Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72723 

1 In this context and for purposes under CAA 

section 111(d), the term ‘‘existing’’ source is 

synonymous with designated facility. These are 

sources that were constructed, reconstructed, or 

modified on or before the date specified in the 

emission guideline the source applies to. 

(E) Phone number associated with any 

and all accounts from which or to which 

the CVC was transferred; 

(F) Internal Revenue Service or 

foreign tax identification number, or if 

none are available, a non-expired 

United States or foreign passport 

number or other government-issued 

photo identification number, such as a 

driver’s license; and 

(2) Filing procedures. The reports 

required under paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section shall be filed with FinCEN 30 

calendar days from the date of detection 

in the manner that FinCEN prescribes. 

(3) Recordkeeping. A covered 

financial institution is required to 

document its compliance with the 

requirements of this section. 

Dated: October 19, 2023. 

Andrea M. Gacki, 

Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23449 Filed 10–20–23; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2022–0984; FRL–11401– 

01–R6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Air Quality Plans for Designated 

Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas; 

Negative Declaration for Existing 

Sulfuric Acid Plants; Plan Revision for 

Existing Kraft Pulp Mills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve the CAA section 

111(d) state plan revision submitted by 

the State of Arkansas for existing kraft 

pulp mills subject to the Kraft Pulp 

Mills Emission Guidelines (EG). The 

Arkansas section 111(d) plan revision 

for kraft pulp mills contains 

administrative changes to the state 

regulations and also aligns compliance 

testing requirements to be consistent 

with EPA’s kraft pulp mills new source 

performance standards. EPA is also 

notifying the public that we have 

received a CAA section 111(d) negative 

declaration from Arkansas for existing 

sulfuric acid plants subject to the 

Sulfuric Acid Plants EG. This negative 

declaration certifies that existing 

sulfuric acid plants subject to the 

Sulfuric Acid Plants EG and the 

requirements of sections 111(d) of the 

CAA do not exist within Arkansas. The 

EPA is proposing to approve the state 

plan revision for existing kraft pulp 

mills, accept the negative declaration for 

existing sulfuric acid plants and 

withdraw approval of the Arkansas state 

plan for existing sulfuric acid plants, 

and amend the agency regulations in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 22, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2022–0984, at https://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

ruan-lei.karolina@epa.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 Karolina Ruan Lei, (214) 665– 

7346, ruan-lei.karolina@epa.gov. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may not be 

publicly available due to docket file size 

restrictions or content (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6 Office, 

Air and Radiation Division—State 

Planning and Implementation Branch, 

(214) 665–7346, ruan-lei.karolina@

epa.gov. We encourage the public to 

submit comments via https://

www.regulations.gov. Please call or 

email the contact listed above if you 

need alternative access to material 

indexed but not provided in the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

A. Clean Air Act Section 111(d) 

Requirements 

Section 111 of the CAA, ‘‘Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary 

Sources,’’ directs the EPA to establish 

emission standards for stationary 

sources of air pollution that could 

potentially endanger public health or 

welfare. These standards are referred to 

as New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS). Section 111(d) addresses the 

process by which the EPA and states 

regulate standards of performance for 

existing 1 sources. When NSPS are 

promulgated for new sources, section 

111(d) and EPA regulations require that 

the EPA publish an Emission Guideline 

(EG) to regulate the same pollutants 

from existing facilities. While NSPS are 

directly applicable to new sources, EG 

for existing sources (designated 

facilities) are intended for states to use 

to develop a state plan to submit to the 

EPA. 

State plan submittals and revisions 

under CAA section 111(d) must be 

consistent with the applicable EG and 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The 

regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, 

contain general provisions applicable to 

the adoption and submittal of state 

plans and plan revisions under CAA 

section 111(d). Additionally, 40 CFR 

part 62, subpart A, provides the 

procedural framework by which the 

EPA will approve or disapprove such 

plans and plan revisions submitted by a 

state. Once approved by the EPA, the 

state plan or plan revision becomes 

federally enforceable. If a state does not 

submit an approvable state plan to the 

EPA, the EPA is responsible for 

developing, implementing, and 

enforcing a Federal plan. However, 40 

CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if 

there are no existing sources of the 

designated pollutant in the state, the 

state may submit a letter of certification 

to that effect (i.e., negative declaration) 

in lieu of a plan. The negative 

declaration exempts the state from the 

requirements of subpart B that require 

the submittal of a CAA section 111(d) 

plan. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
72724 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

2As defined under 40 CFR 60.281(c): ‘‘Total 

reduced sulfur (TRS) means the sum of the sulfur 

compounds hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, 

dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide, that are 

released during the kraft pulping operation and 

measured by Method 16.’’ 

3As defined under 40 CFR 60.281(a): ‘‘Kraft pulp 

mill means any stationary source which produces 

pulp from wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips 

in a water solution of sodium hydroxide and 

sodium sulfide (white liquor) at high temperature 

and pressure. Regeneration of the cooking 

chemicals through a recovery process is also 

considered part of the kraft pulp mill.’’ 

4As defined under 40 CFR 60.81(a): ‘‘Sulfuric 

acid production unit means any facility producing 

sulfuric acid by the contact process by burning 

elemental sulfur, alkylation acid, hydrogen sulfide, 

organic sulfides and mercaptans, or acid sludge, but 

does not include facilities where conversion to 

sulfuric acid is utilized primarily as a means of 

preventing emissions to the atmosphere of sulfur 

dioxide or other sulfur compounds.’’ 

5See also ‘‘Kraft Pulping, Control of TRS 

Emissions from Existing Mills’’, US EPA, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), 

EPA–45012–78–003b, March 1979 (‘‘Kraft Pulp 

Mills Emission Guidelines (EG)’’). 

6See also ‘‘Final Guideline Document: Control of 

Sulfuric Acid Mist Emission From Existing Sulfuric 

Acid Production Units’’, EPA–450/2–77–019, 

OAQPS No. 1.2–078, September 1977 (‘‘Sulfuric 

Acid Plants Emission Guidelines (EG)’’). The 

Sulfuric Acid Plants EG are also codified at 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cd, ‘‘Emissions Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Sulfuric Acid Production 

Units’’. 

7The Arkansas plans submitted by ADEQ does 

not cover sources located in Indian country. 

B. Emission Guidelines for Kraft Pulp 

Mills and Sulfuric Acid Plants 

Under CAA section 111(d), EPA has 

issued EGs regulating specific pollutants 

from specified source categories that 

remain in effect, including EGs for the 

control of total reduced sulfur (TRS) 

emissions from kraft pulp mills and the 

control of sulfuric acid mist emissions 

from sulfuric acid plants. TRS 

emissions 2 are considered a welfarerelated pollutant, while sulfuric acid 

mist emissions are considered a healthrelated pollutant under section 111(d) 

and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The Kraft 

Pulp Mills EG applies to kraft pulp 

mills 3 that commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification on or 

before September 24, 1976, while the 

Sulfuric Acid Plants EG applies to 

sulfuric acid plants 4 that commenced 

construction or modification on or 

before August 17, 1971. The EGs for 

kraft pulp mills and sulfuric acid plants 

have not been revised since their 

issuance. 

New kraft pulp mills and sulfuric acid 

plants that commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after the 

specified dates are subject to stricter 

standards under their respective NSPS 

at 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB or BBa, 

and subpart H. For more information, 

see ‘‘Kraft Pulp Mills, Notice of 

Availability of Final Guideline 

Document,’’ 44 FR 29828 (May 22, 

1979),5 and ‘‘Standards of Performance 

for New Stationary Sources; Emission 

Guideline for Sulfuric Acid Mist,’’ 42 

FR 55796 (October 18, 1977).6

C. Arkansas CAA Section 111(d) Plan 

Approval History 

Arkansas followed EPA’s EGs and 

guidance documents when developing 

its CAA section 111(d) plans. Arkansas’s 

section 111(d) plan for the control of 

sulfuric acid mist emissions from 

sulfuric acid plants was approved by 

EPA on May 12, 1982 (47 FR 20490). 

Arkansas’s section 111(d) plan for 

control of TRS emissions from kraft 

pulp mills was approved by EPA on 

September 12, 1984 (49 FR 35771); the 

compliance schedule for the kraft pulp 

mills plan was separately approved on 

November 10, 1986 (51 FR 40802). 

Revisions to Arkansas’s section 111(d) 

plans for sulfuric acid plants and kraft 

pulp mills were approved on March 10, 

1998 (63 FR 11608). 

D. Arkansas CAA Section 111(d) 

Submittals for This Rulemaking 

Arkansas Department of Energy and 

Environment’s Division of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

submitted revisions to Arkansas’s CAA 

section 111(d) plan on June 20, 2022, 

and supplemented its submittal on 

August 24, 2022, and August 31, 2022.7

In its section 111(d) submittal, Arkansas 

provided for EPA’s review (1) 

Arkansas’s state plan for existing 

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, 

which addressed the 2016 MSW 

landfills EG requirements; (2) revisions 

to Arkansas’s plan for existing sulfuric 

acid plants, which include a request for 

EPA to withdraw approval of that plan 

and accept the State’s negative 

declaration for those types of facilities; 

and (3) revisions to Arkansas’s plan for 

existing kraft pulp mills. EPA took 

separate action to approve Arkansas’s 

section 111(d) plan for existing MSW 

landfills on December 29, 2022 (87 FR 

80076). This proposed rulemaking is 

acting on the portion of the June 20, 

2022 submittal pertaining to revisions to 

Arkansas’s section 111(d) plans for 

existing kraft pulp mills and sulfuric 

acid plants, as well as the associated 

negative declaration for existing sulfuric 

acid plants. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Sulfuric Acid Plants Negative 

Declaration and Withdrawal of 

Approval of Sulfuric Acid Plan 

Arkansas Pollution Control and 

Ecology Commission (APC&EC) Rule 19: 

‘‘Rules of the Arkansas Plan of 

Implementation for Air Pollution 

Control’’, Chapter 8: ‘‘111(d) Designated 

Facilities’’ originally contained 

Arkansas’s provisions for implementing 

certain CAA section 111(d) EGs, 

including the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG. 

In its June 20, 2022 submittal, Arkansas 

removed the provisions in Rule 19.803, 

which were specific to the Sulfuric Acid 

Plants EG, and provided a negative 

declaration for existing sulfuric acid 

plants. 

The Arkansas plan for existing 

sulfuric acid plants, as approved by the 

EPA on May 12, 1982 had two 

designated facilities subject to that plan 

at the time, the Olin Corporation and 

the Monsanto Company (now El Dorado 

Chemical Company). A 1998 plan 

revision was approved to remove the 

Olin Corporation, which had closed, 

and reflect a name change for the El 

Dorado Chemical Company. The El 

Dorado facility later underwent 

reconstruction and is now subject to the 

NSPS for sulfuric acid plants at 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart H. Since the El Dorado 

Chemical Company is no longer subject 

to the EG for existing sulfuric acid 

plants, and because there are no longer 

any subject facilities in Arkansas, 

Arkansas requests that EPA withdraw 

approval of the Arkansas section 111(d) 

plan for sulfuric acid plants and accept 

the negative declaration for existing 

sulfuric acid plants. 

EPA proposes to agree with 

Arkansas’s determination that due to the 

reconstruction of the El Dorado 

Chemical Company, this facility is no 

longer considered a designated facility 

subject to the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG. 

EPA also proposes that approval of the 

Arkansas section 111(d) plan for 

sulfuric acid plants can be withdrawn as 

there are no longer any existing sulfuric 

acid plants in the State of Arkansas. 

B. Kraft Pulp Mills Plan Revision 

The Arkansas regulations 

implementing the requirements of the 

Kraft Pulp Mills EG are codified in 

APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8, with 

specific requirements for existing kraft 

pulp mills outlined in Rule 19.804. 

Since the Arkansas plan and plan 

revision for existing kraft pulp mills 

were approved by EPA on September 

12, 1984, and March 10, 1998, Arkansas 

made additional changes to the state 

regulations implementing the Kraft Pulp 

Mills EG requirements at APC&EC Rule 

19, Chapter 8. Changes to APC&EC Rule 

19, Chapter 8, as adopted through 

January 28, 2022 by APC&EC, were 

submitted to EPA for review in 

Arkansas’s June 20, 2022 submittal. 

The amendments to APC&EC Rule 19, 

Chapter 8 include name changes and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72725 

8The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://

www.epa.gov/ejscreen. 9See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ 

geography/about/glossary.html. 10 In addition, EJSCREEN relies on the five-year 

block group estimates from the U.S. Census 

American Community Survey. The advantage of 

using five-year over single-year estimates is 

increased statistical reliability of the data (i.e., 

lower sampling error), particularly for small 

geographic areas and population groups. For more 

information, see https://www.census.gov/content/ 

dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_

general_handbook_2020.pdf. 

11For additional information on environmental 

indicators and proximity scores in EJSCREEN, see 

‘‘EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Mapping and 

Screening Tool: EJSCREEN Technical 

Documentation,’’ Chapter 3 (October 2022) at 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/ 

documents/ejscreen_technical_document.pdf. 

removal of the International Paper 

Company, Camden Facility (permit 

voided March 1, 2001), from the list of 

sources subject to the requirements as 

the facility is permanently closed. The 

amendments also realign the frequency 

of TRS compliance testing from 

annually to every five years, consistent 

with the requirements for new kraft 

pulp mills under 40 CFR, part 60, 

subpart BBa. EPA notes that the kraft 

pulp mills provisions in Arkansas’s 

revised plan provide that compliance 

testing is not required for units with a 

continuous TRS emissions monitor, and 

that these facilities are required by the 

plan to have equipment installed for 

continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) 

for TRS. This provision to require CEM 

for existing kraft pulp mills and waiving 

of compliance testing requirements for 

units with CEM has not changed from 

the previously EPA-approved plan for 

existing kraft pulp mills. The 

amendments adopted into Rule 19 also 

include additional non-substantive 

stylistic and formatting changes. 

EPA’s detailed discussion and 

rationale of the Arkansas kraft pulp mill 

plan revision can be found in in the 

EPA Technical Support Document 

(TSD) for this proposed rule, which is 

available in the docket. The TSD also 

contains a comparison of the 1998 EPAapproved Arkansas kraft pulp mills plan 

provisions and the June 20, 2022 plan 

provisions. EPA proposes to approve the 

revisions to the Arkansas kraft pulp 

mills plan submitted on June 20, 2022 

as meeting applicable Federal 

requirements under the Kraft Pulp Mills 

EG and the implementing regulations at 

40 CFR part 60, subpart B. 

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the state 

plan revision for existing kraft pulp 

mills, accept the negative declaration for 

existing sulfuric acid plants and 

withdraw approval of the Arkansas state 

plan for existing sulfuric acid plants, 

and amend the agency regulations at 40 

CFR part 62, subpart E, in accordance 

with the requirements of the CAA. EPA 

proposes that this action meets CAA 

section 111(d) requirements for plan 

revisions, negative declarations, and 

plan approval withdrawals in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

B, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, and the 

applicable guidance and EG 

requirements. 

IV. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

Information on Executive Order 12898 

(Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994) and how EPA defines 

environmental justice can be found in 

the section titled ‘‘Statutory and 

Executive Order Reviews’’ in this 

proposed rule. EPA is providing 

additional analysis of environmental 

justice associated with this action. The 

results of this analysis are being 

provided for informational and 

transparency purposes, not as a basis of 

our proposed action. 

EPA conducted screening analyses 

using EJSCREEN, an environmental 

justice mapping and screening tool that 

provides EPA with a nationally 

consistent dataset and approach for 

combining various environmental and 

demographic indicators.8 The 

EJSCREEN tool presents these indicators 

at a Census block group (CBG) level or 

a larger user-specified ‘‘buffer’’ area that 

covers multiple CBGs.9 An individual 

CBG is a cluster of contiguous blocks 

within the same census tract and 

generally contains between 600 and 

3,000 people. EJSCREEN is not a tool for 

performing in-depth risk analysis, but is 

instead a screening tool that provides an 

initial representation of indicators 

related to environmental justice and is 

subject to uncertainty in some 

underlying data (e.g., some 

environmental indicators are based on 

monitoring data which are not 

uniformly available; others are based on 

self-reported data).10 To help mitigate 

this uncertainty, we have summarized 

EJSCREEN data within larger ‘‘buffer’’ 

areas covering multiple block groups 

and representing the average resident 

within the buffer areas surrounding the 

sources. We present EJSCREEN 

environmental indicators to help screen 

for locations where residents may 

experience a higher overall pollution 

burden than would be expected for a 

block group with the same total 

population. These indicators of overall 

pollution burden include estimates of 

ambient particulate matter (PM2.5) and 

ozone concentration, a score for traffic 

proximity and volume, percentage of 

pre-1960 housing units (lead paint 

indicator), and scores for proximity to 

Superfund sites, risk management plan 

(RMP) sites, and hazardous waste 

facilities.11 EJSCREEN also provides 

information on demographic indicators, 

including percent low-income, 

communities of color, linguistic 

isolation, and education. 

The EPA prepared EJSCREEN reports 

covering a buffer area of approximately 

3-mile radii and 6-mile radii for areas 

with insufficient population data 

around each of the existing kraft pulp 

mills identified by ADEQ as subject to 

the CAA section 111(d) plan for kraft 

pulp mills. Table 1 presents a summary 

of results from the EPA’s screening-level 

analysis for the areas surrounding each 

existing kraft pulp mill in Arkansas 

compared to the U.S. as a whole, where 

the kraft pulp mill was located in an 

area where more than one of the EJ 

indices were greater than the 80th 

percentiles. The full, detailed 

EJSCREEN report is provided in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

TABLE 1—EJSCREEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING ARKANSAS KRAFT PULP MILLS WITH EJ INDICES ABOVE

80%ILE

Variables 

Values for buffer areas (radius) for each kraft pulp mill and the U.S. 

(percentile within U.S. where indicated) 

Evergreen Packing 

(Jefferson, 3 miles) 

Twin Rivers Pine 

Bluff 

(Jefferson, 3 miles) 

GeorgiaPacific Corporation 

(Ashley, 3 miles) 

Domtar A.W. 

(Little River, 3 

miles) 

U.S. 

Pollution Burden Indicators: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
72726 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

12As supplemented on August 24, 2022, and 

August 31, 2022. 

13See also, the Kraft Pulp Mills EG. 

TABLE 1—EJSCREEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING ARKANSAS KRAFT PULP MILLS WITH EJ INDICES ABOVE

80%ILE—Continued 

Variables 

Values for buffer areas (radius) for each kraft pulp mill and the U.S. 

(percentile within U.S. where indicated) 

Evergreen Packing 

(Jefferson, 3 miles) 

Twin Rivers Pine 

Bluff 

(Jefferson, 3 miles) 

GeorgiaPacific Corporation 

(Ashley, 3 miles) 

Domtar A.W. 

(Little River, 3 

miles) 

U.S. 

Particulate matter (PM2.5), 

annual average.

9.33 μg/m3 (72nd 

%ile).

9.36 μg/m3 (72nd 

%ile).

9.21 μg/m3 (68th 

%ile).

9.72 μg/m3 (80th 

%ile).

8.67 μg/m3 (—). 

Ozone, summer seasonal 

average of daily 8-hour 

max.

40.1 ppb (32nd 

%ile).

40.3 ppb (33rd %ile) 38.3 ppb (22nd 

%ile).

40.8 ppb (36th %ile) 42.5 ppb (—). 

Traffic proximity and volume score *.180 (44th %ile) ....... 210 (47th %ile) ....... 48 (23rd %ile) ......... 75 (29th %ile) ......... 760 (—). 

Lead paint (percentage 

pre-1960 housing).

0.21% (49th %ile) ... 0.27% (55th %ile) ... 0.38% (64th %ile) ... 0.17% (44th %ile) ... 0.27% (—). 

Superfund proximity 

score *.

0.013 (8th %ile) ...... 0.014 (9th %ile) ...... 0.027 (26th %ile) .... 0.035 (33rd %ile) .... 0.13 (—). 

RMP proximity score * ...... 0.14 (25th %ile) ...... 0.29 (48th %ile) ...... 0.88 (72nd %ile) ..... 0.65 (65th %ile) ...... 0.77 (—). 

Hazardous waste proximity score *.0.23 (34th %ile) ...... 1.1 (58th %ile) ........ 1.7 (67th %ile) ........ 0.041 (7th %ile) ...... 2.2 (—). 

Demographic Indicators: 

People of color population 79% (83rd %ile) ..... 82% (84th %ile) ...... 40% (59th %ile) ...... 40% (59th %ile) ...... 40% (—). 

Low-income population ..... 52% (82nd %ile) ..... 57% (86th %ile) ...... 49% (79th %ile) ...... 47% (77th %ile) ...... 30% (—). 

Linguistically isolated population.0% (0th %ile) .......... 0% (0th %ile) .......... 0% (0th %ile) .......... 0% (0th %ile) .......... 5% (—). 

Population with less than 

high school education.

9% (51st %ile) ........ 16% (73rd %ile) ..... 14% (68th %ile) ...... 10% (57th %ile) ...... 12% (—). 

Population under 5 years 

of age.

4% (39th %ile) ........ 7% (66th %ile) ........ 4% (39th %ile) ........ 8% (76th %ile) ........ 6%. 

Population over 64 years 

of age.

16% (53rd %ile) ..... 10% (27th %ile) ...... 22% (72nd %ile) ..... 21% (70th %ile) ...... 16% (—). 

* The traffic proximity and volume indicator is a score calculated by daily traffic count divided by distance in meters to the road. The Superfund 

proximity, RMP proximity, and hazardous waste proximity indicators are all scores calculated by site or facility counts divided by distance in 

kilometers. 

This proposed action is proposing to 

approve Arkansas’s June 20, 2022 CAA 

section 111(d) plan revision 12 for kraft 

pulp mills and accept Arkansas’s 

negative declaration for existing sulfuric 

acid plants; changes from the previously 

approved Arkansas plan for kraft pulp 

mills are discussed under the section 

titled ‘‘The EPA’s Evaluation’’ in this 

proposed rule. As mentioned previously 

in this rulemaking, total reduced sulfur 

(TRS) is considered a welfare-related 

pollutant. Information on TRS and its 

relationship to negative health impacts 

can be found at the Federal Register 

document titled ‘‘Kraft Pulp Mills, 

Notice of Availability of Final Guideline 

Document’’ (44 FR 29828, May 22, 

1979).13 We expect that this action will 

generally have neutral environmental 

and health impacts on all populations, 

including people of color and lowincome populations, in Arkansas that 

are located near an existing kraft pulp 

mill. At a minimum, this action would 

not worsen any existing air quality and 

is expected to ensure the area is meeting 

requirements to attain air quality 

standards. Further, there is no 

information in the record indicating that 

this action is expected to have 

disproportionately high or adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on a particular group of people. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, we are proposing to 

include in a final rule regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revisions to the Arkansas regulations as 

described in the section titled 

‘‘Proposed Action’’ in this proposed 

rule. The Arkansas regulations at 

APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8, 111(d) 

Designated Facilities, contain 

Arkansas’s CAA section 111(d) plan 

provisions for existing kraft pulp mills. 

We have made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a CAA section 

111(d) submission that complies with 

the provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 

42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart 

A. Thus, in reviewing CAA section 

111(d) state plan submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Act and implementing regulations. 

Accordingly, this 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: 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined in 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), as amended by 

Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, 

April 11, 2023), and was therefore not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72727 

subject to a requirement for Executive 

Order 12866 review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it 

does not contain any information 

collection activities. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

This action is certified to not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

This action will approve plan revisions 

and accept negative declarations 

pursuant to CAA section 111(d) and will 

therefore have no net regulatory burden 

for all directly regulated small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action will not 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, the rulemaking 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). 

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 environmental 

health or safety risks that EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definitions of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive order. Therefore, this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it approves a state program. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution and Use 

This 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 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. This action 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. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The air agency did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA performed an 

environmental justice analysis, as 

described in the section titled 

‘‘Environmental Justice Considerations’’ 

in this proposed rule. The analysis was 

done for the purpose of providing 

additional context and information 

about this rulemaking to the public, not 

as a basis of the action. Due to the 

nature of the action being taken here, 

this action is expected to have a neutral 

impact on the air quality of the affected 

area. In addition, there is no information 

in the record upon which this action is 

based inconsistent with the stated goal 

of E.O. 12898 of achieving 

environmental justice for people of 

color, low-income populations, and 

Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: October 16, 2023. 

Earthea Nance, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23254 Filed 10–20–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 350, 365, 385, 386, 387, 

and 395 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2022–0003] 

RIN 2126–AC52 

Safety Fitness Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA extends the comment 

period for its August 29, 2023, ANPRM 

requesting public comment on the need 

for a rulemaking to revise the 

regulations prescribing the safety fitness 

determination (SFD) process; the 

available science or technical 

information to analyze regulatory 

alternatives for determining the safety 

fitness of motor carriers; feedback on the 

Agency’s current SFD regulations, 

including the process and impacts; the 

available data and costs for regulatory 

alternatives reasonably likely to be 

considered as part of this rulemaking; 

and the specific questions in the 

ANPRM. FMCSA extends the comment 

period for 30 days until November 29, 

2023. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published August 29, 

2023, at 88 FR 59489, is extended. 

Comments should be received on or 

before November 29, 2023. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1