83 FR 13716 - Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Hayden and Miami Areas; Lead and Sulfur Dioxide Control Measures-Copper Smelters
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 62 (March 30, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 62 (March 30, 2018)
| Page Range | 13716-13718 | |
| FR Document | 2018-06548 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 13716-13718] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-06548] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0661; FRL-9976-18--Region 9] Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Hayden and Miami Areas; Lead and Sulfur Dioxide Control Measures--Copper Smelters AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of lead and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) from the copper smelter at Hayden, AZ and SO2 from the copper smelter at Miami, AZ. We are proposing to approve State rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 30, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09- [[Page 13717]] OAR-2017-0661 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Kevin Gong, at Gong.Kevin@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972 3073, Gong.Kevin@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and rule revisions? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules D. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the Arizona Administrative Code rules and regulatory appendix addressed by this proposal with their effective dates and the dates they were submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ In addition to the rules addressed in this proposal, ADEQ's April 6, 2017 submittal also included R18-2-B1301.01--Limits on Lead-Bearing Fugitive Dust from the Hayden Smelter; R18-2-B1302-- Limits on SO2 Emissions from the Hayden Smelter; R18-2- 715--Standards of Performance for Existing Primary Copper Smelters: Site-Specific Requirements; and R18-2-715.01--Standards of Performance for Existing Primary Copper Smelters; Compliance and Monitoring. The EPA has already approved R18-2-B1301.01 into the SIP, 83 FR 7614 (February 22, 2018) and intends to take action on the remaining rules in a separate rulemaking. Table 1--Submitted Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule citation Rule title Effective Submitted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R18-2-B1301............................. Limits on Lead Emissions 7/1/2018 or 180 calendar 4/6/2017 from the Hayden Smelter. days after completion of all Converter Retrofit Project improvements authorized by Significant Permit Revision No. 60647. R18-2-C1302............................. Limits on SO2 Emissions On the later of the 4/6/2017 from the Miami Smelter. effective date of the EPA Administrator's action approving it as part of the state implementation plan or January 1, 2018. Appendix 14............................. Procedures for Sulfur 5/7/2017.................. 4/6/2017 Dioxide and Lead Fugitive Emissions Studies for the Hayden Smelter. R18-2-715.02............................ Standards of Performance 5/7/2017.................. 4/6/2017 for Existing Primary Copper Smelters; Fugitive Emissions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for the rules and documents in Table 1 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of these rules? There are no previous versions of Rules R18-2-B1301, R18-2-C1302 or Appendix 14 in the SIP. We approved an earlier version of Rule R18-2- 715.02 into the SIP on November 1, 2004 (69 FR 63321). C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and rule revisions? On November 12, 2008, the EPA published a final rule revising the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). On June 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) NAAQS. CAA section 172(c)(1) requires SIPs for nonattainment areas to provide for implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT), and provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA designated the Hayden area as nonattainment for lead in 2014 (79 FR 52205) and designated the Hayden and Miami areas as nonattainment for SO2 in 2013 (78 FR 47191). Rule R18-2-B1301 establishes control requirements for lead emissions from the copper smelter located in the Hayden, AZ nonattainment area (``Hayden Smelter''). Rule R18-2- C1302 establishes control requirements for SO2 emissions from the copper smelter located in the Miami, AZ nonattainment area (``Miami Smelter''). Appendix 14 requires the evaluation and characterization of fugitive lead and SO2 emissions from the Hayden Smelter. Rule R18-2-715.02 contains the existing requirements for fugitive SO2 emissions studies at both smelters. These requirements will sunset after: (1) The revisions to Rule R18-2-715.02 are approved into the SIP, and (2) Rule B1302 (for the Hayden Smelter) and Rule R18-2-C1302 (for the Miami Smelter) take effect. The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules. II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). The EPA will address the overall [[Page 13718]] RACM/RACT requirement for the Hayden lead nonattainment area in the context of our action on ADEQ's lead plan (``SIP Revision: Hayden Lead Nonattainment Area,'' submitted by ADEQ to the EPA on March 3, 2017), and we will address the RACM/RACT requirement for the Miami SO2 nonattainment area in the context of our action on ADEQ's SO2 plan (``Arizona SIP Revision: Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,'' submitted by ADEQ to the EPA on March 8, 2017). Therefore, our stringency evaluations here consider whether Rules R18-2-B1301 and R18- 2-C1302 implement reasonable controls for the two subject criteria pollutants at the Hayden and Miami smelters.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Appendix 14 does not establish control requirements, so it is not subject to a stringency evaluation. Appendix 14 is still subject to enforceability and SIP consistency evaluations, which we describe in our TSD. The revisions to sunset the existing requirements of Rule R18-2-715.02, are evaluated in context with Appendix 14. See the TSD evaluating Appendix 14 for more information on Rule R18-2-715.02. Rule R18-2-B1302 regulates SO2 emissions at the Hayden Smelter, and will be evaluated in a separate rulemaking. The revisions to sunset the existing requirements of Rules R18-2-715 and R18-2-715.01 in relation to the Hayden Smelter will be evaluated in context with R18-2-B1302. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, rule stringency, and SIP revision requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following: 1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9 (the Little Bluebook, August 21, 2001). 3. ``Implementation of the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Guide to Developing Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions,'' EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (March 2012). 4. ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,'' EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (April 23, 2014). 5. National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Copper Smelting (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ). 6. National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Lead Smelting (40 CFR part 63, subpart X). B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? These rules are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, rule stringency, and SIP revisions. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the State modifies the rules. D. Public Comment and Proposed Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until April 30, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Incorporation by Reference In this rule the 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, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the ADEQ rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve 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); Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; 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 CAA; and Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: March 19, 2018. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2018-06548 Filed 3-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![13716 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2018 / Proposed Rules
states to have SIP provisions that 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS will • Does not provide EPA with the
comply with the requirements of CAA be cured. Finally, EPA is proposing to discretionary authority to address, as
section 128. Because EPA is proposing approve the new supplemental appropriate, disproportionate human
to approve provisions into Mississippi’s provisions regarding representation of health or environmental effects, using
SIP to meet the significant portion of the public interest of section 128(a)(1) practicable and legally permissible
income requirements of section for the MDEQ Permit Board and methods, under Executive Order 12898
128(a)(1) as discussed above, it is also Mississippi Commission on (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
proposing to fully approve the SIP Environmental Quality, and disclosure The SIP is not approved to apply on
submission with respect to the related of potential conflicts of interest of any Indian reservation land or in any
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) section 128(a)(2) for the Mississippi other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
for the NAAQS previously mentioned. Commission on Environmental Quality. has demonstrated that a tribe has
EPA notes that section 128 is not jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
NAAQS-specific, and thus once a state VII. Statutory and Executive Order country, the rule does not have tribal
has met the requirements of section 128 Reviews implications as specified by Executive
it will continue to do so for purposes of Under the CAA, the Administrator is Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
future NAAQS, unless there were future required to approve a SIP submission 2000), nor will it impose substantial
changes to the approved SIP provisions that complies with the provisions of the direct costs on tribal governments or
which would require further evaluation. Act and applicable Federal regulations. preempt tribal law.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
V. Incorporation by Reference List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
In this notice, EPA is proposing to EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Environmental protection, Air
include in a final EPA rule regulatory provided that they meet the criteria of pollution control, Incorporation by
text that includes incorporation by the CAA. This action merely proposes to reference, Intergovernmental relations,
reference. In accordance with the approve state law as meeting Federal Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is requirements and does not impose Reporting and recordkeeping
proposing to incorporate by reference additional requirements beyond those requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
Mississippi Code section 49–2–5 to imposed by state law. For that reason, organic compounds.
include certain section 128 this proposed action: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
requirements for the MDEQ Commission • Is not a significant regulatory action
on Environmental Quality; and subject to review by the Office of Dated: March 15, 2018.
Appendix C–26, ‘‘Air Emissions Management and Budget under Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III,
Regulations for the Prevention, Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Abatement, and Control of Air October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, [FR Doc. 2018–06544 Filed 3–29–18; 8:45 am]
Contaminants’’ Title 11, Part 2, Chapter January 21, 2011); BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
1, Rule 1.1, and Appendix A–13, • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
‘‘Regulations Regarding Administrative FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
Procedures Pursuant to the Mississippi action because SIP approvals are ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Administrative Procedures Act’’, Title exempted under Executive Order 12866; AGENCY
11, Part 1 Chapter 5, Rule 5.1 to • Does not impose an information
incorporate certain section 128 collection burden under the provisions 40 CFR Part 52
requirements for the MDEQ Permit of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0661; FRL–9976–
Board. EPA has made, and will continue U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 18—Region 9]
to make, these materials generally • Is certified as not having a
available through www.regulations.gov significant economic impact on a Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Hayden
and at the EPA Region 4 office (please substantial number of small entities and Miami Areas; Lead and Sulfur
contact the person identified in the FOR under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Dioxide Control Measures—Copper
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Smelters
this preamble for more information). • Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely AGENCY: Environmental Protection
VI. Proposed Action Agency (EPA).
affect small governments, as described
As described above, EPA is proposing in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ACTION: Proposed rule.
to approve that the Mississippi SIP of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
meets the significant portion of income • Does not have Federalism
requirements of 128(a)(1) of the CAA. Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
implications as specified in Executive
EPA is also proposing to conclude that, revisions to the Arizona State
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
if Mississippi’s June 23, 2017, and Implementation Plan (SIP). These
1999);
February 2, 2018, SIP revisions are • Is not an economically significant revisions concern emissions of lead and
approved, the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regulatory action based on health or sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the copper
requirements are met for the 2008 8- safety risks subject to Executive Order smelter at Hayden, AZ and SO2 from the
hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); copper smelter at Miami, AZ. We are
SO2, and 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5, • Is not a significant regulatory action proposing to approve State rules to
regulate these emission sources under
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
Consequently, if EPA finalizes approval 28355, May 22, 2001); the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We
of this action, the deficiencies identified • Is not subject to requirements of are taking comments on this proposal
in the previous partial disapprovals of section 12(d) of the National and plan to follow with a final action.
Mississippi infrastructure SIP Technology Transfer and Advancement DATES: Any comments must arrive by
submissions related to the state board Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because April 30, 2018.
requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, application of those requirements would ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and be inconsistent with the CAA; and identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Mar 29, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP1.SGM 30MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_13778/page/1.svg)
![13718 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2018 / Proposed Rules
RACM/RACT requirement for the B. Do the rules meet the evaluation action because SIP approvals are
Hayden lead nonattainment area in the criteria? exempted under Executive Order 12866;
context of our action on ADEQ’s lead These rules are consistent with CAA • Does not impose an information
plan (‘‘SIP Revision: Hayden Lead requirements and relevant guidance collection burden under the provisions
Nonattainment Area,’’ submitted by regarding enforceability, rule stringency, of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
ADEQ to the EPA on March 3, 2017), and SIP revisions. The TSDs have more U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
and we will address the RACM/RACT information on our evaluation. • Is certified as not having a
requirement for the Miami SO2
C. EPA Recommendations To Further significant economic impact on a
nonattainment area in the context of our
Improve the Rules substantial number of small entities
action on ADEQ’s SO2 plan (‘‘Arizona under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
SIP Revision: Miami Sulfur Dioxide The TSDs describe additional rule U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 SO2 revisions that we recommend for the
NAAQS,’’ submitted by ADEQ to the next time the State modifies the rules. • Does not contain any unfunded
EPA on March 8, 2017). Therefore, our mandate or significantly or uniquely
D. Public Comment and Proposed affect small governments, as described
stringency evaluations here consider
Action in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
whether Rules R18–2–B1301 and R18–
2–C1302 implement reasonable controls As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
for the two subject criteria pollutants at the Act, the EPA proposes to fully • Does not have Federalism
the Hayden and Miami smelters.2 approve the submitted rules because implications as specified in Executive
they fulfill all relevant requirements. Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
Guidance and policy documents that We will accept comments from the 1999);
we use to evaluate enforceability, rule public on this proposal until April 30,
stringency, and SIP revision • Is not an economically significant
2018. If we take final action to approve regulatory action based on health or
requirements for the applicable criteria the submitted rules, our final action will
pollutants include the following: safety risks subject to Executive Order
incorporate these rules into the federally 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation enforceable SIP.
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and • Is not a significant regulatory action
III. Incorporation by Reference subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the
Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). In this rule the EPA is proposing to 28355, May 22, 2001);
include in a final EPA rule regulatory • Is not subject to requirements of
2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting text that includes incorporation by section 12(d) of the National
Common VOC & Other Rule reference. In accordance with Technology Transfer and Advancement
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9 (the Little requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
Bluebook, August 21, 2001). proposing to incorporate by reference application of those requirements would
3. ‘‘Implementation of the 2008 Lead the ADEQ rules described in Table 1 of be inconsistent with the CAA; and
National Ambient Air Quality this preamble. The EPA has made, and • Does not provide the EPA with the
Standards: Guide to Developing will continue to make, these materials discretionary authority to address
Reasonably Available Control Measures available through www.regulations.gov disproportionate human health or
(RACM) for Controlling Lead and at the EPA Region IX Office (please environmental effects with practical,
Emissions,’’ EPA Office of Air Quality contact the person identified in the FOR appropriate, and legally permissible
Planning and Standards (March 2012). FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
methods under Executive Order 12898
this preamble for more information). (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
4. ‘‘Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,’’ IV. Statutory and Executive Order In addition, the SIP is not approved
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Reviews to apply on any Indian reservation land
Standards (April 23, 2014). Under the CAA, the Administrator is or in any other area where the EPA or
5. National Emission Standard for required to approve a SIP submission an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary that complies with the provisions of the tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Copper Smelting (40 CFR part 63, Act and applicable federal regulations. Indian country, the rule does not have
subpart QQQ). 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). tribal implications and will not impose
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the substantial direct costs on tribal
6. National Emission Standard for governments or preempt tribal law as
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
provided that they meet the criteria of
Lead Smelting (40 CFR part 63, subpart FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
the Act. Accordingly, this proposed
X).
action merely proposes to approve state List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
2 Appendix
law as meeting federal requirements and
14 does not establish control Environmental protection, Air
requirements, so it is not subject to a stringency
does not impose additional
evaluation. Appendix 14 is still subject to requirements beyond those imposed by pollution control, Incorporation by
enforceability and SIP consistency evaluations, state law. For that reason, this proposed reference, Intergovernmental relations,
which we describe in our TSD. The revisions to action: Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping
sunset the existing requirements of Rule R18–2– • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
715.02, are evaluated in context with Appendix 14.
See the TSD evaluating Appendix 14 for more action’’ subject to review by the Office Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
information on Rule R18–2–715.02. Rule R18–2– of Management and Budget under
Dated: March 19, 2018.
B1302 regulates SO2 emissions at the Hayden Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
Smelter, and will be evaluated in a separate October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Alexis Strauss,
rulemaking. The revisions to sunset the existing Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
requirements of Rules R18–2–715 and R18–2–
January 21, 2011);
715.01 in relation to the Hayden Smelter will be • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 [FR Doc. 2018–06548 Filed 3–29–18; 8:45 am]
evaluated in context with R18–2–B1302. FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Mar 29, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP1.SGM 30MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_13778/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-01 08:57:50
Document Modified: 2018-11-01 08:57:50
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments must arrive by April 30, 2018. | |
| Contact | Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972 3073, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 13716 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Sulfur Dioxide |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR