26568 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

credit programs at federal facilities and 

installations subject to federal oversight. 

b. Revisions to WAQSR Chapter 8, 

Section 5 

Wyoming added a new section 5 to 

WAQSR Chapter 8 entitled 

‘‘Incorporation by reference’’. This new 

section states that all Code of Federal 

Regulations cited in Chapter 8, 

including their Appendices, revised and 

published as of July 1, 2011, not 

including any later amendments, are 

incorporated by reference. The section 

continues with noting where copies for 

the applicable CFRs are available for 

public inspection or may be obtained, at 

cost, from the State. 

EPA has reviewed Wyoming’s 

revisions to WAQSR Chapter 8, Section 

3 ‘‘Conformity of general federal actions 

to state implementation plans’’ and the 

new Section 5 ‘‘Incorporation by 

reference’’ and has concluded that our 

approval is warranted. Based on our 

review, we determined that the 

revisions to Section 3 incorporate and 

address the additional federal general 

conformity requirements that we 

promulgated in July of 2006 and April 

of 2010. In addition, the new Section 5 

that incorporates relevant sections of the 

CFR is also acceptable. EPA is 

proposing approval of this Wyoming SIP 

revision in order to update the State’s 

general conformity requirements for 

federal agencies, with applicable federal 

actions, and to align the State’s general 

conformity requirements with the 

federal general conformity rule’s 

requirements. 

V. Consideration of Section 110(1) of 

the Clean Air Act 

Section 110(1) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. As described 

above in our section IV.a.F. of this 

action, the changes to the Wyoming SIP 

would not require a conformity 

determination for minor new or 

modified stationary sources that require 

a permit under the NSR permitting 

program (Section 110(a)(2)(C) and 

section 173 of the CAA). The State of 

Wyoming indicates that SIP permitting 

regulations prevent the State from 

issuing a permit if the facility would 

prevent the attainment or maintenance 

of any ambient air quality standard 

(‘‘the proposed facility will not prevent 

the attainment or maintenance of any 

ambient air quality standard’’ WAQRS 

Chapter 6, Section 2(c)(ii)). Therefore, 

EPA proposes to find that these SIP 

general conformity minor stationary 

source permit provisions are adequate to 

ensure that this SIP revision will not 

interfere with attainment, reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

December 21, 2012 submitted SIP 

revisions to Wyoming’s WAQSR 

Chapter 8, Section 3 ‘‘Conformity of 

general federal actions to state 

implementation plans’’ and Section 5 

‘‘Incorporation by reference’’. These 

revisions incorporate and address the 

federal general conformity rule 

requirements that were promulgated on 

July 17, 2006 and April 5, 2010. EPA is 

proposing approval of this Wyoming SIP 

revision submittal in order to update the 

State’s general conformity requirements 

for federal agencies, with applicable 

federal actions, and to align the State’s 

general conformity requirements with 

the federal general conformity rule’s 

requirements. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, and Reporting, recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 23, 2013. 

Judith Wong, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10819 Filed 5–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633; FRL–9809–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arkansas; 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submittals from the State of 

Arkansas to address Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) requirements that prohibit air 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 26569 

1This proposed action does not address the two 

elements of the transport SIP provision (in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) regarding interference 

with measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in 

another state. Previously we: (1) Partially approved 

and partially disapproved the portion of the 

December 17, 2007 Arkansas submittal 

demonstrating that Arkansas emissions do not 

interfere with measures required to protect 

visibility in any other state for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS (March 12, 2012, 77 FR 14604) and (2) 

disapproved the portion of the September 16, 2009 

Arkansas submittal demonstrating that Arkansas 

emissions do not interfere with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration in any other 

state for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (August 20, 2012, 

77 FR 50033). 

emissions which will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in any other 

state for the 1997 and 2006 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

existing SIP for Arkansas contains 

adequate provisions to prohibit air 

emissions from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

(1997 PM2.5 NAAQS) and the 2006 

revised 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS) in any other state as 

required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of 

the Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 6, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2008–0633, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by email to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, 

and not on legal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittals related to this 

SIP revision, and which are part of the 

EPA docket, are also available for public 

inspection at the State Air Agency listed 

below during official business hours by 

appointment: Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality, 5301 

Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, 

Arkansas, 72118–5317. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–6645; email address 

young.carl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Interstate Transport and the PM2.5

NAAQS 

In 1997, we established new annual 

and 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) and 

65 mg/m3, respectively (July 18, 1997, 62 

FR 38652). In 2006, we revised the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3

(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 6114). Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA identifies four 

distinct elements related to the 

evaluation of impacts of interstate 

transport of air pollutants with respect 

to a new or revised NAAQS. In this 

action for the state of Arkansas, we are 

addressing the first two elements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.1 The 

first element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requires that each SIP for a new or 

revised NAAQS contain adequate 

measures to prohibit any source or other 

type of emissions activity within the 

state from emitting air pollutants that 

will ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ of the NAAQS in 

another state. The second element of 

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

that each SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS prohibit any source or other 

type of emissions activity in the state 

from emitting pollutants that will 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 

applicable NAAQS in any other state. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26570 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2See NOx SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 

1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 

25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011). 

3CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

4For our definition of both nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors see the Technical Support 

Documents for the final Transport Rule, including 

the ‘‘Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 

Transport Rule—Air Quality Modeling’’, (the 

proposal TSD) June 2010, and the ‘‘Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document’’, (Air Quality Modeling TSD) June 2011 

(Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491, Document 

Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491–0047 and EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0491–4140). 

5See Id.; Emissions Inventory Final Rule TSD, 

June 28, 2011. (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0491, Document No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491– 

4522). 

6See section IV.F (Analysis of Contributions 

Captured by Various Thresholds) of the Air Quality 

Modeling TSD. 

B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate 

Transport for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS 

EPA has addressed the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past 

regulatory actions.2 The final CrossState Air Pollution Rule (Transport 

Rule) addressed the first two elements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the 

eastern United States with respect to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 

FR 48208). The Transport Rule was 

intended to replace the earlier Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was 

judicially remanded.3 See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate the 

Transport Rule. See EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 

(DC Cir. 2012). The court also ordered 

EPA to continue implementing CAIR in 

the interim. On January 24, 2013, the DC 

Circuit issued an order denying all 

petitions for rehearing. On March 29, 

2013, the United States asked the 

Supreme Court to review the EME 

Homer City decision. In the meantime, 

and unless the EME Homer City 

decision is reversed or otherwise 

modified, EPA intends to act in 

accordance with the opinion in EME 

Homer City. 

C. Arkansas’ Submittals 

On December 17, 2007, Arkansas 

submitted a SIP revision to address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. The submittal stated that the 

State met the requirements relating to 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another state for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on CAIR and 

associated air quality modeling 

performed by EPA. The submittal also 

noted that Arkansas was not included in 

CAIR to address PM2.5. A September 16, 

2009, submission stated that the SIP 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 20, 

2013, the State submitted a letter to EPA 

serving as a technical supplement for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The letter 

stated that because the more recent and 

improved air quality modeling 

evaluating interstate transport for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS conducted by EPA 

for the Transport Rule is now available 

and supports the conclusion that 

emissions in Arkansas do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other State, it was being 

submitted as the basis for the 

conclusions in lieu of the previous 

technical information provided in the 

September 16, 2009 submission. The 

submittals and technical supplement 

document the State’s assessments that 

Arkansas emissions will not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfere with maintenance, in any other 

state for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The submittals and technical 

supplement are available electronically 

through the www.regulations.gov Web 

site (Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008– 

0633). 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. EPA’s Approach for Evaluating 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement is 

satisfied, EPA must determine whether 

a state’s emissions contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in 

downwind areas. If this factual finding 

is in the negative, then section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any 

changes to a state’s SIP. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the existing 

SIP for Arkansas is adequate to satisfy 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of 

the CAA to address interstate transport 

requirements with regard to the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed 

conclusion is based on air quality 

modeling originally conducted by EPA 

to quantify each individual eastern 

state’s (including Arkansas’) 

contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

during the rulemaking process for the 

Transport Rule. 

In the Transport Rule rulemaking 

(proposal and final) process, EPA 

explained how nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors would be 

defined such that contribution to 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors could be evaluated.4 EPA first 

identified nonattainment receptors and 

maintenance receptors, which are all 

monitoring sites that had PM2.5 design 

values above the level of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS (15 mg/m3) and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) 

for certain analytic years. Then EPA 

prepared a 2005 emissions inventory 

which was the most recent year that 

EPA had a complete national inventory 

at that time. In the Transport Rule 

analysis, EPA also projected the 

inventory for the future year analysis for 

evaluating the culpability of interstate 

transport impacts.5 The air quality 

modeling conducted for the Transport 

Rule then evaluated interstate 

contributions from emissions in upwind 

states to downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Please see the Air Quality Modeling 

Final Rule Technical Support 

Document, June 2011(Air Quality 

Modeling TSD) for the Transport Rule. 

Appendix D of this TSD details 

Arkansas’ contribution data for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

for all downwind receptors. 

EPA then used air quality thresholds 

to identify linkages between upwind 

states and downwind nonattainment 

and maintenance receptors. As detailed 

in EPA’s Air Quality Modeling TSDs, 

EPA used a threshold of 1% of the 

NAAQS to identify these linkages. Our 

analysis for the Transport Rule found 

that the 1 percent threshold captures a 

high percentage of the total pollution 

transport affecting downwind states for 

PM2.5.6 The air quality thresholds were 

therefore calculated as 1 percent of the 

NAAQS, which is 0.15 mg/m3 for 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 0.35 mg/m3

for 2006 24-hour PM2.5. EPA found 

states projected to exceed this air 

quality threshold at one or more 

downwind nonattainment receptors 

emissions to be linked to all such 

receptors, and therefore subject to 

further evaluation. EPA did not conduct 

further evaluation of emissions from 

states that were not linked to any 

downwind receptors. 

The methodology and modeling used 

to analyze the impact of emissions from 

Arkansas and to identify potential 

linkages between Arkansas and 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors with respect to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 26571 

7The form of the 1997 24-hour and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS utilize the same methodology 

in determining the design value. Because the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is lower and more protective 

than the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, (35 mg/m3

compared with 65 mg/m3), addressing the more 

stringent 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS ensures that 

the 1997 24-hour NAAQS is also protected. Thus, 

we can rely upon the 1 percent threshold analysis 

used for the Transport Rule to evaluate both the 

1997 and 2006 24-hour NAAQS. 

8On March 29, 2013, EPA filed a petition asking 

the Supreme Court to review the EME Homer City 

decision. 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is 

described in further detail in the Air 

Quality Modeling TSDs. These 

documents can be found both in the 

electronic docket for the Transport Rule 

and the electronic docket for this action, 

and is available through the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. 

B. Evaluation of the State’s Submittals 

EPA’s evaluation confirms Arkansas’ 

analysis provided in portions of the SIP 

submittals for the State of Arkansas 

submitted on December 17, 2007, and 

September 16, 2009, and the technical 

supplement submitted on March 20, 

2013. The air quality modeling 

performed for the Transport Rule found 

that the impact from Arkansas 

emissions on both downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors was less than the 1 percent 

threshold for both the 1997 and the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore did 

not find emissions from Arkansas linked 

to any downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA incorporates by reference into the 

docket for this action all of the technical 

information in the record for the 

proposed and final Transport Rule 

regarding the impact of emissions from 

Arkansas on both downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors. 

Below is a summary of the air quality 

modeling results for Arkansas from 

Tables IV–8 and IV–9 of EPA’s Air 

Quality Modeling TSD regarding 

Arkansas’s largest contribution to both 

downwind PM2.5 nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. 

ARKANSAS’ LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS

NAAQS 

Air quality 

threshold 

(μg/m3) 

Largest downwind contribution to nonattainment 

(μg/m3) 

Largest downwind contribution to 

maintenance 

(μg/m3) 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (15 μg/m3) ....................................................................................... 0.15 0.10 0.04 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 μg/m3) ..................................................................................... 0.35 0.24 0.23 

Based on this analysis, we propose to 

approve the portions of the December 

17, 2007 and September 16, 2009 

Arkansas SIP submittals, and the 

technical supplement submitted on 

March 20, 2013, determining that the 

existing SIP for Arkansas contains 

adequate provisions to prohibit air 

emissions from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any 

other state as required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).7

We believe it is appropriate to rely on 

the Transport Rule modeling even with 

the EME Homer City opinion vacating 

the rule. EME Homer City Generation 

L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012).8

Nothing in the EME Homer City opinion 

suggests that the air quality modeling on 

which our proposal relies is flawed or 

invalid for any reason. In addition, 

nothing in that opinion undermines or 

calls into question our proposed 

conclusion that, because emissions from 

Arkansas do not contribute more than 

one percent of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS to any downwind area with 

nonattainment or maintenance 

problems, Arkansas does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in another 

state for these NAAQS. Further, EPA is 

not proposing to rely on any 

requirements of the Transport Rule or 

emission reductions associated with 

that rule to support its conclusion that 

Arkansas has met its 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligations with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(l) of the Act 

Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits 

EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. The 

SIP submittals from the State of 

Arkansas contain no new regulatory 

provisions and do not affect any 

requirement in Arkansas’ applicable 

implementation plan. Therefore, the 

submissions do not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. EPA has 

concluded, based on Arkansas’ and 

EPA’s technical analysis, that the 

existing Arkansas SIP is sufficient to 

meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve portions 

of SIP submittals for the State of 

Arkansas submitted on December 17, 

2007, and September 16, 2009, and the 

technical supplement submitted on 

March 20, 2013, to address interstate 

transport for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Based on our evaluation we 

propose to approve the portions of the 

SIP submittals determining the existing 

SIP for Arkansas contains adequate 

provisions to prohibit air emissions 

from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state as required 

by CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Act. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26572 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 24, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10689 Filed 5–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 13–39; DA 13–780] 

Rural Call Completion and List of Rural 

Operating Carrier Numbers 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission’s 

Wireline Competition Bureau 

announces the comment filing deadlines 

in its proposed rulemaking proceeding 

on rural call completion problems and 

seeks comment on the completeness and 

suitability of a currently available list of 

rural Operating Carrier Numbers as a 

template for the reporting requirements 

proposed in the Rural Call Completion 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

May 13, 2013 and reply comments are 

due on or before May 28, 2013. If you 

anticipate that you will be submitting 

comments, but find it difficult to do so 

within the period of time allowed by 

this notice, you should advise the 

contact listed below as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 13–39, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://fjall

foss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Rowings, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–1033 or TTY: (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Public 

Notice in WC Docket No. 13–39, DA 13– 

780, released April 18, 2013. The 

complete text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

These documents may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, telephone (800) 378–3160 or 

(202) 863–2893, facsimile (202) 863– 

2898, or via the Internet at http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available 

on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

On February 7, 2013, the Commission 

released a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment 

on steps the Commission should take to 

help address problems in the 

completion of long-distance telephone 

calls to rural customers. 

The Commission set the comment and 

reply comment deadlines for the NPRM 

as 30 and 45 days, respectively, after 

publication of the summary of the 

NPRM in the Federal Register. On April 

12, 2013, a summary of the NPRM 

appeared in the Federal Register. 

Accordingly, interested parties may file 

comments on or before May 13, 2013, 

and reply comments on or before May 

28, 2013. All pleadings are to reference 

WC Docket No. 13–39. 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed rules that would require that 

originating long-distance providers 

submit in electronic form the monthly 

call answer rate for rural operating 

carrier numbers (OCNs) with 100 

attempts or more and the nonrural 

monthly overall average to the 

Commission once per calendar quarter. 

The Commission would specify an 

electronic template for this reporting 

requirement with a list of rural OCNs. 

The National Exchange Carrier 

Association, Inc. (NECA) provides a list 

of rural OCNs on its Web site, at the 

following link: http://www.neca.org/ 

WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id

&ItemID=8874&libID=8894. The Bureau 

invites comment on the completeness of 

NECA’s list, and whether it would be 

suitable for the Commission to use this 

list upon the adoption of the rules 

proposed in the NPRM. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, interested parties 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS