Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revisions, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 55966-55968 [2017-25567]
Download as PDF
55966
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 226 / Monday, November 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Docket No. FAA–2017–0897; Airspace
Docket No. 17–ANM–22’’. The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned
to the commenter.
All communications received before
the specified closing date for comments
will be considered before taking action
on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed
in light of the comments received. A
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be
filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through
the FAA’s Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/
airspace_amendments/.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received, and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see the
ADDRESSES section for the address and
phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays. An informal
docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the Northwest
Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Western Service Center,
Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.
Availability and Summary of
Documents for Incorporation by
Reference
This document proposes to amend
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order
7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment
to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E
airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Spanish Fork
Airport Springville-Woodhouse Field,
Spanish Fork, UT, within a 6.5-mile
radius of the airport. This proposed
airspace is necessary to support the new
RNAV procedures for runways 12 and
30 for the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Nov 24, 2017
Jkt 244001
Class E airspace designations are
published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017,
and effective September 15, 2017, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designations
listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which
frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally
current, is non-controversial and
unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it
is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to
amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
part 71 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
■
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
*
*
*
*
*
ANM UT E5 Spanish Fork, UT [New]
Spanish Fork Airport Springville-Woodhouse
Field, UT
(Lat. 40°08′42″ N., long. 111°40′04″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile
radius of Spanish Fork Airport SpringvilleWoodhouse Field.
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on
November 14, 2017.
Brian J. Johnson,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group,
Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017–25419 Filed 11–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0468; FRL–9971–20–
Region 9]
Approval of Arizona Air Plan
Revisions, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
§ 71.1
effective September 15, 2017, is
amended as follows:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion
of the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
emissions of lead-bearing fugitive dust
from roads, storage piles and other
activities associated with the primary
copper smelter located in Hayden,
Arizona. We are proposing to approve a
state rule and associated appendix to
regulate these emissions 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
December 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2017–0468 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office
at Vineyard.Christine@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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27NOP1.SGM
27NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 226 / Monday, November 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947–4125, vineyard.christine@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
55967
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule and appendix?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule and
appendix?
B. Do the rule and appendix meet the
evaluation criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule and Appendix
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
Table of Contents
A. What rule and appendix did the State
submit?
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule and appendix did the State
submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule and
appendix?
Table 1 lists the rule and appendix
addressed by this proposal with the
dates that they were submitted by
ADEQ.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule No.
Rule title
ADEQ ..........
ADEQ ..........
R18–2–B1301.01 ..
Appendix 15 ..........
Limits on Lead-Bearing Fugitive Dust from the Hayden Smelter ..............................................
Test Methods for Determining Opacity and Stabilization of Unpaved Roads ...........................
On July 17, 2017 the EPA determined
that the submittal for ADEQ Rule R18–
2–B1301.01 and Appendix 15 met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before
formal EPA review.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. Are there other versions of this rule
and appendix?
There are no previous versions of
Rule 18–2–B1301.01 and Appendix 15
in the SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule and appendix?
On November 12, 2008 the EPA
published a final rule revising the lead
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The revisions to the primary
and secondary lead NAAQS were to
provide increased protection for
children and other at-risk populations
against an array of health effects
including neurological effects. Section
110(a) of the CAA requires States to
submit regulations that control lead
emissions. ADEQ Rule R18–2–B1302.01
and Appendix 15 establish control
requirements and test methods for leadbearing fugitive dust sources at the
Hayden primary copper smelter. The
EPA’s technical support document
(TSD) has more information about this
rule and appendix.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule
and appendix?
SIP rules must be enforceable (see
CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Nov 24, 2017
Jkt 244001
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). On September 3, 2014 the EPA
issued a final rule redesignating the
Hayden, Arizona area to nonattainment
for the 2008 lead NAAQS (79 FR 52205).
Under CAA section 172(c)(1), the
Arizona SIP must provide for
implementation of all reasonably
available control measures (RACM),
including reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for lead, and must
provide for attainment of the NAAQS in
the Hayden nonattainment area. The
EPA will address the overall RACM/
RACT requirement for the Hayden lead
nonattainment area separately, in the
context of our action on the ‘‘SIP
Revision: Hayden Lead Nonattainment
Area’’ submitted by ADEQ to the EPA
on March 3, 2017. Therefore, our
stringency evaluation considers whether
Rule 18–2–B1301.01 implements
reasonable controls for leaded fugitive
dust at the Hayden primary copper
smelter.
Guidance and policy documents that
we use to evaluate enforceability,
revision/relaxation and rule stringency
requirements for the applicable criteria
pollutants include the following:
1. ‘‘Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
04/06/17
04/06/17
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (58
FR 67748, December 22, 1993).
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’
EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook,
revised January 11, 1990).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ‘‘Implementation of the 2008 Lead
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Guide to Developing Reasonable
Available Control Measures (RACM) for
Controlling Lead Emissions,’’ EPA–457/
R–12–001, March 2012.
B. Do the rule and appendix meet the
evaluation criteria?
We have determined that the rule and
appendix are consistent with CAA
requirements and relevant guidance
regarding enforceability and SIP
revisions. R18–2–B1301.01 establishes
controls for lead-bearing fugitive dust
emissions surrounding the Hayden
copper smelter that include a facilitywide 20% opacity limit, wind fences for
storage piles and chemical dustsuppression application for unpaved
roads. Appendix 15 describes
appropriate test methods to help ensure
enforceability. We also have determined
that R18–2–B1301.01 generally
implements reasonably available
controls for lead-bearing fugitive dust at
the Hayden smelter. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.
E:\FR\FM\27NOP1.SGM
27NOP1
55968
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 226 / Monday, November 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule and Appendix
The TSD describes additional
revisions that we recommend for the
next time ADEQ modifies the rule and
appendix.
D. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
approve the submitted rule and
appendix because they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal until December 27, 2017. If we
take final action to approve the
submitted rule and appendix, our final
action will incorporate them 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).
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 CAA. 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.);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Nov 24, 2017
Jkt 244001
• 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 16, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017–25567 Filed 11–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 147
[EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0584; FRL–9970–73–
OW]
State of Idaho Voluntary Transfer of
Primacy of the Class II Underground
Injection Control Program to the
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the
transfer of the state of Idaho’s
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program for Class II injection wells from
Idaho to EPA, and is concurrently
issuing a proposed rule to amend EPA’s
UIC regulations to reflect such transfer.
This transfer would be effective upon
publication in the Federal Register of a
final rule revising such regulations.
Idaho submitted a formal request that
EPA transfer and directly implement the
Class II UIC Program. Idaho would
maintain primacy for Class I, III, IV, and
V injection wells pursuant to their EPAapproved program in 1985.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 11, 2018. A public
hearing will be held only if there is
significant public interest. Request for a
public hearing will be accepted until
December 12, 2017. Only if requested, a
public hearing will be held on January
8, 2018, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., at the
Banner Bank Building, 950 W. Bannock
Street, Boise, Idaho. Requests for a
public hearing may be mailed to: Evan
Osborne, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, 1200 6th Ave., OCE–
101, Seattle, Washington 98101. For
additional information regarding the
public hearing, please contact Evan
Osborne (206) 553–1747 or
osborne.evan@epa.gov.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2017–0584, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or withdrawn. 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27NOP1.SGM
27NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 226 (Monday, November 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55966-55968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25567]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0468; FRL-9971-20-Region 9]
Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revisions, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns emissions of lead-bearing fugitive dust from roads,
storage piles and other activities associated with the primary copper
smelter located in Hayden, Arizona. We are proposing to approve a state
rule and associated appendix to regulate these emissions 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 December 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0468 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Christine
Vineyard, Rulemaking Office at Vineyard.Christine@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
[[Page 55967]]
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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4125, vineyard.christine@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 rule and appendix did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule and appendix?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and appendix?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule and appendix?
B. Do the rule and appendix meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule and Appendix
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule and appendix did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule and appendix addressed by this proposal with
the dates that they were submitted by ADEQ.
Table 1--Submitted Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ............. R18-2-B1301.01......... Limits on Lead- 04/06/17
Bearing
Fugitive Dust
from the
Hayden Smelter.
ADEQ............. Appendix 15............ Test Methods 04/06/17
for
Determining
Opacity and
Stabilization
of Unpaved
Roads.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 2017 the EPA determined that the submittal for ADEQ
Rule R18-2-B1301.01 and Appendix 15 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 this rule and appendix?
There are no previous versions of Rule 18-2-B1301.01 and Appendix
15 in the SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and appendix?
On November 12, 2008 the EPA published a final rule revising the
lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The revisions to
the primary and secondary lead NAAQS were to provide increased
protection for children and other at-risk populations against an array
of health effects including neurological effects. Section 110(a) of the
CAA requires States to submit regulations that control lead emissions.
ADEQ Rule R18-2-B1302.01 and Appendix 15 establish control requirements
and test methods for lead-bearing fugitive dust sources at the Hayden
primary copper smelter. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has
more information about this rule and appendix.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule and appendix?
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). On September 3, 2014 the EPA issued a
final rule redesignating the Hayden, Arizona area to nonattainment for
the 2008 lead NAAQS (79 FR 52205). Under CAA section 172(c)(1), the
Arizona SIP must provide for implementation of all reasonably available
control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for lead, and must provide for attainment of the
NAAQS in the Hayden nonattainment area. The EPA will address the
overall RACM/RACT requirement for the Hayden lead nonattainment area
separately, in the context of our action on the ``SIP Revision: Hayden
Lead Nonattainment Area'' submitted by ADEQ to the EPA on March 3,
2017. Therefore, our stringency evaluation considers whether Rule 18-2-
B1301.01 implements reasonable controls for leaded fugitive dust at the
Hayden primary copper smelter.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. ``Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (58 FR 67748,
December 22, 1993).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ``Implementation of the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality
Standards Guide to Developing Reasonable Available Control Measures
(RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions,'' EPA-457/R-12-001, March
2012.
B. Do the rule and appendix meet the evaluation criteria?
We have determined that the rule and appendix are consistent with
CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability and SIP
revisions. R18-2-B1301.01 establishes controls for lead-bearing
fugitive dust emissions surrounding the Hayden copper smelter that
include a facility-wide 20% opacity limit, wind fences for storage
piles and chemical dust-suppression application for unpaved roads.
Appendix 15 describes appropriate test methods to help ensure
enforceability. We also have determined that R18-2-B1301.01 generally
implements reasonably available controls for lead-bearing fugitive dust
at the Hayden smelter. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
[[Page 55968]]
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule and Appendix
The TSD describes additional revisions that we recommend for the
next time ADEQ modifies the rule and appendix.
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule and appendix because they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal until December 27, 2017. If we take final action to approve
the submitted rule and appendix, our final action will incorporate them
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 CAA. 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, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 16, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-25567 Filed 11-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P