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 http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA’s Web page at http:// 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 http:// 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 http://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: http:// 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 http://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 http://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