This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

40792

Vol. 62, No. 146

Wednesday, July 30, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Final Conformity Determination for

Proposed Carlota Copper Project,

Pinal and Gila Counties, Arizona

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice: Final Conformity

Determination for the Proposed Carlota

Copper Project, Pinal and Gila Counties,

Arizona.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the federal

Conformity Rule (November 30, 1993,

40 CFR 93.150–160), the United States

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service—Tonto National Forest (Tonto

NF) has reviewed the air quality

analysis conducted for the proposed

Carolta Copper Project. The project is

proposed to be within Hayden/Miami

Planning Area and the Miami Sulfur

Dioxide Nonattainment Area,

designated nonattainment areas for

particulate matter less than 10 microns

in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) and

sulfur dioxide (SO2), respectively. The

Tonto NF’s review has been conducted

consistent with the requirements of 40

CFR part 93, Subpart B: ‘‘Determining

Conformity of General Federal Activities

to State or Federal Implementation

Plans (SIP)’’, issued on November 30,

1993.

The Tonto NF has determined that

total annual emissions of SO2 from the

proposed project are less than the de

minimis emission threshold (40 CFR

part 93) that triggers the requirement to

conduct a conformity determination.

Annual PM10 emissions have been

determined to exceed the PM10 de

minimis threshold and the Tonto NF has

prepared a conformity determination for

this pollutant. As per the requirement in

40 CFR 93.153(h)(1), this Federal

Register notice lists the proposed

activities that are presumed to conform

and the bases for the presumptions. A

comprehensive presentation of the bases

for the conformity presumptions are

included in the report, ‘‘Final

Conformity Determination: Carlota

Copper Project, Pinal and Gila Counties,

Arizona,’’ USDA, Forest Service—Tonto

National Forest, July 1997 (the report).

This document is available to the public

for reference purposes.

ADDRESSES: The report, ‘‘Final

Conformity Determination: Carlota

Copper Project, Pinal and Gila Counties,

Arizona,’’ USDA, Forest Service—Tonto

National Forest, Arizona, July 1997, is

available for reference purposes at the

following locations: Tonto National

Forest Supervisor’s Office, Phoenix,

Arizona; Globe Ranger District Office,

Globe, Arizona.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul M. Stewart, Tonto National Forest,

2324 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ

85006, (602) 225–5200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Carlota Copper Company has

submitted a Plan of Operations (1992),

a subsequent Update to the Plan of

Operations (1993), and numerous letter

submittals documenting changes to the

Plan of Operations (as documented in

Chapter 2 of the Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Carlota Copper

Project) to the United States Department

of Agriculture, (USDA) Forest Service—

Tonto National Forest (Tonto NF) for the

construction, operation, and

reclamation of the Carlota Copper

Project (project), a copper mining and

processing operation. The project is

designated by rule and regulation as a

Class II minor source to be permitted by

the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The

proposed project is located on private

land and on lands administered by the

Tonto NF. Specifically, the project is

located in Gila and Pinal Counties,

approximately 7 miles west of Miami,

Arizona.

A portion of the project is proposed

to be within the northern part of an area

that has been designated by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) as a nonattainment area for the

annual 24-hour National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for

particulate matter less than 10 microns

in aerodynamic diameter (PM10). The

first phase of the PM10 nonattainment

designation occurred August 7, 1987,

(52 Federal Register (FR) 29383) when

EPA identified and listed the Group I

and Group II area in each state. The

Hayden/Miami Planning Area was

designated a Group I area. A Group I

area is an area that has been estimated

by EPA to have a 95 percent or greater

probability of exceeding the PM10

standards (Hayden PM10 State

Implementation Plan (SIP) p. 14).

On November 15, 1990, EPA

designated all Group I areas as

‘‘nonattainment’’ for PM10. At the same

time, EPA announced that all areas

designated as nonattainment area for

PM10 were classified as ‘‘moderate’’

nonattainment areas. Therefore, the

Hayden/Miami Planning Area is

classified as a moderate nonattainment

area for PM10. A moderate area is a

nonattainment area that the

Administrator has determined can

practicably attain the NAAQS for PM10

by the attainment date for moderate

areas (as expeditiously as practicable

but no later than the sixth calendar year

after the area’s designation as

nonattainment). (Clean Air Act, Section

188(a–c)). The Hayden/Miami Planning

Area consists of:

• Township: T4S, R16E; T5S, R16E;

T6S, R16E,

• The portion of Township T3S, R16E

that does not lie on the San Carlos

Indian Reservation, and

• The rectangle formed by, and

including Townships: T1N, R13E; T1N,

R15E; T6S, R13E; T6S, R15E.

The portion of the project area that is

within the moderate nonattainment area

is in the rectangle formed by the four

townships. Specifically, the project area

is located within Township T1N, R13E.

On November 10, 1994, ADEQ

petitioned EPA to realign the Hayden/

Miami Planning Area PM10

nonattainment boundary. Based on

topographical and climatological

differences, as well as no monitored

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in the

Miami area, ADEQ requested that

Townships T1N, R13E–R15E and T1S,

R13E–R15E be excluded from the

nonattainment area. This area includes

the proposed Carlota Copper Project

area. To date, there has been no action

by EPA to realign the Hayden/Miami

Planning Area, Therefore, the proposed

project remains within the

nonattainment area.

Tonto NF concurs with ADEQ’s

classification of the proposed Carlota

Copper Project as a Class II minor
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 1997 / Notices 40793

1 Given the receipt of several public comments on

the issue of requirements of a conformity

determination, it is important to note that an

increment consumption analysis is not a required

portion of a federal conformity determination. For

the Carlota Copper Project, this position is justified

on two levels: (1) The conformity rule (40 CFR part

93) explicitly lists the requirements of a conformity

determination and does not include an increment

consumption analysis on the list of requirements;

and (2) because the proposed Carlota Copper Project

is classified as an Arizona Class II (minor) source

in a nonattainment area, an increment consumption

analysis is expressly not required under state or

federal rules and regulations. Concurrence on this

position has been offered by the Tonto NF, ADEQ,

EPA Region IX, and the Pinal County Air Pollution

Control District. As a measure of the significance of

impacts from the Carlota Copper Project, the Tonto

NF included an assessment of increment

consumption in the Final Environmental Impact

Statement.

source in a nonattainment area.

Consequently, the New Source Review

(NSR) permitting programs (i.e.,

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) review for attainment area and

nonattainment area (NAA) review for

nonattainment areas) do not apply.

Because the Carlota Copper Project is

not subject to these major source

permitting requirements, the Carlota

Copper Project cannot take advantage of

the conformity determination exclusion

offered under 40 CFR 93.153(d)(1) and

a formal conformity determination is

required.

The area has also been classified as a

Priority IA Region (40 CFR 52.121) for

sulfur dioxide (SO2). States are required

to prepare and submit a SIP that

demonstrates attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS in Priority

I Regions. The Priority IA classification

is for any area that has been designated

a Priority I region primarily because of

emissions from a single source. In this

case, the designation is based on copper

smelting operations in Miami, Arizona.

The area is in attainment for all other

criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, lead, and ozone.

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

requires that the State of Arizona

prepare and submit to the EPA a SIP to

reduce particulate emissions to achieve

and maintain attainment of both the SO2

and PM10 NAAQS. ADEQ has developed

a PM10 SIP designed to reduce and

maintain ambient concentrations of

PM10 to levels below the NAAQS for

PM10. EPA has proposed partial

approval of the Hayden PM10 SIP. To

date, there has been no final approval of

the SIP. ADEQ is in the process of

developing the Miami SO2 SIP.

Due to the proposed location of the

project in the nonattainment area and

the Tonto NF’s affirmative role as

Federal Land Manager, the Tonto NF

has the responsibility under the Clean

Air Act section 176(c)(4) (November 15,

1990) to make a determination as to

whether the proposed project conforms

with all aspects of the applicable SIP for

the area. The Tonto NF has reviewed the

air quality analysis conducted for this

project consistent with the requirements

of 40 CFR part 93 Subpart B:

‘‘Determining Conformity of General

Federal Actions to State or Federal

Implementation Plans (SIP)’’, issued on

November 30, 1993.

The Tonto NF has determined that

total annual emissions of SO2 from the

project are less than the de minimis

emission threshold (40 CFR

93.153(b)(1)) that triggers the

requirement to conduct a conformity

determination. Therefore, although the

Miami area has been designated a

nonattainment area for SO2, a

conformity determination for SO2

emissions is not required. Annual PM10

emissions have been determined to

exceed the de minimis threshold and

the Tonto NF has determined that a

conformity determination is required for

PM10.

II. Requirements of the Conformity

Determination

In the absence of a fully approved

PM10 SIP for the Hayden/Miami

planning area, according to 40 CFR

93.151, the federal conformity

regulations contained in 40 CFR part 93

apply to the Carlota Copper Project.1

These regulations require a

demonstration that total direct and

indirect emissions from the project will

not:

1. Cause or contribute to any new

violation of any standard in the area,

2. Interfere with provisions in the

applicable SIP for maintenance of any

standard,

3. Increase the frequency or severity

of any existing violation of any standard

in any area, or

4. Delay timely attainment of any

standard or any required interim

emission reductions or other milestones

in the SIP for purposes of

(a) Demonstration of reasonably

further progress (RFP),

(b) Demonstration of attainment, or

(c) Maintenance plan.

The Tonto NF has determined that

this Conformity Determination is to

establish through a local modeling

analysis that PM10 emissions from

Carlota emission sources on private and

public lands will not create any new

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS

(‘‘general’’ requirement ‘‘1,’’ above). For

the reasons stated below, the activities

of the proposed Carlota Copper Project

conform to general requirements 2, 3,

and 4.

The proposed SIP only serves to bring

ambient PM10 concentrations in the

Hayden area to levels that are below the

NAAQS. The PM10 nonattainment

designation for the Hayden/Miami

Planning Area is a result of expected

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS

proximate to the coppersmelting

activities in the town of Hayden. As a

result, the ‘‘design value’’ (i.e., the

predicted ambient level of PM10 upon

which the controls in the SIP are based)

pertains to particulate levels in Hayden

(not to the proposed project site).

Hayden is located in the southern tip of

Gila County, approximately 25 miles

south of the proposed project.

Ambient concentrations monitored in

the project area (see the discussion of

background concentrations in the

report) and PM10 monitoring in the town

of Miami demonstrate that exceedances

of the NAAQS in the nonattainment

area have not occurred outside of the

town of Hayden. Review of the local

modeling analysis for the Carlota

Copper Project (discussed in detail in

the report) indicate that particulate

impacts in Hayden (25 miles south of

the project) due to emissions from the

project are expected to be negligible (or

zero). The proposed project is not

expected to interfere with maintenance

of the standard in Hayden and the local

modeling analysis demonstrates

protection of the NAAQS in the project

area. The Tonto NF has therefore

determined the proposed action to

conform with requirement 2.

Similarly, requirement 3 is met

because the project is not expected to

cause any impacts in Hayden, thus

emissions from the project will not

increase the frequency or severity of

violations of the PM10 NAAQS that have

been monitored in Hayden. There have

been no monitored violations of the

PM10 NAAQS in the proposed project

area.

Lastly, requirement 4 is met because

there are no interim emission reductions

or other milestones in the proposed SIP

that pertain to any emission sources at

the Carlota Copper Project. Particulate

emission control measures in the

proposed SIP pertain only to control of

PM10 emissions at two specific copper

smelters (and associated activities)

located in Hayden. Any demonstration

of ‘‘reasonable further progress,’’

attainment, or compliance with a

maintenance plan would only pertain to

ambient PM10 levels in Hayden and/or

emission control measures implemented

on the subject emission sources.

III. Conformity Determination

Methodology

Local Modeling Analysis. The final

Conformity Rule (40 CFR part 93)

specifically allows for the use of a local
40794 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 1997 / Notices

modeling analysis for a conformity

determination. 40 CFR 93.158(a)(4)(l)

stipulates:

‘‘Where the State agency primarily

responsible for the applicable SIP determines

that an area-wide air quality modeling

analysis is not needed, the total of direct and

indirect emissions from the action meet the

requirements specified in paragraph (b) of

this section, based on local air quality

modeling analysis * * *’’

Paragraph (b) (40 CFR 93.158)

requires that the local air quality

modeling analysis shows that an action

does not cause or contribute to any new

violation of any standard in any area.

Paragraph (b) also requires that a local

air quality analysis meet the applicable

requirements of 40 CFR 93.159,

Procedures for Conformity

Determinations of General Federal

Actions. The applicable requirements of

93.159 are:

• The analysis must be based on the

latest and most accurate emission

estimation techniques (including

estimation of emission control

efficiencies) available for stationary and

area sources of emissions, defined as the

latest emission factors specified by EPA

in AP–42 (‘‘Compilation of Emission

Factors’’), unless more accurate

emission data are available (93.159.b.2)

(site-specific parameters are used when

available);

• The analysis must be based on the

applicable air quality models, data

bases, and other requirements specified

in the most recent version of the

‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models

(Revised)’’ (1986) including

supplements (93.159.c); and

• The analysis must be based on the

total of direct and indirect emissions

from the action and must reflect

emission scenarios that are expected to

occur the year during which total

emissions are expected to be the greatest

on an annual basis (93.159.d.2).

Emissions. For the purposes of a

conformity determination, direct and

indirect emissions are defined as

follows (40 CFR 92.152):

• Direct Emissions: Those emissions

of a criteria pollutant or its precursors

that are caused or initiated by the

Federal action and occur at the same

time and place as the action;

• Indirect Emissions: Those

emissions of a criteria pollutant or its

precursors that:

1. Are caused by the Federal action,

but may occur later in time and/or may

be further removed in distance from the

action itself but are still reasonably

foreseeable; and

2. The Federal agency can practicably

control and will maintain control over

due to a continuing program

responsibility of the Federal agency.

For the Carlota Copper Project, the

Tonto NF has determined that the

emissions inventory prepared for the air

quality analysis includes the total of

direct and indirect emissions from

Carlota sources on private and Federal

lands using the latest emission factors

(for emission estimates and control

efficiencies) specified in AP–42 and

site-specific parameters when available

(40 CFR 93.159(b)(2)). The Tonto NF has

determined only emissions sources of

PM10 at the proposed project are of

concern with regard to PM10 conformity

requirements. The basis for designation

of the area as nonattainment was PM10

emissions (not precursors) from mining

activities (associated with smelting

activities in Hayden, AZ). Precursors of

PM10 were also not incorporated in the

SIP analysis for the nonattainment area.

The Tonto NF maintains that a

conformity determination based on

PM10 emissions will be adequate to

assess conformity and to protect the

PM10 NAAQS at the process area

boundary.

The local modeling analysis utilized

the EPA-approved ISCST3 dispersion

model (Version 95200) with the dry

deposition algorithm. The Tonto NF has

reviewed the modeling analysis and has

determined that the model has been run

according to the most recent modeling

guidelines and supplements.

Emissions from process and nonprocess sources at the project are direct

emissions under the definition above.

The Tonto NF has determined that the

hourly and annual emission estimates

prepared for the air quality analysis are

representative of the maximum of PM10

emission rates expected to occur over

the life of the project. The distribution

of emission sources in the modeling

analysis has been assessed by the Tonto

NF to be representative of the spatial

extent of the emissions sources that is

expected to produce the maximum offsite PM10 impacts over the life of the

project (40 CFR 93.159(d)(2)). Further,

the Tonto NF has not identified any

other emissions or emission sources that

the Tonto NF can practicably control or

maintain control of due to a continuing

program responsibility for the project.

The report includes a detailed

description of emission sources and

controls at the project.

Offsets. As an option to a modeling

analysis, 40 CFR 93.158 allows an

action to fully offset its emissions

within the same nonattainment area

through a revision to the applicable SIP

or an equally enforceable measure that

effects emission reductions equal to or

greater than the total of direct and

indirect emissions from the action so

that there is no net increase in

emissions of that pollutant

(§ 93.158(a)(5)(iii)). The Tonto NF has

determined that since the local

modeling analysis satisfies the

requirements of 40 CFR 93.158(b) and

because there is not a fully approved

SIP for the Hayden/Miami Planning

Area that could be revised to include

offsets, the local modeling analysis

allowed for in § 93.158(a)(4) is adequate

for determining the conformity of the

action.

IV. Presumption of Conformity

The United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service—

Tonto National Forest has reviewed the

air quality analysis conducted for the

Carlota Copper Project (consistent with

the requirement of 40 CFR part 93,

‘‘Determining Conformity of General

Federal Actions to State or Federal

Implementation Plans (SIP)’’, issued on

November 30, 1993).

For purposes of emissions of sulfur

dioxide (SO2), the project is proposed to

be located in an area designated as

nonattainment for SO2 (the Miami

Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area)

although there is not an approved SO2

SIP for the nonattainment area. The

Tonto NF has reviewed the air quality

analysis and determined that predicted

direct and indirect emissions of SO2 are

26 tons per year based on a required

AQCP condition (as issued by ADEQ) to

use low sulfur content diesel fuel. (0.05

percent sulfur by weight) in stationary

combustion sources and the

commitment to use low sulfur diesel

fuel in all mobile combustion

equipment. This is below the de

minimis level of 100 tons per year for

SO2 as defines in the general conformity

rule (40 CFR 93.153). Because projected

annual SO2 emissions from the

proposed facility are below the de

minimis SO2 level, no further

conformity determination is necessary.

For purposes of emissions of

particulate matter with aerodynamic

diameter less than 10 microns (PM10),

the project is proposed to be located in

an area designated as a moderate

nonattainment area for PM10 (the

Hayden/Miami Planning Area). The air

quality analysis for the project indicates

that predicted direct and indirect

emissions of PM10 exceed the de

minimis level for moderate PM10 areas

(100 tons per year). Therefore, the Tonto

NF has reviewed the local PM10

emissions modeling analysis for the

project and has determined the

following:

• The methods for estimating direct

and indirect emissions from the project
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 1997 / Notices 40795

2Predicted maximum concentrations (impact

plus background) at Top-of-the-World (located

within the nonattainment area) area are 20.4 μg/m3

for the 24-hour average and 17.3 μg/m3 for the

annual average.

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 93.159.

The emissions scenario used in the air

quality analysis is expected to produce

the greatest off-site impacts on a daily

and annual basis. (A detailed

description of the emission sources and

detailed emissions inventory tables are

included in the report.)

• The local PM10 emissions modeling

methodology is appropriate for

determining whether emissions from the

project will cause or contribute to any

new violation of the PM10 National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

and meet the requirements of 40 CFR

93.159. (A detailed description of the

local PM10 emissions modeling

methodology is included in the report.)

• The results of the modeling analysis

using the EPA-approved ISCST3

dispersion model (Version 95200) with

the dry deposition algorithm predict

maximum 24-hour ambient

concentrations (impact plus

background) at the process area

boundary to be 110.8 μg/m3. This is

below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150

μg/m3. (A detailed description of the

modeling analysis results and the

printouts of the model input and output

files are included in the report.)

• The results of the modeling analysis

predict the maximum average annual

ambient concentration at the process

area boundary to be 36.9 μg/m3. This is

below the annual PM10 NAAQS

STANDARD OF 50 μg/m3. 2

• The action does not cause or

contribute to any new violation of any

standard in any area (40 CFR

93.158(b)(2)(i)).

• The action does not increase the

frequency or severity of any existing

violation of any standard in any area (40

CFR 93.158(b)(2)(ii)).

• The action does not violate any

requirements or milestones in the SIP

(no requirements or milestones are

applicable to the project) (40 CFR

93.158(c)).

The Tonto NF has also determined

that the planned PM10 controls for the

project are equivalent to Best Available

Control Technology (BACT) for sources

of PM10 emissions associated with openpit mining operations.

Based on these determinations, the

activities at the Carlota Copper Project

is presumed to conform to the

applicable conformity requirements for

the project area. The list of activities at

the Carlota Copper Project that are

presumed to conform include:

Process Non-process

Primary crusher system ..................................................................................................... Topsoil removal.

Conveyor systems ............................................................................................................. Topsoil unloading to stockpiles.

Secondary crusher system ................................................................................................ Blast hole drilling.

Boiler .................................................................................................................................. Blasting.

Back-up generator ............................................................................................................. Loading/unloading of ore and mine rock.

Hauling or ore and mine rock.

Combustion emissions from mobile equipment.

Travel of mine equipment other than haul trucks.

Haul road maintenance.

This presumption of conformity is

based on adequate activity limits,

emission limits, emission controls, and

monitoring requirements that have been

included in the AQCP No. 071437P0–99

for the Carlota Copper Project issued by

ADEQ. The presumption of conformity

assumes that the requirements in the

permit will be adequately enforced by

ADEQ. The Tonto NF lists the following

permit requirements (contained in the

Attachment B to the permit) as being

critical to the presumption of

conformity of the Carlota Copper

Project:

• Maximum speed limit of 35 mph for

all vehicles and an average speed for the

heavy-duty haul trucks of 15 mph.

(Condition II.D.1)

• Unpaved roadway treatment with

magnesium chloride, calcium chloride,

or other chemical dust suppressants

with equivalent or better control

efficiency in sufficient quantity and

frequency to maintain a ground

inventory of 0.25 gallons per square

yard. (Condition II.E.2)

• Water sprays installed, operated,

and maintained continuously during the

times of operation of the primary

crusher. (Condition II.E.2)

• Water sprays installed, operated,

and maintained continuously (except as

provided by the excess emission rule,

A.A.C. R18–2–306 and 310) during the

times of operation of the conveyor

systems, transfer points, process

equipment, and storage piles at the

stacker discharge points. (Condition

II.E.3)

• Baghouse installed and operated on

the secondary crusher and associated

vibrating screen. (Condition II.G.1)

• A weight rate of mined rock (waste

rock and ore combined) shall not exceed

125,000 tons per 24-hour calendar day

and 29 million tons per year. (Condition

III.A)

• Burn only diesel no. 2 fuel with a

sulfur content of less than 0.05 percent

in the SX/EW tankhouse boiler and

backup generator and the leach pad

backup generator. (Condition II, Boiler

and Generator Emissions, C.1)

• An ambient PM10 monitor installed,

near the boundary of the mining activity

in the general direction of the

Superstition Wilderness, operated on an

every-sixth-day schedule, and

maintained in accordance with

applicable manufacturer’s instructions,

EPA handbooks, and federal

requirements (Condition IV.A).

Dated: July 22, 1997.

Charles R. Bazan,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97–20010 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation

Service

Lower Stillwater Watershed, Darke and

Miami Counties, Ohio

AGENCY: Natural Resources

Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of finding of no

significant impact.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969; the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations (40

CFR Part 1500); and the Natural

Resources Conservation Service

Regulations (7 CFR 650); the Natural