[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72723-72727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23254]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c4e495d521150595512575d4e535055525d7c594c5d125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="354740545b1859505c1b5e54475a595c5b54755045541b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>. 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d7f786c632061686423666c7f626164636c4d687d6c236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3a1a6b2bdfebfb6bafdb8b2a1bcbfbabdb293b6a3b2fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>. 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c3e392d226120292562272d3e232025222d0c293c2d622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="66141307084b0a030f480d0714090a0f08072603160748010910">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 72724]]

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 welfare-
related pollutant, while sulfuric acid mist emissions are considered a 
health-related 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As 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.''
    \3\ As 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.''
    \4\ As 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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)'').
    \6\ See 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''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Arkansas plans submitted by ADEQ does not cover sources 
located in Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 72725]]

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 EPA-approved 
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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
    \9\ See 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.
    \11\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Values for buffer areas (radius) for each kraft pulp mill and the U.S. (percentile within U.S. where indicated)
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Variables                                                                  Georgia- Pacific
                                        Evergreen Packing    Twin Rivers Pine Bluff   Corporation (Ashley,   Domtar A.W. (Little            U.S.
                                      (Jefferson, 3 miles)    (Jefferson, 3 miles)          3 miles)           River, 3 miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollution Burden Indicators:

[[Page 72726]]

 
    Particulate matter (PM2.5),      9.33 [micro]g/m\3\      9.36 [micro]g/m\3\      9.21 [micro]g/m\3\     9.72 [micro]g/m\3\     8.67 [micro]g/m\3\ (--
     annual average.                  (72nd %ile).            (72nd %ile).            (68th %ile).           (80th %ile).           ).
    Ozone, summer seasonal average   40.1 ppb (32nd %ile)..  40.3 ppb (33rd %ile)..  38.3 ppb (22nd %ile).  40.8 ppb (36th %ile).  42.5 ppb (--).
     of daily 8-hour max.
    Traffic proximity and volume     180 (44th %ile).......  210 (47th %ile).......  48 (23rd %ile).......  75 (29th %ile).......  760 (--).
     score *.
    Lead paint (percentage pre-1960  0.21% (49th %ile).....  0.27% (55th %ile).....  0.38% (64th %ile)....  0.17% (44th %ile)....  0.27% (--).
     housing).
    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          0% (0th %ile).........  0% (0th %ile).........  0% (0th %ile)........  0% (0th %ile)........  5% (--).
     population.
    Population with less than high   9% (51st %ile)........  16% (73rd %ile).......  14% (68th %ile)......  10% (57th %ile)......  12% (--).
     school education.
    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 low-income 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As supplemented on August 24, 2022, and August 31, 2022.
    \13\ See also, the Kraft Pulp Mills EG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>