations in the area 

and because the data from Jones Ranch 

is used in connection with the 

contingency plan, EPA has requested 

that ADEQ commit to working with 

Phelps-Dodge to ensure that SO2

monitoring data from the Jones Ranch 

site is entered into AQS. By letter to 

EPA dated October 18, 2006, ADEQ has 

agreed that entering SO2 monitoring 

data from the Jones Ranch site into AQS 

is appropriate and has committed to 

working with Phelps-Dodge to 

accomplish this task no later than the 

first quarter of 2008. This commitment 

provides additional assurance that a 

suitable monitoring network will be 

maintained within the Miami area 

through the maintenance period and 

provides additional support for the 

contingency plan discussed below in 

section IV.E.5 of this action. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

ADEQ intends to track the progress of 

the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan 

through implementation and 

enforcement of the monitoring, 

reporting, and certification procedures 

to which permitted sources are subject 

under AAC R18–2–306 and R18–2–309. 

As a permitted source, the Phelps-Dodge 

Miami smelter is subject to these State 

requirements. ADEQ also notes that it 

has authority pursuant to Arizona 

Revised Statutes section 49–101 to 

monitor and ensure source compliance 

with all applicable rules and permit 

conditions. See section 7.3 of the 

submitted plan. Lastly, we note that 

ADEQ is required under 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart A, to report emissions data for 

large stationary sources, such as the 

Phelps-Dodge Miami smelter, on an 

annual basis. Considered together, the 

submitted plan and relevant EPA 

regulations adequately provide for 

verification of continued attainment of 

the SO2 NAAQS in the Miami area. 

5. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that maintenance plans include 

contingency provisions to promptly 

correct any violation of the NAAQS that 

occurs after redesignation of the area. 

The Calcagni memo provides additional 

guidance, noting that, although a state is 

not required to have fully adopted 

contingency measures that will take 

effect without further action by the state 

in order for the maintenance plan to be 

approved, the maintenance plan should 

ensure that the contingency measures 

are adopted expediently once they are 

triggered. Specifically, the maintenance 

plan should clearly identify the 

measures to be adopted, include a 

schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation of the measures, 

and contain a specific time limit for 

action by the state. In addition, the state 

should identify specific indicators, or 

triggers, that will be used to determine 

when the contingency measures need to 

be implemented. 

Because the Phelps-Dodge smelter is 

the overwhelming source of SO2

emissions in the Miami area, the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 3071 

13See Table 5, above, which shows that the threehour SO2 NAAQS is ‘‘limiting’’ in the sense of being 

the most constraining on emissions, since this 

averaging time has the least room for additional 

emission increases. This is consistent with past 

findings that the three-hour average requires the 

most stringent reduction in emissions. See 46 FR 

58098 (November 30, 1981) at page 58102. 

14EPA has codified the designations for air 

quality planning areas at 40 CFR part 81. The 

Arizona area designations are codified at 40 CFR 

81.303. 

contingency plan contained in section 

7.4 of the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan 

focuses on ambient impacts and 

emissions attributable to it. The 

contingency plan uses monitored 

ambient concentrations of SO2 to trigger 

actions designed to ensure continued 

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. The 

trigger levels and associated notification 

procedures and associated actions are 

described below. 

Notification Procedure: If either of the 

Phelps-Dodge monitors or the ADEQoperated monitor record ambient 3-hour 

average SO2 levels between 0.425 ppm 

and 0.5 ppm (i.e., levels greater than 

85%, but less than 100%, of the 

secondary SO2 NAAQS), 13 the entity 

that operates the monitor is required to 

notify the other party. A second 

occurrence in a calendar year of ambient 

concentrations between 0.425 ppm and 

0.5 ppm, or an exceedance of the 

secondary NAAQS is defined as the 

protective trigger level (PTL). The 

response required by a triggering of the 

PTL is divided into two action levels. 

First Action Level: If the PTL is 

tripped, Phelps-Dodge must undertake a 

series of inspections and a full 

calibration check of the ambient SO2

analyzers and recording systems in 

order to validate the data. If the data are 

determined to be valid, Phelps-Dodge 

must perform any needed repairs or 

corrective actions and implement 

specified preventive measures. The 

source must also submit a report to 

ADEQ by the close of the second 

business day following an exceedance 

in which it describes the nature of the 

event, any corrective actions taken to 

resolve the event, and recommendations 

for future corrective actions to avoid 

recurrence of such an event. 

Second Action Level: If the source is 

unable to correct the triggering of the 

PTL by implementing the actions 

required under the first action level, 

Phelps-Dodge must undertake an 

analysis to identify additional control 

measures needed to ensure maintenance 

of the NAAQS. Phelps-Dodge is 

required to submit recommendations to 

ADEQ within 30 business days 

following the triggering of the PTL. 

Using all available data, ADEQ will 

determine the cause and appropriate 

resolution of the event, and will require 

the adoption and implementation of 

additional control measures, as needed. 

ADEQ commits to initiating changes to 

the rules or to the permit as soon as 

possible. 

Special Measure: A violation of the 

secondary NAAQS (i.e., a second 

exceedance in a calendar year) triggers 

the implementation of a special measure 

within 24 hours of the monitored 

violation that requires the source to 

reduce its operating rate by the same 

percentage as that by which the 3-hour 

standard was exceeded. These 

circumstances also require that the 

source comply with first action level 

requirements and, if necessary, second 

action level requirements. A second and 

higher concentration violation of the 

secondary NAAQS within the same 

calendar year requires that the operating 

rate be recalculated accordingly. 

Upon review of the contingency plan 

in the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan 

summarized above, we find that ADEQ 

has established a workable contingency 

plan, including trigger levels, 

notification procedures, and appropriate 

actions, for promptly correcting any 

violations of the SO2 NAAQS that occur 

after the redesignation of the Miami area 

to attainment and thereby satisfies the 

requirements of CAA section 175A(d). 

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan 

Revisions 

As noted previously, CAA section 

175A(b) requires states to submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan revision 

eight years after the redesignation 

request is approved by EPA. The 

subsequent maintenance plan is to 

provide for maintenance of the NAAQS 

for an additional 10 years following the 

first 10-year maintenance period. ADEQ 

has made a commitment to submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan to EPA 

eight years into the initial 10-year 

maintenance period (see page 53 of the 

submitted plan) and thereby satisfies 

CAA section 175A(b). 

7. Conclusion 

ADEQ’s Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan 

adequately addresses the five basic 

topics that such 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 Miami SO2

Maintenance Plan as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP and thereby satisfy the 

related redesignation criterion of CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). 

V. Boundary Correction 

A. Background 

Under section 107(d) of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1977, each State 

was directed to submit to EPA a list 

identifying the NAAQS attainment 

status for all areas within the State. EPA 

was required under section 107(d)(2) of 

the 1977 Amended Act to promulgate 

the State lists, with any necessary 

modifications, within 60 days of their 

submittal. In 1978, in the absence of 

recommendations from the State of 

Arizona, EPA promulgated the original 

area designations for Arizona for each of 

the NAAQS. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 

1978).14 EPA selected counties as the 

geographic basis for the original 

nonattainment area designations for SO2

in Arizona and designated all of Gila 

County as a nonattainment area for the 

SO2 NAAQS. See 43 FR 8962, at 8968. 

On August 15, 1978, the State of 

Arizona submitted its area designations 

to EPA with the intent that EPA 

redesignate the original EPApromulgated nonattainment areas to 

reflect the State’s recommendations. 

The State’s August 15, 1978 submittal 

included a background document 

prepared by the Arizona Department of 

Health Services and entitled, 

‘‘Identification of Areas within Arizona 

that do or do not meet National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (August 1, 1978)’’

(referred to herein as the ‘‘State’s 

designations background report’’). The 

State’s designations background report 

identifies townships, or identifiable 

portions thereof, as the smallest 

geographic unit defining air quality 

planning areas in Arizona. 

With respect to SO2 in the Miami 

area, the State’s designations 

background report includes a map 

showing a nonattainment area 

comprised by a total of nine townships: 

two townships in which the major 

source of SO2 emissions in the area (i.e., 

the primary copper smelter) is located 

(T1N, R14E and T1N, R15E) and seven 

adjacent townships (or portions thereof) 

to the east, west, north and south. The 

State’s map also shows six additional 

adjacent townships with the designation 

of ‘‘cannot be classified.’’

In the State’s designations background 

report, the State provided a specific list 

of townships defining the 

nonattainment and ‘‘cannot be 

classified’’ areas. However, the list of 

townships and the map illustrating the 

areas are not entirely consistent with 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3072 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

15Township T1N, R16E straddles the boundary of 

the San Carlos Indian Reservation. Most of the 

township (roughly 31 or 32 of the 36 square miles) 

lies within the reservation and is characterized by 

rugged mountainous terrain traversed in places by 

jeep trails. The 4 to 5 square miles of land that lie 

within State jurisdiction have similar characterisics 

as the portion within the reservation. No population 

centers are found within this township. ADEQ 

indicates that no permits have been issued to any 

stationary source within the portion of the 

township that lies within State jurisdiction. 

one another. The State’s list of 

townships for the Miami SO2

nonattainment area includes, among 

others, the following townships moving 

west to east: T1N, R13E; T1N, R14E; 

T1N, R15E; and T1N, R16E. The 

township immediately east of T1N, 

R15E, however, is T1N, R151⁄2E not 

T1N, R16E, and thus the list 

inadvertently created a noncontiguous 

nonattainment area with a single 

township (T1N, R16E) isolated from the 

rest of the larger designated area.15 In 

contrast, the map submitted as part of 

the designations background report 

shows the nonattainment area boundary 

as a single contiguous area including 

both T1N, R151⁄2E and the western half 

of T1N, R16E. On April 10, 1979 (44 FR 

21261), we approved the redesignation 

request by Arizona for the Miami SO2

nonattainment area without 

modification and thereby codified the 

State’s submitted list of townships (not 

the map) as the geographic definition for 

the Miami SO2 nonattainment area 

thereby creating a noncontiguous 

nonattainment area (i.e., one township 

isolated from the rest of the townships 

comprising the nonattainment area). In 

its June 26, 2002 submittal of the Miami 

SO2 Maintenance Plan and 

supplemental June 30, 2004 submittal, 

ADEQ requested that we redesignate the 

boundaries under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D) to create a single, 

contiguous planning area and to exclude 

tribal lands from the planning area. By 

letter dated June 26, 2006, however, 

ADEQ withdrew the boundary 

redesignation request as previously 

formulated but requested that EPA act to 

correct the boundary under section 

110(k)(6) of the Act instead. As 

explained further below, we agree with 

ADEQ that a boundary correction is 

warranted, and we make the related 

corrections to the boundary in today’s 

notice. 

Also, while our April 10, 1979 final 

rule redesignating nonattainment areas 

in Arizona correctly listed T1S, R141⁄2E 

as one of the townships comprising the 

Miami SO2 nonattainment area, the 

1979 version of 40 CFR part 81 included 

a transcription error and listed this 

particular township as ‘‘T1S, R141⁄4E’’

instead of ‘‘T1S, R141⁄2E.’’ We are 

correcting the transcription error in this 

notice as well. 

B. Authority for Correcting Errors 

Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act, 

as amended in 1990, provides, 

‘‘Whenever the Administrator 

determines that the Administrator’s 

action approving, disapproving, or 

promulgating any plan or plan revision 

(or part thereof), area designation, 

redesignation, classification or 

reclassification was in error, the 

Administrator may in the same manner 

as the approval, disapproval, or 

promulgation revise such action as 

appropriate without requiring any 

further submission from the State. Such 

determination and the basis thereof 

shall be provided to the State and the 

public.’’

We interpret this provision to 

authorize the Agency to make 

corrections to a promulgated regulation 

when it is shown to our satisfaction that 

(1) we clearly erred in failing to 

consider or in inappropriately 

considering information made available 

to EPA at the time of the promulgation, 

or the information made available at the 

time of promulgation is subsequently 

demonstrated to have been clearly 

inadequate, and (2) other information 

persuasively supports a change in the 

regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763 

(November 30, 1992). 

In this instance, we have found clear 

error in our 1979 consideration of the 

State of Arizona’s submitted 

recommendations for area 

redesignations and believe that 

correction of the error to be appropriate 

at this time in support of the State’s 

submittal of a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the SO2 NAAQS 

within the Miami air quality planning 

area. 

C. Evaluation and Conclusion 

Based on a comparison of the map 

submitted by the State in its 1978 

designations background report that 

illustrates the nonattainment area with 

the accompanying list of townships 

defining the area, we find that the State 

erred by assuming that the township 

immediately east of T1N, R15E is T1N, 

R16E when it is actually T1N, R151⁄2E 

and by then including the former 

instead of the latter in the list of 

townships defining the nonattainment 

area. Whereas T1N, R151⁄2E lies 

immediately adjacent to one of the 

townships in which the major source of 

SO2 emissions is located, T1N, R16E lies 

mostly within the San Carlos Indian 

Reservation, is more distant from the 

major source in the area, and has no 

known source of SO2 emissions. EPA 

then erred in failing to discover this 

error in our 1979 consideration and 

approval of the State’s recommended 

redesignation for the Miami SO2

nonattainment area. By virtue of the 

State’s designations background report 

submitted in August 15, 1978, EPA had 

the relevant information necessary to 

discover this error at the time of our 

April 10, 1979 final rule but failed to do 

so. The State has now requested 

redesignation of the Miami SO2

nonattainment area to ‘‘attainment’’ and 

submitted a maintenance plan, which if 

approved as proposed herein, will begin 

the next phase (‘‘maintenance’’) of air 

quality planning in the Miami area. 

We believe that correction of the error 

that resulted in the creation of a 

noncontiguous area would help provide 

a solid regulatory foundation for the 

maintenance phase of CAA planning in 

the Miami area by eliminating the 

noncontiguous portion of the otherwise 

contiguous Miami air quality planning 

area and by removing any uncertainties 

as to the area designation status and 

applicable requirements for township 

T1N, R16E. Furthermore, ADEQ’s 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the Miami area do not rely on 

any control measure within T1N, R16E 

to demonstrate attainment and 

maintenance of the SO2 standard in the 

Miami area. We are therefore taking 

direct final action under CAA section 

110(k)(6) to correct the designation for 

T1N, R16E and thereby remove it from 

the list of townships comprising the 

Miami SO2 nonattainment area (which 

we are herein taking direct final action 

to redesignate to attainment). 

Specifically, we are correcting the error 

by revising the designation of T1N, 

R16E from ‘‘does not meet primary 

standards’’ to ‘‘cannot be classified’’ in 

the listing for Miami in the Arizona SO2

table in 40 CFR 81.303. We are changing 

the designation of the township to 

‘‘cannot be classified’’ for the SO2

standard consistent with the State’s 

1978 approach for areas that, while in 

the general proximity of a recommended 

SO2 nonattainment area, would be 

unlikely to experience violations of the 

standard because of the distance from 

the source and the terrain. For example, 

using this rationale, the State 

recommended, and we approved, 

‘‘cannot be classified’’ designations for 

townships T2N, R16E and T1S, R16E. 

Rather than reclassifying township 

T1N, R151⁄2E as part of this 

redesignation action, we have decided 

to retain its current air quality planning 

status of ‘‘cannot be classified.’’ First, 

establishing township T1N, R151⁄2E as 

part of a future Miami maintenance area 

(and no longer as part of the ‘‘rest of 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 3073 

state’’ area) could have unintended 

effects on SO2 increment tracking under 

the State’s prevention of significant 

deterioration permitting program. 

Second, no control measures in T1N, 

R151⁄2E have been relied upon for 

attainment or maintenance of the SO2

standard in the Miami area. Third, 

including township T1N, R151⁄2E in the 

maintenance area would 

inappropriately subject projects in that 

township to certain CAA requirements, 

such as general conformity, that are 

intended only to apply within 

nonattainment areas and former 

nonattainment areas that have been 

redesignated to attainment. See CAA 

section 176(c)(5). 

In addition to the correction described 

above, we are taking direct final action 

to correct the transcription error 

introduced first in the 1979 version of 

40 CFR part 81 by replacing T1S, 

R141⁄4E with T1S, R141⁄2E in the list of 

townships comprising the Miami SO2

air quality planning area. 

VI. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized under section 110(k)(3) 

of the Act, EPA is approving the Miami 

Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area 

State Implementation and Maintenance 

Plan, as submitted by ADEQ on June 26, 

2002, corrected by the submittal dated 

June 30, 2004, and amended by the 

submittal dated June 20, 2006, as a 

revision to the Arizona state 

implementation plan. In so doing, we 

find that the maintenance plan meets 

the requirements for such plans under 

CAA section 175A. 

EPA is also approving the State of 

Arizona’s request for redesignation of 

the Miami area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the SO2 NAAQS based on 

our conclusion that all of the 

redesignation criteria in CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) have been satisfied. 

Specifically, we find that (1) the Miami 

area has attained the SO2 NAAQS; (2) 

Arizona has a fully approved SIP for the 

Miami area; (3) the improvements in air 

quality in the Miami area are due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of EPA-approved 

smelter rules and title V permit 

conditions; (4) Arizona has met all of 

the nonattainment area requirements 

applicable to the Miami area; and (5) the 

State’s submitted maintenance plan 

meets all relevant CAA requirements 

and is being approved in this notice. 

Lastly, under CAA section 110(k)(6) 

and for the reasons stated above in 

section V of this notice, EPA is 

correcting the boundary of the Miami 

SO2 nonattainment area to exclude a 

noncontiguous township that was 

erroneously included in the original 

description of the nonattainment area. 

Specifically, we are correcting the error 

by revising the designation of township 

T1N, R16E as listed in the Arizona SO2

table in 40 CFR 81.303 from ‘‘does not 

meet primary standards’’ to ‘‘cannot be 

classified.’’ We are also correcting the 

erroneous transcription of one of the 

townships in the Miami SO2 planning 

area in 40 CFR 81.303 by replacing 

‘‘T1S, R141⁄4E’’ with ‘‘T1S, R141⁄2E.’’

EPA is finalizing this action without 

proposing it in advance because the 

Agency views this action as 

noncontroversial and anticipates no 

adverse comments. However, in the 

Proposed Rules section of this Federal 

Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

maintenance plan and request for 

redesignation and proposing the same 

corrections to the list of townships 

comprising the Miami, AZ SO2 area. If 

we receive adverse comments by 

February 23, 2007, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that the 

direct final approval will not take effect 

and we will address the comments in a 

subsequent final action based on the 

proposal. If we do not receive timely 

adverse comments, the direct final 

approval will be effective without 

further notice on March 26, 2007. This 

will approve the redesignation request 

and maintenance plan submitted by 

Arizona on June 26, 2002, as amended 

by submittals dated June 30, 2004 and 

June 20, 2006, and to revise the 

designation of township T1N, R16E as 

listed in the Arizona SO2 table in 40 

CFR 81.303 from ‘‘does not meet 

primary standards’’ to ‘‘cannot be 

classified’’ and replace the township 

incorrectly listed as ‘‘T1S, R141⁄4E’’ with 

‘‘T1S, R141⁄2E’’. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

a state plan and redesignation request as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

corrects a long-standing error in the 

boundary of an air quality planning 

area. It imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Nonetheless, EPA has contacted the San 

Carlos Apache tribe to provide an 

opportunity to discuss the implications 

of exclusion of that portion of township 

T1N, R16E that lies within the 

reservation from the Miami SO2

nonattainment area. In letters dated 

November 20, 2006 and December 12, 

2006, EPA transmitted a fact sheet with 

background information on this issue 

and a map illustrating the air quality 

planning area boundary change. 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state plan and redesignation 

request implementing a Federal 

standard and corrects a long-standing 

error in the boundary of an air quality 

planning area. It does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3074 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 26, 2007. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: December 22, 2006. 

Sally Seymour, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(132) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(132) The following plan revision was 

submitted on June 26, 2002, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide 

Nonattainment Area State 

Implementation and Maintenance Plan 

(June 2002), chapter 7 (‘‘Maintenance 

Plan’’), adopted on June 26, 2002 by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide 

Nonattainment Area State 

Implementation and Maintenance Plan 

(June 2002), excluding the cover page, 

and pages iii, 2, 3, 4, and 49; chapter 7 

(‘‘Maintenance Plan’’); appendix A 

(‘‘SIP Support Information’’), sections 

A.1 (‘‘Pertinent 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’’), 

adopted on June 26, 2002 by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

(2) Submittal of Corrections to the 

Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide 

Nonattainment Area State 

Implementation and Maintenance Plan 

(June 2002), letter and enclosures 

(replacement pages for the cover page 

and pages iii, 2, 3, 4 and 49), dated June 

30, 2004. 

(3) Letter from Stephen A. Owens, 

Director, Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, dated June 20, 

2006, withdrawing a section 

107(d)(3)(D) boundary redesignation 

request included in the Miami Sulfur 

Dioxide Nonattainment Area State 

Implementation and Maintenance Plan 

and requesting a section 110(k)(6) error 

correction. 

* * * * * 

■ Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 2. In § 81.303, the table entitled 

‘‘Arizona—SO2’’ is amended by revising 

the entry for Miami to read as follows: 

§ 81.303 Arizona. 

* * * * * 

ARIZONA—SO2

Designated area 

Does not meet 

primary 

standards 

Does not meet 

secondary 

standards 

Cannot be 

classified 

Better than 

national 

standards 

* * * * * * * 

Miami: 

T2N, R14E ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

T2N, R15E ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

T1N, R13E1 .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

T1N, R14E ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

T1N, R15E ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

T1S, R14E1 .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 3075 

ARIZONA—SO2—Continued 

Designated area 

Does not meet 

primary 

standards 

Does not meet 

secondary 

standards 

Cannot be 

classified 

Better than 

national 

standards 

T1S, R141⁄2E ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

T1S, R15E ................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

T2N, R13E1 .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X ........................

T2N, R16E ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ X ........................

T1N, R16E ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ X ........................

T1S, R13E1 .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X ........................

T1S, R16E ................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X ........................

T2S, R14E1 .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X ........................

T2S, R15E ................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X ........................

* * * * * * * 

1Only that portion in Gila County. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–996 Filed 1–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0667; FRL–8110–3] 

Spiromesifen; Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation revises a 

tolerance for combined residues of 

spiromesifen in or on vegetables, 

fruiting, group 8 and establishes 

tolerances for inadvertent or indirect 

combined residues in or on oat (grain, 

forage, hay, straw). Interregional 

Research Project No. 4 (IR–4) and Bayer 

CropScience (respectively) requested 

these tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as 

amended by the Food Quality Protection 

Act of 1996 (FQPA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

January 24, 2007. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before March 26, 2007, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–

OPP–2006–0667. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the index for the 

docket. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, 

One Potomac Yard (South Building), 

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. 

The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

telephone number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas C. Harris, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–9423; e-mail address: 

harris.thomas@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., 

agricultural workers; greenhouse, 

nursery, and floriculture workers; 

farmers. 

• Animal production (NAICS 112), 

e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy 

cattle farmers, livestock farmers. 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), 

e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

32532), e.g., agricultural workers; 

commercial applicators; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; residential users. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document? 

In addition to accessing an electronic 

copy of this Federal Register document 

through the electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, you may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may 

also access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s pilot e-CFR site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as 

amended by the FQPA, any person may 

file an objection to any aspect of this 

regulation and may also request a 

hearing on those objections. The EPA 

procedural regulations which govern the 

submission of objections and requests 

for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 

You must file your objection or request 

a hearing on this regulation in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–

OPP–2006–0667 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

requests must be in writing, and must be 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES