30622 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

SO2 nonattainment SIP includes 

Tennessee’s attainment demonstration 

for the Sullivan County Area and other 

nonattainment requirements for a RFP, 

RACT/RACM, NNSR, base-year and 

projection-year emission inventories, 

enforceable emission limits and 

compliance parameters and contingency 

measures. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to approve into the Tennessee 

SIP, Eastman Chemical’s enforceable 

SO2 emission limit and compliance 

parameters (monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting) from PSD construction 

permit 966859F (condition 6) and 

Permit No. 070072F (conditions 1–4) 

(see section IV.B.4.1). 

VIII. 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. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• 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 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

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, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

Reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: June 19, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14097 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0435; FRL–9979–25– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arkansas; 

Interstate Transport Requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and Definition 

Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act), the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

approve portions of the Arkansas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

addressing the CAA requirement that 

SIPs address the potential for interstate 

transport of air pollution to significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2012 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. EPA is 

proposing to determine that emissions 

from Arkansas sources do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state with regard to the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to 

approve a revision to update 

incorporation by reference of NAAQS 

germane to this proposed action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket Number EPA–R06– 

OAR–2017–0435, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

fuerst.sherry@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 Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454, 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. For the full EPA 

public comment policy, information 

about CBI or multimedia submissions, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit http:// 

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the 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: 

Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454, 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill 

Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30623 

1Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 

Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48207 (August 

8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 

52.39 and 40 CFR part 97). 

2Nonattainment or maintenance receptors are 

monitors projected to have air quality problems. 

3 Information on the Interstate Transport ‘‘Good 

Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) March 

17, 2016 from Stephen D. Page. 

4Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical 

Support Document, June 2011 http://www.epa.gov/ 

airtransport/CSAPR/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf. 

I. Background 

A. The PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport of Air Pollution 

Under Section 109 of the CAA, we 

establish NAAQS to protect human 

health and public welfare. In 2012, we 

established a new annual NAAQS for 

PM2.5 of 12 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3), (78 FR 3085, January 15, 2013). 

The CAA requires states to submit, 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting 

the applicable ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of 

these applicable infrastructure elements, 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires 

SIPs to contain provisions to prohibit 

certain adverse air quality effects on 

neighboring states due to interstate 

transport of pollution. There are four 

sub-elements within CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how 

the first two sub-elements contained in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were 

addressed in an infrastructure SIP 

submission from Arkansas for the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. These sub-elements 

require that each SIP for a new or 

revised NAAQS contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one 

state that will ‘‘contribute significantly 

to nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the applicable air 

quality standard in any other state. 

The EPA has addressed the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to PM2.5 in 

several past regulatory actions. In 2011, 

we promulgated the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 

August 8, 2011) in order to address the 

obligations of states—and of the EPA 

when states have not met their 

obligations—under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air pollution 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfering with 

maintenance by, any other state with 

regard to several NAAQS, including the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.1 In that rule, we considered 

states linked to downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors 2 if they were projected by air 

quality modeling to contribute more 

than the threshold amount (1% of the 

standard) of PM2.5 pollution for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 

48239–43). The EPA has not established 

a threshold amount for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. In 2016 we provided an 

informational memorandum (the 2016 

memo) about the steps states should 

follow as they develop and review SIPs 

that address this provision of the CAA 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.3

B. Arkansas SIP Submittal Pertaining to 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport of Air Pollution 

On March 24, 2017, Arkansas 

submitted a SIP revision to address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. The submittal stated that the 

State had adequate provisions to 

prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

within the State that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS stating, ‘‘Past contribution 

modeling by EPA for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, included in ‘Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document’ published in June 2001 to 

support the Final Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), 

demonstrated that Arkansas did not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the annual PM2.5. 

NAAQS that was set in 1997 and 

retained in 2006.’’ 4 Arkansas’s largest 

contribution to nonattainment for the 

2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS was 0.1 mg/ 

m3 and Arkansas’s largest downwind 

contribution to maintenance of the 2006 

PM2.5 annual standard was 0.04 mg/m3. 

Not only are both of these values below 

the 1% significance threshold for the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS retained in 2006 

(15 mg/m3), they are also below 1% of 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS value of 12 mg/ 

m3.’’ 

We previously approved the portions 

of Arkansas’s 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS i-SIP 

which addressed the requirements that 

emissions within Arkansas be 

prohibited from contributing to the 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

states (sub-elements 1 and 2). 78 FR 

53269 (August 29, 2013). Based on our 

evaluation of the State’s submission 

discussed below, we propose to approve 

the March 24, 2017 submittal intended 

to demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

C. Revisions to the Arkansas SIP 

Definitions and National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards List 

Included in the March 24, 2017 

submission were updates to Regulation 

19, Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

(Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of 

Implementation for Air Pollution 

Control) of the Arkansas Code 

Annotated § 8–4–201. We are proposing 

to approve the revised definition of 

‘‘National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ in Chapter 2 that changes 

the effective date to January 15, 2013. 

We also are proposing to approve the 

changes in Appendix B under ‘‘Particle 

Pollution, PM2.5.’’ that reflect the update 

and apply the Chapter 2 definition to all 

Chapters of Regulation 19. Please see 

the Technical Support Document (TSD) 

for additional information and 

evaluation below. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Pertaining to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

As stated above, Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to include 

adequate provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state that will (I) 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state, and (II) interfere with measures 

required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality, or to protect 

visibility in another state. This action 

addresses only CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

EPA issued the 2016 memo about the 

steps states should follow and we will 

be following the framework outlined in 

the memo for our evaluation. The 2016 

EPA memo outlined the four-step 

framework EPA has historically used to 

evaluate interstate transport under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), including the 

EPA’s CSAPR. 

(1) Identification of potential 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors; 

(2) Identification of upwind states 

contributing to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors; 

(3) For states identified as 

contributing to downwind air quality 

problem, identification of upwind 

emissions reductions necessary to 

prevent upwind states from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of 

receptors, and; 

(4) For states that are found to have 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to non-attainment or interfere with 

maintenance downwind, reducing the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30624 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

5California: Imperial County, Los Angeles-South 

Coast Air Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin Valley 

Area Designations for the 2012 Primary Annual 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

Technical Support Document https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR2012-0918-0330. 

6 Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment Area2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard Technical Support Document. 

Prepared by EPA Region 10. 

7Air Quality Modeling for 2011 Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48207, August 8, 

2011). 

identified upwind emissions through 

adoption of permanent and enforceable 

measures. 

Based on this approach, the potential 

receptors are outlined in Table 1 in the 

memo. Most of the potential receptors 

are in California, located in the San 

Joaquin Valley or South Coast 

nonattainment areas. However, there is 

also one potential receptor in Shoshone 

County, Idaho, and one potential 

receptor in Allegheny County, 

Pennsylvania. 

The 2016 memo did note that because 

of data quality problems nonattainment 

and maintenance projections were not 

done for all or portions of Florida, 

Illinois, Idaho, Tennessee and 

Kentucky. After issuance of the memo, 

data quality problems were resolved for 

Idaho, Tennessee, Kentucky and most of 

Florida, identifying no additional 

potential receptors, with those areas 

having design values (DV) below the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and expected to 

maintain the NAAQS due to downward 

emission trends for NOX and SO2

(www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-qualitydesign-values and www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/air-pollutantemissions-trends-data). Florida certified 

in March 2018 its 2017 PM2.5 ambient 

air data for the counties in Florida that 

had had 2009–2013 data gaps, allowing 

us to develop 2015–2017 preliminary 

design values. The preliminary design 

values indicate the highest value is 8 mg/ 

m3 in Florida well below the NAAQS. 

For these reasons, we find that none of 

the counties in Florida with monitoring 

gaps between 2009–2013 should be 

considered either nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors for the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the 2015–2017 

preliminary DV. Therefore, as of April 

2018, only Illinois still has data quality 

issues preventing projections of 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors. As a result, Illinois will be 

evaluated below to determine if they 

have potential nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors for 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

For ‘‘Step 1’’ of this evaluation, the 

areas identified as ‘‘potential downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors’’ are: 

• Seventeen potential receptors in 

California, located in the San Joaquin 

Valley or South Coast nonattainment 

areas; 

• Shoshone County, Idaho; 

• Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; 

• All of Illinois 

As stated above, ‘‘Step 2’’ is the 

identification of states contributing to 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors, such that further 

analysis is required to identify 

necessary upwind reductions. For this 

step, we will be specifically determining 

if Arkansas emissions contribute to 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. 

Each of the potential receptors is 

discussed below, with a more in-depth 

discussion provided in the TSD for this 

action. For additional information, links 

to the documents relied upon for this 

analysis can be found throughout the 

document, more information is available 

in the TSD and the documents can be 

found in the docket for this action. 

California 

As described in our TSD, our analysis 

shows that Arkansas’s PM2.5 emissions 

and/or PM2.5 precursors do not 

significantly impact the California 

potential receptors identified in the 

memo. In our analysis, we found 

specifically that the majority of the 

emissions impacting PM2.5 levels in 

California are directly emitted PM2.5

and/or PM2.5 precursors from within the 

state, and that meteorological and 

topographic conditions serve as barriers 

to transport from Arkansas. We note that 

air quality designations are not relevant 

to our evaluation of interstate transport, 

however, the analysis developed for the 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS designations 

process provides an in depth evaluation 

of factors critical in evaluating transport 

of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, including 

evaluation of local emissions, wind 

speed and direction, topographical and 

meteorological conditions and seasonal 

variations recorded at the monitors, 

which all support the conclusion that 

Arkansas’s PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 

do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the California potential 

receptors. Furthermore, Arkansas is 

more than 1,700 miles to the east and 

generally downwind of the California 

receptors.5

For these reasons, we propose to find 

that Arkansas does not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment, nor will it 

interfere with maintenance of the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS for California. 

Shoshone County, Idaho 

As discussed in the TSD, our analysis 

shows that Arkansas’s PM2.5 emissions 

and/or PM2.5 precursors do not 

significantly impact the Idaho potential 

receptor identified in the memo. In our 

analysis, we found specifically that the 

majority of the emissions impacting 

PM2.5 levels, came during the winter 

time and could be attributed to 

residential wood combustion. The 

analysis developed for the 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS designations process 

provide an in depth evaluation of 

factors that are useful in evaluating 

transport of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, 

including evaluation of local emissions, 

wind speed and direction, topographical 

and meteorological conditions and 

seasonal variations recorded at the 

monitor, which all support the 

conclusion that Arkansas PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment nor 

interfere with maintenance of the Idaho 

potential receptor.6 Furthermore, 

Arkansas is to the southeast and 

downwind of this receptor. 

For these reasons, we propose to find 

that Arkansas does not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment, nor will it 

interfere with maintenance of the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS for Shoshone, Idaho. 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 

As discussed in the TSD, our analysis 

shows that Arkansas’s PM2.5 emissions 

and/or PM2.5 precursors do not 

significantly impact the Allegheny 

County, Pennsylvania (Liberty monitor) 

potential receptor identified in the 

memo. In our analysis, we found that 

there were strong local influences 

throughout Allegheny County and 

contributions from nearby states that 

contributed to its nonattainment for 

both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Contributors to the Liberty monitor in 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania in 

recent years, have taken steps to 

improve air quality which will likely 

bring the monitor into compliance with 

the 2012 PM2.5 annual NAAQS by the 

2021 attainment date. 

Another compelling fact is that in 

previous modeling, nonattainment in 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania was 

linked to significant contributions from 

other states.7 Arkansas was analyzed in 

this modeling, and emissions from 

Arkansas were not linked to Allegheny 

County. 

For these reasons, we propose to find 

that Arkansas does not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment, nor will it 

interfere with maintenance of the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS for Allegany County, 

Pennsylvania. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30625 

Illinois 

Due to ambient monitoring data gaps 

in the 2009–2013 data that would have 

been used to identify potential PM2.5

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in Illinois, the modeling 

analysis of potential receptors could not 

be completed for the state. As a result, 

the entire state is considered 

unclassifiable. 

Arkansas was included in the CSAPR 

modeling analysis for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. This analysis showed Illinois 

did have a nonattainment receptor 

identified through the CSAPR modeling 

analysis for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

receptor was in Madison, Illinois, 

located near St. Louis, Missouri. The 

modeling did not, however, show a 

linkage for nonattainment or 

maintenance between Arkansas and 

Illinois meaning Arkansas’ impact was 

estimated to be less than 1% of the 1997 

NAAQS at the Madison, Illinois 

receptor. While this modeling does not 

directly address the 2012 standard it is 

indicative that Arkansas emissions are 

unlikely to impact attainment or 

maintenance receptors in Illinois. 

As further evidence, recent 3-year 

averages for the monitors in Madison, 

Illinois have shown downward trends. 

There are three active monitors in 

Madison. The 3-year averages for the 

monitors are shown in Table 1 below. 

Because of data gaps, the data cannot be 

used to establish a valid design value 

but can be used to show a downward 

trend. Also, as noted in the TSD for this 

action, Illinois has been collecting valid 

data for 2015 and 2016. This data, while 

not a complete three-year period 

indicates that air quality in Illinois is 

meeting the 2012 p.m. 2.5 NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL STANDARD 3-YEAR AVERAGES (μg/m3) FOR MADISON, ILLINOIS MONITORS

Monitor No. 2012–2014 2013–2015 2014–2016 

171191007 ................................................................................................................................... 12.9 11.6 10.8 

171192009 ................................................................................................................................... 10.4 9.7 9.4 

171193007 ................................................................................................................................... 12.5 10.8 10.1 

For these reasons, we propose that 

Arkansas will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment, nor will it 

interfere with maintenance of the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS in Illinois. 

Since we determined that Arkansas’s 

SIP includes provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity from contributing significantly 

to nonattainment in, or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS, in another 

state, steps 3 and 4 of this evaluation are 

not necessary. 

In conclusion, based on our review of 

the potential receptors presented in the 

March 17, 2016 informational memo, an 

evaluation identifying likely emission 

sources affecting these potential 

receptors, and the 2014 base case 

modeling in CSAPR final rule, we 

propose to determine that emissions 

from Arkansas sources will not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, nor interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with 

regard to the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

B. Pertaining to Revisions to SIP 

Definition and the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards List 

The ADEQ submitted a collection of 

revisions to the Arkansas SIP on March 

24, 2017. Included in these revisions is 

an update to the Arkansas SIP definition 

for the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. The definition in Chapter 2 

of Regulation 19 updates the 

incorporation by reference date 

included in 40 CFR part 50 from July 27, 

2012 to January 15, 2013. The changes 

in the revised Appendix B to Regulation 

19 titled the ‘‘National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards List’’ reflect the 

definition update and applies it to all 

Chapters of Regulation 19. 

III. Proposed Action 

We have determined that the 

revisions submitted on March 24, 2017, 

were developed in accordance with the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations. Therefore, 

under section 110 of the Act, the EPA 

proposes approval of the following 

revisions to the Arkansas SIP: 

• The portion of the Arkansas SIP 

submittal, pertaining to interstate 

transport of air pollution demonstrating 

emissions from Arkansas will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other state pursuant to the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

• The portion of the Arkansas SIP 

submittal where the definition of 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

in Regulation 19, Chapter 2 is revised to 

be the effective date of January 15, 2013 

and Appendix B to Regulation 19, 

‘‘National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards List’’ at ‘‘Particle Pollution, 

PM2.5’’ as consistent with the CAA. 

IV. 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 Proposed Action 

section above. We have made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and in 

hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office 

(please contact Sherry Fuerst, 214–665– 

6454, fuerst.sherry@epa.gov for more 

information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30626 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• 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 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter. 

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

Dated: June 26, 2018. 

David Gray, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14067 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2018–0214, FRL–9980– 

19—Region 10] 

Air Plan Approval; ID, Incorporations 

by Reference Updates and Rule 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on March 

20, 2018 and April 12, 2018. The 

submitted revisions update 

incorporation by reference (IBR) of 

Federal regulations in the Idaho’s rules. 

The revisions also remove an interim 

regulation that expired in 2003. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2018–0214, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not 

electronically submit 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. 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, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randall Ruddick at (206) 553–1999, or 

ruddick.randall@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

intended to refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA Evaluation of Idaho’s SIP Revisions 

A. 2016 Federal Rule IBR Update 

B. 2017 Federal Rule IBR Update 

C. Removal of Expired Rule 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background 

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) specifies the general 

requirements for states to submit SIPs to 

attain and maintain the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and the EPA’s actions 

regarding approval of those SIPs. Idaho 

incorporates by reference (IBR) various 

portions of Federal regulations codified 

in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) into the Rules for the Control of 

Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 

58.01.01). Idaho then submits parts of 

IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval 

into the Federally-approved Idaho SIP 

(generally those provisions that relate to 

the criteria pollutants regulated under 

section 110 of the CAA for which the 

EPA has promulgated NAAQS or other 

specific requirements of section 110). 

To ensure that its rules remain 

consistent with the EPA requirements, 

Idaho generally updates the IBR 

citations in IDAPA 58.01.01 on an 

annual basis and submits a SIP revision 

to reflect any changes made to the 

Federal regulations during that year. 

Idaho’s current SIP includes the 

approved incorporation by reference of 

specific Federal regulations, revised as 

of July 1, 2015, at IDAPA 58.01.01.107 

‘‘Incorporation by Reference.’’ On 

March 20, 2018, the State of Idaho 

submitted SIP revisions to the EPA to 

account for more recent Federal 

regulatory changes adopted by Idaho. 

Additionally, on April 12, 2018, Idaho 

submitted a separate SIP revision to 

remove an expired interim 

transportation conformity provision. 

Transportation conformity is required 

under section 176(c) of the CAA to 

ensure Federally supported highway, 

transit projects, and other activities are 

consistent with (‘‘conform to’’) the 

purpose of the SIP. 

II. EPA Evaluation of Idaho’s SIP 

Revisions 

Idaho submitted several state dockets 

(rulemakings) for approval to the EPA. 

We note that the dockets also include 

revisions to Idaho’s regulations relating 

to its Title V operating permits, 

hazardous air pollutants (referred to as 

‘‘toxic air pollutants’’ in Idaho 

regulations), and other air requirements 

that do not implement section 110 of the 

CAA. Idaho submitted these regulations 

for informational purposes only, in 

order to provide a complete record of 

each docket. In the cover letter to the 

March 20, 2018, submittal, Idaho 

specifically stated that the identified 

provisions (IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03.f-n) 

were not being submitted to update 

Idaho’s SIP. We provide our analysis of 

the revisions below. 

A. 2016 Federal Rule IBR Update 

Docket 58–0101–1603 ‘‘2016 Federal 

Rule IBR’’ revises IDAPA 

58.01.01.107.03 ‘‘Documents 

Incorporated by Reference’’ to update 

the citation dates for specific provisions 

incorporated by reference into the Idaho 

SIP as of July 1, 2016. Although Idaho 

requested approval of this docket, it has 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS