Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan To Address Pollution Affecting Visibility, 38419-38423 [2015-16389]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
understanding this proposed rule. If the
rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.
4. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
5. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under that
Order and have determined that it does
not have implications for federalism.
6. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the ‘‘For Further
Information Contact’’ section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this
proposed rule will not result in such
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
8. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jul 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
9. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
10. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
11. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
12. Energy Effects
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
38419
required for this rule. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. In § 117.745, revise paragraph (b)
introductory text and add paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
■
§ 117.745
Rancocas Creek
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The drawspan for the RiversideDelanco/SR#543 Drawbridge, mile 1.3 at
Riverside must operate as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The draw of the Centerton County
Route 635 Bridge, mile 7.8, at Mt.
Laurel, need not open for the passage of
vessels.
Dated: June 11, 2015.
Robert J. Tarantino,
Captain, United States Coast Guard, Acting
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015–16518 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am]
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
14. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This proposed
rule simply promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of
the Instruction, an environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are not
40 CFR Part 52
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633; FRL–9929–06–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Arkansas;
Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan To Address
Pollution Affecting Visibility
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove a revision to the Arkansas
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Arkansas on
September 16, 2009, for the purpose of
addressing the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding
interference with other states’ programs
for visibility protection for the 2006
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM
06JYP1
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38420
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
revised 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The EPA is
proposing that the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) we proposed
on April 8, 2015, to address certain
regional haze and visibility transport
requirements for the State of Arkansas
also remedies the deficiency created by
our proposed disapproval of Arkansas’
SIP submittal to address the
requirement regarding interference with
other states’ programs for visibility
protection for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2008–0633, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: medina.dayana@epa.gov.
• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief,
Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733.
• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy
Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633.
Our policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means we will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to us without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, we recommend
that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If we cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jul 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
and cannot contact you for clarification,
we may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Dayana Medina, 214–665–7241;
medina.dayana@epa.gov. To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with Ms. Medina or Mr.
Bill Deese at 214–665–7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
I. Background
A. Interstate Transport and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
In 2006, we revised the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS to 35 mg/m3 (October 17, 2006,
71 FR 6114). SIPs addressing the
interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA are
due to us within three years after the
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS (or within such shorter period
as we may prescribe).1 Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA identifies four
distinct elements, sometimes referred to
as prongs, related to the evaluation of
impacts of interstate transport of air
pollutants with respect to a new or
revised NAAQS. In this action for the
State of Arkansas, we are addressing the
second element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
second element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA (hereafter
referred to as Prong 4) requires that
states have a SIP, or submit a SIP
revision, containing provisions
prohibiting emissions from within a
state from interfering with measures
required to be included in the
implementation plan for any other state
under the provisions of Part C of the
CAA protecting visibility. Because of
the impacts on visibility from the
interstate transport of pollutants, we
interpret this ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision
in section 110 of the CAA as requiring
states to include in their SIPs measures
PO 00000
1 CAA
Section 110(a)(1).
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to prohibit emissions that would
interfere with the reasonable progress
goals set to protect Class I areas in other
states. This is consistent with the
requirements in the regional haze
program which explicitly require each
state to address its share of the emission
reductions needed to meet the
reasonable progress goals for
surrounding Class I areas.2
B. Arkansas’ Interstate Visibility
Transport Submittal for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS
On September 16, 2009, Arkansas
submitted a SIP revision intended to
address the requirements of Prong 4
with respect to visibility transport for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal
also addressed other ‘‘infrastructure’’
elements specified in CAA section
110(a)(2), necessary to implement,
maintain, and enforce the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. We previously acted on the
portions of the September 16, 2009
submittal that addressed these other
infrastructure elements specified in
CAA Section 110(a)(2).3 Arkansas’
September 16, 2009 SIP submittal that
addresses transport for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS may be accessed through the
www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633).
Arkansas indicated in the submittal that
it meets the required protection of
visibility provisions of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
II. EPA’s Evaluation
A. EPA’s Approach for Evaluating
Interstate Visibility Transport
In three memos released in 2006,
2009, and 2013, we provided guidance
to the states regarding their obligations
with respect to Prong 4. In the 2006
memo, we informed states that they
could satisfy prong 4 for the 1997
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS by
making a simple SIP submission
confirming that it was not possible at
the time to assess whether there was any
interference with measures in the SIPs
of other states designed to protect
visibility until the states’ regional haze
SIPs were submitted and approved.4 In
the 2009 memo, we recommended that
a state could meet prong 4 requirements
2 64
FR 35714, 35735 (July 1, 1999).
FR 50033 (August 20, 2012) and 78 FR 53269
(August 29, 2013).
4 Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S.
Envtl. Protection Agency, Guidance for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet
Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, at 9–10
(Aug. 15, 2006).
3 77
E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM
06JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
through its Regional Haze SIP.5 EPA’s
rationale supporting this
recommendation was that the
development of the regional haze SIPs
was intended to occur in a collaborative
environment among the states, and that
through this process states would
coordinate on emissions controls to
protect visibility on an interstate basis.
The common understanding was that, as
a result of this collaborative
environment, each state would take
action to achieve the emissions
reductions relied upon by other states in
their reasonable progress
demonstrations under the regional haze
rule. This interpretation is consistent
with the requirement in the regional
haze rule that a state participating in a
regional planning process must include
‘‘all measures needed to achieve its
apportionment of emission reduction
obligations agreed upon through that
process.’’ See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
Most recently, in the 2013 memo, we
suggest ways prong 4 obligations can be
satisfied with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIPs.6 There, we
reiterated that states could satisfy prong
4 by confirming that they had fully
approved regional haze SIPs.7 We
reasoned that a fully approved regional
haze SIP necessarily would ensure that
emissions from a state’s sources were
not interfering with measures required
to be included in other states’ SIPs to
protect visibility.8 Alternatively, we
explained that a state could satisfy its
prong 4 obligations by including in its
infrastructure SIP a demonstration that
emissions within its jurisdiction do not
interfere with other states’ plans to
protect visibility.9 We clarified that
such a submission would need to
include measures to limit visibilityimpairing pollutants and ensure that the
reductions were sufficient to comply
with any mutually agreed upon RPGs
for downwind Class I areas.10
5 Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S.
Envtl. Protection Agency, Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), at 5
(Sept. 25, 2009).
6 Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S.
Envtl. Protection Agency, Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 2013).
7 Id. at 33.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 34.
10 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jul 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
B. Evaluation of Arkansas’ Submittal
An approved regional haze SIP that
fully meets the regional haze
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies
the requirement for visibility protection
as it ensures that emissions from the
state will not interfere with measures
required to be included in other state
SIPs to protect visibility. Regional haze
is visibility impairment that is produced
by a multitude of sources and activities
which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles
(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic
carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and in some cases,
ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC)). Fine particle
precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter that impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing
light. Visibility impairment reduces the
clarity, color, and visible distance that
one can see. PM2.5 can also cause
serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to
environmental effects such as acid
deposition and eutrophication.
In the September 16, 2009
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, Arkansas indicated that
it meets the required protection of
visibility provisions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA but did not
explain how it meets this requirement.
We are proposing to find that Arkansas’
SIP does not fully ensure that emissions
from sources in Arkansas do not
interfere with other states’ visibility
programs as required under the Prong 4
provision because the SIP does not
demonstrate how the requirement is
satisfied. Furthermore, we previously
found the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
to be deficient and partially
disapproved it. In our final rule
published on March 12, 2012, we
partially approved and partially
disapproved the SIP revision submitted
by Arkansas in 2008 to address the
regional haze requirements (Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP).11 This action
included a disapproval of a large
portion of Arkansas’ best available
retrofit technology (BART)
determinations for its subject to BART
sources, as we concluded these BART
determinations did not meet the
requirements of the CAA and our
regional haze regulations. As a result,
the corresponding emissions reductions
from Arkansas sources that other states
had relied upon in their regional haze
SIPs would not take place. Therefore,
we are proposing to disapprove the
PO 00000
11 77
FR 14604.
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
portion of Arkansas’ September 16, 2009
SIP submittal that addresses the
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility transport for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Under section 110(c) of the Act,
whenever we disapprove a mandatory
SIP submission in whole or in part, we
are required to promulgate a FIP within
2 years unless we approve a SIP revision
correcting the deficiencies before
promulgating a FIP. Specifically, CAA
section 110(c) provides that the
Administrator shall promulgate a FIP
within 2 years after the Administrator
disapproves a state implementation plan
submission ‘‘unless the State corrects
the deficiency, and the Administrator
approves the plan or plan revision,
before the Administrator promulgates
such Federal implementation plan.’’
The term ‘‘Federal implementation
plan’’ is defined in section 302(y) of the
CAA in pertinent part as a plan
promulgated by the Administrator to
correct an inadequacy in a SIP. Thus,
upon finalizing our proposed
disapproval of Arkansas’ SIP submittal
addressing the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility transport for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, we would have an obligation
to promulgate a FIP for Arkansas, unless
we first approve a SIP revision that
corrects the deficiencies in the
disapproved SIP submittal.
Our April 8, 2015 proposed FIP
corrects the disapproved portions of the
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The
disapproved portions included a
majority of the State’s BART
determinations, the State’s reasonable
progress analysis and reasonable
progress goals, and a portion of the
State’s long term strategies for its Class
I areas.12 Our proposed FIP addresses
BART requirements for nine units at six
facilities, proposes a reasonable progress
analysis and controls for two units at
one power plant under the reasonable
progress requirements, and proposes
revised reasonable progress goals and
long-term strategies for Arkansas’ two
Class I areas. Our proposed Regional
Haze FIP together with the already
approved portions of the Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP address all regional
haze requirements for Arkansas and
would ensure that the emissions
reductions from Arkansas sources that
other states relied upon in their regional
haze SIPs are achieved. As such, there
would be adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity within Arkansas from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
12 77
Sfmt 4702
38421
E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM
FR 14604.
06JYP1
38422
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
which would interfere with measures
required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any
other state to protect visibility.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to disapprove a
portion of a SIP submittal that was
submitted by Arkansas on September
16, 2009. The portion of the SIP
submittal we are proposing to
disapprove addresses the CAA
provisions for prohibiting air pollutant
emissions from interfering with
measures required to protect visibility
in any other state for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. We are proposing to find
that the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility transport for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS will be satisfied by the
combination of the emission control
measures in the Regional Haze FIP we
proposed on April 8, 2015, and the
already approved portions of the
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. We are
proposing to determine that the
Regional Haze FIP we proposed for
Arkansas on April 8, 2015, will satisfy
our FIP obligation for interstate
transport of air pollution and visibility
protection for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. We will not finalize our
proposal that the Regional Haze FIP
addresses our FIP obligation unless and
until, we finalize our action on the
Regional Haze FIP.
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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,
EPA’s role is to act on state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This proposed action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed SIP disapproval
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jul 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself
create any new information collection
burdens but simply disapproves certain
State requirements for inclusion into the
SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of
today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not impose any
requirements or create impacts on small
entities. This proposed SIP disapproval
under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements but simply
disapproves certain State requirements
for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly,
it affords no opportunity for EPA to
fashion for small entities less
burdensome compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables or
exemptions from all or part of the rule.
The fact that the CAA prescribes that
various consequences (e.g., higher offset
requirements) may or will flow from
this disapproval does not mean that
EPA either can or must conduct a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this
action. Therefore, this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of this proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. EPA
has determined that the proposed
disapproval action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more
to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements
under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This proposed action does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it
merely disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP
and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, this proposed action 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).
E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM
06JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This proposed action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action based on
health or safety risks subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP
disapproval under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not
in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion
into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This proposed action is not subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this proposed
action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jul 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
proposed action. In reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or
disapprove state choices, based on the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to disapprove
certain State requirements for inclusion
into the SIP under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will
not in-and-of itself create any new
requirements. Accordingly, it does not
provide EPA with the discretionary
authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable
and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898.
38423
disapproved for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
(d) The deficiencies in the portion of
the SIP pertaining to adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions in
Arkansas from interfering with
measures required to protect visibility
in any other state for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, submitted on September
16, 2009, are remedied by Section
52.173(c).
[FR Doc. 2015–16389 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0075; FRL–9929–72–
Region 5]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Sheboygan County, Wisconsin
8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area;
Reasonable Further Progress Plan
K. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by section 110 of the CAA,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxides,
Visibility, Interstate transport of
pollution, Regional haze, Best available
control technology.
Dated: June 18, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Amend § 52.173 by adding
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
■
Subpart E—Arkansas
§ 52.173
Visibility Protection
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The portion of the SIP addressing
noninterference with measures required
to protect visibility in any other state are
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
an Early Progress Plan and motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for
volatile organic compounds and oxides
of nitrogen for Sheboygan County,
Wisconsin. Wisconsin submitted an
Early Progress Plan for Sheboygan
County on January 16, 2015. This
submittal was developed to establish
MVEBs for the Sheboygan 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. This approval of
the Early Progress Plan for the
Sheboygan 8-hour ozone area is based
on EPA’s determination that Wisconsin
has demonstrated that the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing these MVEBs, when
considered with the emissions from all
sources, shows some progress toward
attainment from the 2011 base year
through a 2015 target year.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0075, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2450.
4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM
06JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38419-38423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16389]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0633; FRL-9929-06-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas;
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan To Address Pollution
Affecting Visibility
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove a revision to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Arkansas on September 16, 2009, for the
purpose of addressing the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
regarding interference with other states' programs for visibility
protection for the 2006
[[Page 38420]]
revised 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The EPA is proposing that the
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) we proposed on April 8, 2015, to
address certain regional haze and visibility transport requirements for
the State of Arkansas also remedies the deficiency created by our
proposed disapproval of Arkansas' SIP submittal to address the
requirement regarding interference with other states' programs for
visibility protection for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2008-0633, by one of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Email: medina.dayana@epa.gov.
Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-
0633. Our policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to us without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dayana Medina, 214-665-7241;
medina.dayana@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Medina or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
A. Interstate Transport and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
In 2006, we revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/
m\3\ (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 6114). SIPs addressing the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA are due to
us within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS
(or within such shorter period as we may prescribe).\1\ Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA identifies four distinct elements, sometimes
referred to as prongs, related to the evaluation of impacts of
interstate transport of air pollutants with respect to a new or revised
NAAQS. In this action for the State of Arkansas, we are addressing the
second element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The second element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA (hereafter referred to as Prong 4)
requires that states have a SIP, or submit a SIP revision, containing
provisions prohibiting emissions from within a state from interfering
with measures required to be included in the implementation plan for
any other state under the provisions of Part C of the CAA protecting
visibility. Because of the impacts on visibility from the interstate
transport of pollutants, we interpret this ``good neighbor'' provision
in section 110 of the CAA as requiring states to include in their SIPs
measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with the reasonable
progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other states. This is
consistent with the requirements in the regional haze program which
explicitly require each state to address its share of the emission
reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for surrounding
Class I areas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAA Section 110(a)(1).
\2\ 64 FR 35714, 35735 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Arkansas' Interstate Visibility Transport Submittal for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
On September 16, 2009, Arkansas submitted a SIP revision intended
to address the requirements of Prong 4 with respect to visibility
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal also
addressed other ``infrastructure'' elements specified in CAA section
110(a)(2), necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. We previously acted on the portions of the
September 16, 2009 submittal that addressed these other infrastructure
elements specified in CAA Section 110(a)(2).\3\ Arkansas' September 16,
2009 SIP submittal that addresses transport for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS may be accessed through the www.regulations.gov
Web site (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0633). Arkansas indicated in the
submittal that it meets the required protection of visibility
provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 77 FR 50033 (August 20, 2012) and 78 FR 53269 (August 29,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. EPA's Evaluation
A. EPA's Approach for Evaluating Interstate Visibility Transport
In three memos released in 2006, 2009, and 2013, we provided
guidance to the states regarding their obligations with respect to
Prong 4. In the 2006 memo, we informed states that they could satisfy
prong 4 for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS by making
a simple SIP submission confirming that it was not possible at the time
to assess whether there was any interference with measures in the SIPs
of other states designed to protect visibility until the states'
regional haze SIPs were submitted and approved.\4\ In the 2009 memo, we
recommended that a state could meet prong 4 requirements
[[Page 38421]]
through its Regional Haze SIP.\5\ EPA's rationale supporting this
recommendation was that the development of the regional haze SIPs was
intended to occur in a collaborative environment among the states, and
that through this process states would coordinate on emissions controls
to protect visibility on an interstate basis. The common understanding
was that, as a result of this collaborative environment, each state
would take action to achieve the emissions reductions relied upon by
other states in their reasonable progress demonstrations under the
regional haze rule. This interpretation is consistent with the
requirement in the regional haze rule that a state participating in a
regional planning process must include ``all measures needed to achieve
its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through
that process.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Most recently, in the 2013
memo, we suggest ways prong 4 obligations can be satisfied with respect
to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS,
2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS infrastructure SIPs.\6\ There, we reiterated that states could
satisfy prong 4 by confirming that they had fully approved regional
haze SIPs.\7\ We reasoned that a fully approved regional haze SIP
necessarily would ensure that emissions from a state's sources were not
interfering with measures required to be included in other states' SIPs
to protect visibility.\8\ Alternatively, we explained that a state
could satisfy its prong 4 obligations by including in its
infrastructure SIP a demonstration that emissions within its
jurisdiction do not interfere with other states' plans to protect
visibility.\9\ We clarified that such a submission would need to
include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure
that the reductions were sufficient to comply with any mutually agreed
upon RPGs for downwind Class I areas.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl.
Protection Agency, Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, at 9-10 (Aug. 15, 2006).
\5\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl.
Protection Agency, Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
at 5 (Sept. 25, 2009).
\6\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl.
Protection Agency, Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 2013).
\7\ Id. at 33.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id. at 34.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Evaluation of Arkansas' Submittal
An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the regional haze
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the requirement for visibility
protection as it ensures that emissions from the state will not
interfere with measures required to be included in other state SIPs to
protect visibility. Regional haze is visibility impairment that is
produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles
(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., SO2,
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia
(NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle
precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter that
impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one
can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as
acid deposition and eutrophication.
In the September 16, 2009 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, Arkansas indicated that it meets the required
protection of visibility provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the
CAA but did not explain how it meets this requirement. We are proposing
to find that Arkansas' SIP does not fully ensure that emissions from
sources in Arkansas do not interfere with other states' visibility
programs as required under the Prong 4 provision because the SIP does
not demonstrate how the requirement is satisfied. Furthermore, we
previously found the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP to be deficient and
partially disapproved it. In our final rule published on March 12,
2012, we partially approved and partially disapproved the SIP revision
submitted by Arkansas in 2008 to address the regional haze requirements
(Arkansas Regional Haze SIP).\11\ This action included a disapproval of
a large portion of Arkansas' best available retrofit technology (BART)
determinations for its subject to BART sources, as we concluded these
BART determinations did not meet the requirements of the CAA and our
regional haze regulations. As a result, the corresponding emissions
reductions from Arkansas sources that other states had relied upon in
their regional haze SIPs would not take place. Therefore, we are
proposing to disapprove the portion of Arkansas' September 16, 2009 SIP
submittal that addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility transport for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 77 FR 14604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 110(c) of the Act, whenever we disapprove a mandatory
SIP submission in whole or in part, we are required to promulgate a FIP
within 2 years unless we approve a SIP revision correcting the
deficiencies before promulgating a FIP. Specifically, CAA section
110(c) provides that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP within 2
years after the Administrator disapproves a state implementation plan
submission ``unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the
Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan.'' The term
``Federal implementation plan'' is defined in section 302(y) of the CAA
in pertinent part as a plan promulgated by the Administrator to correct
an inadequacy in a SIP. Thus, upon finalizing our proposed disapproval
of Arkansas' SIP submittal addressing the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility transport for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, we would have an obligation to promulgate a FIP
for Arkansas, unless we first approve a SIP revision that corrects the
deficiencies in the disapproved SIP submittal.
Our April 8, 2015 proposed FIP corrects the disapproved portions of
the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The disapproved portions included a
majority of the State's BART determinations, the State's reasonable
progress analysis and reasonable progress goals, and a portion of the
State's long term strategies for its Class I areas.\12\ Our proposed
FIP addresses BART requirements for nine units at six facilities,
proposes a reasonable progress analysis and controls for two units at
one power plant under the reasonable progress requirements, and
proposes revised reasonable progress goals and long-term strategies for
Arkansas' two Class I areas. Our proposed Regional Haze FIP together
with the already approved portions of the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
address all regional haze requirements for Arkansas and would ensure
that the emissions reductions from Arkansas sources that other states
relied upon in their regional haze SIPs are achieved. As such, there
would be adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity within Arkansas from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts
[[Page 38422]]
which would interfere with measures required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any other state to protect
visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 77 FR 14604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to disapprove a portion of a SIP submittal that
was submitted by Arkansas on September 16, 2009. The portion of the SIP
submittal we are proposing to disapprove addresses the CAA provisions
for prohibiting air pollutant emissions from interfering with measures
required to protect visibility in any other state for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. We are proposing to find that the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility transport
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be satisfied by the
combination of the emission control measures in the Regional Haze FIP
we proposed on April 8, 2015, and the already approved portions of the
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. We are proposing to determine that the
Regional Haze FIP we proposed for Arkansas on April 8, 2015, will
satisfy our FIP obligation for interstate transport of air pollution
and visibility protection for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
We will not finalize our proposal that the Regional Haze FIP addresses
our FIP obligation unless and until, we finalize our action on the
Regional Haze FIP.
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, EPA's role is to act on state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create
any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain
State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset
requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not mean that
EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this proposed
action 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).
[[Page 38423]]
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves certain State requirements for
inclusion into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to
requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapprove
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with
the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898.
K. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides,
Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze, Best
available control technology.
Dated: June 18, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.173 by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as
follows:
Subpart E--Arkansas
Sec. 52.173 Visibility Protection
* * * * *
(c) The portion of the SIP addressing noninterference with measures
required to protect visibility in any other state are disapproved for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
(d) The deficiencies in the portion of the SIP pertaining to
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions in Arkansas from interfering
with measures required to protect visibility in any other state for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, submitted on September 16, 2009,
are remedied by Section 52.173(c).
[FR Doc. 2015-16389 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
