83 FR 1602 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana; Revisions to East Helena Lead SIP
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 9 (January 12, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 9 (January 12, 2018)
| Page Range | 1602-1604 | |
| FR Document | 2018-00114 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 1602-1604] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-00114] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0634; FRL-9972-14--Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana; Revisions to East Helena Lead SIP AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Montana on September 11, 2013. The submittal revises the portions of the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) that pertain to the East Helena Lead SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Act). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 12, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0634 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? a. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background The proposed SIP revisions stem from a June 10, 2013, Montana Board of Environmental Review Order (Board Order) removing a stipulated condition in an August 4, 1995 Board Order. The condition limited the allowable concentration of lead in raw feed material at the American Chemet Corporation's East Helena facility. Specifically, American Chemet requested a change to the 1995 Board Order which would eliminate Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B. This subsection reads: ``Feed Material into the plant shall have a quarterly average lead content of less than 0.15%, and an average annual lead content of less than 0.10%.'' All other East Helena Lead SIP provisions, including direct numerical limits on lead emissions from American Chemet Corporation's East Helena facility, would remain unchanged. The East Helena Lead SIP includes a ``lead in feed'' limitation for the American Chemet facility, which was created as part of the Montana [[Page 1603]] Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) efforts to respond to the EPA's designation of East Helena as a nonattainment area for the 1978 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for airborne lead. The American Chemet East Helena facility produces cuprous oxides, cupric oxides, and fine particle size copper powders. In the 1990's, through informal discussions between DEQ and American Chemet, the parties arrived at restrictions on lead emissions for the East Helena area to meet and maintain compliance with the 1978 lead NAAQS. The principal target for curtailing lead emissions was the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) facility, which was a lead smelter located adjacent to American Chemet's East Helena facility. In addition to shutting down its operations in 2001, ASARCO demolished its stacks in 2009. After the ASARCO facility shut down in 2001, ambient air monitoring during the following six months showed that East Helena was in compliance with the 1978 lead NAAQS of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m \3\). The EPA subsequently promulgated a new, more stringent, lead NAAQS standard (0.15 ug/m\3\); the final rulemaking was published on November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964). In our final 2011 rulemaking (76 FR 72097) to designate areas of the country as attainming or nonattaining for the 2008 lead NAAQS, the EPA noted that the most recent three years of available monitoring data from the East Helena nonattainment area showed no violations of the 2008 standard (See Montana's September 11, 2013 submittal), although the monitors were shut down in December 2001 (roughly six months after the shut down of the large stationary source of lead emissions, ASARCO). Effective December 31, 2011, the entire state of Montana, including the East Helena area, was designated as ``Unclassifiable/Attainment'' for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. In the rulemaking for the 2011 designation, the EPA reiterated that the 1978 standard would remain in effect for the East Helena area until an implementation plan for the 2008 lead NAAQS was approved by the EPA (76 FR 72099). Accordingly, and as required in 40 CFR 50.12, Montana's nonattainment status for the the 1978 lead NAAQS will apply for East Helena until the state submits, and the EPA approves, an implementation plan providing for attainment and/or maintenance of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. The EPA amended 40 CFR 50.12 to reflect the possibility that the nonattainment status for the old standard could be revoked upon the EPA's approval of a maintenance plan for the new standard (73 FR 67043). The EPA encourages Montana to submit such an implementation plan for East Helena in the near future. On December 18, 2009, in response to the DEQ's request for the EPA's guidance concerning modifying the 1995 Board order to eliminate Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B, the EPA sent a letter dated December 18, 2009 (See docket) to the DEQ that stated: ``. . . our preliminary view is that we could allow a revision to the Montana State Implementation Plan (SIP) that would eliminate Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B from the 1995 Board Order if the conditions listed below are met. 1. DEQ must perform modeling sufficient to demonstrate noninterference with the attainment and maintenance of the lead NAAQS (a demonstration for the new standard will suffice for the old standand). AERMOD is appropriate to use for the modeling. If DEQ meets condition 2 below, DEQ may assume in modeling that ASARCO's stack emissions are zero but will need to input appropriate values for any remaining lead emissions from ASARCO, such as fugitive emissions. 2. The State must finalize the revocation of ASARCO's permit and provide us with evidence of, and ASARCO's consent to, the revocation. In the alternative, the SIP revision must state that ASARCO has shut down permanently and that ASARCO would need to go through New Source Review permitting in order to resume operations.'' American Chemet submitted to DEQ a modeling analysis on December 4, 2012 (see docket). The EPA has reviewed the supplied modeling analysis and agrees that the methodology is in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W and the EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' The AERMOD analysis used the emission limits in the SIP, located in Condition II.A.4.b of the 1995 Board Order, of 0.007 lb/hr and the results of the modeling analysis are valid. The AERMOD modeling analysis shows a concentration of 0.14 ug/m\3\ (which includes background concentrations); and therefore, East Helena is below the lead NAAQS threshold for the 2008 lead NAAQS standard (0.15 ug/m\3\). In particular, the modeling shows that operating the facility at the remaining SIP limits does not violate the 2008 lead NAAQS, even including background ambient lead concentrations. The submitted modeling analysis used background concentrations of lead based off of lead monitoring results that were performed during the three quarters immediately after the ASARCO facility ceased operations in April of 2001. On December 9, 2009, ASARCO's representative sent a letter to DEQ requesting the revocation of Montana Air Quality Permit (MAQP) #2557. On September 3, 2013, the DEQ sent a letter to the EPA stating that, in a letter dated December 16, 2009, the DEQ notified ASARCO of its intent to revoke MAQP #2557. In accordance with the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.8.763, the revocation of MAQP #2557 was final within 15 days of ASARCO's receipt of the letter unless ASARCO requested a hearing before the Board of Environmental Review. ASARCO did not request a hearing; therefore, the revocation of MAQP #2557 became final following the 15-day appeal period. The previously mentioned letters are all available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. In addition, ASARCO's Title V permit expired on April 5, 2007, and DEQ did not receive a renewal application. Any new industrial operations on the former ASARCO site would be required to go through major New Source Review permitting before construction. III. Proposed Action The EPA is proposing to approve the state of Montana's revisions, as submitted on September 11, 2013, to remove Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B from the August 4, 1995 Board Order. This Board order is found in the Montana SIP under ``EPA-approved Source-Specific Requirements.'' The final rulemaking approving the 1995 Board Order for adoption into the SIP can be found at 66 FR 32760. This revision is in compliance with CAA section 110(l) because it does not change American Chemet's SIP emission limits and modeling has shown that it will not interfere with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. No other criteria pollutant emissions would be impacted by this proposed action. In addition, CAA section 193 does not apply to this revision because the American Chemet limits were approved into the SIP after November 15, 1990. Furthermore, any new industrial construction on the former ASARCO site would be required to go through major New Source Review construction permitting before construction. IV. Incorporation by Reference In this action, 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 the incorporation by reference of a change to the State of Montana's SIP regarding a 1995 Board Order; this action would eliminate [[Page 1604]] Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B. This Board order is found in the Montana SIP under ``EPA-approved Source-Specific Requirements.'' The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). 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. 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 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 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 proposed 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: January 2, 2018. Douglas H. Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2018-00114 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![1602 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
including a Coast Guard commissioned, SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection includes information claimed as CBI, a
warrant, or petty officer designated by Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve copy of the comment that does not
the Captain of the Port North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) contain the information claimed as CBI
(COTP) for the enforcement of the safety revisions submitted by the state of must be submitted for inclusion in the
zone. Montana on September 11, 2013. The public docket. Information so marked
Captain of the Port means the submittal revises the portions of the will not be disclosed except in
Commander, Sector North Carolina. Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) accordance with procedures set forth in
Participants means persons and that pertain to the East Helena Lead SIP. 40 CFR part 2.
vessels involved in support of the gantry This action is being taken under section b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
crane transport. 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Act). When submitting comments, remember
(c) Regulations. (1) The general DATES: Written comments must be to:
regulations governing safety zones in received on or before February 12, 2018. i. Identify the rulemaking by docket
§ 165.23 apply to the area described in number and other identifying
paragraph (a) of this section. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
information (subject heading, Federal
(2) With the exception of participants, identified by EPA–R08–OAR–2017–
Register date and page number).
entry into or remaining in this safety 0634 at http://www.regulations.gov. ii. Follow directions—The agency
zone is prohibited unless authorized by Follow the online instructions for may ask you to respond to specific
the COTP North Carolina or the COTP submitting comments. Once submitted, questions or organize comments by
North Carolina’s designated comments cannot be edited or removed referencing a Code of Federal
representative. All vessels under 40 feet from www.regulations.gov. The EPA Regulations (CFR) part or section
in height within this safety zone when may publish any comment received to number.
this section becomes effective may its public docket. Do not submit iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
request permission to remain in the electronically any information you suggest alternatives and substitute
zone. All other vessels must depart the consider to be Confidential Business language for your requested changes.
zone immediately. Information (CBI) or other information iv. Describe any assumptions and
(3) To request permission to remain whose disclosure is restricted by statute. provide any technical information and/
in, enter, or transit through the safety Multimedia submissions (audio, video, or data that you used.
zone, contact the COTP North Carolina etc.) must be accompanied by a written v. If you estimate potential costs or
or the COTP North Carolina’s comment. The written comment is burdens, explain how you arrived at
representative through the Coast Guard considered the official comment and your estimate in sufficient detail to
Sector North Carolina Command Duty should include discussion of all points allow for it to be reproduced.
Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina, at you wish to make. The EPA will vi. Provide specific examples to
telephone number 910–343–3882, or on generally not consider comments or illustrate your concerns, and suggest
VHF–FM marine band radio channel 13 comment contents located outside of the alternatives.
(165.65 MHz) or channel 16 (156.8 primary submission (i.e., on the web, vii. Explain your views as clearly as
MHz). cloud, or other file sharing system). For possible, avoiding the use of profanity
(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast additional submission methods, the full or personal threats.
Guard may be assisted in the patrol and EPA public comment policy, viii. Make sure to submit your
enforcement of the safety zone by information about CBI or multimedia comments by the comment period
Federal, State, and local agencies. submissions, and general guidance on deadline identified.
(e) Enforcement period. This making effective comments, please visit
regulation will be enforced during http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ II. Background
vessel transit on April 1, 2018 or commenting-epa-dockets. The proposed SIP revisions stem from
alternatively, March 29th, 30th, 31st, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a June 10, 2013, Montana Board of
April 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 2018. Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Review Order (Board
Dated: December 19, 2017. Environmental Protection Agency Order) removing a stipulated condition
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 in an August 4, 1995 Board Order. The
Bion B. Stewart,
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado condition limited the allowable
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the
80202–1129, (303) 312–6227, concentration of lead in raw feed
Port North Carolina.
leone.kevin@epa.gov. material at the American Chemet
[FR Doc. 2018–00421 Filed 1–11–18; 8:45 am]
Corporation’s East Helena facility.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Specifically, American Chemet
I. General Information requested a change to the 1995 Board
Order which would eliminate Exhibit A,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION What should I consider as I prepare my
Section C, Subsection B. This
AGENCY comments for the EPA?
subsection reads:
a. Submitting Confidential Business ‘‘Feed Material into the plant shall
40 CFR Part 52 Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to have a quarterly average lead content of
[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0634; FRL–9972– the EPA through http:// less than 0.15%, and an average annual
14—Region 8] www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly lead content of less than 0.10%.’’
mark the part or all of the information All other East Helena Lead SIP
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Approval and Promulgation of Air that you claim to be CBI. For CBI provisions, including direct numerical
Quality Implementation Plans; State of information in a disk or CD–ROM that limits on lead emissions from American
Montana; Revisions to East Helena you mail to the EPA, mark the outside Chemet Corporation’s East Helena
Lead SIP of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then facility, would remain unchanged.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection identify electronically within the disk or The East Helena Lead SIP includes a
Agency (EPA). CD–ROM the specific information that ‘‘lead in feed’’ limitation for the
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one American Chemet facility, which was
ACTION: Proposed rule.
complete version of the comment that created as part of the Montana
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 Jan 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_1611/page/1.svg)
![1604 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B. This Technology Transfer and Advancement EPA, as amended between April 24,
Board order is found in the Montana SIP Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 2013 and August 3, 2016. The
under ‘‘EPA-approved Source-Specific application of those requirements would delegation of authority under this action
Requirements.’’ The EPA has made, and be inconsistent with the CAA; and does not apply to sources located in
will continue to make, these materials • does not provide the EPA with the Indian Country. The EPA is providing
generally available through discretionary authority to address, as notice proposing to approve the
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA appropriate, disproportionate human delegation of certain NESHAPs to
Region 8 Office (please contact the health or environmental effects, using TCEQ.
person identified in the FOR FURTHER practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 DATES: Written comments should be
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). received on or before February 12, 2018.
preamble for more information).
