Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 2239 

1For the definition of the Ajo maintenance area, 

see 40 CFR 81.303. Ajo is a town located in 

northwestern Pima County, in the southwestern 

portion of Arizona. The EPA designated the entire 

area of Pima County as nonattainment for SO2 on 

March 3, 1978 for lack of a State recommendation. 

The EPA approved the State’s request that the SO2- 

affected portion of Pima County be limited to the 

townships surrounding Ajo on April 10, 1979 (44 

FR 21261). Townships T11S, R6W; T11S, R5W; 

T12S, R6W; T12S, R5W; and T13S, R6W comprised 

the nonattainment area. Townships T11S, R7W; 

T12S, R7W; T13S, R5W; and T13S, R7W were 

designated as ‘‘cannot be classified.’’ At the time of 

our redesignation, we incorrectly identified the 

maintenance area as all townships and ranges 

T11S–13S, R5W–R6W as ‘‘better than national 

standards.’’ However, T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; 

T13S, R7W; and T13S, R5W were originally 

designated as ‘‘cannot be classified’’ and should 

have remained such. Today, we are correcting that 

error. 

2For the definition of the Morenci maintenance 

area, see 40 CFR 81.303. Morenci is a town in 

eastern Greenlee County near the border of Arizona 

and New Mexico. The EPA designated the entire 

area of Greenlee County as nonattainment for SO2

on March 3, 1978 for lack of a State 

recommendation. The EPA approved the State’s 

request that the SO2-affected portion of Greenlee 

County be limited to the townships surrounding 

Morenci on April 10, 1979 (44 FR 21261). Within 

Greenlee County, Townships T3S, R28E; T3S, R29E; 

T3S, R30E; T4S, R28E; T4S, R29E; T4S, R30E; T5S, 

R28E; and T5S, R29E comprise the maintenance 

area. Township T5S, R30E is designated as ‘‘cannot 

be classified.’’ 

§ 52.2075 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 3. Section 52.2075 is removed and 

reserved. 

§ 52.2078 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 4. Section 52.2078 is removed and 

reserved. 

[FR Doc. 2016–31444 Filed 1–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0287; FRL–9957–64– 

Region 9] 

Approval of Arizona Air Plan 

Revisions; Ajo and Morenci, Arizona; 

Second 10-Year Sulfur Dioxide 

Maintenance Plans and Technical 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule and technical 

correction. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the second 

10-year maintenance plans for the Ajo 

and Morenci areas in Arizona for the 

1971 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), and correcting an 

error in the description of the Ajo SO2

maintenance area in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Elsewhere in this Federal 

Register, we are proposing approval and 

soliciting written comment on these 

actions. If we receive adverse comments 

on this direct final rule, resulting in 

withdrawal of the entire rule or any 

part(s) of it, we will address those 

comments when we finalize the 

proposal. The EPA does not plan to 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 10, 

2017, without further notice, unless we 

receive adverse comments by February 

8, 2017. If the EPA receives adverse 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that some or all of the 

provisions in this direct final rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0287 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office at 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be removed or edited from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

You may inspect and copy the 

rulemaking docket for this notice at the 

following location during normal 

business hours: Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, Air 

Division, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. Copies of the State 

Implementation Plan materials are also 

available for inspection at the address 

listed here: Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, 1110 W. 

Washington Street, First Floor, Phoenix, 

AZ 85007, Phone: (602) 771–4335. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elsewhere 

in this Federal Register, we are 

proposing approval and soliciting 

written comment on this action. 

Throughout this document, the words 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ mean EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Action 

II. Background 

A. What National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards are considered in this 

rulemaking? 

B. What is a State Implementation Plan? 

C. What is the background for this action? 

D. What are the applicable provisions for 

second 10-year maintenance plans for 

SO2? 

III. The EPA’s evaluation of the Arizona State 

submittals 

A. Did the State meet the CAA procedural 

requirements? 

B. Has the State met the substantive 

maintenance plan requirements? 

IV. Technical Correction 

A. History of the Ajo Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Area Boundary 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Action 

We are approving the second 10-year 

maintenance plans for the Ajo and 

Morenci, Arizona SO2 maintenance 

areas and correcting an error in the 

boundary description of the Ajo 

maintenance area in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR).1 2

II. Background 

A. What National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards are considered in this 

rulemaking? 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the pollutant 

that is the subject of this action. The 

NAAQS are health-based and welfarebased standards for certain ambient air 

pollutants. SO2 is among the ambient air 

pollutants for which we have 

established a health-based standard. SO2

causes adverse health effects by 

reducing lung function, increasing 

respiratory illness, altering the lung’s 

defenses and aggravating existing 

cardiovascular disease. Children, the 

elderly, and people with asthma are the 

most vulnerable. SO2 has a variety of 

additional impacts, including acidic 

deposition, damage to crops and 

vegetation, and corrosion of natural and 

man-made materials. 

In 1971, the EPA established both 

short- and long-term primary NAAQS 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2240 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

3Secondary NAAQS are promulgated to protect 

welfare. The secondary 1971 SO2 NAAQS (3-hour) 

of 0.50 ppm is not to be exceeded more than once 

per year. The Ajo and Morenci areas are not 

classified nonattainment for the secondary 

standard, and this action relates only to the primary 

1971 SO2 NAAQS. 

4This action is consistent with the CAA’s antibacksliding provisions. EPA’s proposed rule on 

revocation of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS discussed that 

maintenance SIPs would continue being 

implemented by states until such time as they are 

subsumed by new planning and control 

requirements associated with the revised NAAQS. 

See 74 FR 64810, 64863 (December 8, 2009). 

5See 68 FR 62239 (November 3, 2003) for Ajo and 

69 FR 22447 (April 26, 2004) for Morenci. 

for SO2. The short-term (24-hour) 

standard of 0.14 parts per million (ppm) 

was not to be exceeded more than once 

per year. The long-term standard 

specifies an annual arithmetic mean not 

to exceed 0.030 ppm.3 See 40 CFR 50.4. 

In 2010, the EPA revised the primary 

SO2 NAAQS by establishing a new 1- 

hour standard of 75 parts per billion 

(ppb). The EPA revoked the existing 

1971 primary standards at that time 

because they would not provide 

additional public health protection. See 

75 FR 35550 (June 22, 2010). This action 

relates only to the revoked 1971 

NAAQS. The State has requested that 

we take action on these maintenance 

plans.4

B. What is a State Implementation Plan? 

The Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) 

requires states to attain and maintain 

ambient air quality equal to or better 

than the NAAQS. The state’s 

commitments for attaining and 

maintaining the NAAQS are outlined in 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

that state. The SIP is a planning 

document that, when implemented, is 

designed to ensure the achievement of 

the NAAQS. The Act requires that SIP 

revisions be made periodically as 

necessary to provide continued 

compliance with the standards. 

SIPs include, among other things, the 

following: (1) An inventory of emission 

sources; (2) statutes and regulations 

adopted by the state legislature and 

executive agencies; (3) air quality 

analyses that include demonstrations 

that adequate controls are in place to 

meet the NAAQS; and (4) contingency 

measures to be undertaken if an area 

fails to attain the standard or make 

reasonable progress toward attainment 

by the required date, or a contingency 

plan if the area fails to maintain the 

NAAQS once redesignated. The state 

must make the SIP available for public 

review and comment through a public 

hearing and the SIP must be adopted by 

the state and submitted to us by the 

governor or her/his designee. 

The EPA takes action on the SIP 

submittal, thus rendering the rules and 

regulations federally enforceable. The 

approved SIP serves as the state’s 

commitment to take actions that will 

reduce or eliminate air quality 

problems. Any subsequent revisions to 

the SIP must go through the formal SIP 

revision process specified in the Act. 

C. What is the background for this 

action? 

1. When were the nonattainment areas 

established? 

Ajo 

Ajo is located in northwestern Pima 

County. On March 3, 1978, at 43 FR 

8968, for lack of a State 

recommendation, we designated Pima 

County as a primary SO2 nonattainment 

area based on monitored violations of 

the primary SO2 NAAQS in the area 

between 1975 and 1977. At the request 

of the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the 

nonattainment area was subsequently 

reduced to five townships in and 

around Ajo. See 44 FR 21261 (April 10, 

1979). As a result, townships T11S, 

R6W; T11S, R5W; T12S, R6W; T12s, 

R5W; and T13S, R6W made up the 

nonattainment area. Townships T11S, 

R7W; T12S, R7W; T13S, R7W; and 

T13S, R5W were classified as ‘‘cannot 

be classified’’ areas. 

Morenci 

Morenci is a town in eastern Greenlee 

County near the border of Arizona and 

New Mexico. On March 3, 1978, at 43 

FR 8968, for lack of a state 

recommendation, we designated 

Greenlee County as a primary SO2

nonattainment area based on monitored 

violations of the primary SO2 NAAQS in 

the area between 1975 and 1977. At the 

request of the ADEQ, the nonattainment 

area was subsequently reduced to the 

townships in and around Morenci. See 

44 FR 21261 (April 10, 1979). As a 

result, within Greenlee County 

townships T3S, R28E; T3S, R29E; T3S, 

R30E; T4S, R28E; T4S, R29E; T4S, R30E; 

T5S, R28E; and T5S, R29E made up the 

nonattainment area. Township T5S, 

R30E was classified as a ‘‘cannot be 

classified’’ area. 

On the date of enactment of the 1990 

CAA Amendments, SO2 areas meeting 

the conditions of section 107(d) of the 

Act were designated nonattainment for 

the SO2 NAAQS by operation of law. 

Section 107(d) describes the processes 

by which nonattainment areas are 

designated, including the pre-existing 

SO2 nonattainment areas. Thus, the Ajo 

and Morenci areas remained 

nonattainment for the primary SO2

NAAQS following enactment of the 

1990 CAA Amendments on November 

15, 1990. 

2. When were the Ajo and Morenci areas 

redesignated for SO2? 

In 2004, we redesignated the Ajo and 

Morenci areas under the criteria used 

for areas with shut-down smelters and 

discontinued monitoring described in a 

memorandum from John Seitz to 

Regional Office Air Division Directors 

titled ‘‘Redesignation of Sulfur Dioxide 

Nonattainment Areas in the Absence of 

Monitored Data,’’ dated October 18, 

2000 (‘‘Seitz Memo’’).5

Ajo 

Phelps Dodge Mining Company’s Ajo 

Incorporated (PDAI) operation was the 

largest point source in the Ajo SO2

nonattainment area. On April 4, 1985, 

the PDAI smelter was permanently 

deactivated. Dismantling of the Ajo 

facility began in 1995. By February 

1996, the facility was completely 

dismantled. On October 15, 1997, ADEQ 

confirmed that the facility was 

dismantled and no longer existed at the 

former site. On November 3, 2003, the 

EPA finalized approval of the 

maintenance plan and redesignation 

request for the Ajo area, effective 

January 2, 2004 (see 68 FR 62239). At 

that time, we incorrectly identified the 

maintenance area as townships and 

ranges T11S–T13S, R5W–R6W as 

‘‘better than national standards.’’ 

However, T13S, R5W was originally 

designated as ‘‘cannot be classified’’ and 

should have remained such. 

Additionally, townships T13S, R5W; 

T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; and T13S, R7W 

were dropped from the CFR, and should 

be listed in 40 CFR 81.303 as ‘‘cannot 

be classified,’’ as they were upon Ajo’s 

original designation in 1979. Today, we 

are correcting those errors. 

Morenci 

The Phelps Dodge Morenci 

Incorporated (PDMI) operation was the 

largest SO2 point source in the Morenci 

nonattainment area during its operation. 

PDMI was located next to the Morenci 

copper mine, one of the largest copper 

producing operations in North America. 

PDMI was located close to the 

community of Morenci, in eastern 

Greenlee County, near the Arizona/New 

Mexico border. 

On December 31, 1984, the PDMI 

smelter was permanently deactivated. 

Dismantling of the Morenci facility 

began in 1995 and was complete by 

December 1996. On October 29, 1997, 

ADEQ confirmed that the facility was 

dismantled and no longer existed at the 

former site. On April 26, 2004, the EPA 

finalized approval of the maintenance 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 2241 

6Final Arizona State Implementation Plan 

Revision, Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur 

Dioxide Planning Area (1971 NAAQS) (2013 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan), page (p.) 23, Table 4.6. 

7 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 24, Table 4.7. 

8Proposed Arizona State Implementation Plan 

Revision, Maintenance Plan for the Morenci Sulfur 

Dioxide Planning Area (1971 NAAQS), p. 20, active 

permits only. 

plan and redesignation request for the 

Morenci area, effective June 25, 2004 

(see 69 FR 22447). 

3. What is the current status of the 

areas? 

The Ajo and Morenci areas remain 

sparsely settled, and only minor 

industrial or commercial activities that 

produce small quantities of SO2

emissions are located in or near the 

nonattainment areas. 

Ajo 

In Ajo, the only remaining SO2 point 

sources consist of emergency generators 

run by Freeport-McMoRan Corporation 

and Minerals Research and Recovery, 

which have a potential to emit (PTE) of 

0.374 tons per year (tpy) of SO2.6 The 50 

kilometer (km) buffer area required to be 

evaluated by the Seitz Memo includes 

an Arizona Public Service emergency 

generator, a paper mill, the Gila Bend 

Air Force Auxiliary Field, and a cotton 

gin, with a combined PTE of 7.388 tpy.7

Currently, no ambient SO2 monitors 

operate in the Ajo area. However, we do 

not expect the cumulative impact of the 

sources in and around Ajo to cause a 

violation of the NAAQS because the 

area’s emissions are so low. No 

significant new sources have located in 

the area since our redesignation of the 

area to attainment in 2003. 

Morenci 

Minor industrial or commercial 

activities such as Freeport-McMoRan 

mining operations and emergency 

generators for the Morenci wastewater 

treatment plant operate in the area. The 

50 km area around the nonattainment 

area also contains a construction 

company, well fields, and several other 

sources that all still have active permits 

and together produce about 135 tpy of 

SO2 emissions.8

Currently, no ambient SO2 monitors 

operate in the Morenci area. However, 

we do not expect the cumulative impact 

of the sources in and around Morenci to 

cause a violation of the NAAQS. No 

significant new sources have located in 

the area, and the smelter was the cause 

of past violations. 

D. What are the applicable provisions 

for second 10-year maintenance plans 

for SO2? 

1. What are the statutory provisions? 

Section 175A of the CAA provides the 

general framework for maintenance 

plans. The initial 10-year maintenance 

plan must provide for maintenance of 

the NAAQS for at least 10 years after 

redesignation, including any additional 

control measures as may be necessary to 

ensure such maintenance. In addition, 

maintenance plans are to contain such 

contingency provisions as we deem 

necessary to assure the prompt 

correction of a violation of the NAAQS 

that occurs after redesignation. The 

contingency measures must include, at 

a minimum, a requirement that the state 

will implement all control measures 

contained in the nonattainment SIP 

prior to redesignation. 

Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires 

states to submit a subsequent 

maintenance plan revision (second 10- 

year maintenance plan) eight years after 

redesignation. The Act requires only 

that this second 10-year maintenance 

plan maintain the applicable NAAQS 

for ten years after the expiration of the 

first 10-year maintenance plan. Beyond 

these provisions, however, section 175A 

of the CAA does not define the content 

of a second 10-year maintenance plan. 

2. What general EPA guidance applies to 

SO2 maintenance plans? 

Our primary general guidance on 

maintenance plans and redesignation 

requests is a September 4, 1992 memo 

from John Calcagni, titled ‘‘Procedures 

for Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’ (‘‘Calcagni 

Memo’’). Specific guidance on SO2

redesignations also appears in a January 

26, 1995 memo from Sally L. Shaver, 

titled ‘‘Attainment Determination Policy 

for Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment 

Areas’’ (‘‘Shaver Memo’’). 

Guidance on SO2 maintenance plan 

requirements for an area lacking 

monitored ambient data, if the area’s 

historic violations were caused by a 

major point source that is no longer in 

operation, is found in the Seitz Memo 

at section II.C.2 and footnote 4. The 

Seitz Memo exempts eligible areas from 

the maintenance plan requirements of 

continued ambient air quality 

monitoring. 

While the Seitz Memo primarily 

addresses redesignations, we find it is 

appropriate to apply the Seitz Memo to 

second 10-year maintenance plans for 

areas that were redesignated in 

accordance with the memo and 

continue to experience similar 

conditions to those at the time of 

redesignation. 

3. What are the requirements for 

maintenance plans for single-source SO2

nonattainment areas in the absence of 

monitored data? 

Our historic redesignation policy for 

SO2 has called for eight quarters of clean 

ambient air quality data as a necessary 

prerequisite to redesignation of any area 

to attainment. The Seitz Memo provides 

guidance on SO2 maintenance plan 

requirements for an area lacking 

monitored ambient data, if the area’s 

historic violations were caused by a 

major point source that is no longer in 

operation. To allow for these areas to 

qualify for redesignation to attainment, 

this policy requires that the 

maintenance plan address otherwise 

applicable provisions, and include: 

(1) Emissions inventories representing 

actual emissions when violations 

occurred; current emissions; and 

emissions projected to the 10th year 

after redesignation; all three inventories 

should include estimates of emissions 

in a 50 km buffer zone around the 

nonattainment area; 

(2) dispersion modeling showing that 

no NAAQS violations will occur over 

the next 10 years and that the shutdown source was the dominant cause of 

the high concentrations in the past; 

(3) evidence that if the shut-down 

source resumes operation, it would be 

considered a new source and be 

required to obtain a permit under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) provisions of the CAA; and 

(4) a commitment to resume 

monitoring before any major SO2 source 

commences operation. 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Arizona State Submittals 

A. Did the State meet the CAA 

procedural requirements? 

Ajo 

On February 22, 2013, ADEQ 

submitted to the EPA the ‘‘Final Arizona 

State Implementation Plan Revision, 

Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur 

Dioxide Planning Area (1971 NAAQS)’’ 

(‘‘2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan’’). The 

State verified that it had adhered to its 

SIP adoption procedures in Appendix E 

to the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, 

which includes the notice of public 

hearing, the agenda for the February 7, 

2013 public hearing, the sign in sheet, 

the public hearing officer certification 

and transcript of the hearing, and the 

State’s responsiveness summary. 

On August 22, 2013, the 2013 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan was deemed 

complete by operation of law. See 40 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2242 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

9The State provided the three emissions 

inventories specified in the Seitz Memo for the 

sources in, and within 50 kilometers of, the Ajo 

nonattainment area in the 2002 Ajo maintenance 

plan. For a representative year when the copper 

smelter was in operation (1981), direct SO2

emissions from smelting operations were 39,596 

tpy. ADEQ’s 2002 submittal identified only a single 

existing point source within the Ajo Area, the 

Phelps Dodge Generator Station. Phelps Dodge has 

since shut down the generators and no longer uses 

them as emergency/back up electric supply. See 

2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan, p. 32 and Appendix C– 

1. 

CFR part 51, appendix V, for the EPA’s 

completeness criteria, which must be 

satisfied before EPA formal review. 

Morenci 

On December 18, 2014, ADEQ 

submitted to the EPA the ‘‘Proposed 

Arizona State Implementation Plan 

Revision, Maintenance Plan for the 

Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Planning Area 

(1971 NAAQS)’’ (‘‘2014 Morenci 

Maintenance Plan’’). The State verified 

that it had adhered to its SIP adoption 

procedures in Appendix E to the 2014 

Morenci Maintenance Plan, which 

includes the notice of public hearing, 

the agenda for the December 15, 2014 

public hearing, the sign in sheet, the 

public hearing officer certification and 

transcript of the hearing, and the State’s 

responsiveness summary. 

On May 10, 2015, the 2014 Morenci 

Maintenance Plan was deemed 

complete by operation of law. See 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V, for the EPA’s 

completeness criteria, which must be 

satisfied before EPA formal review. 

B. Has the State met the substantive 

maintenance plan requirements? 

1. Were the area’s violations caused by 

a major point source of SO2 emissions 

that is no longer in operation? 

As discussed above, the only major 

source of SO2 emissions within the Ajo 

nonattainment area was the Phelps 

Dodge Mining Company’s PDAI copper 

smelter, which ceased operation in 1985 

and was completely dismantled by 

February 1996. The last recorded 24- 

hour or annual average exceedances of 

the primary NAAQS at PDAI occurred 

in 1984. During the monitoring 

network’s history, annual average SO2

levels were generally half of the current 

NAAQS (0.030 ppm). See 2013 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan, page (p.) 17. ADEQ 

removed the SO2 monitor in 1985, and 

the smelter operating permits expired. 

The smelting equipment was removed 

over a period of years, and the smelter 

was completely dismantled by February 

1996. No new sources of SO2 of the 

magnitude of PDAI have located in the 

area. Thus, Ajo meets this criterion for 

review under the Seitz Memo. 

As discussed above, the only major 

source of SO2 emissions within the 

Morenci nonattainment area was the 

Phelps Dodge Mining Company’s PDMI 

copper smelter, which was permanently 

deactivated by December 31, 1984 and 

was completely dismantled by 

December 1996. The last recorded 24- 

hour or annual average exceedances of 

the primary NAAQS at PDMI occurred 

in 1984. During the monitoring 

network’s history, annual average SO2

levels were generally half of the current 

NAAQS (0.030 ppm). See 2014 Morenci 

Maintenance Plan, p. 15–16. ADEQ 

removed the SO2 monitors in 1985, and 

the smelter operating permits expired. 

The smelting equipment was removed 

over a period of years, and the smelter 

was completely dismantled by 

December 1996. No new sources of SO2

of the magnitude of PDMI have located 

in the area. Thus, Morenci meets this 

criterion for review under the Seitz 

Memo. 

2. Has the state met the requirements for 

second 10-year maintenance plans? 

The 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan and 

2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan both 

extend the maintenance period for ten 

years after the expiration of the first 10- 

year maintenance plans, as required by 

Section 175A(b) of the CAA. As 

discussed below, the State has 

addressed the requirements in the Seitz 

Memo for emissions inventories, 

modeling, permitting of major new 

sources, and agreement to commence 

monitoring if a new major source locates 

in either the Ajo or Morenci areas. 

Therefore, the State has met the specific 

criteria in the Seitz Memo for approval 

of maintenance plans and redesignation 

requests where a single source was the 

historic cause of violations and the 

source is now shut down. We provide 

more details on each requirement and 

how the 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan and 

the 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan 

meet each requirement in the following 

sections. 

Ajo 

a. Emissions Inventories 

In addition to reproducing the 

emissions inventories in the Ajo Sulfur 

Dioxide Nonattainment Area State 

Implementation Plan and Maintenance 

Plan (June 18, 2002) (‘‘2002 Ajo 

maintenance plan’’), the 2013 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan includes new 

emissions inventories for 2008, 

representing an updated ‘‘current’’ 

emissions inventory (the most recent 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

available at the time), 2010, 2015, 2020, 

and 2025 for the second 10-year 

maintenance period.9 Continued 

maintenance of the Ajo area for 10 years 

following the initial 10-year 

maintenance period is demonstrated in 

part by showing that future SO2

emissions in the area are not expected 

to exceed the level of the attainment 

emissions inventory. 

The emissions inventories in the 2013 

Ajo Maintenance Plan include estimates 

of SO2 from all relevant source 

categories, which the 2013 Plan divides 

among stationary, and area and mobile. 

Point source information was received 

from the Pima County Department of 

Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the 

Maricopa County Air Quality Division’s 

annual emissions inventory data. The 

Ajo maintenance area contains two 

point sources (i.e., Freeport-McMoRan 

Corporation Childs Well Field 

Emergency Generator, and Minerals 

Research and Recovery, Inc.), which 

together emit less than 1 tpy SO2. The 

50 km buffer area contains four point 

sources, including a cotton gin, a paper 

mill, an Air Force auxiliary field, and an 

emergency generator. The 2013 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan includes a 

description of current facility types, 

emitting equipment, permitted 

emissions limits, operating rates, and 

emissions calculation methods. 

Area and mobile sources in ADEQ’s 

2008 and subsequent year inventories 

were derived from the EPA’s NEI and 

local agency records. Historical and 

2008 emissions inventories demonstrate 

that no significant area or mobile 

sources existed in the Ajo area prior to 

or subsequent to the smelter operation, 

which closed in 1985. 

Based on our review of the emissions 

inventories in the 2013 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan and the supporting 

information in Appendix C, we 

conclude that the inventories are 

complete, accurate, and consistent with 

applicable CAA provisions and the Seitz 

Memo. 

b. Dispersion Modeling 

Past EPA policy memoranda on SO2

redesignations all recommend 

dispersion modeling to show that the 

NAAQS is met and will be maintained. 

The Seitz Memo recommends 

dispersion modeling of all point sources 

within 

50 km of the nonattainment area 

boundary. Screening modeling can be 

used to conservatively show that nonsmelter sources have only an 

insignificant contribution to average 

SO2 concentrations in a nonattainment 

area. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 2243 

10 In the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan, the 

State provided the three emissions inventories 

specified in the Seitz Memo for the sources in, and 

within 50 kilometers of, the Morenci nonattainment 

area. For a representative year when the copper 

smelter was in operation (1984), direct actual SO2

emissions from smelting operations were 82,432 

tpy. During its operation, the Morenci primary 

copper smelter was the only major point source in 

the area. The 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan 

included inventories for 1984 (a year the smelter 

was in operation), 1999 (a year the area was 

attaining the SO2 standard), and 2015 (the projected 

inventory for the horizon year of the maintenance 

period). Sources in the 50 km buffer around the 

Morenci area were estimated to emit 186.5 tpy in 

1999, based on PTE, but had actual emissions 

significantly lower, at 1.2 tpy. See 2014 Morenci 

Maintenance Plan, p. 18. 

11National Interagency Fire Center’s Web site at 

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_

statistics.html, ‘‘Historical year-end statistics by 

state,’’ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_

Arizona_wildfires. Acres burned in 2011 in Arizona 

were more than 10 times higher than 2010 acres 

burned in Arizona due to wildfires, and about five 

Continued 

For the 2002 Ajo Maintenance Plan, 

screening dispersion modeling was 

performed using the SCREEN3 model 

run with conservative assumptions 

about source parameters and 

meteorology. At the time of the 2002 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan, the Ajo 

nonattainment area had one minor point 

source of SO2 emissions (i.e., PhelpsDodge Generating Station) and one 

permitted minor point source in the 50 

km buffer (i.e., the proposed Gila Bend 

Regional Landfill). The model predicted 

that the impact from these two sources 

would not exceed 66% of the 1971 SO2

NAAQS, even assuming constant worstcase conditions about high-sulfur 

content fuel use. 

The Seitz Memo also requires a 

modeling analysis that shows that the 

point sources that were shutdown were 

the dominant sources contributing to 

high SO2 concentrations in the airshed. 

Since the emissions of non-smelter 

sources in the area had changed 

relatively little since the time that 

emission controls were placed on the 

smelter, this same screening modeling 

was used to show that the non-smelter 

sources were insignificant in the past, 

and thus the smelter was the dominant 

source contributing to past high SO2

concentrations. 

ADEQ did not conduct a new 

modeling analysis for the 2013 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan. As described above, 

the modeling for the 2002 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan modeled the existing 

two sources at maximum projected 

emissions rates from 2004 to 2015 and 

showed the area would not exceed 66% 

of the NAAQS. Since that modeling 

analysis was conducted, the PhelpsDodge Generating Station has shut 

down, the Gila Bend Regional Landfill 

was never constructed, and the permit 

for the landfill was allowed to expire. 

Currently, only two sources operate 

within the nonattainment area (i.e., 

Freeport-McMoRan Incorporated Childs 

Well Field Emergency Generator, and 

Minerals Research and Recovery), and 

they are permitted to emit less than 1% 

of the emissions modeled in the 2002 

Ajo Maintenance Plan. Point sources 

within the 50 km buffer surrounding the 

nonattainment area emit about 25% of 

emissions modeled in the 2002 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan. 2025 projections 

show that these low emissions are 

expected to persist through the second 

10-year maintenance period. See 2013 

Ajo Maintenance Plan, pp. 33 and 34. 

ADEQ proposes, and we concur, that 

because current emissions in the 

maintenance area and the 50 km buffer 

are a small fraction of modeled 

emissions from 2002, the ambient SO2

modeling requirement for second 10- 

year maintenance plans is met by the 

prior modeling, and the State has 

demonstrated that the 1971 SO2 NAAQS 

is adequately protected. 

c. Treatment of New Sources of SO2

Emissions 

In nonattainment areas, section 

172(c)(5) of the CAA requires New 

Source Review (NSR) permits prior to 

the construction and operation of new 

major stationary sources and major 

modifications at existing major 

stationary sources. However, in 

attainment areas, section 165 of the 

CAA requires major sources and major 

modifications to obtain PSD permits. 

The PSD program requires stationary 

sources to apply the best available 

control technology and ensure that 

projects will not cause or contribute to 

a violation of a NAAQS or maximum 

allowable increase. 

ADEQ and the PDEQ have PSD 

permitting programs (i.e., Arizona 

Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18–2– 

406 and Pima County Code 17.16.590) 

that were established to preserve the air 

quality in areas where ambient 

standards have been met. The State’s 

updated PSD program was approved 

into the SIP on November 2, 2015 (80 

FR 67319). PDEQ’s PSD program is not 

SIP-approved, but the federal PSD 

permitting program at 40 CFR 52.21 was 

delegated to PDEQ effective April 14, 

1994. 

The PSD program has applied to any 

major source or major modification in 

the Ajo area since the area was 

redesignated to attainment for SO2 in 

2003, except for coarse particulate 

(PM10), for which the area is designated 

nonattainment. Under section 172(c)(5) 

of the CAA, major sources and major 

modifications of PM10 in the Ajo area 

remain subject to the nonattainment 

NSR program, while all other NSR 

regulated pollutants are subject to the 

PSD program. Thus the existing ADEQ 

and PDEQ PSD and NSR programs 

satisfy the preconstruction permit 

provision of the Seitz Memo as one of 

the prerequisites to redesignation for the 

Ajo SO2 nonattainment area. 

d. Commitment to Resume Monitoring 

ADEQ commits to resume monitoring 

before any major source of SO2

commences to operate in the Ajo 

maintenance area. See 2013 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan, p. 38. This addresses 

the monitoring provision of the Seitz 

Memo. 

Morenci 

a. Emissions Inventory 

The 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan 

includes historical inventories that were 

submitted as part of the Morenci Sulfur 

Dioxide Nonattainment Area State 

Implementation Plan and Maintenance 

Plan (submitted June 21, 2002) (‘‘2002 

Morenci maintenance plan’’) as well as 

a current-year inventory for 2011 (the 

most recent NEI available at the time), 

and projected inventories for 2015, 

2020, 2025, and 2030 for the second 10- 

year maintenance period.10

The emissions inventories in the 2014 

Morenci Maintenance Plan include 

estimates of SO2 emissions from all 

relevant source categories, which are 

divided among stationary, area, and 

mobile source categories. Additional 

information on how the inventories 

were developed, including activity data 

and emissions calculations, is provided 

in Appendix C of the 2014 Morenci 

Maintenance Plan. Point source 

information was developed by ADEQ 

from permit information and the NEI. 

The 2011 inventory identifies two 

existing point sources within the 

Morenci maintenance area: The 

Freeport-McMoRan Morenci mine with 

2011 actual emissions of 48.5 tpy SO2, 

and the Morenci Townsite Wastewater 

Treatment Plant Emergency Generators 

with 2011 actual emissions of 0.003 tpy 

SO2. In 2011, 13 point additional 

sources with actual emissions of 38.05 

tpy SO2 were located within 50 km of 

the Morenci maintenance area 

boundary. As of 2014, six of these 

sources had terminated their permits, 

resulting in slightly lower emissions. 

Area and mobile source emissions in 

ADEQ’s 2011 and subsequent year 

inventories were derived from the NEI. 

The year 2011 was a historically high 

wildfire year, and included the largest 

wildfire in Arizona history (i.e., the 

Wallow fire), which burned in Greenlee 

County and surrounding areas.11 ADEQ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2244 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

times higher than acres burned in Arizona in 2012 

due to wildfires. 

12AERSCREEN has replaced SCREEN3 as the 

EPA’s preferred screening model. See Memorandum 

dated April 11, 2011, from Tyler Fox to the EPA 

Regional Modeling Contacts, ‘‘AERSCREEN 

Released as EPA Recommended Screening Model’’ 

in the docket for this action. SCREEN3 was used for 

the 2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan. 

assumed the 2011 wildfire emissions 

remained constant when projecting 

emissions into the future. 

Based on our review of the emissions 

inventories in the 2014 Morenci 

Maintenance Plan and the supporting 

information in Appendix C, we 

conclude that the inventories are 

complete, accurate, and consistent with 

applicable CAA provisions and the Seitz 

Memo. 

b. Dispersion Modeling 

The EPA policy memoranda on SO2

redesignations recommend dispersion 

modeling to show that the NAAQS is 

met and will be maintained. The Seitz 

Memo recommends dispersion 

modeling of all point sources within 50 

km of the nonattainment area boundary. 

For the 2002 Morenci Maintenance 

Plan, screening dispersion modeling 

was performed using the SCREEN3 

model, which was run with 

conservative assumptions about source 

parameters and meteorology. The 

modeling results indicated that the 

impact of existing sources on 

concentrations within the 

nonattainment area would not exceed 

25 percent of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS. 

The Seitz Memo also requires a 

modeling analysis that shows point 

sources that were shutdown were the 

dominant sources contributing to high 

SO2 concentrations in the airshed. The 

screening modeling described above 

was used in the 2002 Morenci 

Maintenance Plan to show that the nonsmelter sources have an insignificant 

contribution, and thus the smelter was 

the dominant source contributing to 

past high SO2 concentrations. 

For the 2014 Morenci Maintenance 

Plan, ADEQ conducted a modeling 

analysis similar to the analysis in the 

2002 Morenci Maintenance Plan. The 

two largest sources in the maintenance 

area and within the 50 km buffer area 

were modeled. The two sources are 

Freeport-McMoRan Morenci Mine 

(FMMM) in the maintenance area, with 

a PTE of 88 tpy SO2, and the FreeportMcMoRan Safford Mine (FMSM) in the 

50 km buffer area, with a PTE of 81 tpy 

SO2. Other point sources were not 

modeled because of their small or 

negligible emissions. 

The EPA dispersion model 

AERSCREEN (version 11126) was used 

to conservatively estimate the impact of 

FMMM and FMSM on maintenance in 

the Morenci planning area.12 The results 

of the AERSCREEN modeling indicated 

that the impact of these existing sources 

would have a cumulative potential 

impact of 42–53% of the 1971 annual 

and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS respectively. 

See 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan, p. 

29. Projections for 2030 show that this 

low level of emissions is expected to 

persist through the second maintenance 

period. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance 

Plan, p. 32. We therefore conclude that 

the State has demonstrated that the 1971 

SO2 NAAQS is adequately protected. 

c. Treatment of New Sources of SO2

Emissions 

In nonattainment areas, section 

172(c)(5) of the CAA requires NSR 

permits prior to the construction and 

operation of new major stationary 

sources and major modifications at 

existing major stationary sources. 

However, in attainment areas, section 

165 of the CAA requires major sources 

and major modifications to obtain PSD 

permits. The PSD program requires 

stationary sources to apply the best 

available control technology and ensure 

projects will not cause or contribute to 

a violation of a NAAQS or maximum 

allowable increase. 

ADEQ has a PSD permitting program 

(i.e., A.A.C. R18–2–406) that was 

established to preserve the air quality in 

areas where ambient standards have 

been met. The State’s updated PSD 

program was approved into the SIP on 

November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67319). The 

PSD program has applied to any major 

source or major modification in the 

Morenci area since the area was 

redesignated to attainment for SO2 in 

2004. Thus the ADEQ’s existing PSD 

program satisfies the preconstruction 

permit provision of the Seitz Memo as 

one of the prerequisites to redesignation 

for the Morenci SO2 nonattainment area. 

d. Commitment To Resume Monitoring 

ADEQ commits to resume monitoring 

before any major source of SO2

commences to operate. See 2014 

Morenci Maintenance Plan, p. 16. This 

addresses the monitoring provision of 

the Seitz Memo. 

3. Other CAA Requirements 

a. Contingency Plan 

As discussed above, section 175A of 

the CAA sets forth the statutory 

requirements for maintenance plans, 

and the Calcagni, Seitz and Shaver 

Memos cited above contain specific EPA 

guidance. The only maintenance plan 

element not covered by the Seitz Memo 

is the contingency provisions. Section 

175A(d) of the CAA requires that 

maintenance plans contain contingency 

provisions deemed necessary by the 

Administrator to assure that the state 

will promptly correct any violation of 

the standard which occurs after the 

redesignation of the area as an 

attainment area. 

Ajo 

The 2013 Ajo Maintenance Plan 

includes the State’s commitment to 

continue to track maintenance of the 

SO2 NAAQS through updates to the 

emissions inventory. Additionally, 

ADEQ commits to reestablish an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network before any major source of SO2

begins operations in the Ajo 

maintenance area. See 2013 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan, p. 38. 

Since the primary cause of future 

violations of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS in 

the area would be from modified or new 

point sources, ADEQ’s current operating 

permit program places limits on SO2

emissions from existing sources. Should 

a new facility be constructed in the Ajo 

area or an existing facility want to 

upgrade or increase SO2 emissions, the 

facility would also be subject to PSD as 

required in the Calcagni Memo. 

The Calcagni Memo emphasizes the 

importance of specific contingency 

measures, schedules for adoption, and 

action levels to trigger implementation 

of the contingency plan. Since there are 

no remaining sources of SO2 emissions 

of the magnitude of the PDAI smelter, 

and there is no SO2 monitoring in the 

Ajo area, we agree with the State that 

the level of specificity recommended in 

the Calcagni Memo is not necessary, and 

we conclude that the State’s 

commitment satisfactorily addresses the 

CAA provisions. We find that the State’s 

commitment to continue to track 

maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS 

through updates to the emissions 

inventory and the State’s PSD 

permitting programs are sufficient to 

assure that the Ajo area will not violate 

the NAAQS. 

Morenci 

The 2014 Morenci Maintenance Plan 

includes the State’s commitment to 

continue to demonstrate maintenance of 

the SO2 NAAQS through updates to the 

emissions inventory. Additionally, 

ADEQ commits to reestablish an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network before any major source of SO2

begins operations in the Morenci 

maintenance area. See 2014 Morenci 

Maintenance Plan, p. 32. 

Since the primary cause of future 

violations of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 2245 

13 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1). 14 64 FR 19916, April 23, 1999. 

the area would be from modified or new 

point sources, ADEQ’s current operating 

permit program places limits on SO2

emissions from existing sources. Should 

a new facility be constructed in the 

Morenci area or an existing facility want 

to upgrade or increase SO2 emissions, 

the facility would also be subject to PSD 

as required in the Calcagni Memo. 

The Calcagni Memo emphasizes the 

importance of specific contingency 

measures, schedules for adoption, and 

action levels to trigger implementation 

of the contingency plan. Since there are 

no remaining sources of SO2 emissions 

of the magnitude of the PDMI smelter, 

and there is no SO2 monitoring in the 

Morenci area, we agree with the State 

that the level of specificity 

recommended in the Calcagni Memo is 

not necessary, and we conclude that the 

State’s commitment satisfactorily 

addresses the CAA provisions. We find 

that the State’s commitment to continue 

to track maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS 

through updates to the emissions 

inventory and the State’s PSD 

permitting programs are sufficient to 

assure that the Morenci area will not 

violate the NAAQS. 

b. Transportation and General 

Conformity 

Conformity is required under section 

176(c) of the CAA to ensure that federal 

actions are consistent with (‘‘conform 

to’’) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity 

to the purpose of the SIP means that 

federal activities will not cause new air 

quality violations, worsen existing 

violations, or delay timely attainment of 

the relevant NAAQS or interim 

reductions and milestones. Conformity 

applies to areas that are designated 

nonattainment and to maintenance 

areas. The requirement to determine 

conformity applies to transportation 

plans, programs and projects developed, 

funded, or approved under Title 23 

U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act 

(‘‘Transportation conformity’’) as well as 

to other federally supported or funded 

projects (‘‘general conformity’’). 

Transportation conformity applies to 

projects that require Federal Highway 

Administration or Federal Transit 

Administration funding. 40 CFR part 93 

describes the requirements for federal 

actions related to transportation plans, 

programs, and projects to conform to the 

purposes of the SIP. Because the EPA 

does not consider SO2 a transportationrelated criteria pollutant,13 only the 

requirements related to general 

conformity apply to the Ajo and 

Morenci areas. 

Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA 

establishes the framework for general 

conformity. Besides ensuring that 

federal actions not covered by the 

transportation conformity rule will not 

interfere with the SIP, the general 

conformity regulations encourage 

consultation between the federal agency 

and the state or local air pollution 

control agencies before and during the 

environmental review process, as well 

as public notification of and access to 

federal agency conformity 

determinations, and allows for air 

quality review of individual federal 

actions. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA required 

the states to revise their SIPs to establish 

criteria and procedures to ensure that 

federally supported or funded projects 

in nonattainment and maintenance 

areas ‘‘conform’’ to the air quality 

planning goals in the applicable SIP. SIP 

revisions intended to meet the 

conformity requirements in section 

176(c) are referred to as ‘‘conformity 

SIPs.’’ In 2005, Congress amended 

section 176(c), and under the amended 

conformity provisions, states are no 

longer required to submit conformity 

SIPs for general conformity, and the 

conformity SIP requirements for 

transportation conformity have been 

reduced to include only those relating to 

consultation, enforcement, and 

enforceability. CAA section 176(c)(4)(E). 

The EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of a redesignation request 

under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) because 

state conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and Federal 

conformity rules apply where state rules 

have not been approved. See Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), 

upholding this interpretation. Because 

both Ajo and Morenci have already been 

redesignated for this standard, we 

believe it is reasonable to apply the 

interpretation of conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for the 

purposes of redesignation to the 

approval of second ten-year 

maintenance plans. 

Criteria for making determinations 

and provisions for general conformity 

are contained in Arizona Administrative 

Code R18–2–1438. Arizona has an 

approved general conformity SIP.14

Ajo 

ADEQ commits in the 2013 Ajo 

Maintenance Plan to review and 

comment, as appropriate, on any federal 

agency draft general conformity 

determination it receives consistent 

with 40 CFR 93.155 for any federal 

plans or actions in this planning area, 

although none are currently planned for 

the area. See 2013 Ajo Maintenance 

Plan, p. 13. 

Morenci 

ADEQ commits in the 2014 Morenci 

Maintenance Plan to review and 

comment, as appropriate, on any federal 

agency draft general conformity 

determination it receives consistent 

with 40 CFR 93.155 for any federal 

plans or actions in this planning area, 

although none are currently planned for 

the area. See 2014 Morenci Maintenance 

Plan, p. 11. 

IV. Technical Correction 

A. History of the Ajo Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Area Boundary 

On November 3, 2003, the EPA 

finalized approval of the maintenance 

plan and redesignation request for the 

Ajo area, effective January 2, 2004 (see 

68 FR 62239). To codify this 

rulemaking, we amended 40 CFR 81.303 

that lists the designations for air quality 

planning areas in Arizona, but we 

incorrectly identified the Ajo 

maintenance area in the Arizona SO2

table by dropping township T13S, R5W 

from the maintenance area, and 

inadvertently deleted other townships 

and ranges in the ‘‘cannot be classified’’ 

description. Township T13S, R5W as 

well as townships T11S, R7W; T12S, 

R7W; and T13S, R7W should have 

remained ‘‘cannot be classified.’’ 

Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides 

that when the EPA’s action approving 

any plan or plan revision (or part 

thereof), area designation, redesignation, 

classification, or reclassification was in 

error, the EPA may in the same manner 

revise such action. Under the EPA’s 

authority under section 110(k)(6) of the 

Act, we are taking direct final action to 

amend the Arizona-SO2 table in 40 CFR 

81.303 by re-codifying and correcting 

the previous detailed descriptions of the 

Ajo maintenance area and townships 

identified as ‘‘cannot be classified.’’ 

The maintenance area consists of 

townships T11S, R6W; T11S, R5W; 

T12S, R6W; T12S, R5W; and T13S, 

R6W. In addition, townships T13S, 

R5W; T11S, R7W; T12S, R7W; and 

T13S, R7W are listed in 40 CFR 81.303 

as ‘‘cannot be classified,’’ as they were 

upon the Ajo area’s original designation 

in 1979. 

V. Final Action 

We are approving the second 10-year 

SO2 maintenance plans for the Ajo and 

Morenci areas in Arizona under sections 

110 and 175A of the CAA and correcting 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2246 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

an error made in the description of the 

Ajo maintenance area and in the 

identification of townships as ‘‘cannot 

be classified’’ in the CFR when we 

redesignated the area in 2003. As 

authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, the EPA is fully approving the 

submitted SIPs because we believe they 

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

submitted SIPs. If we receive adverse 

comments by February 8, 2017, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that some or all of the provisions of the 

direct final approval will not take effect 

and we will address the comments in a 

subsequent final action based on the 

proposal. If we do not receive timely 

adverse comments, the direct final 

approval will be effective without 

further notice on March 10, 2017. This 

will incorporate these SIPs into the 

federally enforceable SIP. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 10, 2017. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of this Federal Register, rather than file 

an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

the EPA can withdraw this direct final 

rule and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: December 15, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 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 in paragraph (e), 

table 1 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding an entry for ‘‘ ‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision, 

Maintenance Plan for the Ajo Sulfur 

Dioxide Area (1971 NAAQS), (February 

2013) excluding Appendix C, 

‘‘Overview of Point Source Emissions 

Limits and Potential to Emit’’ after the 

heading ‘‘Part D Elements and Plans 

(Other than for the Metropolitan 

Phoenix and Tucson Areas)’ ’’; and 

■ b. Adding an entry for ‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision, 

Maintenance Plan for the Morenci 

Sulfur Dioxide Area (1971 NAAQS), 

(December 2014)’’ after the entry for 

‘‘Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide 

Nonattainment Area State 

Implementation and Maintenance Plan 

(June 2002)(revised May 26, 2004), 

excluding appendix A (‘‘SIP Support 

Information’’), sections A.1 (‘‘Pertinent 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 2247 

Sections of the Arizona Administrative 

Code’’) and A.2 (‘‘Information Regarding 

Revisions to AAC R18–2–715 and R18– 

2–715.01, ‘Standards of Performance for 

Primary Copper Smelters: Site Specific 

Requirements; Compliance and 

Monitoring’’’); and appendix D (‘‘SIP 

Public Hearing Documentation’’)’’. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area or title/ 

subject 

State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan 

*******

Part D Elements and Plans (Other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas) 

Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan for the Ajo 

Sulfur Dioxide Area 

(1971 NAAQS), (February 2013), excluding 

Appendix C, ‘‘Overview 

of Point Source Emissions Limits and Potential to Emit’’.

Ajo Sulfur Dioxide Air 

Quality Planning Area.

February 22, 2013 ............ 1/9/2017, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Adopted by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality on February 22, 2013. Fulfills 

requirements for second 

ten-year maintenance 

plans. The SIP includes 

a request to correct the 

maintenance area 

boundary. 

* * * * * * * 

Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Maintenance Plan for the 

Morenci Sulfur Dioxide 

Area (1971 NAAQS), 

(December 2014).

Morenci Sulfur Dioxide Air 

Quality Planning Area.

December 18, 2014 .......... January 9, 2017, [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

Adopted by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality on December 18, 2014. Fulfills 

requirements for second 

ten-year maintenance 

plans. 

* * * * * * * 

1Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and 

Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas. 

* * * * * 

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. Section 81.303 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Arizona—1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)’’ by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Ajo’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.303 Arizona. 

* * * * * 

ARIZONA—1971 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area Does not meet primary standards Does not meet secondary 

standards 

Cannot be 

classified 

Better than 

national 

standards 

Ajo: ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................ ........................

T11S, R5W ..................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................ X 

T11S, R6W ..................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................ X 

T12S, R5W ..................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................ X 

T12S, R6W ..................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................ X 

T13S, R6W ..................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................ X 

T11S, R7W ..................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ X ........................

T12S, R7W ..................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ X ........................

T13S, R5W ..................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ X ........................

T13S, R7W ..................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ X ........................

* * * * * * * 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2248 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–31637 Filed 1–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

46 CFR PART 503 

[Docket No. 16–18] 

RIN 3072–AC66 

Amendments to Regulations 

Governing Access to Commission 

Information and Records; Freedom of 

Information Act 

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime 

Commission amends its regulations for 

processing requests for information and 

records under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA). The regulations 

are being revised to incorporate changes 

brought by amendments to the FOIA 

under the FOIA Improvement Act of 

2016. The Act requires agencies to 

review their FOIA regulations and issue 

regulations implementing the 

amendments no later than 180 days after 

enactment. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 30, 

2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant 

Secretary, Federal Maritime 

Commission, 800 North Capitol Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001. 

Phone: (202) 523–5725. Email: 

secretary@fmc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

30, 2016, the President signed into law 

the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The 

Act prescribes a range of procedural 

requirements that affect the 

Commission’s FOIA regulations, and 

which this final rule implements, 

including requirements that the 

Commission: 

• Provide publically available 

documents and its FOIA Annual 

Reports in an electronic format; 

• provide FOIA requesters the right to 

seek dispute resolution services from 

the Commission’s FOIA Public Liaison 

and/or the Office of Government 

Information Services during the FOIA 

process; 

• provide a minimum of 90 days for 

FOIA requesters to file an 

administrative appeal; and 

• not apply the deliberative process 

privilege to records created 25 years or 

more before the date on which the 

records were requested. 

Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires an agency to review regulations 

to assess their impact on small entities 

and prepare an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, unless the agency 

determines that a rule is not expected to 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule will affect only persons 

who file FOIA requests, and therefore, 

the Commission certifies that this final 

rule will not have a significant or 

negative economic impacts on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

requires an agency to seek and receive 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) before making most 

requests for information if the agency is 

requesting information from more than 

ten persons. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency 

must submit collections of information 

in proposed rules to OMB in 

conjunction with the publication of the 

proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11. 

This final rule does not impose any 

collections of information, as defined by 

44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

This final rule will have no physical 

impact upon the environment, and 

therefore, will not require any further 

review under NEPA. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

The Commission assigns a regulation 

identifier number (RIN) to each 

regulatory action listed in the Unified 

Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). 

The Regulatory Information Service 

Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 

April and October of each year. The RIN 

contained in the heading of this 

document may be used to find this 

action in the Unified Agenda, available 

at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

eAgendaMain. 

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 503 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Archives and records, 

Classified information, Confidential 

business information, Freedom of 

information, Information, Privacy, 

Records, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sunshine Act. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Maritime 

Commission amends 46 CFR part 503 as 

follows: 

PART 503—PUBLIC INFORMATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 503 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 552b, 553; 

31 U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 13526, 75 FR 707, 3 

CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 298. 

Subpart C—Records, Information and 

Materials Generally Available to the 

Public Without Resort to Freedom of 

Information Act Procedures 

■ 2. Amend § 503.21 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text and (c) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 503.21 Mandatory public records. 

(a) The Commission, as required by 

the Freedom of Information Act, 5 

U.S.C. 552, is responsible for 

determining which of its records must 

be made publicly available, for 

identifying additional records of interest 

to the public that are appropriate for 

public disclosure, for posting and 

indexing such records, and for 

reviewing and updating posted records 

and indices on an ongoing basis. The 

Commission makes the following 

materials available for public inspection 

in electronic format on its Web site at 

www.fmc.gov: 

* * * * * 

(c) The Commission maintains and 

makes available for public inspection in 

an electronic format, a current log or 

index providing identifying information 

for the public as to any matter which is 

issued, adopted, or promulgated, and 

which is required by paragraph (a) of 

this section to be made available or 

published. 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—Requests for Records 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

■ 3. Amend § 503.32 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (a)(3)(i)(B), 

and (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 503.32 Procedures for responding to 

requests made under the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Such determination shall be made 

by the Secretary within twenty (20) 

business days after receipt of such 

request, except as provided in 

paragraphs (b) and (e)(4) of this section, 

and the Secretary shall immediately 

notify the requester of: 

(i) Such determination and the 

reasons therefor; 

(ii) The right of such person to seek 

assistance from the agency’s FOIA 

Public Liaison; and 

(iii) In the case of an adverse 

determination, the right of such 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES