43506 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

2018 fiscal period of $800,150. With the 

proposed assessment rate and budgeted 

expense level, the Committee does not 

anticipate utilizing any funds from the 

monetary reserve. As such, reserve 

funds are estimated to be $544,990 at 

the end of the 2017–2018 fiscal period 

on June 30, 2018. That reserve level is 

within the maximum permitted by the 

order of approximately one fiscal 

period’s operational expenses 

(§ 927.42(a)). 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2017–2018 fiscal period include 

$605,606 for promotion and paid 

advertising; $147,694 for research; 

$25,000 for administration; and $21,850 

for Committee expenses. In comparison, 

major expenditures for the 2016–2017 

fiscal period included $682,130 for 

promotion and paid advertising; 

$127,288 for research; $25,000 for 

administration; and $20,850 for 

Committee expenses. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this action, including recommending 

alternative expenditure levels and 

assessment rates. Although lower 

assessment rates were considered, none 

were selected because they would not 

have generated sufficient income to 

administer the order. Similarly, the 

Committee did not recommend lower 

levels of budgeted expenditures than 

proposed herein because it would have 

reduced the effectiveness of the 

program. 

A review of historical data and 

preliminary information pertaining to 

the upcoming fiscal period indicates 

that the grower price for the 2017–2018 

fiscal period could range between $325 

and $346 per ton of ‘‘summer/fall’’ 

processed pears. Therefore, the 

estimated assessment revenue for the 

2017–2018 fiscal period, as a percentage 

of total grower revenue could range 

between 2.31 and 2.46 percent. 

This action would increase the 

assessment obligation imposed on 

handlers. While assessments impose 

some additional costs on handlers, the 

costs are minimal and uniform on all 

handlers. Some of the additional costs 

may be passed on to growers. However, 

these costs would be offset by the 

benefits derived by the operation of the 

order. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

processed pear industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

Committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all Committee meetings, the May 

31, 2017, meeting was a public meeting 

and all entities, both large and small, 

were able to express views on this issue. 

Finally, interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by OMB and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0189 (Generic 

Fruit Crops). No changes in those 

requirements as a result of this action 

are necessary. Should any changes 

become necessary, they would be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large processed pear handlers. 

As with all Federal marketing order 

programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this action. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Richard Lower 

at the previously mentioned address in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 15-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is 

deemed appropriate because handlers 

are aware of this action, which was 

unanimously recommended by the 

Committee at a public meeting. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 927 

Marketing agreements, Pears, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 927 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 927—PEARS GROWN IN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 927 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

Subpart A—[AMENDED] 

■ 2. Designate the subpart labeled 

‘‘Order Regulating Handling’’ as subpart 

A. 

Subpart B—[Administrative 

Provisions] 

■ 3. Designate the subpart labeled 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ as subpart B 

and revise the heading as shown above. 

■ 4. Amend § 927.237 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 927.237 Processed pear assessment 

rate. 

On and after July 1, 2017, the 

following base rates of assessment for 

pears for processing are established for 

the Processed Pear Committee: 

(a) $8.00 per ton for any or all 

varieties or subvarieties of pears for 

canning classified as ‘‘summer/fall’’ 

excluding pears for other methods of 

processing; 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 12, 2017. 

Bruce Summers, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19615 Filed 9–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0435; FRL–9967–51– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arkansas; 

Revisions to Minor New Source Review 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve revisions to the 

Arkansas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) minor New Source Review (NSR) 

program submitted on July 26, 2010, 

and March 24, 2017, including 

supplemental information provided on 

November 30, 2015, May 26, 2016, and 

July 27, 2017. Specifically, we are 

proposing to approve revisions that 

revise the minor NSR permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels, as 

well as, additional non-substantive 

revisions. This proposed action is 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 110 of the CAA. 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 43507 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 18, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2017–0435, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

mohr.ashley@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 Ashley Mohr, 214–665–7289, 

mohr.ashley@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: 

Ashley Mohr, 214–665–7289, 

mohr.ashley@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Ms. Ashley Mohr 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 

The EPA is proposing approval of SIP 

revisions submitted by Arkansas on July 

26, 2010, and March 24, 2017. The 

proposed revisions addressed in this 

action modify the Chapter 4 minor New 

Source Review rules enacted at 

Regulation Number 19 (Reg. 19), 

specifically the following provisions are 

addressed in this action: Reg. 19.401, 

19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b), and 19.417. The 

revisions include revisions to the minor 

NSR permitting thresholds and de 

minimis levels. 

Our proposed approval of the 

revisions to the minor NSR permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels does 

not remove, nor reduce, the federal and 

SIP approved requirements that each 

NSR permitting action authorizing 

emissions greater than the permitting 

thresholds provide an opportunity for 

the public to review and comment on 

the information submitted by the permit 

applicant. Nor does our action remove 

or reduce the federal and SIP approved 

requirements that as part of these 

permitting actions the public also have 

an opportunity to review and comment 

on the required Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (ADEQ) 

analysis and determination that the 

construction or modification of the 

facility will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of a national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

Our action also does not remove the 

requirement that ADEQ’s approval of all 

minor NSR permit actions include a 

technical analysis and determination 

that the change will not interfere with 

NAAQS attainment or maintenance. 

A. July 26, 2010 Submittal 

On July 26, 2010, Arkansas submitted 

revisions to the SIP that included 

changes to the Regulations of the 

Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air 

Pollution Control enacted at Reg. 19, 

Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

13, 14, 15, and Appendix A. These 

revisions were adopted by the Arkansas 

Pollution Control & Ecology 

Commission on December 5, 2008, and 

became effective on January 25, 2009. 

The EPA is proposing to take action 

only on the revisions to Chapter 4, Reg. 

19.401, 19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b), and 

19.417 contained in the July 26, 2010 

submittal. The EPA has already taken 

action on other elements of this 

submittal as follows: (1) Regulation 19, 

Chapter 1, approved by EPA on 

4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (2) 

Regulation 19, Chapter 2, approved by 

EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (3) 

Regulation 19, Chapter 5, approved by 

EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573; (4) 

Regulation 19, Chapter 6, approved by 

EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (5) 

Regulation 19, Chapter 7, approved by 

EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (6) 

Regulation 19, Chapter 9, approved by 

EPA on 4/2/2013 (see 78 FR 19596); (7) 

Regulation 19, Chapter 10, approved by 

EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (8) 

Regulation 19, Chapter 11, approved by 

EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (9) 

Regulation 19, Chapter 13, approved by 

EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); 

(10) Regulation 19, Chapter 14, 

approved by EPA on 4/17/2014 (see 79 

FR 21631); and (11) Regulation 19, 

Chapter 15, approved by EPA on 3/12/ 

2012 (see 77 FR 14604). The EPA will 

address in a future action the remaining 

portions of the July 26, 2010 submittal, 

which are not directly related to the 

minor NSR permitting thresholds and 

de minimis levels. 

B. March 24, 2017 Submittal 

On March 24, 2017, Arkansas 

submitted revisions to the SIP that 

included changes to the Regulations of 

the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for 

Air Pollution Control enacted at Reg. 19, 

Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 

15, Appendix A and Appendix B. These 

revisions were adopted by the Arkansas 

Pollution Control & Ecology 

Commission on February 26, 2016, and 

became effective on March 14, 2016. 

The EPA is proposing to take action 

only on Chapter 4, Reg. 19.401 and 

19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b). As necessary, 

the EPA will address the remaining 

portions of the March 24, 2017 

submittal, which are not directly related 

to the minor NSR permitting thresholds 

and de minimis levels, as part of 

separate actions. 

A summary of the EPA’s evaluation of 

the submitted revisions and the basis for 

our proposed approval is included in 

this rulemaking. The accompanying 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

includes a detailed evaluation of the 

submittals and our approval rationale. 

The TSD may be accessed online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R06–OAR–2017–0435. As previously 

discussed, the portions of July 26, 2010 

and March 24, 2017 SIP submittals 

evaluated in this action are those related 

to the revised minor NSR permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels. While 

the TSD does include a line-by-line 

evaluation of each revised section 

addressed in our proposed approval, the 

following section focuses on the revised 

permitting thresholds and de minimis 

levels and the EPA’s evaluation 

associated with those revisions. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Revisions to Minor NSR Permitting 

Thresholds and De Minimis Levels 

The Arkansas SIP approved minor 

NSR program contains permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels that 

are applicable to the state’s minor NSR 

permitting program. Both the permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels serve 

to exempt certain stationary sources or 

proposed changes at stationary sources 

from minor NSR permitting 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
43508 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

requirements. The permitting thresholds 

found in Reg. 19.401 serve to determine 

which stationary sources are required to 

obtain a minor NSR permit. Any sources 

with emissions equal to or greater than 

the specified permitting thresholds are 

required to obtain a permit. A de 

minimis change, as stated in Reg. 

19.407(C), is a change at an existing 

source that will result in trivial 

environmental impacts and requires 

minimal judgement to establish permit 

requirements for the change. A de 

minimis change is not a title I 

modification, as stated in the Reg. 19, 

Chapter 2 definition for ‘‘title I 

modification.’’ The de minimis levels 

found in Reg. 19.407(C)(2) are used to 

determine if a proposed change at an 

existing permitted source may qualify as 

a de minimis change under Reg. 19. 

Under the SIP approved Arkansas minor 

NSR program, a de minimis change is 

exempt from minor NSR permitting 

requirements, including public notice 

requirements, but remains subject to the 

remaining applicable minor NSR 

requirements contained in the NSR 

regulation. For example, in accordance 

with Reg. 19.407(C)(6) requirements a 

de minimis change must be reviewed 

and approved by ADEQ prior to 

implementation by a stationary source. 

To seek a de minimis change approval, 

the permitted source must submit an 

application to ADEQ to demonstrate 

that the proposed change qualifies as de 

minimis and, therefore, qualifies for 

exemption from minor NSR permitting 

requirements. ADEQ reviews the 

application to ensure that the proposed 

change is de minimis and does not 

include any of the following changes 

found in Reg. 19.407(C)(4) that do not 

meet the definition of de minimis: (1) 

Any increase in the permitted emission 

rate without a corresponding physical 

change or change in the method of 

operation at the source; (2) any change 

which would result in a violation of the 

CAA; (3) any change seeking to change 

a case-by-case determination of an 

emission limitation established 

pursuant to Best Available Control 

Technology, § 112(g), § 112(i)(5), 

§ 112(j), or § 111(d) of the CAA; (4) a 

change that would result in a violation 

of any provision of Reg. 19; (5) any 

change in a permit term, condition, or 

limit that a source has assumed to avoid 

an applicable requirement to which the 

source would otherwise be subject; (6) 

any significant change or relaxation to 

existing testing, monitoring, reporting, 

or recordkeeping requirements; or (7) 

any proposed change which requires 

more than minimal judgment to 

determine eligibility. In addition, 

multiple applications for de minimis 

changes that are concealing a larger 

modification would not be considered a 

de minimis change. As required by Reg. 

19.405(A)(1), ADEQ also reviews the de 

minimis change applications submitted 

under Reg. 19, Chapter 4 to ensure that 

the proposed change at the stationary 

source will not result in the interference 

with attainment or maintenance of a 

NAAQS. If ADEQ determines that the 

proposed change does not qualify as de 

minimis, the de minimis change 

application is denied and the source 

must seek authorization via the 

appropriate NSR permit modification 

with public notice and reconstruction 

requirements. Otherwise if the de 

minimis action is approved by ADEQ, 

the source can make the proposed 

change immediately following receipt of 

the de minimis change approval. Any 

revisions to the existing minor NSR 

permit that may be necessary as a result 

of a de minimis change will be 

incorporated by ADEQ as expeditiously 

as possible as a de minimis 

modification. 

As previously stated, both the minor 

NSR permitting thresholds and de 

minimis levels approaches are approved 

into the current Arkansas SIP. As part 

of the submitted SIP revisions, Arkansas 

is proposing to revise the values for 

minor NSR permitting thresholds and 

de minimis levels for CO, NOX, SO2, 

VOC, and PM10. In addition, Arkansas is 

proposing to add minor NSR permitting 

thresholds for PM2.5 and de minimis 

levels for PM and PM2.5, which do not 

exist in the current SIP approved minor 

NSR permitting program. The following 

table summarizes the current and 

revised minor NSR permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT SIP APPROVED AND REVISED MINOR NSR PERMITTING THRESHOLDS AND DE MINIMIS LEVELS

Pollutant 

Minor NSR permitting 

thresholds 

(tpy) 

Minor NSR de minimis levels 

(tpy) 

Current SIP 

approved 

value 

Revised value 

Current SIP 

approved 

value 

Revised value 

CO .................................................................................................................... 40 75 5 75 

NOX .................................................................................................................. 25 40 5 40 

SO2 .................................................................................................................. 25 40 5 40 

VOC ................................................................................................................. 25 40 20 40

PM .................................................................................................................... None None None 25 

PM10 ................................................................................................................. 10 15 5 15 

PM2.5 ................................................................................................................ None 10 None 10

As shown in the previous table, the 

revised permitting thresholds and de 

minimis levels are less stringent than 

the values contained in the current 

Arkansas SIP. Therefore, as part of our 

evaluation, we reviewed the proposed 

revisions, along with supporting 

information provided by Arkansas, to 

determine if the proposed revisions to 

the minor NSR permitting thresholds 

and de minimis levels will interfere 

with attainment, reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirements of the Act. That 

evaluation, in accordance with section 

110(l) of the Clean Air Act, is discussed 

in the following section. 

ADEQ does require, in accordance 

with Reg. 18.315, that facilities that are 

exempt from minor NSR permitting 

based on the revised permitting 

thresholds but have emissions greater 

than the previous SIP approved 

permitting thresholds register with the 

Department prior to operation, 

construction, or modification. In 

addition, the de minimis changes, 

which are exempt from minor NSR 

permitting requirements, are required to 

meet all remaining, applicable minor 

NSR provisions contained in Reg. 19, 

Chapter 4, including the requirements 

for ADEQ’s technical review and 

determination that the proposed change 

will not interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance of a NAAQS. 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 43509 

1ADEQ’s November 30, 2015 supplement stated 

that the population of the Fayetteville-SpringdaleRogers MSA has grown by over 65,000 people in 

the 2007–2014 timeframe. 

B. Analysis Under Section 110(l) of the 

CAA 

As part of our evaluation of the July 

26, 2010 and March 24, 2017 submittals 

under section 110(l), we have examined: 

(1) The scope of impacts resulting from 

the proposed revisions, (2) the current 

status of ambient air quality in 

Arkansas, and (3) the impacts of the 

revised thresholds on ambient air 

quality via air monitoring and air 

modeling data. 

As part of the July 26, 2010 SIP 

revision submittal, ADEQ determined 

that the number of currently permitted 

minor NSR facilities statewide that 

would not be required to be permitted 

under the revised minor NSR permitting 

thresholds was twenty (20). ADEQ also 

determined the total permitted 

emissions of CO, NOX, SO2, VOC, and 

PM10 from these 20 facilities and 

compared those permitted emissions 

with the statewide emission inventory 

on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. On a 

percentage basis, the emissions that 

would be exempt from permitting at 

these 20 facilities based on the revised 

minor NSR permitting thresholds were 

0.006% to 0.125% of the statewide 

emission totals. On July 27, 2017, ADEQ 

provided a supplement to the July 2010 

and March 2017 SIP revision submittals, 

which included similar CO, NOX, SO2, 

VOC, and PM10 emissions information 

for the de minimis changes approved for 

facilities in calendar year (CY) 2016. 

EPA reviewed the emissions 

information and determined that the 

emissions increases associated with the 

approved de minimis changes exempt 

from minor NSR permitting based on 

the revised de minimis levels were 

0.0005% to 0.019% of the statewide 

emissions inventory. While this analysis 

was limited to the most recent calendar 

year, conservative scaling of the CY2016 

emissions to account for the 

approximate 81⁄2 years that the revised 

de minimis levels have been effective in 

the state regulations results in total 

emissions that are still much less than 

1% of the total statewide emissions 

inventory. In addition, the analysis of 

the de minimis actions did not account 

for any emissions decreases that 

occurred as part of the approved de 

minimis changes. As shown in these 

analyses, the emissions exempted from 

minor NSR permitting requirements in 

Arkansas as a result of the revised minor 

NSR permitting thresholds and de 

minimis levels is limited in scope and 

makes up a small portion of the 

statewide emissions inventory. 

On November 30, 2015, ADEQ 

provided supplemental information for 

the July 26, 2010 SIP revision submittal. 

The November 30, 2015 supplement 

included a monitoring trends analysis 

that examined statewide ambient air 

quality data since the adoption of the 

revised minor NSR permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels in 

2008 for CO, NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM10. 

This supplemental air monitoring trends 

report is available in the docket and 

may be accessed online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R06–OAR–2017–0435. With the 

exception of the ozone DVs at the 

Springdale, Arkansas monitor located in 

Washington County, the DVs remain 

unchanged or show downward trends 

since the 2008 adoption of the increased 

minor NSR permitting thresholds and 

de minimis levels. In the November 30, 

2015 supplement, ADEQ did further 

evaluation of the Springdale monitor 

and determined that the increases in the 

monitored ozone DVs at this monitor are 

likely due to the increases in mobile 

emissions in the FayettevilleSpringdale-Rogers MSA as a result of 

rapid population growth in that area.1

Based on the ambient monitoring trend 

analysis, it does not appear that the 

increased minor NSR permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels have 

negatively impacted ambient air quality 

or interfered with the attainment of the 

NAAQS. In fact, for several pollutants 

the ambient air quality has shown 

continued improvements as manifested 

in the decreases in monitored DVs 

during this period, and currently 

Arkansas does not have any areas 

classified as nonattainment for any 

NAAQS. 

In addition to evaluating the scope of 

sources/emissions exempted from minor 

NSR permitting requirements and the 

ambient air monitoring trends following 

the adoption of the increased permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels, as 

described in the March 24, 2017 SIP 

submittal ADEQ also conducted air 

quality modeling to examine the 

impacts of emissions increases at the 

level of the revised minor NSR 

permitting thresholds and de minimis 

levels. The modeling analysis was a 

combined photochemical/dispersion 

modeling analysis using the Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model 

and the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model 

Improvement Committee (AERMIC) 

model (AERMOD). ADEQ employed this 

combined modeling approach in an 

effort to look at both regional and local 

scale impacts from emissions equal to 

the revised permitting thresholds and de 

minimis levels for VOC, NOX, SO2, CO, 

PM10, and PM2.5. An air quality 

modeling report detailing the modeling 

approaches and associated model 

results was submitted as part of the 

March 24, 2017 SIP revision submittal. 

This report is available in the docket 

and may be accessed online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R06–OAR–2017–0435. The CMAQ 