The SIP is not approved to apply on ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
V. Statutory and Executive Order any Indian reservation land or in any identified by EPA–R06–OAR–2017–
Reviews other area where the EPA or an Indian 0061, at http://www.regulations.gov or
Under the Clean Air Act, the tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has via email to barrett.richard@epa.gov.
Administrator is required to approve a jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian For additional information on how to
SIP submission that complies with the country, the proposed rule does not submit comments see the detailed
provisions of the Act and applicable have tribal implications and will not instructions in the ADDRESSES section of
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); impose substantial direct costs on tribal the direct final rule located in the rules
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP governments or preempt tribal law as section of this issue of the Federal
submissions, the EPA’s role is to specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Register.
approve state choices, provided that FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Rick Barrett, (214) 665–7227; email:
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as Environmental protection, Air barrett.richard@epa.gov.
meeting federal requirements and does pollution control, Carbon monoxide, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
not impose additional requirements Incorporation by reference, final rules section of this issue of the
beyond those imposed by state law. For Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Federal Register, the EPA is approving
that reason, this proposed action: Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate TCEQ’s request for delegation of
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory matter, Reporting and recordkeeping authority to implement and enforce
action’’ subject to review by the Office requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile certain NESHAP for all sources (both
of Management and Budget under organic compounds. part 70 and non-part 70 sources). TCEQ
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. has adopted certain NESHAP by
October 4, 1993); reference into Texas’s state regulations.
Dated: January 2, 2018.
• is not expected to be an Executive In addition, the EPA is waiving its
Douglas H. Benevento,
Order 13771 regulatory action because notification requirements so sources
Regional Administrator, Region 8. will only need to send notifications and
this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866; [FR Doc. 2018–00114 Filed 1–11–18; 8:45 am] reports to TCEQ. The EPA is taking
• does not impose an information BILLING CODE 6560–50–P direct final action without prior
collection burden under the provisions proposal because the EPA views this as
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 a noncontroversial action and
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION anticipates no adverse comments. A
• is certified as not having a AGENCY detailed rationale for the approval is set
significant economic impact on a forth in the direct final rule. If no
40 CFR Part 63
substantial number of small entities relevant adverse comments are received
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 [EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0061; FRL–9972–29– in response to this action, no further
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Region 6] activity is contemplated. If the EPA
• does not contain any unfunded receives relevant adverse comments, the
mandate or significantly or uniquely National Emission Standards for direct final rule will be withdrawn, and
affect small governments, as described Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation all public comments received will be
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Authority to Texas addressed in a subsequent final rule
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); AGENCY: Environmental Protection based on this proposed rule. The EPA
• does not have federalism Agency (EPA). will not institute a second comment
implications as specified in Executive ACTION: Proposed rule. period. Any parties interested in
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, commenting should do so at this time.
1999); SUMMARY: The Texas Commission on For additional information, see the
• is not an economically significant Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has direct final rule which is located in the
regulatory action based on health or submitted updated regulations for rules section of this issue of the Federal
safety risks subject to Executive Order receiving delegation of EPA authority Register.
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); for implementation and enforcement of
Dated: January 4, 2018.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
• is not a significant regulatory action National Emission Standards for
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Wren Stenger,
28355, May 22, 2001); all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.
• is not subject to requirements of sources). These regulations apply to [FR Doc. 2018–00448 Filed 1–11–18; 8:45 am]
Section 12(d) of the National certain NESHAP promulgated by the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Jan 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_1611/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-26 09:51:27
Document Modified: 2018-10-26 09:51:27
| 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 | Written comments must be received on or before February 12, 2018. | |
| Contact | Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 1602 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR