Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

redesignated the Miami area to attainment for the 1971 NAAQS.5
In 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and simultaneously established provisions for revoking the 1971 SO2 NAAQS.6 The EPA designated the Miami area as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in 2013.7 ADEQ submitted a new SO2
attainment plan and rule for Miami R182C1302 in 2017 to comply with CAA requirements for 2010 SO2
nonattainment areas. ADEQ also submitted new transitional provisions in A.A.C. R182715I and R182
715.01V in order to sunset the existing rule provisions upon the effective date of R182B1302, which regulates SO2
emissions from the copper smelter in Hayden, Arizona along with the provisions for Miami, Arizona in R18
2C1302.
The EPA approved A.A.C. R182
C1302 into the Arizona SIP on November 14, 2018,8 and approved the Miami SO2 attainment plan on March 12, 2019.9 However, we have not yet proposed to act on the transitional provisions in A.A.C. R182715I and R182715.01V. As explained in our recent final limited approval and limited disapproval of R182B1302
Limits on SO2 Emissions from the Hayden Smelter because the transitional provisions that apply to Hayden and Miami are inseverable from one another i.e., both are contained within a single paragraph within R18
2715I and R182715.01V, we cannot separately approve the transitional provisions for Miami without also approving the provisions for Hayden, which is prohibited by CAA
section 110l. 10 Therefore, the Miami smelter remains subject to the emission limits in R182715F2 and H and associated requirements in R182
715.01.
ADEQ is requesting that EPA rescind R182715F2 and H from the Arizona SIP in order to remove the emissions limits and associated requirements that were established to meet the now-revoked 1971 SO2
NAAQS. In support of this request, ADEQ submitted a demonstration of how rescission of these provisions from 4 69 FR 63324. The EPA later approved minor revisions to A.A.C. R182715. 79 FR 56655
September 23, 2014.
5 72 FR 3061 January 24, 2007.
6 75 FR 35520 June 22, 2010.
7 78 FR 47191 August 5, 2013; effective October 4, 2013. This action also established an effective date for revocation of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS in the Miami area of October 4, 2014. See 40 CFR 50.4e.
8 83 FR 56736.
9 84 FR 8813.
10 85 FR 70483, 70485 November 5, 2020.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:34 Mar 02, 2021

Jkt 253001

the SIP would comply with applicable CAA requirements.11
II. The EPAs Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant CAA criteria for stringency, and complies with restrictions on relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110l, and the General Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements in effect before November 15, 1990.
Stringency: CAA section 172c1
requires that SIPs for nonattainment areas provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures RACM, including any reasonably available control technology RACT, in order to provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
Plan Revisions: States must demonstrate that SIP revisions would not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA under the provisions of CAA
section 110l. Therefore, consistent with CAA section 110l requirements, ADEQ must demonstrate that the rescission of R182715F2 and H
from the SIP would not interfere with attainment and RFP of the NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
General Savings Clause: CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in areas designated as nonattainment for an air pollutant unless the modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutant.
B. Does the rule rescission meet the evaluation criteria?
The EPA previously determined that R182C1302 and the Miami SO2
attainment plan meet the requirements for RACM/RACT for the Miami 2010
SO2 nonattainment area.12 We have also found that the emissions limits in R18
11 State Implementation Plan Revision; Miami SO2 Nonattainment Area Demonstration of Compliance with Clean Air Act Sections 110l and 193 for the 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, dated February 27, 2020.
12 EPA, Technical Support Document for the EPAs Rulemaking for the Arizona State Implementation Plan; Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 13, Part BHayden, Arizona, Planning Area, R182B1302Limits on SO2 Emissions from the Hayden Smelter, April
PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

12311

2C1302 are more stringent than those in R182715.13 In particular, the 30day rolling average emission limit of 142.45 pounds per hour lb/hr in R18
2C1302C, which covers both stack and fugitive emissions, is far more stringent than the annual average limit of 2,420 lb/hr for combined stack and fugitive emissions in R182715H.
The 142.45 lb/hr limit in R182C1302
is also clearly more stringent than annual average emission limit of 604 lb/
hr and 3-hour limits of 7128,678 lb/
hr for stack emissions in R182
715F2.
We also note that while ADEQ is not requesting rescission of the compliance and monitoring requirements in R182
715.01, the removal of R182715F2
and H from the SIP would effectively render the provisions of R182715.01
inapplicable to the Miami smelter.14 We find that the nullification of these provisions with respect to the Miami smelter would not interfere with any CAA requirements because the Miami smelter is already required to comply with the more prescriptive requirements for compliance and monitoring in R18
2C1302E.
For the foregoing reasons, we propose to find that the rescission of R182
715F2 and H from the Arizona SIP
would not interfere with any CAA
requirements and would therefore comply with CAA section 110l. We also propose to find that our prior approval of R182C1302 ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of SO2 than the rescission of R182715F2 and H and therefore satisfies the requirements of CAA
section 193.
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action As authorized in section 110k3 of the Act, the EPA proposes to approve the rescission of R182715F2 and H from the Arizona SIP because these provisions are no longer needed to meet any CAA requirement and rescission would comply with CAA sections 110l and 193. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until April 2, 2021. If we take final action to approve the rule rescission, our final action will rescind these provisions from the federally enforceable SIP.
2020 Rule B1302 TSD, 10 12; 84 FR 8813, March 12, 2019.
13 Rule B1302 TSD, 1213.
14 The Hayden Smelter will remain subject to the applicable requirements of both R182715 and R182715.01 until we take action to remove those requirements from the SIP or approve the transitional provisions in A.A.C. R182715I and R182715.01V into the SIP.

E:FRFM03MRP1.SGM

03MRP1