regional modeling was based on a 

previous statewide modeling effort 

conducted for the 2008 base year and 

the 2008/2015 future year scenarios. For 

the minor NSR thresholds analysis, the 

future year (2015) emissions inventory 

was modified to include eight 

hypothetical point sources that were 

distributed throughout the state’s Air 

Quality Control Regions. In order to 

reflect a generic, representative source, 

the stack parameters for the 

hypothetical sources were set equal to 

median values based on the 2011 

National Emissions Inventory for 

Arkansas sources. The emission rates for 

each of the hypothetical sources were 

set equal to the minor NSR permitting 

thresholds/de minimis levels. While the 

regional CMAQ modeling analysis did 

show increases in modeled 

concentrations resulting from the 

addition of the hypothetical sources, the 

modeled impacts do not show impacts 

that affect the attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. To 

examine local or near-field impacts, 

additional modeling of the eight 

hypothetical sources was conducted 

using AERMOD. Similar to the regional 

modeling, these sources were modeled 

with emission rates equal to the minor 

NSR permitting thresholds/de minimis 

levels and stack parameters were set 

equal to median stack parameter based 

on the 2011 NEI data. The daily 

AERMOD-derived concentrations were 

added to the CMAQ-derived 

concentrations for the same location, 

using the CMAQ values as 

‘‘background.’’ The values determined 

for the statewide daily maximum 

impacts are expected to represent the 

near-field concentrations assuming 

worst-case impacts from threshold 

emission increases at a range of 

locations throughout Arkansas. The 

modeled impacts from the near-field 

modeling analysis are much less than 

the NAAQS for all pollutants and 

averaging periods indicating that nearfield impacts associated with emissions 

equal to the proposed minor NSR 

thresholds are not expected to result in 

NAAQS exceedances. As with the 

CMAQ-only regional modeling, the 

combined AERMOD/CMAQ modeling 

analysis does show increases in 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
43510 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

modeled concentrations throughout the 

state, and the associated future year DVs 

are also increased. However, the 

calculated future year DVs were all less 

than the associated NAAQS. In 

addition, most pollutants show 

decreased DVs in the future year case as 

compared with the current year DVs. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

analyses conducted by ADEQ to support 

the proposed minor NSR permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels, we 

find that the increases in these values 

are not expected to interfere with 

attainment or reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. The scope of 

affected sources, permit actions, and the 

associated emissions that would be 

exempt from minor NSR permitting 

requirements based on the revised 

permitting thresholds and de minimis 

levels is a very small fraction of the 

statewide emissions inventory. In 

addition, since implementing the 

increased permitted thresholds/de 

minimis levels in 2008 for CO, VOC, 

NOX, SO2, and PM10, air quality in 

Arkansas has not been negatively 

impacted, and in many cases ambient 

concentrations have shown overall 

decreasing trends. We also find that the 

modeling analysis provided by ADEQ 

further supports the state’s finding that 

sources with emissions less than the 

revised minor NSR permitting 

thresholds and de minimis levels are not 

anticipated to have impacts that would 

cause or contribute to an exceedance of 

the NAAQS. In addition, de minimis 

changes are still required to meet minor 

Source Review requirements contained 

in Reg. 19, Chapter 4 including a 

demonstration that the proposed 

modification will not interfere with the 

attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS 

on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the 

EPA’s evaluation finds that the 

proposed revisions to the Arkansas SIP 

related to the revised minor NSR 

permitting thresholds and de minimis 

levels are consistent with the 

requirements found in Section 110(l) 

further supporting our proposed 

approval of the revisions included in 

the July 26, 2010 and March 24, 2017 

submittals that are evaluated in this 

action. 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA proposes approval of the 

identified sections of the revisions to 

the minor NSR permitting program as 

submitted as revisions to the Arkansas 

SIP on July 26, 2010, and March 24, 

2017, including supplement information 

submitted on November 30, 2015, May 

26, 2016, and July 27, 2017. The EPA 

has made a determination in accordance 

with the CAA and the EPA regulations 

at 40 CFR 51.160–51.165. Therefore, 

under section 110 and part C of the Act, 

and for the reasons presented above and 

in our accompanying TSD, the EPA 

proposes to approve the following 

revisions to the Arkansas SIP that 

submitted on July 26, 2010, and March 

24, 2017: 

• Revisions to Reg. 19.407 (submitted 

07/26/2010 and 03/24/2017); 

• Revisions to Reg. 19.407(C)(2)(a) 

and (b) (submitted 07/26/2010 and 03/ 

24/2017); and 

• Revisions to Reg. 19.417 (submitted 

07/26/2010). 

As previously stated, this proposed 

action does not remove or modify the 

existing federal and state requirements 

that each NSR permit action issued by 

ADEQ include an analysis completed by 

the Department and their determination 

that the proposed construction or 

modification authorized by the permit 

action will not interfere with attainment 

or maintenance of a national ambient air 

quality standard. 

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/or in 

hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office. 

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), 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and 13771 (82 FR 

9339, February 2, 2017); 

• 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). 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 12, 2017. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19716 Filed 9–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS