Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 38419 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

4. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520.). 

5. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and have determined that it does 

not have implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the ‘‘For Further 

Information Contact’’ section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 117.745, revise paragraph (b) 

introductory text and add paragraph (c) 

to read as follows: 

§ 117.745 Rancocas Creek 

* * * * * 

(b) The drawspan for the RiversideDelanco/SR#543 Drawbridge, mile 1.3 at 

Riverside must operate as follows: 

* * * * * 

(c) The draw of the Centerton County 

Route 635 Bridge, mile 7.8, at Mt. 

Laurel, need not open for the passage of 

vessels. 

Dated: June 11, 2015. 

Robert J. Tarantino, 

Captain, United States Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–16518 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633; FRL–9929–06– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arkansas; 

Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan To Address 

Pollution Affecting Visibility 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove a revision to the Arkansas 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Arkansas on 

September 16, 2009, for the purpose of 

addressing the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding 

interference with other states’ programs 

for visibility protection for the 2006 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38420 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1CAA Section 110(a)(1). 

2 64 FR 35714, 35735 (July 1, 1999). 

3 77 FR 50033 (August 20, 2012) and 78 FR 53269 

(August 29, 2013). 

4Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. 

Envtl. Protection Agency, Guidance for State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet 

Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, at 9–10 

(Aug. 15, 2006). 

revised 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). The EPA is 

proposing that the Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) we proposed 

on April 8, 2015, to address certain 

regional haze and visibility transport 

requirements for the State of Arkansas 

also remedies the deficiency created by 

our proposed disapproval of Arkansas’ 

SIP submittal to address the 

requirement regarding interference with 

other states’ programs for visibility 

protection for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2008–0633, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: medina.dayana@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633. 

Our policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means we will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to us without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, we recommend 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If we cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

we may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dayana Medina, 214–665–7241; 

medina.dayana@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Ms. Medina or Mr. 

Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

I. Background 

A. Interstate Transport and the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

In 2006, we revised the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS to 35 mg/m3 (October 17, 2006, 

71 FR 6114). SIPs addressing the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA are 

due to us within three years after the 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS (or within such shorter period 

as we may prescribe).1 Section 

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

distinct elements, sometimes referred to 

as prongs, related to the evaluation of 

impacts of interstate transport of air 

pollutants with respect to a new or 

revised NAAQS. In this action for the 

State of Arkansas, we are addressing the 

second element of section 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

second element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA (hereafter 

referred to as Prong 4) requires that 

states have a SIP, or submit a SIP 

revision, containing provisions 

prohibiting emissions from within a 

state from interfering with measures 

required to be included in the 

implementation plan for any other state 

under the provisions of Part C of the 

CAA protecting visibility. Because of 

the impacts on visibility from the 

interstate transport of pollutants, we 

interpret this ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision 

in section 110 of the CAA as requiring 

states to include in their SIPs measures 

to prohibit emissions that would 

interfere with the reasonable progress 

goals set to protect Class I areas in other 

states. This is consistent with the 

requirements in the regional haze 

program which explicitly require each 

state to address its share of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for 

surrounding Class I areas.2

B. Arkansas’ Interstate Visibility 

Transport Submittal for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS 

On September 16, 2009, Arkansas 

submitted a SIP revision intended to 

address the requirements of Prong 4 

with respect to visibility transport for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal 

also addressed other ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

elements specified in CAA section 

110(a)(2), necessary to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. We previously acted on the 

portions of the September 16, 2009 

submittal that addressed these other 

infrastructure elements specified in 

CAA Section 110(a)(2).3 Arkansas’ 

September 16, 2009 SIP submittal that 

addresses transport for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS may be accessed through the 

www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633). 

Arkansas indicated in the submittal that 

it meets the required protection of 

visibility provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. EPA’s Approach for Evaluating 

Interstate Visibility Transport 

In three memos released in 2006, 

2009, and 2013, we provided guidance 

to the states regarding their obligations 

with respect to Prong 4. In the 2006 

memo, we informed states that they 

could satisfy prong 4 for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS by 

making a simple SIP submission 

confirming that it was not possible at 

the time to assess whether there was any 

interference with measures in the SIPs 

of other states designed to protect 

visibility until the states’ regional haze 

SIPs were submitted and approved.4 In 

the 2009 memo, we recommended that 

a state could meet prong 4 requirements 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 38421 

5Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. 

Envtl. Protection Agency, Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), at 5 

(Sept. 25, 2009). 

6Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. 

Envtl. Protection Agency, Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 2013). 

7 Id. at 33. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. at 34. 

10 Id. 11 77 FR 14604. 12 77 FR 14604. 

through its Regional Haze SIP.5 EPA’s 

rationale supporting this 

recommendation was that the 

development of the regional haze SIPs 

was intended to occur in a collaborative 

environment among the states, and that 

through this process states would 

coordinate on emissions controls to 

protect visibility on an interstate basis. 

The common understanding was that, as 

a result of this collaborative 

environment, each state would take 

action to achieve the emissions 

reductions relied upon by other states in 

their reasonable progress 

demonstrations under the regional haze 

rule. This interpretation is consistent 

with the requirement in the regional 

haze rule that a state participating in a 

regional planning process must include 

‘‘all measures needed to achieve its 

apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through that 

process.’’ See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

Most recently, in the 2013 memo, we 

suggest ways prong 4 obligations can be 

satisfied with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

NAAQS, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIPs.6 There, we 

reiterated that states could satisfy prong 

4 by confirming that they had fully 

approved regional haze SIPs.7 We 

reasoned that a fully approved regional 

haze SIP necessarily would ensure that 

emissions from a state’s sources were 

not interfering with measures required 

to be included in other states’ SIPs to 

protect visibility.8 Alternatively, we 

explained that a state could satisfy its 

prong 4 obligations by including in its 

infrastructure SIP a demonstration that 

emissions within its jurisdiction do not 

interfere with other states’ plans to 

protect visibility.9 We clarified that 

such a submission would need to 

include measures to limit visibilityimpairing pollutants and ensure that the 

reductions were sufficient to comply 

with any mutually agreed upon RPGs 

for downwind Class I areas.10

B. Evaluation of Arkansas’ Submittal 

An approved regional haze SIP that 

fully meets the regional haze 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies 

the requirement for visibility protection 

as it ensures that emissions from the 

state will not interfere with measures 

required to be included in other state 

SIPs to protect visibility. Regional haze 

is visibility impairment that is produced 

by a multitude of sources and activities 

which are located across a broad 

geographic area and emit fine particles 

(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 

and their precursors (e.g., SO2, nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), and in some cases, 

ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC)). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter that impairs 

visibility by scattering and absorbing 

light. Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. PM2.5 can also cause 

serious health effects and mortality in 

humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

In the September 16, 2009 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, Arkansas indicated that 

it meets the required protection of 

visibility provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA but did not 

explain how it meets this requirement. 

We are proposing to find that Arkansas’ 

SIP does not fully ensure that emissions 

from sources in Arkansas do not 

interfere with other states’ visibility 

programs as required under the Prong 4 

provision because the SIP does not 

demonstrate how the requirement is 

satisfied. Furthermore, we previously 

found the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP 

to be deficient and partially 

disapproved it. In our final rule 

published on March 12, 2012, we 

partially approved and partially 

disapproved the SIP revision submitted 

by Arkansas in 2008 to address the 

regional haze requirements (Arkansas 

Regional Haze SIP).11 This action 

included a disapproval of a large 

portion of Arkansas’ best available 

retrofit technology (BART) 

determinations for its subject to BART 

sources, as we concluded these BART 

determinations did not meet the 

requirements of the CAA and our 

regional haze regulations. As a result, 

the corresponding emissions reductions 

from Arkansas sources that other states 

had relied upon in their regional haze 

SIPs would not take place. Therefore, 

we are proposing to disapprove the 

portion of Arkansas’ September 16, 2009 

SIP submittal that addresses the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility transport for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Under section 110(c) of the Act, 

whenever we disapprove a mandatory 

SIP submission in whole or in part, we 

are required to promulgate a FIP within 

2 years unless we approve a SIP revision 

correcting the deficiencies before 

promulgating a FIP. Specifically, CAA 

section 110(c) provides that the 

Administrator shall promulgate a FIP 

within 2 years after the Administrator 

disapproves a state implementation plan 

submission ‘‘unless the State corrects 

the deficiency, and the Administrator 

approves the plan or plan revision, 

before the Administrator promulgates 

such Federal implementation plan.’’ 

The term ‘‘Federal implementation 

plan’’ is defined in section 302(y) of the 

CAA in pertinent part as a plan 

promulgated by the Administrator to 

correct an inadequacy in a SIP. Thus, 

upon finalizing our proposed 

disapproval of Arkansas’ SIP submittal 

addressing the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility transport for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, we would have an obligation 

to promulgate a FIP for Arkansas, unless 

we first approve a SIP revision that 

corrects the deficiencies in the 

disapproved SIP submittal. 

Our April 8, 2015 proposed FIP 

corrects the disapproved portions of the 

Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The 

disapproved portions included a 

majority of the State’s BART 

determinations, the State’s reasonable 

progress analysis and reasonable 

progress goals, and a portion of the 

State’s long term strategies for its Class 

I areas.12 Our proposed FIP addresses 

BART requirements for nine units at six 

facilities, proposes a reasonable progress 

analysis and controls for two units at 

one power plant under the reasonable 

progress requirements, and proposes 

revised reasonable progress goals and 

long-term strategies for Arkansas’ two 

Class I areas. Our proposed Regional 

Haze FIP together with the already 

approved portions of the Arkansas 

Regional Haze SIP address all regional 

haze requirements for Arkansas and 

would ensure that the emissions 

reductions from Arkansas sources that 

other states relied upon in their regional 

haze SIPs are achieved. As such, there 

would be adequate provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity within Arkansas from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38422 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

which would interfere with measures 

required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other state to protect visibility. 

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to disapprove a 

portion of a SIP submittal that was 

submitted by Arkansas on September 

16, 2009. The portion of the SIP 

submittal we are proposing to 

disapprove addresses the CAA 

provisions for prohibiting air pollutant 

emissions from interfering with 

measures required to protect visibility 

in any other state for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. We are proposing to find 

that the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility transport for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS will be satisfied by the 

combination of the emission control 

measures in the Regional Haze FIP we 

proposed on April 8, 2015, and the 

already approved portions of the 

Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. We are 

proposing to determine that the 

Regional Haze FIP we proposed for 

Arkansas on April 8, 2015, will satisfy 

our FIP obligation for interstate 

transport of air pollution and visibility 

protection for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. We will not finalize our 

proposal that the Regional Haze FIP 

addresses our FIP obligation unless and 

until, we finalize our action on the 

Regional Haze FIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to act on state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

because this proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply disapproves certain 

State requirements for inclusion into the 

SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself 

create any new requirements but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, 

it affords no opportunity for EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from 

this disapproval does not mean that 

EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, this proposed action does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 38423 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP 

disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this proposed 

action is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to disapprove 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it does not 

provide EPA with the discretionary 

authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

K. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxides, 

Visibility, Interstate transport of 

pollution, Regional haze, Best available 

control technology. 

Dated: June 18, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Amend § 52.173 by adding 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

Subpart E—Arkansas 

§ 52.173 Visibility Protection 

* * * * * 

(c) The portion of the SIP addressing 

noninterference with measures required 

to protect visibility in any other state are 

disapproved for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

(d) The deficiencies in the portion of 

the SIP pertaining to adequate 

provisions to prohibit emissions in 

Arkansas from interfering with 

measures required to protect visibility 

in any other state for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, submitted on September 

16, 2009, are remedied by Section 

52.173(c). 

[FR Doc. 2015–16389 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0075; FRL–9929–72– 

Region 5] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Sheboygan County, Wisconsin 

8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

an Early Progress Plan and motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for 

volatile organic compounds and oxides 

of nitrogen for Sheboygan County, 

Wisconsin. Wisconsin submitted an 

Early Progress Plan for Sheboygan 

County on January 16, 2015. This 

submittal was developed to establish 

MVEBs for the Sheboygan 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. This approval of 

the Early Progress Plan for the 

Sheboygan 8-hour ozone area is based 

on EPA’s determination that Wisconsin 

has demonstrated that the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing these MVEBs, when 

considered with the emissions from all 

sources, shows some progress toward 

attainment from the 2011 base year 

through a 2015 target year. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0075, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS