12310 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1Letter from Daniel Czecholinski, Director, Air 

Quality Division, ADEQ, to John Busterud, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, RE: Miami SO2

Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan 

Revision (undated; received by EPA on March 10, 

2020). 

2The Miami SO2 NAA (nonattainment area) 

initially included all of Gila County (43 FR 8968, 

March 3, 1978), but its boundaries were later 

revised to include only the nine townships in and 

around Miami (44 FR 21261, April 10, 1979). 

3 48 FR 1717. These provisions were codified 

within A.A.C. R9–3–515, which was the 

predecessor to A.A.C. R18–2–715. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0735; FRL–10020– 

57–Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Miami 

Copper Smelter Sulfur Dioxide Control 

Measures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) from the copper smelter 

in Miami, Arizona. We are proposing to 

approve the rescission of two Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) Arizona Administrative Code 

(A.A.C.) provisions from the Arizona 

SIP that are no longer needed to regulate 

this emission source 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: Comments must be received on 

or before April 2, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2020–0735 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3073 or by 

email at gong.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. Of what rule provisions did the State 

request rescission? 

B. What was the purpose of the SIPapproved rule provisions, and what is 

the purpose of the State’s rescission 

request? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the request 

for rescission? 

B. Does the rule rescission meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. Of what rule provisions did the State 

request rescission? 

Table 1 lists the rule provisions 

addressed by this proposal with the 

dates that they were adopted, submitted, 

and approved. On March 10, 2020, 

ADEQ submitted a formal request to the 

EPA requesting that the EPA rescind 

these provisions from the SIP.1

TABLE 1—RULE FOR WHICH RESCISSION FROM THE SIP IS REQUESTED

Local agency Citation Rule title Adopted SIP approval date 

ADEQ ............... A.A.C. R18–2–715(F)(2) 

and (H).

Standards of Performance for Existing Primary 

Copper Smelters; Site-specific Requirements.

March 7, 2009 ....... September 23, 2014. 

On September 10, 2020 the submittal 

for the rescission of A.A.C. R18–2– 

715(F)(2) and (H) was deemed by 

operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. What was the purpose of the SIPapproved rule provisions, and what is 

the purpose of the State’s rescission 

request? 

ADEQ adopted A.A.C. R18–2– 

715(F)(2) and (H) in order to establish 

source-specific SO2 emissions limits for 

the copper smelter located in Miami, 

Arizona (‘‘Miami Smelter’’). ADEQ also 

adopted compliance and monitoring 

provisions for these limits in A.A.C. 

R18–2–715.01. These provisions were 

necessary to provide for attainment of 

the 1971 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), for which the 

Miami area was designated 

nonattainment in 1978.2 The State of 

Arizona submitted regulations to the 

EPA in 1979 and 1980 to reduce 

emissions from criteria pollutant 

sources in Miami and across the state. 

The EPA approved these measures on 

January 14, 1983, but found that further 

analysis and control of smelter fugitive 

emissions was needed.3 The Miami 

smelter operators submitted fugitive 

emissions studies in the 1990s to better 

estimate fugitive emissions during 

typical operation to eventually 

determine maximum emissions. This 

analysis resulted in the implementation 

of further control measures and 

emission limits at the Miami Smelter to 

provide for attainment of the 1971 SO2

NAAQS. On November 1, 2004, the EPA 

approved rules R18–2–715 (sections F, 

G, and H), R18–2–715.01 and R18–2– 

715.02, which codified these new 

requirements.4 In 2007, the EPA 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12311 

4 69 FR 63324. The EPA later approved minor 

revisions to A.A.C. R18–2–715. 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 50.4(e). 

8 83 FR 56736. 

9 84 FR 8813. 

10 85 FR 70483, 70485 (November 5, 2020). 

11 ‘‘State Implementation Plan Revision; Miami 

SO2 Nonattainment Area Demonstration of 

Compliance with Clean Air Act Sections 110(l) and 

193 for the 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ dated February 27, 2020. 

12EPA, ‘‘Technical Support Document for the 

EPA’s Rulemaking for the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan; Arizona Administrative Code, 

Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 13, Part B—Hayden, 

Arizona, Planning Area, R18–2–B1302—Limits on 

SO2 Emissions from the Hayden Smelter,’’ April 

2020 (‘‘Rule B1302 TSD’’), 10 –12; 84 FR 8813, 

March 12, 2019. 

13Rule B1302 TSD, 12–13. 

14The Hayden Smelter will remain subject to the 

applicable requirements of both R18–2–715 and 

R18–2–715.01 until we take action to remove those 

requirements from the SIP or approve the 

transitional provisions in A.A.C. R18–2–715(I) and 

R18–2–715.01(V) into the SIP. 

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 

(R18–2–C1302) in 2017 to comply with 

CAA requirements for 2010 SO2

nonattainment areas. ADEQ also 

submitted new transitional provisions 

in A.A.C. R18–2–715(I) and R18–2– 

715.01(V) in order to sunset the existing 

rule provisions upon the effective date 

of R18–2–B1302, which regulates SO2

emissions from the copper smelter in 

Hayden, Arizona along with the 

provisions for Miami, Arizona in R18– 

2–C1302. 

The EPA approved A.A.C. R18–2– 

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. R18–2–715(I) and 

R18–2–715.01(V). As explained in our 

recent final limited approval and 

limited disapproval of R18–2–B1302 

(‘‘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– 

2–715(I) and R18–2–715.01(V)), we 

cannot separately approve the 

transitional provisions for Miami 

without also approving the provisions 

for Hayden, which is prohibited by CAA 

section 110(l).’’ 10 Therefore, the Miami 

smelter remains subject to the emission 

limits in R18–2–715(F)(2) and (H) and 

associated requirements in R18–2– 

715.01. 

ADEQ is requesting that EPA rescind 

R18–2–715(F)(2) 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 

the SIP would comply with applicable 

CAA requirements.11

II. The EPA’s 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 

110(l), and the General Savings Clause 

in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved 

control requirements in effect before 

November 15, 1990. 

Stringency: CAA section 172(c)(1) 

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 110(l). Therefore, consistent 

with CAA section 110(l) requirements, 

ADEQ must demonstrate that the 

rescission of R18–2–715(F)(2) 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 

R18–2–C1302 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– 

2–C1302 are more stringent than those 

in R18–2–715.13 In particular, the 30- 

day rolling average emission limit of 

142.45 pounds per hour (lb/hr) in R18– 

2–C1302(C), 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 R18–2–715(H). 

The 142.45 lb/hr limit in R18–2–C1302 

is also clearly more stringent than 

annual average emission limit of 604 lb/ 

hr and 3-hour limits of 712—8,678 lb/ 

hr for stack emissions in R18–2– 

715(F)(2). 

We also note that while ADEQ is not 

requesting rescission of the compliance 

and monitoring requirements in R18–2– 

715.01, the removal of R18–2–715(F)(2) 

and (H) from the SIP would effectively 

render the provisions of R18–2–715.01 

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– 

2–C1302(E). 

For the foregoing reasons, we propose 

to find that the rescission of R18–2– 

715(F)(2) and (H) from the Arizona SIP 

would not interfere with any CAA 

requirements and would therefore 

comply with CAA section 110(l). We 

also propose to find that our prior 

approval of R18–2–C1302 ensures 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of SO2 than the rescission of 

R18–2–715(F)(2) and (H) and therefore 

satisfies the requirements of CAA 

section 193. 

C. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to approve 

the rescission of R18–2–715(F)(2) 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 110(l) 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12312 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

proposing to amend regulatory text that 

includes incorporation by reference. 

The EPA is proposing to remove R18– 

2–715(F)(2) and (H) as described in 

Table 1 of this preamble from the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan, 

which is incorporated by reference in 

accordance with the requirements of 1 

CFR part 51. 

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 Clean Air Act. 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); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: February 18, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03753 Filed 3–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 63 

[IB Docket No. 16–155; DA 20–1545; FRS 

17408] 

International Bureau Seeks Comment 

on Standard Questions for Applicants 

Whose Applications Will Be Referred 

to the Executive Branch for Review 

Due to Foreign Ownership 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rules. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

International Bureau seeks comment on 

a set of standardized national security 

and law enforcement questions 

(Standard Questions) that proponents of 

certain applications and petitions 

involving reportable foreign ownership 

will be required to answer as part of the 

application review process and whose 

application and petition will be referred 

to the Executive Branch. 

DATES: Comments are due April 2, 2021. 

Reply comments are due April 19, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by IB Docket No. 16–155, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (2020), https:// 

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closesheadquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

In addition, filers should provide one 

copy of each filing to each of the 

following: 

(1) Arthur Lechtman, Attorney, 

Telecommunications and Analysis 

Division, International Bureau, at 

Arthur.Lechtman@fcc.gov, and 

(2) David Krech, Associate Division 

Chief, Telecommunications and 

Analysis Division, International Bureau, 

at David.Krech@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arthur Lechtman, International Bureau, 

Telecommunications and Analysis 

Division, at (202) 418–1465. For 

information regarding the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) information 

collection requirements contained in the 

PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of 

Managing Director, at (202) 418–2918 or 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Public Notice, DA 20– 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS