[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18203]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-54-000]

Desert Southwest Power, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

April 2, 2010.
    Take notice that on March 30, 2010, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2), 18
CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2009), of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the
Federal Regulatory Commission, Desert Southwest Power, LLC filed an
application for declaratory order requesting the Commission to
authorize certain transmission rate incentives for the Desert Southwest
Transmission Project, which satisfy requirements of section 219 of the
Federal Power Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 824s (2006), and Order No.
679, Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform, Order
No. 679, 71 FR 43294 (July 31, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,222
(2006), order on reh'g, Order No. 679-A, 72 FR 1152 (Jan. 10, 2007),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,236 (2006), order on reh'g, 119 FERC ] 61, 062
(2007).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 29, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8067 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31753-31754]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14681]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0396; FRL-9980-46-OAR]

Notice of Intent To Hold a Workshop for a Study on the Impacts of
Compliance With the ECA Fuel Sulfur Limits on U.S. Coastal Shipping

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a
stakeholder workshop to be held in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2018.
This workshop will engage individuals and companies involved in U.S.
coastal shipping as transportation providers or users, as well as
states, local communities, and interested citizens, in the development
of a study of the impacts on that sector of the North American Emission
Control Area (ECA) fuel sulfur limits for ships. The Agency will
provide background on the study, describe the proposed analytic
methodology, and solicit stakeholder input regarding the selection of
transportation routes to be studied and data inputs.

DATES: The workshop will be held on July 30, 2018 at the location noted
below under ADDRESSES. The workshop will begin at 10:00 a.m. EST and
end at 3:00 p.m. EST. Parties wishing to attend the workshop should
notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
by July 23, 2018. Additional information regarding the workshop appears
below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the following location: Room
1153, William Jefferson Clinton East, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460. Additional information related to the workshop
will be posted on the EPA website at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/designation-north-american-emission-control-area-marine. Interested parties should check the website for
any updated information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia MacAllister, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

A. Docket

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0396. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744.

B. Electronic Access

    You may access this Federal Register document electronically from
the Government Printing Office under the ``Federal Register'' listings
at FDSys (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR).

II. Overview

    The North American Emission Control Area (ECA) was designated in
2010 by amendment to Annex VI to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).\1\ Beginning January 1,
2015, the sulfur content of fuel used by ships operating in the ECA may
not exceed 1,000 ppm. By the year 2030, this program is expected to
reduce annual emissions of NOX, SOX, and
PM2.5 by 1.2 million, 1.3 million, and 143,000 tons,
respectively. The magnitude of these reductions would continue well
beyond 2030, and are estimated to annually prevent between 12,000 and
30,000 PM-related premature deaths; between 210 and 920 ozone-related
premature deaths; 1,400,000 work days lost; and 9,600,000 minor
restricted-activity days. The estimated annual monetized health
benefits of the North American Emission Control Area in 2030 would be
between $110 and $270 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate (or
between $99 and $240 billion assuming a 7 percent discount rate). The
annual cost of the overall program in 2030 would be significantly less,
at approximately $3.1 billion. This cost includes $2.5 billion in fuel
costs, $0.6 billion in NOX control operating costs (e.g.,
urea consumption), and $0.05 billion in variable costs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/designation-north-american-emission-control-area-marine.
    \2\ For analysis of the 2030 benefits and costs of the North
American ECA, see Final Rule, Control of Emissions From New Marine
Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder;
this rule is available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-04-30/pdf/2010-2534.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Senate Report 114-281 (June 16, 2016),\3\ Members of the Senate
Committee on Appropriations indicated that while they support efforts
to reduce pollution from marine vessels, ``the Committee is concerned
the mandate for fuel with a sulfur content of 0.1% in the North
American Emission Control Area is having a disproportionately negative
impact on vessels which have engines that generate less than 32,000
horsepower [and] this impact may cause some shippers to shift from
marine based transport to less efficient, higher emitting modes.'' As a
result, ``to avoid negative environmental consequences and modal
shifting, the Committee directs the Agency to consider exempting
vessels with engines that generate less than 32,000 horsepower and
operate more than 50 miles from the coastline.'' \4\ In response to the
Committee's concerns, EPA intends to perform a study of the economic
impacts of compliance with the North American ECA fuel sulfur limits on
coastal shipping.\5\ The study will be based on the approach the Agency
used for a similar study carried out in 2012 examining the impacts of
the application of the ECA fuel sulfur limits on the Great Lakes
shipping industry.\6\ That study used a combination of geospatial
transportation route modeling and cost modeling to examine the impacts
of the ECA fuel sulfur requirements for a specific set of
transportation routes identified by stakeholders as being at risk for
transportation mode shift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Committee Report [To accompany S. 3068]; this report is
available at https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/srpt281/CRPT-114srpt281.pdf. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31), refers to
Senate Report 114-281 as carrying the same emphasis in regard to the
administration of programs.
    \4\ Ships that generate less than 32,000 horsepower represent
about 85 percent of all ships that visit U.S. ports.
    \5\ Coastal shipping, also called coastwise or short sea
shipping, generally means marine transportation along a coast
without crossing an ocean. For the purpose of this study, coastal
shipping means the transportation of goods or materials by ship from
an originating port located in North America, Mexico, or Central
America to a United States destination port located on the Pacific,
Atlantic, or Gulf coasts, or vice versa, but excludes shipping
between Great Lakes ports.
    \6\ See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0586 and https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100E7EW.PDF?Dockey=P100E7EW.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Input from coastal transportation industry stakeholders and other
industries involved in alternative transportation modes will be
essential to identify the transportation routes to be studied: Those
routes that may be at risk of transportation mode shift as a result of
increased operating costs due to the use of ECA fuel. Stakeholder input
also will be important for essential data, including ship
characteristics.
    To facilitate stakeholder participation, EPA will conduct a
workshop on July 30, 2018, at the location noted above under ADDRESSES.
At this meeting, the Agency will explain the purpose of this economic
impact study, describe the methodology that was used for a similar
study of the impacts of ECA compliance on the Great Lakes, and explain
the methodology that will be applied to this study of the economic
impacts of the ECA fuel sulfur requirements on the U.S. coastal marine
transportation. EPA will also describe the data needs of the study, how
interested stakeholders can help EPA obtain that data, and EPA's
procedures to ensure the protection of confidential business
information.
    EPA invites and encourages participation by all manner of coastal
shipping stakeholders: Shipping companies, both those with ships that
are capable of operating on heavy fuel oil and those with ships that
are designed to operate solely on distillate diesel fuel; companies
that provide alternative land-based transportation (rail and highway
truck); companies that utilize coastal marine transportation; state and
local governments; environmental and community groups; and others who
are interested in or who have information that may be useful for this
study.
    A draft agenda for the workshop can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/designation-north-american-emission-control-area-marine. EPA also plans to place
relevant materials in that docket as they become available.

    Dated: June 27, 2018.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2018-14681 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46444-46449]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21378]

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

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the words ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Action
II. Background

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 welfare-based
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Secondary 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This action is consistent with the CAA's anti-backsliding
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).

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.

    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 on-
road), 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 on-road 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 non-road mobile
sources will contribute 1.65 tons of SO2 (see Table 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''

                           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See footnote 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

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.) Sec. Sec.  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. Sec.  49-101. The PCAQCD and the PDEQ have authority for
sources under their jurisdiction under A.R.S. Sec.  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

to'') the purpose of the SIP. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP
means that federal activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the relevant NAAQS or interim reductions and milestones. Conformity
applies to areas that are designated nonattainment and to maintenance
areas. The requirement to determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded, or
approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act
(``transportation conformity''), as well as to other federally
supported or funded projects (``general conformity'').
    Transportation conformity applies to projects that require Federal
Highway Administration or Federal Transit Administration funding. 40
CFR part 93 describes the requirements for federal actions related to
transportation plans, programs, and projects to conform to the purposes
of the SIP. Because the EPA does not consider SO2 a
transportation-related criteria pollutant,\6\ only the requirements
related to general conformity apply to the San Manuel area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA establishes the framework for general
conformity. Besides ensuring that federal actions not covered by the
transportation conformity rule will not interfere with the SIP, the
general conformity regulations encourage consultation between the
federal agency and the state or local air pollution control agencies
before and during the environmental review process; 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 64 FR 19916 (April 23, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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