[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56736-56739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24743]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0661; FRL-9986-32-Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Hayden and Miami Areas; Lead and
Sulfur Dioxide Control Measures--Copper Smelters
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action 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 approving
local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This rule will be effective on December 14, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0661. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) 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 through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3073, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On March 30, 2018 (83 FR 13716), the EPA proposed to approve the
following rules into the Arizona SIP.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to the rules addressed in this action, 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.
[[Page 56737]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 from On the later of the 4/6/2017
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 for 5/7/2017.................... 4/6/2017
Existing Primary Copper
Smelters; Fugitive
Emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they
comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains
more information on the rules and our evaluation.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking provided a 30-day public
comment period. During this period, we received 15 comments. Nine of
these comments address issues not related to the subject of this
rulemaking, including: Environmental quality issues in Asia, climate
change policy, and other federal requirements not related to
SO2 or lead pollution in Arizona. Six comments are germane
to this rulemaking, and are supportive of the EPA's proposal to approve
these regulations. One of these commenters raised a concern about the
State and the EPA's statement that controlling emissions from the
1,000-foot stack would result in improved air quality at the ground
level monitors at Hillcrest and Globe Highway in the Hayden Area. This
commenter also suggested that the EPA should pay additional attention
to fugitive lead emissions that may result from other smelter
processes, including furnace dust and from residue from converter bed
cleaning. We thank the commenter for the questions and suggestion and
address the issues raised below.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the EPA
believe that the prime contributors to lead nonattainment are fugitive
emissions from smelter operations and leaded dust surrounding the
smelter. Rule R18-2-B1301.01, approved into the Arizona SIP in 83 FR
7614, addresses leaded dust control measures for non-smelting process
sources, which includes sources such as the bedding plant and reverts
piles. Dust and material generated from smelter process sources, such
as furnace and converter dust, are collected and deposited in these
non-smelting process sources for disposal or reintroduction into the
smelter process. Rule R18-2-B1301 addresses fugitive emissions from
smelter operations by establishing operational standards for process
equipment and control devices, requirements for the process gas capture
system and control devices operations and maintenance plan (O&M plan),
performance testing and compliance demonstration requirements, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. However, Rule R18-2-B1301
does not include a numeric fugitive lead emissions limit. The EPA
recognized this issue during the rule development process and requested
that ADEQ provide supplementary analysis to address this concern. ADEQ
responded on October 11, 2018, stating that continuous monitoring of
fugitive lead emissions is technically infeasible, and that parametric
monitoring of capture and control device efficiency (which would
minimize uncontrolled fugitive emissions, and increase the volume of
process gas directed to control devices and ultimately the 1,000-foot
stack) was a suitable proxy for a numeric fugitive lead limit. ADEQ
also reiterated that the fugitive emissions analyses required by
Appendix 14 would be used to validate this approach.\2\ The EPA
generally agrees with this reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter from Timothy S. Franquist, Director, Air Quality
Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, to Michael
Stoker, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9, ``Re: Justification and Clarification on Arizona
Administrative Code R18-2-B1301, Limits on Lead Emissions from the
Hayden Smelter,'' dated October 11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also requested that ADEQ address an issue regarding the
allowance for alternative sampling points for SO2 at the
Miami Smelter. Specifically, we requested that ADEQ eliminate a
provision that allowed for the owner or operator of the Miami Smelter
to petition for an alternative sampling point if the current locations
proved infeasible. Such flexibility might have been necessary at the
time of rule development, as capture and control upgrades were still
being installed; however, now that the upgrades are complete, we do not
believe this flexibility is still necessary. ADEQ agreed to withdraw
subsection (E)(6) of Rule R18-2-C1302 allowing for alternative sampling
point since none are needed at the Miami Smelter.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Letter from Timothy S. Franquist, Director, Air Quality
Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, to Michael
Stoker, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9, ``Re: Request to Withdraw from EPA Consideration,
Arizona Administrative Code R18-2-C1302, Subsection (E)(6),'' dated
August 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments and additional analysis from ADEQ have been added to
the docket for this action and are accessible at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0661.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving these rules into the
Arizona SIP, with the exception of subsection (E)(6) in Rule R18-2-
C1302, which was withdrawn by ADEQ. The EPA is also approving Appendix
14 and revised R18-2-715.02.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ADEQ
rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 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). Therefore, these
materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have
been incorporated by
[[Page 56738]]
reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. 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 CAA. 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);
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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, the EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section
801.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 14, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: October 30, 2018.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
2. In Sec. 52.120, table 2 in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry ``R18-2-715.02'';
0
b. Adding the entry ``R18-2-B1301'' after the subheading ``Article 13
(State Implementation Plan Rules for Specific Locations)''; and
0
c. Adding the entries ``R18-2-C1302, excluding subsection (E)(6)'' and
``Appendix 14'' after the entry ``R18-2-B1301.01''.
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Table 2--EPA-Approved Arizona Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Additional
State citation Title/subject effective date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 7 (Existing Stationary Source Performance Standards)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56739]]
* * * * * * *
R18-2-715.02.................. Standards of 5/7/2017 11/14/2018, Submitted by the
Performance for [insert Federal Governor's designee
Existing Primary Register on April 6, 2017.
Copper Smelters; citation].
Fugitive Emissions.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 13 (State Implementation Plan Rules for Specific Locations)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R18-2-B1301................... Limits on Lead 7/1/2018 11/14/2018, Submitted by the
Emissions from the [insert Federal Governor's designee
Hayden Smelter. Register on April 6, 2017.
citation].
* * * * * * *
R18-2-C1302, excluding Limits on SO2 12/14/2018 11/14/2018, Submitted by the
subsection (E)(6). Emissions from the [insert Federal Governor's designee
Miami Smelter. Register on April 6, 2017.
citation]. Subsection (E)(6)
was withdrawn by the
Arizona Department
of Environmental
Quality.
Appendix 14................... Procedures for Sulfur 5/7/2017 11/14/2018, Submitted by the
Dioxide and Lead [insert Federal Governor's designee
Fugitive Emissions Register on April 6, 2017.
Studies for the citation].
Hayden Smelter.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-24743 Filed 11-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P