sign in sign up
<<
Home , March 12

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 48 / Tuesday, 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 8813

appropriate, disproportionate human the U.S. House of Representatives, and reference, Intergovernmental relations, health or environmental effects, using the Comptroller General of the United Particulate matter, Reporting and practicable and legally permissible States prior to publication of the rule in recordkeeping requirements. methods, under Executive Order 12898 the Federal Register. A major rule Dated: 21, 2019. (59 FR 7629, , 1994). cannot take effect until 60 days after it Cheryl L. Newton, In addition, the SIP is not approved is published in the Federal Register. to apply on any Indian reservation land This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. or in any other area where EPA or an defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: Indian tribe has demonstrated that a Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of petitions for judicial review of this PART 52—APPROVAL AND Indian country, the rule does not have action must be filed in the PROMULGATION OF tribal implications and will not impose Court of Appeals for the appropriate IMPLEMENTATION PLANS substantial direct costs on tribal circuit by 13, 2019. Filing a governments or preempt tribal law as petition for reconsideration by the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Administrator of this final rule does not continues to read as follows: FR 67249, 9, 2000). affect the finality of this action for the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. The Congressional Review Act, 5 purposes of judicial review nor does it U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small extend the time within which a petition ■ 2. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph Business Regulatory Enforcement for judicial review may be filed, and (e) under the heading ‘‘Infrastructure’’ is Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides shall not postpone the effectiveness of amended by revising the entry for that before a rule may take effect, the such rule or action. This action may not ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure agency promulgating the rule must be challenged later in proceedings to Requirements for the 2012 particulate submit a rule report, which includes a enforce its requirements. (See section matter (PM2.5) NAAQS’’ to read as copy of the rule, to each House of the 307(b)(2).) follows: Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 § 52.1170 Identification of plan. report containing this action and other Environmental protection, Air * * * * * required information to the U.S. Senate, pollution control, Incorporation by (e) * * *

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Applicable Name of nonregulatory geographic or State SIP provision nonattainment submittal EPA approval date Comments area date

*******

Infrastructure

******* Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Re- Statewide ...... 7/10/2014 and 3/12/2019, [Insert Federal Fully approved for all CAA ele- quirements for the 2012 particu- 3/23/2017. Register citation]. ments except the visibility pro- late matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. tection requirements of (D)(i)(II).

*******

[FR Doc. 2019–04386 Filed 3–11–19; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection inventories, enforceable emissions BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Agency (EPA) is approving an Arizona limitations and control measures, and state implementation plan (SIP) revision contingency measures. The EPA for attaining the 2010 1-hour sulfur concludes that the Plan provides for ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary AGENCY air quality standard (NAAQS or SO2 NAAQS in the Miami SO2 NAA by ‘‘standard’’) for the Miami, Arizona SO the attainment date of 4, 2018, 40 CFR Part 52 2 nonattainment area (NAA). This SIP and meets the other applicable revision (hereinafter called the ‘‘Miami requirements under the CAA. [EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0621; FRL–9990–40– SO Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) includes Arizona’s DATES: This final rule is effective on Region 9] 2 attainment demonstration and other 11, 2019. Approval and Promulgation of Air elements required under the Clean Air ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’). In addition to an docket for this action under Docket ID Nonattainment Plan for the Miami SO2 attainment demonstration, the Plan No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0621. All Nonattainment Area addresses the requirements for meeting documents in the docket are listed on reasonable further progress toward the https://www.regulations.gov AGENCY: Environmental Protection attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably website. Although listed in the index, Agency (EPA). available control measures and some information is not publicly reasonably available control technology, available, e.g., Confidential Business ACTION: Final rule. base-year and projected emission Information (CBI) or other information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 11, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 8814 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. requirements residing at subparts F and imposition of new source review offset Certain other material, such as G, respectively. Soon after Congress and highway funding sanctions. copyrighted material, is not placed on enacted the 1990 Amendments to the Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the internet and will be publicly CAA, the EPA issued comprehensive the finding triggered a requirement that available only in hard copy form. guidance on SIP revisions in the the EPA promulgate a federal Publicly available docket materials are ‘‘General Preamble for the implementation plan (FIP) within two available through https:// Implementation of Title I of the Clean years of the effective date of the finding www.regulations.gov. Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ unless the State has submitted, and the 3 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (‘‘General Preamble’’). Among other EPA has approved, the nonattainment Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, things, the General Preamble addressed plan as meeting applicable Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520) SO2 SIP submissions and fundamental requirements. 4 999–7880 or viswanathan.krishna@ principles for SIP control strategies. On In response to the EPA’s finding, the epa.gov. , 2014, the EPA issued guidance Arizona Department of Environmental for meeting the statutory requirements Quality (ADEQ) submitted the Miami SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in SO SIP submissions in a document SO2 Plan on , 2017, and Throughout this document whenever, 2 entitled, ‘‘Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 submitted associated final rules on ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions’’ , 2017.7 The EPA issued letters the EPA. 5 (‘‘2014 SO2 Guidance’’). In the 2014 dated 17, 2017, and 26, Table of Contents SO2 Guidance, the EPA described the 2017, finding the submittals complete statutory requirements for a complete and halting the sanctions clock under I. Background CAA section 179(a).8 Today’s final SIP II. Public Comments and Response to nonattainment plan, which include: An Comments accurate emissions inventory of current approval terminates the EPA’s duty to III. The EPA’s Final Action emissions for all sources of SO2 within promulgate a FIP for the area. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews the NAA; an attainment demonstration; II. Public Comments and Response to demonstration of reasonable further I. Background Comments progress (RFP); implementation of On 22, 2010, the EPA reasonably available control measures The EPA proposed to approve the Miami SO Plan on , 2018.9 As promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO2 (RACM) (including reasonably available 2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) control technology (RACT)); new source part of this action, we also proposed to approve the use of AERMOD v14134 (hereinafter called ‘‘the 2010 SO2 review; enforceable emissions and BLP (‘‘BLP/AERMOD Hybrid NAAQS’’ or ‘‘the SO2 NAAQS’’). This limitations and control measures; Approach’’) as an alternative model to standard is met at an ambient air quality conformity; and adequate contingency monitoring site when the 3-year average represent emissions from the roofline of measures for the affected area. 10 of the annual 99th percentile of daily For the EPA to fully approve a SIP the Miami Smelter (‘‘smelter’’). The maximum 1-hour average revision as meeting the requirements of EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, CAA sections 110, 172, and 191–192 day public comment period. During this as determined in accordance with and the EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part period, we received eight comment appendix T of 40 CFR part 50.1 On 51, the plan for the affected area needs letters. Six of these comment letters 5, 2013, the EPA designated 29 to demonstrate that each of the raised issues that are outside of the scope of this rulemaking, including air areas of the country as nonattainment aforementioned requirements has been quality in China, , and other areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the met. Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA 2 of the United States, wind power, and Miami SO2 NAA within Arizona. These may not approve a plan that would relations between the United States and area designations became effective on interfere with any applicable . We are not required to respond , 2013. Section 191 of the CAA requirement concerning NAAQS to these comments and are not doing so directs states to submit SIP revisions for attainment and RFP, or any other here. Two comment letters, one from the areas designated as nonattainment for applicable requirement. Under CAA Arizona Mining Association (AMA) and the SO2 NAAQS to the EPA within 18 section 193, no requirement in effect (or one from the National Parks months of the effective date of the required to be adopted by an order, designation, i.e., in this case by no later Conservation Association (NPCA), the settlement, agreement, or plan in effect Sierra Club (SC), and Arizona Mining than , 2015. Under CAA section before , 1990) in any area 192, these SIP submissions are required Reform Coalition (AMRC) (collectively, that is a NAA for any air pollutant may ‘‘the Non-Governmental Organizations’’ to include measures that will bring the be modified in any manner unless it nonattainment area into attainment of or ‘‘NGOs’’) raised issues germane to ensures equivalent or greater emission this action.11 12 The EPA’s summary of the NAAQS as expeditiously as reductions of such air pollutant. practicable, but no later than five years The EPA published a notice on Letters dated , 2017, and April 6, 2017, from the effective date of designation. 18, 2016, finding that Arizona and other from Tim Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, The attainment date for the Miami SO2 states had failed to submit the required ADEQ, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional NAA was October 4, 2018. SO2 nonattainment plans for the Miami Administrator, EPA Region IX. Although the cover letter for the Miami SO Plan was dated March 8, Nonattainment plans for SO2 must 2 SO2 NAA and several other areas by the 2017, the Plan was transmitted to the EPA on March meet sections 110, 172, 191 and 192 of submittal deadline.6 This finding, 9, 2017. the CAA. The EPA’s regulations which became effective on , 8 Letters dated , 2017, and , governing nonattainment SIP 2016, initiated a deadline under CAA 2017, from Elizabeth Adams, Acting Air Division submissions are set forth at 40 CFR part section 179(a) for the potential Director, EPA Region IX, to Tim Franquist, Director, 51, with specific procedural Air Quality Division, ADEQ. 9 83 FR 27938, June 15, 2018. 3 requirements and control strategy 57 FR 13498 (, 1992). 10 Id. at 27942. 4 Id. at 13545–49, 13567–68. 11 Letter dated , 2018, from Steve Trussell, 1 5 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)–(b). Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area Executive Director, Arizona Mining Association, to 2 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart SIP Submissions, April 23, 2014. Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA C. 6 81 FR 14736. Region IX.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 11, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 8815

germane comments and responses are B. Comments From the NGOs The available monitoring data should provided below. All comments received not be interpreted as indicating that on the proposal are included in the Comment: The NGOs noted that Arizona’s SIP has failed to provide for docket for this action. Arizona was subject to a , 2016 timely attainment. The monitoring data ‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit,’’ and the cited by the commenter were collected A. Comments From the AMA EPA was therefore obligated to approve before the full implementation of the the SIP or promulgate a FIP if the SIP Comment: The AMA expressed measures in the Miami SO2 plan, which was not approved by April 18, 2018. support for our proposed approval of occurred in 2018.15 Therefore, these They asserted that the SIP was not the Miami SO SIP. In addition, the data are indicative of whether air 2 approved nor was a FIP in place by the commenter specifically requested quality met the standard prior to full deadline. clarification of the following statement implementation of the measures from our proposal: Response: We acknowledge that the reflected in the modeling EPA did not approve a SIP revision or demonstration, but these data are not a The EPA also acknowledges the concern promulgate a FIP for the Miami SO that longer-term emission limits can allow 2 reliable indicator of whether air quality, short periods with emissions above the NAA by April 18, 2018, as required after implementation of all modeled critical emissions value, which, if coincident under CAA 110(c)(1)(A). However, with relevant control measures, would be with meteorological conditions conducive to this final action to approve the Miami expected to meet the standard at the high SO2 concentrations, could in turn create SO2 Plan, we are discharging our attainment deadline. In other words, the possibility of a NAAQS exceedance statutory obligation under CAA section these data are not indicative of the occurring on a day when an exceedance 110(k)(2) to act on the SIP, and such adequacy of the plan and its modeling would not have occurred if emissions were approval terminates our FIP obligation demonstration to provide for NAAQS continuously controlled at the level under section 110(c)(1)(A) for the Miami attainment. Instead, as the EPA corresponding to the critical emission value. SO2 NAA. explained in our 2014 SO2 Guidance The AMA requested that the EPA Comment: The NGOs stated that the and in numerous proposed and final SIP ‘‘revise this discussion to make it clear Miami, Arizona area had a design value notices implementing the SO2 NAAQS, that the evaluation of the longer-term of 105 ppb when designated a key element of an approvable SIP is limit is looking at whether additional nonattainment; whereas the 2014–2016 the required modeling demonstration hourly exceedances of the numeric design value was 200 ppb, and the showing that the remedial control portion of the NAAQS will occur rather 2015–2017 preliminary design value measures and strategy are adequate to than NAAQS exceedances.’’ was 221 ppb. The commenters asserted bring a previously or currently violating Response: We note AMA’s support for that, because attainment is determined area into attainment. Given the form of our proposed approval. With respect to by averaging over three years, the area the 2010 NAAQS as the 3-year average the commenter’s request for will remain in nonattainment on the of the 99th percentile of the yearly clarification, the commenter appears to October 4, 2018 attainment deadline distribution of 1-hour daily maximum be confusing the term ‘‘NAAQS even if readings were 0.0 ppb from this SO2 concentrations, it is often possible exceedance’’ with ‘‘NAAQS violation.’’ point forward. On this basis they that the three-year period of monitored The hourly exceedance of the level of a concluded that, even though the control data will not reflect the actual air NAAQS is the same as a NAAQS measures may be operational by October quality levels resulting from exceedance as used in our proposal but 4, 2018, the State has already failed to implementation of the newer remedial is different from a NAAQS violation. As demonstrate attainment by the statutory control measures implemented within explained in our proposal: deadline. that period. In such cases, as it is here, the more complete and representative Response: We disagree with this As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour analysis for informing action on a comment. We note that, contrary to the primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air submitted SIP should focus on the commenters’ suggestion, the CAA does quality monitoring site when the 3-year results of newly implemented control average of the annual 99th percentile of daily not require states with SO2 maximum 1-hour average concentrations is measures required under the plan, nonattainment areas to factually rather than historical concentrations less than or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with ‘‘demonstrate attainment by the 365 days of valid monitoring data, the 99th that do not reflect the results of the statutory deadline’’ in the SIPs they plan’s required control measures. The percentile would be the fourth highest daily submit containing the control measures maximum 1-hour value. . . Because the former analysis explicitly addresses standard has this form, a single hourly that will achieve attainment. Rather, whether air quality will be attaining (as exceedance does not create a violation of the sections 172 and 192 of the CAA require required) under the state’s submitted standard.13 states to submit SIP revisions that plan, whereas the latter analysis may To restate, when we use the term ‘‘provide for attainment’’ of the SO2 have little to no bearing on what will ‘‘NAAQS exceedance’’ (both in our NAAQS by the attainment date. In our happen as a result of the plan. proposal and in this document), we proposal, we described our Therefore, in the context of reviewing refer to an hourly exceedance of the 75 interpretation of ‘‘provide for the adequacy of those newer control ppb level, rather than to a NAAQS attainment’’ and the rationale for measures to provide for newly attaining violation, which would occur only finding that the Miami SO2 plan air quality under sections 172 and 192, when the 3-year average of the annual submitted by the State of Arizona does we conclude that it is reasonable to 14 99th percentile of daily maximum 1- provide for attainment. In particular, focus on the modeling results that hour average concentrations is greater Arizona’s submittal provides modeling- specifically account for those control than 75 ppb. based evidence that establishes that the measures and the resulting reductions control measures required on the single 12 Letter dated July 16, 2018, from Kevin Dahl, source of emissions in the area are 15 On 19, 2017, FMMI notified the EPA NPCA, Sandy Bahr, SC, and Roger Featherstone, sufficient to yield air quality that attains and ADEQ that it had completed construction of the AMRC, to Krishna Viswanathan, Air Division, EPA the NAAQS by the attainment deadline. SO2 capture and control system upgrades and had Region IX. initiated associated commissioning activities. Letter from Byron Belew, FMMI, to Alexis Strauss, EPA, 13 83 FR 27940, June 15, 2018 (emphasis added). 14 83 FR 27947, June 15, 2018. and Timothy Franquist, ADEQ (, 2017).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 11, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 8816 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

in SO2 emissions, rather than on the subject of today’s final SIP approval Ridgeline monitor ceased operation on monitored data that, in this case, do not action. September 26, 2017, following EPA represent air quality levels resulting Separately, in a different action under approval of the site’s closure.16 As from full implementation of the control section 179(c)(1) that is beyond the shown in Table 1, during the years that measures in the Plan. In the Miami SO2 scope of today’s final SIP approval both the Ridgeline and Jones Ranch Plan, Arizona’s modeling shows that action, the EPA must determine within monitors had valid design values (2015 implementation of the measures six months of the attainment date and 2016), the design values for the included in the Plan result in air quality whether an area has attained the Jones Ranch monitor were more than 50 that attains the NAAQS. NAAQS based on the area’s air quality ppb higher than the design values for Under the CAA, a determination of as of the attainment date. Accordingly, the Miami Ridgeline monitor. The whether an area has failed to attain is a the EPA will in a separate action, change in design value noted by the separate action from the review of an analyze the pertinent information and commenters reflects the more recent attainment demonstration SIP. The determine whether the Miami SO2 NAA EPA’s SIP review occurs under CAA attained the NAAQS by the attainment design value information provided by sections 110(k), 172(c) and 192(a), while date in accordance with section the Miami Jones Ranch monitor and appears to be more the result of a determination of whether an SO2 NAA 179(c)(1). has failed to attain is governed by CAA In response to the part of the monitoring at a different location rather section 179(c)(1). Under section comment related to change in ambient than a significant worsening of air 110(k)(3), the EPA is required to values, we note that the 2009–2011 quality as implied by the commenter. approve a SIP submission that meets all design value used to designate the NAA Again, however, the EPA is not taking applicable requirements of the CAA. For was based on SO2 data from the Miami any final action today under CAA the reasons described in our proposal Ridgeline monitor, which was the only section 179(c) to determine whether the and elsewhere in this notice, we have SO2 monitor in the NAA at that time. Miami area factually attained the concluded that the Miami SO2 Plan The 2015–2017 design value cited by NAAQS by the attainment date, and our meets all such requirements, including the commenter was based on data from discussion of the monitoring data from the requirement in 172(c) and 192(a) to the Miami Jones Ranch Monitor, which the Ridgeline and the Jones ranch provide for attainment by the attainment was installed in 2013. Because of safety monitors presented here is for date. This is the determination that is and infrastructure concerns, the informational purposes only.

TABLE 1—2010 1-HR SO2 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES FOR MONITORS IN THE MIAMI SO2 NAA (PPB)

Site name AQS ID 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ridgeline 1 ...... 04–007–0009 111 107 105 122 145 146 N/A Jones Ranch 2 ...... 04–007–0011 N/A N/A N/A N/A 199 200 221 Townsite 3 ...... 04–007–0012 N/A N/A N/A N/A 196 194 159 N/A = not available. 1 The Ridgeline monitor ceased operation on September 26, 2017, due to safety and infrastructure concerns. 2 The Jones Ranch monitor became operational on , 2013. 3 The Townsite monitor site became operational on February 1, 2013.

Comment: The commenters noted that general public has access.’’ 17 The 2014 barriers, based on a case-by-case review the EPA stated that it agreed with the SO2 Guidance, Appendix A, Section 5.2 of individual situations to ensure that State’s placement of modeling receptors, states ‘‘[t]he model receptor grid is the public is adequately protected. This which relied on an ambient air unique to the particular situation and represents the EPA’s current policy with boundary consisting of the facility’s depends on the size of the modeling regard to ambient air. As part of a physical fence line as well as several domain, the number of modeled demonstration that an exclusion is boundary segments with no fence that sources, and complexity of the terrain. appropriate, a source should take steps the State inspected and concluded steep Receptors should be placed in areas that to preclude the general public from topography precludes public access. are considered ambient air (i.e., where accessing the property by relying on However, the commenters asserted that the public generally has access) relative some type of physical barrier, such as a ‘‘there is no EPA regulation or written to a particular facility. . . .’’ The EPA fence, wall, or a natural obstruction.19 policy stating that steep topography is policy on excluding areas from ambient As a result, we disagree with the not ambient air. Impacts in these areas air has been stated in a series of letters commenter’s assertion that the EPA should not be ignored in the modeling and memoranda. In a 1980 letter from lacks a written policy that allows for simulations, and thus, the State has not Administrator Douglas Costle to Senator steep topography to preclude public demonstrated that the proposed Jennings Randolph,18 the EPA stated its access to facility property. As described emission limit of 142.45 lb/hr provides policy that the exclusion from ambient above, a natural obstruction, such as for attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.’’ air is available only for the atmosphere steep topography, may be considered to Response: Ambient air is defined as over land owned or controlled by the be part of an ambient air boundary, ‘‘that portion of the atmosphere, source and to which public access is consistent with the regulatory definition external to buildings, to which the precluded by a fence or other physical of ambient air, if it is effective in

16 Letter dated , 2017, from Randolph, Chairman, Environment and Public Regulations for Prevention of Significant Elizabeth Adams, Acting Director, Air Division EPA Works Committee. Deterioration.’’ As indicated in the attachment to Region IX, to Timothy Franquist, Director, Air 19 Memorandum dated , 2007, from this EPA memo at footnote 1, ‘‘preclude’’ does not Quality, ADEQ. Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality necessarily imply that public access is absolutely 17 40 CFR 50.1(e). Planning & Standards, EPA to Regional Air Division impossible, but rather that the likelihood of such 18 Letter dated December 19, 1980, from Douglas Directors, ‘‘Interpretation of ‘Ambient Air’ In access is small. M. Costle, Administrator, EPA to Senator Jennings Situations Involving Leased Land Under the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 11, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 8817

precluding the general public from Second, we note that these existing Guidance accounts for whatever degree accessing the property and can be a individual limits were not in the SIP of variability a source has, because the basis for excluding such area for and were not intended to provide for adjustment factor is designed to reflect receptor placement in the modeling. attainment of the NAAQS. The the source’s own emission distribution We note that the EPA is currently appropriateness of the facility-wide, 30- and variability. The higher degree of evaluating this ambient air policy to day rolling emission limit for attainment adjustment for the Miami Smelter consider whether access to property by of the NAAQS must be evaluated based compared to the EGUs means that the the general public may be effectively upon the legal requirements and longer-term emission limit for the precluded or deterred, consistent with guidance associated with smelter is lowered further to ensure that the existing regulatory definition of implementation of the 1-hr SO2 hourly emissions exceeding the CEV are ambient air, by means other than a fence NAAQS. Contrary to the commenter’s a rare occurrence. Indeed, the protocol 20 or other physical barriers. Such a assertion, our proposal did explain why given in the 2014 SO2 Guidance is revision to our policy would not alter it is appropriate to use both a facility- designed to provide for long-term our finding that Arizona properly wide limit and a longer-term limit in average emission levels above the long- excluded receptors in areas owned or this case.25 As explained in the term average limit to be as rare as 1-hour controlled by the source where steep proposal, the State provided an analysis emission levels above the CEV, which topography precludes public access. to show that due to the batch nature of for the Miami Smelter necessitates more Comment: The NGOs commented that the smelting process at the Miami adjustment than is necessary for most according to the spreadsheet from the Smelter, the emissions from the various EGUs. Therefore, we disagree with the docket 21 Freeport-McMoRan Miami units (‘‘sources’’) at the facility are commenters that this increased Incorporated’s (FMMI’s) existing permit independent of one another and variability means there is a higher requires individual limits, on a pound therefore do not peak at the same time. probability that any given hour is above per hour (lb/hr) basis, on the various The collection of future maximum the CEV compared to the sources SO 2 emitting processes. They asserted potential SO2 emission rates for each envisioned by the 2014 SO2 Guidance. that our proposed action does not source represents a conservative As described in our proposal, the State include a discussion as to why it is estimate of the worst-case emission used hourly SO2 data collected using appropriate to now switch to a single distribution at the smelter. Additionally, continuous emission monitors from May facility-wide limit with a longer term ADEQ submitted an analysis that 2013 to October 2014, adjusted to (i.e., 30-day averaging basis). demonstrates that variations in the account for Miami Smelter’s upgrades Response: First, we disagree with the location of peak emissions among and increased production capacity, as a commenter’s characterization of sources will not affect attainment, and representative emission distribution for ‘‘switching’’ from individual limits to a a facility-wide emissions limit is the smelter’s future configuration.26 facility-wide limit, as it implies that sufficiently protective. Appendix C to the Miami SO2 Plan, these existing limits will either be Comment: The commenters asserted ’’Modeling Technical Support replaced or cease to be applicable that the adjustment factor used to Document for the Miami Sulfur Dioxide following the approval of the Miami SO2 develop the emission limit for the (SO2) Nonattainment Area’’ (‘‘Modeling Plan. The permit limits listed in the Miami Smelter (0.37) indicates that its TSD’’), Table 8–7 specifies this spreadsheet cited by the commenter are operation is much more variable than representative emission distribution found in Attachment C of FMMI’s title are emissions at electric generating units includes 60 hours above the CEV, which 22 V permit. The limits are 820.00 lb/hr (EGUs) and that the EPA’s 2014 SO2 amounts to 0.5 percent of operating for the Acid Plant Tail Gas Stack, 312.00 Guidance was developed based on hours. The EPA’s 2014 SO2 Guidance lb/hr for the Vent Fume Stack, and 1288 empirical evidence to assess the states that ‘‘if above the critical emission lb/hr for all fugitives.23 These existing variability of the operation of EGUs, not value are a rare occurrence at a source, limits were established under separate sulfuric acid plants. They argued that these periods would be unlikely to have legal authority to meet separate this greater variability means that there a significant impact on air quality, regulatory requirements and will not be is much higher probability that any insofar as they would be very unlikely altered by the addition of the 142.45 lb/ given hour is above the critical emission to occur repeatedly at the times when hr limit (30-day rolling average) that value (CEV) for this sulfuric acid plant the meteorology is conducive for high 27 applies to the entire facility under relative to the EGUs cited in the 2014 ambient concentrations of SO2.’’ We Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, SO2 Guidance. They asserted that there conclude that the limit for the Miami Chapter 2, Article 13, Section R18–2– was no discussion of the estimated Smelter, which we expect to result in no C1302 (‘‘Rule C1302’’).24 percentage of time that the hourly more than 0.5 percent of hours emissions are expected to be above the exceeding the CEV, qualifies as assuring 20 EPA Draft Guidance dated November 2018, CEV and that the EPA or the State, at a that such occasions of elevated ‘‘Revised Policy on Exclusions from ‘Ambient minimum, should provide some emissions will be sufficiently rare to Air.’ ’’ https://www.epa.gov/nsr/forms/draft- discussion on expected emissions and guidance-revised-policy-exclusions-ambient-air. provide for attainment, consistent with 21 See C.4 2015–07–13 FMMI Emissions assess the variability in terms of sulfuric EPA guidance. Inventory—2015–07–13—Past Actuals Using Sulfur acid plants rather than EGUs. Comment: The NGOs argued that Balance. Response: We agree that emissions at there should be a clear indication of 22 The spreadsheet cited by the commenter (i.e., the Miami Smelter are more variable whether or not there were hours of non- ‘‘C.4 2015–07–13 FMMI—Emissions Inventory— than for EGUs. The adjustment factor for operation (i.e., zero emissions) for each 2015–07–13—Past Actuals Using Sulfur Balance’’) refers to Title V Permit 53592, which was issued on the Miami Smelter was 0.37 compared of the emission units factored into the , 2012, and expired on , to the national average adjustment adjustment factor calculation and 2017. FMMI’s current Title V Permit 66039, which factors (i.e., 0.63–0.79) estimated for whether non-operation will be counted was issued on , 2019, includes the EGUs and listed in Table 1 of Appendix towards compliance. They noted that same emissions limits in Attachment C as Title V Permit 53592. D of the 2014 SO2 Guidance. The the 2014 SO2 Guidance calls for the 23 Title Permit 66039, Attachment C. approach outlined in the 2014 SO2 24 The EPA approved Rule C1302 into the Arizona 26 83 FR 27944, June 15, 2018. 25 27 SIP at 83 FR 56736 (, 2018). 83 FR 27938, June 15, 2018. 2014 SO2 Guidance, 24.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:02 Mar 11, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 8818 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

calculations to be made only during hour period represents initial startup all non-operating hours.33 In the case of hours of operation and asserted that it after a period of nonoperation.30 Based the Miami Smelter, the use of data only was not clear how the State determined on this information, we consider the from operating days, as opposed to the 0.37 adjustment factor and how inclusion of this 39-hour period using data from all calendar days, compliance will be ensured with respect appropriate because conditions at the substantially limits the inclusion of to non-operation. facility were consistent with periods of non-operating hours. The nature of the Response: We agree with the operation that generated no emissions. process at the Miami Smelter involves commenter that it should be clear how With respect to the compliance relatively continuous operation, so that hours of non-operation were accounted determination, we note that Rule C1302 the number of non-operating hours for in developing the adjustment factor subsection (F)(1) requires a compliance within operating days is minimal. For and how they will be used in demonstration for each ‘‘operating day.’’ example, the emission data used to determining compliance. Regarding the Subsection (B)(6) of Rule C1302 defines derive the adjustment factor, development of the adjustment factor, ‘‘operating day’’ as any calendar day in representing 12,264 hours, include only we have included information in the which any of the following occurs: 224 non-operating hours, less than 2 docket that displays the facility a. Concentrate is smelted in the percent of the hours. The inclusion of emission data used by the State in Electric furnace or IsaSmelt furnace; these non-operating hours has a determining the 0.37 adjustment b. Copper or sulfur bearing materials negligible impact on the rolling average, factor.28 This adjustment factor are processed in the converters; especially at peak values for this represents a ratio of the 99th percentile c. Blister or scrap copper is processed facility. For example, the highest 30- of 30-day average emissions relative to in the anode furnaces or mold vessel; operating day average calculated from the 99th percentile of 1-hour average d. Molten metal, including slag, matte the dataset is 105.9 lb/hr when non- emissions. To determine the 99th or blister copper, is transferred between operating hours are excluded compared percentile of the 1-hour average vessels; to 105.2 lb/hr when non-operating hours emissions, the State only considered e. Molten metal is cast into molds, are included. Both are well below the hours corresponding to periods of anodes, or other intermediate or final facility-wide 30-day emission limit of operation. To determine the 99th products; 142.45 lb/hr. Also, among the days percentile of the 30-day average f. Power is provided to the electric represented in the top 10 percent of 30- emission values the State used a furnace to make or maintain a molten day averages, only 0.5 percent of the running hourly mean of the most recent bath; or hours are non-operating hours. As the 720 hours that corresponded to periods g. The anode furnace is heated to compliance methodology for the Miami of operation. As seen in this make or maintain a molten bath. Smelter is based on an operating day, spreadsheet, periods of zero emissions In this rule, compliance with the consistent with the 2014 SO2 Guidance, that correspond to nonoperation were rolling 30-day emission limit is and the smelter operates continuously removed from consideration in calculated by identifying the days year-round, these non-operating hours developing the adjustment factor. during which one or more of the remain inconsequential in determining We note that there was a period relevant units was actually operating, compliance with the 30-day limit. during –17, 2015, in which 39 and at the end of each operating day Therefore, we conclude that this hours of zero emissions were included computing average emissions over the deviation from guidance will have in the set of emission data used in most recent 30 operating days. The minimal impact and does not prevent developing the adjustment factor. emissions from those 30 days are totaled this Miami SO Plan from providing for Additional correspondence between the × 2 and then divided by 720 (30 days 24 attainment. EPA, ADEQ and FMMI provided further hours). The approach of determining The 2014 SO Guidance also details indicating that while no 2 compliance on the basis of emissions recommends that the approach used to emissions occurred, this period of time only during operating days and defining calculate the adjustment factor should corresponds to a period of operation as ‘‘operating day’’ as a day with any be consistent with the approach used to defined in Rule C1302 subsection operation is consistent with the determine compliance with the longer- (B)(6).29 Specifically, FMMI indicated recommendation in the 2014 SO2 term limit.34 As described above, ADEQ 31 the electric furnace was receiving power Guidance. On the other hand, the computed the 99th percentile of the 30- during this period, and that electric determination of compliance on a 720- day average emission values used in the furnace temperature was steadily hour basis, inherently averaging in the development of the longer-term limit as increasing. In addition, the vent fume zero emission values of non-operating a 720-rolling hourly average, whereas stack fan was also operating and hours during an operating day, is not compliance is determined using a 30- ventilating during this period. FMMI consistent with the recommendation in operating day average. We recalculated asserts that during this 39-hour period, the 2014 SO2 Guidance that hours the adjustment factor and resulting the electric furnace was operating and without operation be excluded from the emission limit using the compliance 32 smelting, but that crust formation compliance determination. methodology outlined in Rule C1302 prevented SO2 emissions from the The EPA has evaluated the and found the difference was small: The electric furnace until temperature was significance of using this compliance adjustment factor and 30-day limit are sufficient to melt the crust. Operating determination approach for this facility 0.368 and 141.80 lb/hr when calculated records provided by FMMI support as compared to a method that excludes using a 30-operating day average these details and indicate that this 39- compared to 0.370 and 142.45 lb/hr 30 Spreadsheet ‘‘2013 shutdown data when calculated as a 720-hour running 28 Spreadsheet ‘‘FMMI_EMISSION_LIMIT_TSD_ 20181017.xlsx.’’ 31 mean, a 0.4 percent difference. We 20151223.xls’’ and Memorandum dated , 2014 SO2 Guidance, 32. 2019, from Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, Air Quality 32 Id. (‘‘The MATS procedure also effectively Analysis Office, to Rulemaking Docket EPA–R09– provides that hours with no operation have no 33 See ‘‘Evaluation- OAR–2017–0621. effect on the calculated average emission rate, FMMIComplianceMethodology.xls’’ for the EPA’s 29 Email dated September 19, 2018, from Farah which is a desirable feature in order to focus on evaluation of the Miami Smelter’s compliance Mohammadesmaeili (ADEQ) to Rynda Kay (EPA), how well controls are operating during operating methodology. 34 Subject: ‘‘FW: SO2 SIP Data Inquiry.’’ hours.’’) 2014 SO2 Guidance, Appendix C, C–3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 11, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 8819

believe this difference is negligible and merely approves state law as meeting agency promulgating the rule must the conservatism built into the State’s Federal requirements and does not submit a rule report, which includes a modeling adequately demonstrates that impose additional requirements beyond copy of the rule, to each House of the the longer-term emission limit in Rule those imposed by state law. For that Congress and to the Comptroller General C1302 provides for attainment. The reason, this proposed action: of the United States. The EPA will State’s modeling predicts a design value • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory submit a report containing this action of 194.1 micrograms per cubic meter action’’ subject to review by the Office and other required information to the (mg/m3), whereas the standard is 196.4 of Management and Budget under U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of mg/m3 (75 ppb), providing room for this Executive Order 12866 58 FR 51735, Representatives, and the Comptroller slightly higher limit in Rule C1302. October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, General of the United States prior to Comment: The NGOs requested that 21, 2011); publication of the rule in the Federal the EPA take a fresh look at this • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 Register. A major rule cannot take effect rulemaking and issue a revised proposal FR 9339, , 2017) regulatory until 60 days after it is published in the for public notice and comment. action because SIP approvals are Federal Register. This action is not a Response: We have reexamined our exempted under Executive Order 12866; ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. proposed rulemaking and have • Does not impose an information 804(2). concluded that no revised notice of collection burden under the provisions Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean proposed rulemaking is warranted. For of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Air Act, petitions for judicial review of the reasons described in our proposal U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); this action must be filed in the United and in the preceding responses to • Is certified as not having a States Court of Appeals for the comments, we find that the Miami SO2 significant economic impact on a appropriate circuit by , 2019. Plan meets all applicable requirements substantial number of small entities Filing a petition for reconsideration by under the CAA and the EPA’s under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 the Administrator of this final rule does implementing regulations. Accordingly, U.S.C. 601 et seq.); not affect the finality of this action for we are finalizing our approval of the • Does not contain any unfunded the purposes of judicial review nor does Miami SO2 Plan. mandate or significantly or uniquely it extend the time within which a III. The EPA’s Final Action affect small governments, as described petition for judicial review may be filed in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and shall not postpone the effectiveness The EPA is approving the Miami SO2 of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); of such rule or action. This action may Plan, which includes Arizona’s • Does not have Federalism not be challenged later in proceedings to attainment demonstration for the Miami implications as specified in Executive enforce its requirements. (See section SO2 NAA and addresses requirements Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, , 307(b)(2)). for RFP, RACT/RACM, base-year and 1999); projected emission inventories, new • Is not an economically significant List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 source review, enforceable emissions regulatory action based on health or Environmental protection, Air limits and control measures, and safety risks subject to Executive Order pollution control, Incorporation by contingency measures. For the reasons 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Reference, Intergovernmental relations, described in our proposal and the • Is not a significant regulatory action Reporting and recordkeeping related concurrence documents,35 the subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR requirements, Sulfur oxides. EPA is also approving the BLP/ 28355, , 2001); Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. AERMOD Hybrid Approach as an • Is not subject to requirements of alternative model to represent emissions section 12(d) of the National Dated: , 2019. from Miami Smelter roofline in the Technology Transfer and Advancement Deborah Jordan, Miami SO2 Plan under 40 CFR Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 51.112(a)(2). The EPA determines that application of those requirements would IX. the Miami SO2 Plan meets applicable be inconsistent with the CAA; and 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: requirements of sections 110, 172, 191 • Does not provide the EPA with the and 192 of the CAA for the 2010 SO2 discretionary authority to address, as PART 52—APPROVAL AND NAAQS. appropriate, disproportionate human PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS IV. Statutory and Executive Order health or environmental effects, using Reviews practicable and legally permissible ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 methods, under Executive Order 12898 continues to read as follows: Under the CAA, the Administrator is (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). required to approve a SIP submission In addition, the SIP is not approved Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq. that complies with the provisions of the to apply on any Indian reservation land Subpart D—Arizona Act and applicable Federal regulations. or in any other area where the EPA or 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a ■ 2. In § 52.120, table 1 in paragraph (e) Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of EPA’s role is to approve state choices, is amended by adding the entry Indian country, the rule does not have ‘‘Arizona State Implementation Plan provided that they meet the criteria of tribal implications and will not impose the CAA. Accordingly, this action Revision: Miami Sulfur Dioxide substantial direct costs on tribal Nonattainment Area for the 2010 SO2 governments or preempt tribal law as 35 ‘‘Concurrence Request for Approval of NAAQS, excluding Appendix D’’ after Alternative Model: BLP/AERMOD Hybrid specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 the entry ‘‘SIP Revision: Hayden Lead Approach for Modeling Buoyant Roofline Sources FR 67249, , 2000). Nonattainment Area, excluding at the FMMI Copper Smelter in Miami, AZ’’ (March The Congressional Review Act, 5 Appendix C’’ to read as follows: 12, 2018) and ‘‘Model Clearinghouse Review of a U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small BLP/AERMOD Hybrid Alternative Model Approach Business Regulatory Enforcement § 52.120 Identification of plan. for Modeling Buoyant Roofline Sources at the FMMI Copper Smelter in Miami, AZ’’ (, Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides * * * * * 2018). that before a rule may take effect, the (e) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 11, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 8820 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES [Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1

Applicable geographic or Name of SIP provision nonattainment area or State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation title/subject

*******

Part D Elements and Plans (Other Than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas)

******* Arizona State Implementation Plan Re- Miami, AZ Sulfur Dioxide March 9, 2017 ...... [insert Federal Register Adopted by the Arizona vision: Miami Sulfur Dioxide Non- Nonattainment Area. citation], March 12, Department of Envi- attainment Area for the 2010 SO2 2019. ronmental Quality on NAAQS, excluding Appendix D. March 8, 2017.

******* 1 Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropoli- tan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.

* * * * * Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ [FR Doc. 2019–04389 Filed 3–11–19; 8:45 am] and the telephone number for the OPP 40tab_02.tpl. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review C. How can I file an objection or hearing the visitor instructions and additional request? information about the docket available ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 AGENCY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation 40 CFR Part 180 Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, and may also request a hearing on those [EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0494; FRL–9985–06] Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 objections. You must file your objection Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC or request a hearing on this regulation Methoxyfenozide; Pesticide Tolerances 20460–0001; main telephone number: in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure AGENCY: Environmental Protection (703) 305–7090; email address: [email protected]. proper receipt by EPA, you must Agency (EPA). identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACTION: Final rule. OPP–2017–0494 in the subject line on I. General Information the first page of your submission. All SUMMARY: This regulation establishes objections and requests for a hearing A. Does this action apply to me? tolerances for residues of must be in writing, and must be methoxyfenozide in or on imported tea. You may be potentially affected by received by the Hearing Clerk on or Dow Agrosciences, LLC requested these this action if you are an agricultural before May 13, 2019. Addresses for mail tolerances under the Federal Food, producer, food manufacturer, or and hand delivery of objections and Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). pesticide manufacturer. The following hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR DATES: This regulation is effective list of North American Industrial 178.25(b). March 12, 2019. Objections and requests Classification System (NAICS) codes is In addition to filing an objection or for hearings must be received on or not intended to be exhaustive, but rather hearing request with the Hearing Clerk before May 13, 2019, and must be filed provides a guide to help readers as described in 40 CFR part 178, please in accordance with the instructions determine whether this document submit a copy of the filing (excluding provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also applies to them. Potentially affected any Confidential Business Information Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY entities may include: (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. INFORMATION). • Crop production (NAICS code 111). Information not marked confidential ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, • Animal production (NAICS code pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be identified by docket identification (ID) 112). disclosed publicly by EPA without prior number EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0494, is • Food manufacturing (NAICS code notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your available at http://www.regulations.gov 311). objection or hearing request, identified or at the Office of Pesticide Programs • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) code 32532). 2017–0494, by one of the following in the Environmental Protection Agency methods: B. How can I get electronic access to Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// other related information? Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 www.regulations.gov. Follow the online Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC You may access a frequently updated instructions for submitting comments. 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room electronic version of EPA’s tolerance Do not submit electronically any is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through information you consider to be CBI or Monday through Friday, excluding legal the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR other information whose disclosure is holidays. The telephone number for the site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- restricted by statute.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Mar 11, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1