83 FR 32213 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 134 (July 12, 2018)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that it has responded to a petition for reconsideration of the final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2017. The Acting Administrator denied the petition in a separate letter to the petitioners. The letter, which provides a full explanation of the agency's rationale for the denial, is in the rulemaking docket.

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32213-32214]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15023]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741; FRL-9980-84-OAR]


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and 
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of final action denying petition for 
reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing 
notice that it has responded to a petition for reconsideration of the 
final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 
for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and 
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills published in the Federal Register 
on October 11, 2017. The Acting Administrator denied the petition in a 
separate letter to the petitioners. The letter, which provides a full 
explanation of the agency's rationale for the denial, is in the 
rulemaking docket.

DATES: July 12, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3158; fax number: 
(919) 541-0516; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This Federal Register document, the petition for reconsideration, 
and the letter denying the petition for reconsideration are available 
in the docket the EPA established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0741. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov 
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, 
e.g., confidential business information or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 
Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The 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 and the telephone 
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) indicates which 
Federal Courts of Appeals have venue for petitions for review of final 
EPA actions. This section provides, in part, that the petitions for 
review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit if: (1) The agency action consists of 
``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, 
by the Administrator,'' or (2) such actions are locally or regionally 
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide 
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds 
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
    The EPA has determined that its action denying the petition for 
reconsideration is nationally applicable for purposes of CAA section 
307(b)(1) because the action directly affects the NESHAP for Chemical 
Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 
Semichemical Pulp Mills, which are nationally applicable CAA section 
112 standards. Any petitions for review of the letter denying the 
petition for reconsideration must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 10, 2018.

III. Description of Action

    On October 11, 2017, pursuant to sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) of 
the CAA, the EPA published the final residual risk and technology 
review (RTR) of the ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, 
Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills.'' 82 FR 47328. 
Following publication of the final RTR amendments, the Administrator 
received a petition for reconsideration of two aspects of the final RTR 
pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The petitioners, Earthjustice on 
behalf of Crossett Concerned Citizens for Environmental Justice, 
Louisiana Environmental Action Network, PT AirWatchers, and Sierra 
Club, claimed: (1) It was impracticable to object to the EPA's 
rationale for not setting additional standards for uncontrolled 
emissions when the EPA was conducting the review required by CAA 
section 112(d)(6), and their objections on this issue are of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule; and (2) it was impracticable to 
object during the comment period to the EPA's use of census block 
centroids to account for the residual risk to the most exposed 
individual, and their objections on this issue are of central relevance 
to the outcome of the rule.
    CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) requires the EPA to convene a proceeding 
for reconsideration of a rule if a party raising an objection to the 
rule ``can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable 
to raise such objection within [the public comment period] or if the 
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment 
(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such 
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' The 
requirement to convene a proceeding to reconsider a rule is, thus, 
based on the petitioner demonstrating to the EPA both: (1) That it was 
impracticable to raise the objection during the comment period, or that 
the grounds for such objection arose after the comment period, but 
within the time specified for judicial review (i.e., within 60 days 
after publication of the final rulemaking in the Federal Register, see 
CAA section 307(b)(1)); and (2) that the objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.
    The EPA carefully reviewed the petition for reconsideration and 
evaluated the issues raised to determine if they meet the CAA section 
307(d)(7)(B) criteria for reconsideration. In a separate letter to the 
petitioners, the EPA Acting Administrator, Andrew R. Wheeler, denied 
the petition for reconsideration. The letter is available in the docket 
for this action.


[[Page 32214]]


    Dated: July 9, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-15023 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P