46444 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

nonattainment plans meet the 

applicable requirements of CAA 

sections 172, 191, and 192. EPA is 

taking public comments for thirty days 

following the publication of this 

proposed action in the Federal Register. 

EPA will take all comments into 

consideration in our final action. 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35, 

Subtitle B, Chapter I, Subchapter c, Part 

214, Sections 214.121, 214.122, 214.161, 

214.600, 214.601, 214.602, 214.603, 

214.604, and 214.605, effective 

December 7, 2015. EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA 

Region 5 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

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 proposed 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 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 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: September 17, 2017. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21371 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0377; FRL–9968–89– 

Region 9] 

Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revision; 

San Manuel, Arizona; Second 10-Year 

Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the second 10-year maintenance plan for 

the San Manuel area in Arizona for the 

1971 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for 

sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by November 6, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2017–0377 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office at 

graham.ashleyr@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 (e.g., audio or video) 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 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site and 

in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

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

may not be publicly available at either 

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

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ashley Graham, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3877, graham.ashleyr@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the words 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ mean the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Action 

II. Background 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46445 

1For the definition of the San Manuel 

maintenance area, see 40 CFR 81.303. The San 

Manuel maintenance area is located in southern 

Arizona. The EPA designated Pima and Pinal 

counties as nonattainment for SO2 on March 3, 

1978, for lack of a state recommendation. On April 

10, 1979, the EPA approved the State’s request that 

the SO2-affected portion of Pima and Pinal counties 

be limited to the townships surrounding the 

primary copper smelter located near San Manuel 

(44 FR 21261). Townships T8S, R16E; T8S, R17E; 

T8S, R18E; T9S, R15E; T9S, R16E; T9S, R17E; T9S, 

R18E; T10S, R15E; T10S, R16E; T10S, R17E; and 

T11S, R16E comprised the nonattainment area. 

Townships T10S, R18E; T11S, R17E; T12S, R16E; 

and T12S, R17E were designated as ‘‘cannot be 

classified.’’ 

2Secondary NAAQS are promulgated to protect 

public welfare. The secondary 1971 SO2 NAAQS 

(3-hour) of 0.5 ppm is not to be exceeded more than 

once per year. The San Manuel area was not 

classified nonattainment for the secondary 

standard, and this action relates only to the primary 

1971 SO2 NAAQS. 

3This action is consistent with the CAA’s antibacksliding provisions. The EPA’s final rule on 

revocation of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS discussed that 

maintenance SIPs would continue being 

implemented by states until they are subsumed by 

new planning and control requirements associated 

with the revised NAAQS. See 75 FR 35520, 35580 

(June 22, 2010). 

A. What National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards are considered in today’s 

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 

Submittal 

A. Did the State meet the CAA procedural 

requirements? 

B. Has the State met the substantive 

maintenance plan requirements? 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

second 10-year maintenance plan for the 

San Manuel, Arizona SO2 maintenance 

area (‘‘San Manuel maintenance area’’).1

II. Background 

A. What National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards are considered in today’s 

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. Sulfur dioxide is among the 

ambient air pollutants for which we 

have established a health-based 

standard. Sulfur dioxide 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. Sulfur 

dioxide 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 

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.2 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. 

The EPA revoked the existing 1971 

primary standards at that time because 

they would not provide additional 

public health protection. See 75 FR 

35520 (June 22, 2010). Today’s action 

relates only to the revoked 1971 

NAAQS. The State has requested that 

we act on this maintenance plan.3

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, must hold a 

public hearing or provide the public the 

opportunity to request 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 acts 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 was the nonattainment area 

established? 

The San Manuel maintenance area is 

located in southern Arizona. On March 

3, 1978, for lack of a state 

recommendation, the EPA designated 

Pima and Pinal counties as a primary 

SO2 nonattainment area based on 

monitored violations of the primary SO2

NAAQS in the area between 1975 and 

1977. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). 

At the request of the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ), the nonattainment area was 

subsequently reduced to eleven 

townships in and around San Manuel. 

See 44 FR 21261 (April 10, 1979). Thus, 

townships T8S, R16E; T8S, R17E; T8S, 

R18E; T9S, R15E; T9S, R16E; T9S, R17E; 

T9S, R18E; T10S, R15E; T10S, R16E; 

T10S, R17E; and T11S, R16E made up 

the nonattainment area. Townships 

T10S, R18E; T11S, R17E; T12S, R16E; 

and T12S, R17E were classified as 

‘‘cannot be classified’’ areas. 

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 San 

Manuel area remained nonattainment 

for the primary SO2 NAAQS following 

enactment of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments on November 15, 1990. 

2. When was the San Manuel area 

redesignated for SO2? 

During its operation, the BHP Copper 

Incorporated (Inc.) copper smelter was 

the largest SO2 point source in the San 

Manuel nonattainment area, 

contributing more than 99.5 percent of 

total SO2 emissions. The smelter was 

shut down in 1999, and in January 2005, 

BHP Copper Inc. notified the ADEQ that 

the company intended to permanently 

cease operating the smelter. In March 

2005, the ADEQ terminated the permit 

for the facility, and the smelter stacks 

were dismantled in January 2007. 

Closure of the smelter reduced 

emissions and resultant ambient SO2

concentrations. On January 18, 2008, the 

EPA finalized approval of the 

maintenance plan and redesignation 

request for the San Manuel area, 

effective March 18, 2008 (see 73 FR 

3396). 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46446 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

3. What is the current status of the area? 

The remaining SO2 point sources in 

the San Manuel maintenance area 

consist of the Oracle Compressor 

Station, the Bonito Quarry, Decorative 

Rock Sales, Saddlebrooke Ranch Water 

Reclamation Plant, and San Manuel 

schools, which have a combined 

Potential to Emit (PTE) of 4.54 tons per 

year (tpy) SO2 (see Table 1). 

TABLE 1—FACILITY-WIDE PTE FOR

SOURCES OPERATING IN THE SAN

MANUEL MAINTENANCE AREA

Facility PTE 

(tpy SO2) 

Oracle Compressor Station .. 1.90 

Bonito Quarry ....................... 0.80 

Biosphere 2 .......................... 0.71 

Decorative Rock Sales ......... 0.70 

Saddlebrooke Ranch Water 

Reclamation Plant ............. 0.40 

San Manuel schools ............. 0.03 

Total ............................... 4.54 

Currently, no ambient SO2 monitors 

operate in the San Manuel area. 

However, we do not expect the 

cumulative impact of the sources in San 

Manuel to cause a violation of the 

NAAQS because the area’s emissions 

are sufficiently low. Monitoring data 

collected between 1975 and 2007 

indicate that the primary SO2 NAAQS 

had not been violated since 1979, when 

the smelter was still in operation and 

emitted more than 200,000 tons of SO2. 

No new sources of SO2 of the magnitude 

of the BHP Copper Inc. smelter have 

located in the area since our 

redesignation of the area to attainment 

in 2008. 

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 

contingency provisions 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 10 years after the expiration of the 

first 10-year maintenance plan. Beyond 

these provisions, 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? 

The primary 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’’). 

While the Calcagni Memo primarily 

addresses redesignations, we find it is 

appropriate to apply the Calcagni 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. For areas to qualify for 

redesignation to attainment, this policy 

recommends that the maintenance plan 

address otherwise applicable 

provisions, and include: 

(1) An attainment emissions inventory 

that identifies the level of emissions in 

the area that is sufficient to attain the 

NAAQS; 

(2) a maintenance demonstration 

showing that future emissions of the 

pollutant or its precursors will not 

exceed the level of the attainment 

inventory, or modeling to show that the 

future mix of sources and emission rates 

will not cause a violation of the 

NAAQS; 

(3) provisions for continued operation 

of air quality monitors to provide 

verification of the attainment status of 

the area; 

(4) verification that the state has the 

legal authority to implement and 

enforce all measures necessary to 

maintain the NAAQS and information 

on how the state will track the progress 

of the maintenance plan; and 

(5) contingency provisions, as 

necessary, to promptly correct any 

violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation of the area. 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Arizona State Submittal 

A. Did the State meet the CAA 

procedural requirements? 

On April 21, 2017, the ADEQ 

submitted to the EPA the ‘‘San Manuel 

Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Plan 

Renewal, 1971 Sulfur Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (‘‘2017 

San Manuel Second Maintenance 

Plan’’). The State verified that it had 

adhered to its SIP adoption procedures 

in Appendix B to the 2017 San Manuel 

Second Maintenance Plan, which 

includes the notice of public hearing; 

the agenda for the April 20, 2017 public 

hearing; the sign-in sheet; the public 

hearing officer certification and 

transcript of the hearing; and the State’s 

responsiveness summary. 

The EPA reviewed the 2017 San 

Manuel Second Maintenance Plan for 

completeness and found the plan to be 

complete on September 14, 2017. See 40 

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

completeness criteria, which must be 

satisfied before formal review of the SIP. 

B. Has the State met the substantive 

maintenance plan requirements? 

1. Has the State met the requirements 

for second 10-year maintenance plans? 

The 2017 San Manuel Second 

Maintenance Plan covers the second 10 

years of the 20-year maintenance period, 

as required by Section 175A(b) of the 

CAA. As discussed below, the State has 

addressed the recommendations in the 

Calcagni Memo for emissions 

inventories, a maintenance 

demonstration, provisions for continued 

operation of air quality monitors, a 

commitment to track continued 

maintenance, and contingency 

provisions. We provide more details on 

each requirement and how the 2017 San 

Manuel Second Maintenance Plan meets 

each requirement in the following 

sections. 

a. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

On June 7, 2007, the ADEQ submitted 

to the EPA its ‘‘Final Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision, San 

Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment 

Area’’ and its request for redesignation 

to attainment (‘‘2007 San Manuel 

Maintenance Plan’’). The State’s June 

2007 submittal also requested that the 

EPA withdraw the June 2002 ‘‘Final San 

Manuel Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment 

Area State Implementation and 

Maintenance Plan.’’ The June 2007 

submittal updated the SIP to account for 

the closure of the dominant source of 

SO2 emissions, the BHP Copper Inc. 

copper smelter. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46447 

4 During the EPA’s review of the ADEQ’s 

submittal, we identified several inconsistencies in 

the 2014 population and land area values reported. 

However, the inconsistencies have only a minor 

impact, or in some cases no impact, on the 

emissions estimates derived. In cases where 

discrepancies did have a minor impact on 

emissions estimates, the EPA found that they led to 

an overestimate in SO2 emissions and thus do not 

alter the ADEQ’s findings that emissions through 

2028 are projected to be well below the 2005 

attainment inventory emissions, and that emissions 

estimates demonstrate continued attainment of the 

1971 SO2 NAAQS in the San Manuel maintenance 

area. See memorandum dated June 21, 2017, from 

Ashley Graham, EPA Region 9, Air Planning Office, 

to docket EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0377, ‘‘Technical 

note regarding emissions inventories in Arizona’s 

San Manuel SO2 2nd 10-year maintenance plan.’’ 

5See footnote 4. 

The ADEQ’s 2007 San Manuel 

Maintenance Plan included updated 

emissions inventories for sources in the 

San Manuel maintenance area for 1998, 

a year in which the smelter was 

operating and the area was attaining the 

SO2 standards, and 2005, a year in 

which the smelter was closed and the 

area was attaining the SO2 standards. In 

the 2017 San Manuel Second 

Maintenance Plan, the ADEQ relied on 

the 2005 emissions inventory to 

demonstrate NAAQS attainment, and 

included the 1998 emissions inventory 

to highlight the difference in area 

emissions during a year when the 

smelter was operating (1998) and a year 

when the smelter had been shut down 

(2005). In 1998, emissions in the San 

Manuel maintenance area were 

approximately 10,440 tons; in 2005, 

emissions were approximately 27.6 

tons. 

b. Maintenance Demonstration 

The Calcagni Memo recommends that 

a state demonstrate maintenance of the 

NAAQS by either showing that future 

emissions of a pollutant or its 

precursors will not exceed the level of 

the attainment inventory, or by 

modeling to show that the future mix of 

sources and emission rates will not 

cause a violation of the NAAQS. 

The 2017 San Manuel Second 

Maintenance Plan demonstrates 

continued maintenance of the 1971 

primary SO2 NAAQS, in part, by 

showing that future emissions of SO2

will not exceed the level of the 

attainment inventory. The plan includes 

emissions inventories representing 

current emissions for 2014 for sources 

in the San Manuel maintenance area; 

projected emissions for two interim 

years during the second maintenance 

period (2019 and 2023); and projected 

emissions for the tenth year of the 

second maintenance period (2028). 

The emissions inventories in the 2017 

San Manuel Second Maintenance Plan 

(see Section 3 and technical support 

document in Appendix A) include 

estimates of SO2 from all relevant source 

categories, which the plan divides 

among point, mobile (nonroad and onroad), and area (non-point) source 

categories. The ADEQ used Pinal 

County’s point source database to 

identify point sources in the Pinal 

County portion of the maintenance area. 

The Pinal County portion of the San 

Manuel maintenance area contains six 

point sources (i.e., Oracle Compressor 

Station, Bonito Quarry, Biosphere 2, 

Decorative Rock Sales, Saddlebrooke 

Ranch Water Reclamation Plant, and 

San Manuel schools), which together 

emitted 3.80 tons of SO2 in 2014. The 

combined PTE of the point sources is 

4.54 tpy SO2. The 2017 San Manuel 

Second Maintenance Plan includes a 

description of current facility types, 

permitted emissions limits, and 

emissions calculation methods for Pinal 

County sources. There are no point 

sources in the Pima County portion of 

the maintenance area. 

Mobile and area source emissions in 

the ADEQ’s 2014 and subsequent year 

inventories were derived from the EPA’s 

National Emissions Inventory Version 1 

and the EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator model. In the 2014 base year, 

the ADEQ estimated that area sources 

contributed 2.58 tons of SO2, the onroad mobile source sector contributed 

1.41 tons of SO2, and the non-road 

mobile source sector contributed 1.14 

tons of SO2 in the San Manuel 

maintenance area (see Table 2).4 Future 

year SO2 emissions for the on-road 

mobile source sector are projected to 

decline due to changes in vehicle 

emissions standards, whereas area 

source emissions are expected to 

increase due to projected population 

growth in the San Manuel maintenance 

area. The ADEQ projected that in 2028, 

area sources will contribute 3.49 tons of 

SO2, on-road mobile sources will 

contribute 0.80 tons of SO2, and nonroad mobile sources will contribute 1.65 

tons of SO2 (see Table 2). 

TABLE 2—SAN MANUEL MAINTENANCE AREA SO2 EMISSIONS SUMMARY

2005 2014 2019 2023 2028 

Area ...................................................................................... 27 2.58 2.86 3.12 3.49 

On-road Mobile .................................................................... 1.41 0.72 0.75 0.80 

Non-road Mobile .................................................................. 1.14 1.30 1.45 1.65 

Point ..................................................................................... 0.6 3.80 4.54 4.54 4.54 

Total .............................................................................. 27.6 8.92 9.43 9.86 10.48 

Based on our review of the emissions 

inventories in the 2017 San Manuel 

Second Maintenance Plan, including the 

supporting information in Appendix A, 

we conclude that the inventories are 

complete and consistent with applicable 

CAA provisions and the Calcagni 

Memo. 

As discussed above, no new sources 

of SO2 that are similar in size to the BHP 

Copper Inc. copper smelter have located 

in the area since our redesignation of 

the area to attainment in 2008. The 

submittal shows that the current (2014) 

and maximum expected level of 

emissions in the San Manuel SO2

maintenance area through the end of the 

maintenance period (2028) are projected 

to be well below both the 1998 and 2005 

attainment inventories. In 2005, 

emissions were 27.6 tons of SO2; 2014 

emissions were 8.92 tons of SO2; and 

2028 emissions are projected to be 10.48 

tons of SO2.5

The Calcagni Memo also specifies that 

projected emissions should reflect 

permanent, enforceable measures. 

Emission reductions from source 

shutdowns are considered permanent 

and enforceable if the shutdowns have 

been reflected in the SIP and all 

applicable permits have been modified 

accordingly. The ADEQ terminated the 

permit for the BHP Copper Inc. copper 

smelter in March 2005, and the smelter 

stacks were dismantled in January 2007. 

The smelting facility cannot reopen 

without submitting New Source Review 

(NSR) and Title V (Part 70) permit 

applications to the ADEQ. We therefore 

propose to conclude that the State has 

demonstrated that the 1971 SO2 NAAQS 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46448 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

is adequately protected due to 

permanent and enforceable measures. 

c. Air Quality Monitoring 

The Calcagni Memo recommends that 

once an area has been redesignated from 

nonattainment to maintenance, the state 

should continue to operate the 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network to allow for continued 

verification of the attainment status of 

the area. However, following five years 

of clean data, SO2 monitors were 

removed from the San Manuel area in 

accordance with 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3). 

Monitoring data collected during 1997 

through 1999, while the smelter was 

still operating, indicate that maximum 

ambient SO2 concentrations were less 

than 55 percent of the 3-hour NAAQS, 

less than 59 percent of the 24-hour 

NAAQS, and less than 33 percent of the 

annual NAAQS. Closure of the smelter 

in 1999 reduced emissions and resultant 

ambient SO2 concentrations. Monitoring 

data for 2002 through 2007 indicate that 

maximum ambient SO2 concentrations 

were two percent of the 3-hour NAAQS, 

less than three percent of the 24-hour 

NAAQS, and less than seven percent of 

the annual NAAQS. 

The ADEQ does not anticipate a 

substantial increase in point source 

emissions in future years and commits 

to resume monitoring before any major 

source of SO2 commences to operate in 

the San Manuel maintenance area. See 

2017 San Manuel Second Maintenance 

Plan, p. 41. Since there are no remaining 

sources of SO2 emissions of the 

magnitude of BHP Copper Inc., the 

projected future emissions through 2028 

are sufficiently low relative to emissions 

during the 1998 and 2005 attainment 

years, and we do not anticipate any 

reason the 1971 SO2 NAAQS would be 

violated, we conclude that future 

monitoring per the recommendations in 

the Calcagni Memo is not required and 

that the State’s commitment to resume 

monitoring before any major source of 

SO2 commences to operate in the San 

Manuel area satisfactorily addresses the 

CAA provisions. 

d. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The Calcagni Memo recommends that 

states ensure that they have the legal 

authority to implement and enforce all 

measures necessary to maintain the 

NAAQS, and that they specify how they 

will track progress of the maintenance 

plan in their submittal. One option for 

tracking maintenance would be through 

periodic updates to the emissions 

inventory. 

The 2017 San Manuel Second 

Maintenance Plan submittal notes that 

the ADEQ, the Pima County Department 

of Environmental Quality (PDEQ), and 

the Pinal County Air Quality Control 

District (PCAQCD) have permitting and 

planning jurisdiction in the San Manuel 

SO2 maintenance area and general 

authority to implement and enforce all 

measures to maintain the 1971 SO2

NAAQS per Arizona Revised Statutes 

(A.R.S.) §§ 49–104, 49–404, 49–422, and 

49–424. 

In the 2017 San Manuel Second 

Maintenance Plan, the State commits to 

track maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in 

the San Manuel area through updates to 

the annual statewide emissions 

inventory and review of permit 

applications for SO2 sources. See 2017 

San Manuel Second Maintenance Plan, 

p. 42. Permitted sources are subject to 

monitoring, reporting, and certification 

procedures contained in Arizona 

Administrative Code (A.A.C) R18–2–306 

and R18–2–309. The ADEQ has 

authority to monitor and ensure 

compliance with all applicable rules 

and permit conditions for sources in its 

jurisdiction, pursuant to A.R.S. § 49– 

101. The PCAQCD and the PDEQ have 

authority for sources under their 

jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 49–402. We 

find that the State’s continued 

commitment to track maintenance of the 

SO2 NAAQS through updates to the 

emissions inventory and the State’s 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting programs are sufficient 

to assure that the San Manuel area will 

maintain the NAAQS. 

e. Contingency Plan 

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 that occurs 

after the redesignation of the area as an 

attainment area. The Calcagni Memo 

provides additional guidance, noting 

that although a state is not required to 

have fully-adopted contingency 

measures that will take effect without 

further action by the state for the 

maintenance plan to be approved, the 

maintenance plan should ensure that 

the contingency measures are adopted 

expediently once they are triggered. 

Specifically, the maintenance plan 

should clearly identify the measures to 

be adopted, include a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the measures, and 

contain a specific time limit for action 

by the state. In addition, the state 

should identify specific indicators or 

triggers, that will be used to determine 

when the contingency measures need to 

be implemented. 

Since there are no remaining sources 

of SO2 emissions of the magnitude of 

the BHP Copper Inc. copper smelter, the 

primary cause of any future violations of 

the 1971 SO2 NAAQS in the San 

Manuel area would be from new or 

modified point sources. The ADEQ and 

the PDEQ have PSD permitting 

programs (i.e., 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 PCAQCD’s PSD program 

is under the ADEQ’s jurisdiction. The 

ADEQ has jurisdiction over all 

refineries, copper smelters, coal-fired 

power plants, cement plants, and 

portable sources that will operate in 

multiple counties (see A.R.S. 49–402). 

These sources must obtain permits from 

the ADEQ. The State’s updated PSD 

program was approved into the SIP on 

November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67319). 

Although the PDEQ’s PSD program is 

not SIP-approved, the federal PSD 

permitting program at 40 CFR 52.21 was 

delegated to the PDEQ effective April 

14, 1994. The PSD programs apply to 

any major source or major modification 

in the San Manuel area. Should a new 

facility be constructed in the San 

Manuel area or an existing facility want 

to upgrade or increase SO2 emissions, 

the facility would be subject to PSD as 

recommended in the Calcagni Memo. 

Furthermore, the ADEQ anticipates no 

relaxation of any implemented control 

measures used to attain and maintain 

the NAAQS, and commits to submit to 

us any changes to rules or emission 

limits applicable to SO2 sources, as well 

as committing to maintain the necessary 

resources to promptly correct any 

violations of the provisions contained in 

the 2017 San Manuel Second 

Maintenance Plan. 

Upon review of the contingency plan 

summarized above, we find that the 

ADEQ has established a contingency 

plan for the San Manuel area that 

satisfies the requirements of CAA 

section 175A(d) and the Calcagni Memo. 

2. Other CAA Requirements 

a. Transportation and General 

Conformity 

As discussed above, section 175A of 

the CAA sets forth the statutory 

requirements for maintenance plans, 

and the Calcagni and Shaver memos 

cited above contain specific EPA 

guidance. Additional maintenance plan 

elements not covered by the Calcagni 

Memo are the transportation and general 

conformity provisions. 

Conformity is required under section 

176(c) of the CAA to ensure that federal 

actions are consistent with (‘‘conform 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46449 

6See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1). 7See 64 FR 19916 (April 23, 1999). 

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,6 only the 

requirements related to general 

conformity apply to the San Manuel 

area. 

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; public 

notification of and access to federal 

agency conformity determinations; and 

air quality review of individual federal 

actions. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

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). 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. See 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). 

Because the San Manuel area has 

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 the second 10-year 

maintenance plan. 

Criteria for making determinations 

and provisions for general conformity 

are contained in A.A.C. R18–2–1438. 

Arizona has an approved general 

conformity SIP.7

The ADEQ commits in the 2017 San 

Manuel Second 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 2017 San 

Manuel Second Maintenance Plan, 

p. 18. 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

We propose to approve the second 

10-year SO2 maintenance plan for the 

San Manuel area in Arizona under 

sections 110 and 175A of the CAA. As 

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

Act, the EPA is proposing to approve 

the submitted SIP because we believe it 

fulfills all relevant requirements. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for 30 days from 

the date of publication of this notice, 

and we will consider any relevant 

comments in taking final action on 

today’s proposal. 

V. 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. See 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

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

Dated: September 26, 2017. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

IX. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21378 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS