Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 32213 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(2) Previously approved on January 2, 

2004 in paragraph (c)(293)(i)(B)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(497)(i)(D)(2), Rule 

2.14, adopted on November 14, 2001. 

* * * * * 

(497) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) * * * 

(2) Rule 2.14, ‘‘Architectural 

Coatings,’’ revised on October 12, 2016. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–14946 Filed 7–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741; FRL–9980–84– 

OAR] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 

Recovery Combustion Sources at 

Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 

Semichemical Pulp Mills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification of final action 

denying petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is providing 

notice that it has responded to a petition 

for reconsideration of the final National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical 

Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, 

Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 

Semichemical Pulp Mills published in 

the Federal Register on October 11, 

2017. The Acting Administrator denied 

the petition in a separate letter to the 

petitioners. The letter, which provides a 

full explanation of the agency’s 

rationale for the denial, is in the 

rulemaking docket. 

DATES: July 12, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–03), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

3158; fax number: (919) 541–0516; 

email address: spence.kelley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

This Federal Register document, the 

petition for reconsideration, and the 

letter denying the petition for 

reconsideration are available in the 

docket the EPA established under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0741. All documents in the docket are 

listed on the www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 

3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. 

The Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744 and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

II. Judicial Review 

Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) indicates which Federal Courts of 

Appeals have venue for petitions for 

review of final EPA actions. This section 

provides, in part, that the petitions for 

review must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit if: (1) The agency 

action consists of ‘‘nationally applicable 

regulations promulgated, or final action 

taken, by the Administrator,’’ or (2) such 

actions are locally or regionally 

applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on 

a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ 

The EPA has determined that its 

action denying the petition for 

reconsideration is nationally applicable 

for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) 

because the action directly affects the 

NESHAP for Chemical Recovery 

Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, 

Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical 

Pulp Mills, which are nationally 

applicable CAA section 112 standards. 

Any petitions for review of the letter 

denying the petition for reconsideration 

must be filed in the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by September 10, 2018. 

III. Description of Action 

On October 11, 2017, pursuant to 

sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) of the CAA, 

the EPA published the final residual 

risk and technology review (RTR) of the 

‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 

Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, 

Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 

Semichemical Pulp Mills.’’ 82 FR 

47328. Following publication of the 

final RTR amendments, the 

Administrator received a petition for 

reconsideration of two aspects of the 

final RTR pursuant to CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B). The petitioners, 

Earthjustice on behalf of Crossett 

Concerned Citizens for Environmental 

Justice, Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network, PT AirWatchers, and Sierra 

Club, claimed: (1) It was impracticable 

to object to the EPA’s rationale for not 

setting additional standards for 

uncontrolled emissions when the EPA 

was conducting the review required by 

CAA section 112(d)(6), and their 

objections on this issue are of central 

relevance to the outcome of the rule; 

and (2) it was impracticable to object 

during the comment period to the EPA’s 

use of census block centroids to account 

for the residual risk to the most exposed 

individual, and their objections on this 

issue are of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule. 

CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) requires the 

EPA to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration of a rule if a party 

raising an objection to the rule ‘‘can 

demonstrate to the Administrator that it 

was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the public comment 

period] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ The requirement 

to convene a proceeding to reconsider a 

rule is, thus, based on the petitioner 

demonstrating to the EPA both: (1) That 

it was impracticable to raise the 

objection during the comment period, or 

that the grounds for such objection arose 

after the comment period, but within 

the time specified for judicial review 

(i.e., within 60 days after publication of 

the final rulemaking in the Federal 

Register, see CAA section 307(b)(1)); 

and (2) that the objection is of central 

relevance to the outcome of the rule. 

The EPA carefully reviewed the 

petition for reconsideration and 

evaluated the issues raised to determine 

if they meet the CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B) criteria for reconsideration. 

In a separate letter to the petitioners, the 

EPA Acting Administrator, Andrew R. 

Wheeler, denied the petition for 

reconsideration. The letter is available 

in the docket for this action. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
32214 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: July 9, 2018. 

Andrew R. Wheeler, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15023 Filed 7–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES