Proposed Rule2023-23254
Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas; Negative Declaration for Existing Sulfuric Acid Plants; Plan Revision for Existing Kraft Pulp Mills
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 23, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the CAA section 111(d) state plan revision submitted by the State of Arkansas for existing kraft pulp mills subject to the Kraft Pulp Mills Emission Guidelines (EG). The Arkansas section 111(d) plan revision for kraft pulp mills contains administrative changes to the state regulations and also aligns compliance testing requirements to be consistent with EPA's kraft pulp mills new source performance standards. EPA is also notifying the public that we have received a CAA section 111(d) negative declaration from Arkansas for existing sulfuric acid plants subject to the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG. This negative declaration certifies that existing sulfuric acid plants subject to the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG and the requirements of sections 111(d) of the CAA do not exist within Arkansas. The EPA is proposing to approve the state plan revision for existing kraft pulp mills, accept the negative declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants and withdraw approval of the Arkansas state plan for existing sulfuric acid plants, and amend the agency regulations in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 203 (Monday, October 23, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72723-72727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23254]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0984; FRL-11401-01-R6]
Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas; Negative Declaration
for Existing Sulfuric Acid Plants; Plan Revision for Existing Kraft
Pulp Mills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the CAA
section 111(d) state plan revision submitted by the State of Arkansas
for existing kraft pulp mills subject to the Kraft Pulp Mills Emission
Guidelines (EG). The Arkansas section 111(d) plan revision for kraft
pulp mills contains administrative changes to the state regulations and
also aligns compliance testing requirements to be consistent with EPA's
kraft pulp mills new source performance standards. EPA is also
notifying the public that we have received a CAA section 111(d)
negative declaration from Arkansas for existing sulfuric acid plants
subject to the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG. This negative declaration
certifies that existing sulfuric acid plants subject to the Sulfuric
Acid Plants EG and the requirements of sections 111(d) of the CAA do
not exist within Arkansas. The EPA is proposing to approve the state
plan revision for existing kraft pulp mills, accept the negative
declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants and withdraw approval of
the Arkansas state plan for existing sulfuric acid plants, and amend
the agency regulations in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 22,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2022-0984, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c4e495d521150595512575d4e535055525d7c594c5d125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="354740545b1859505c1b5e54475a595c5b54755045541b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Karolina Ruan Lei, (214)
665-7346, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d7f786c632061686423666c7f626164636c4d687d6c236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3a1a6b2bdfebfb6bafdb8b2a1bcbfbabdb293b6a3b2fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>. For the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6
Office, Air and Radiation Division--State Planning and Implementation
Branch, (214) 665-7346, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c3e392d226120292562272d3e232025222d0c293c2d622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="66141307084b0a030f480d0714090a0f08072603160748010910">[email protected]</span></a>. We encourage the
public to submit comments via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Please call
or email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
A. Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Requirements
Section 111 of the CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,'' directs the EPA to establish emission standards
for stationary sources of air pollution that could potentially endanger
public health or welfare. These standards are referred to as New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). Section 111(d) addresses the process by
which the EPA and states regulate standards of performance for existing
\1\ sources. When NSPS are promulgated for new sources, section 111(d)
and EPA regulations require that the EPA publish an Emission Guideline
(EG) to regulate the same pollutants from existing facilities. While
NSPS are directly applicable to new sources, EG for existing sources
(designated facilities) are intended for states to use to develop a
state plan to submit to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this context and for purposes under CAA section 111(d),
the term ``existing'' source is synonymous with designated facility.
These are sources that were constructed, reconstructed, or modified
on or before the date specified in the emission guideline the source
applies to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State plan submittals and revisions under CAA section 111(d) must
be consistent with the applicable EG and the requirements of 40 CFR
part 60, subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The regulations at 40 CFR
part 60, subpart B, contain general provisions applicable to the
adoption and submittal of state plans and plan revisions under CAA
section 111(d). Additionally, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, provides the
procedural framework by which the EPA will approve or disapprove such
plans and plan revisions submitted by a state. Once approved by the
EPA, the state plan or plan revision becomes federally enforceable. If
a state does not submit an approvable state plan to the EPA, the EPA is
responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing a Federal plan.
However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if there are no
existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state
may submit a letter of certification to that effect (i.e., negative
declaration) in lieu of a plan. The negative declaration exempts the
state from the requirements of subpart B that require the submittal of
a CAA section 111(d) plan.
[[Page 72724]]
B. Emission Guidelines for Kraft Pulp Mills and Sulfuric Acid Plants
Under CAA section 111(d), EPA has issued EGs regulating specific
pollutants from specified source categories that remain in effect,
including EGs for the control of total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions
from kraft pulp mills and the control of sulfuric acid mist emissions
from sulfuric acid plants. TRS emissions \2\ are considered a welfare-
related pollutant, while sulfuric acid mist emissions are considered a
health-related pollutant under section 111(d) and 40 CFR part 60,
subpart B. The Kraft Pulp Mills EG applies to kraft pulp mills \3\ that
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before
September 24, 1976, while the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG applies to
sulfuric acid plants \4\ that commenced construction or modification on
or before August 17, 1971. The EGs for kraft pulp mills and sulfuric
acid plants have not been revised since their issuance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As defined under 40 CFR 60.281(c): ``Total reduced sulfur
(TRS) means the sum of the sulfur compounds hydrogen sulfide, methyl
mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide, that are
released during the kraft pulping operation and measured by Method
16.''
\3\ As defined under 40 CFR 60.281(a): ``Kraft pulp mill means
any stationary source which produces pulp from wood by cooking
(digesting) wood chips in a water solution of sodium hydroxide and
sodium sulfide (white liquor) at high temperature and pressure.
Regeneration of the cooking chemicals through a recovery process is
also considered part of the kraft pulp mill.''
\4\ As defined under 40 CFR 60.81(a): ``Sulfuric acid production
unit means any facility producing sulfuric acid by the contact
process by burning elemental sulfur, alkylation acid, hydrogen
sulfide, organic sulfides and mercaptans, or acid sludge, but does
not include facilities where conversion to sulfuric acid is utilized
primarily as a means of preventing emissions to the atmosphere of
sulfur dioxide or other sulfur compounds.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New kraft pulp mills and sulfuric acid plants that commenced
construction, reconstruction, or modification after the specified dates
are subject to stricter standards under their respective NSPS at 40 CFR
part 60, subpart BB or BBa, and subpart H. For more information, see
``Kraft Pulp Mills, Notice of Availability of Final Guideline
Document,'' 44 FR 29828 (May 22, 1979),\5\ and ``Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources; Emission Guideline for Sulfuric
Acid Mist,'' 42 FR 55796 (October 18, 1977).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See also ``Kraft Pulping, Control of TRS Emissions from
Existing Mills'', US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), EPA-45012-78-003b, March 1979 (``Kraft Pulp Mills
Emission Guidelines (EG)'').
\6\ See also ``Final Guideline Document: Control of Sulfuric
Acid Mist Emission From Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units'',
EPA-450/2-77-019, OAQPS No. 1.2-078, September 1977 (``Sulfuric Acid
Plants Emission Guidelines (EG)''). The Sulfuric Acid Plants EG are
also codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cd, ``Emissions Guidelines
and Compliance Times for Sulfuric Acid Production Units''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Arkansas CAA Section 111(d) Plan Approval History
Arkansas followed EPA's EGs and guidance documents when developing
its CAA section 111(d) plans. Arkansas's section 111(d) plan for the
control of sulfuric acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants was
approved by EPA on May 12, 1982 (47 FR 20490). Arkansas's section
111(d) plan for control of TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills was
approved by EPA on September 12, 1984 (49 FR 35771); the compliance
schedule for the kraft pulp mills plan was separately approved on
November 10, 1986 (51 FR 40802). Revisions to Arkansas's section 111(d)
plans for sulfuric acid plants and kraft pulp mills were approved on
March 10, 1998 (63 FR 11608).
D. Arkansas CAA Section 111(d) Submittals for This Rulemaking
Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment's Division of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted revisions to Arkansas's CAA
section 111(d) plan on June 20, 2022, and supplemented its submittal on
August 24, 2022, and August 31, 2022.\7\ In its section 111(d)
submittal, Arkansas provided for EPA's review (1) Arkansas's state plan
for existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, which addressed the
2016 MSW landfills EG requirements; (2) revisions to Arkansas's plan
for existing sulfuric acid plants, which include a request for EPA to
withdraw approval of that plan and accept the State's negative
declaration for those types of facilities; and (3) revisions to
Arkansas's plan for existing kraft pulp mills. EPA took separate action
to approve Arkansas's section 111(d) plan for existing MSW landfills on
December 29, 2022 (87 FR 80076). This proposed rulemaking is acting on
the portion of the June 20, 2022 submittal pertaining to revisions to
Arkansas's section 111(d) plans for existing kraft pulp mills and
sulfuric acid plants, as well as the associated negative declaration
for existing sulfuric acid plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Arkansas plans submitted by ADEQ does not cover sources
located in Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The EPA's Evaluation
A. Sulfuric Acid Plants Negative Declaration and Withdrawal of Approval
of Sulfuric Acid Plan
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APC&EC) Rule 19:
``Rules of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution
Control'', Chapter 8: ``111(d) Designated Facilities'' originally
contained Arkansas's provisions for implementing certain CAA section
111(d) EGs, including the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG. In its June 20, 2022
submittal, Arkansas removed the provisions in Rule 19.803, which were
specific to the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG, and provided a negative
declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants.
The Arkansas plan for existing sulfuric acid plants, as approved by
the EPA on May 12, 1982 had two designated facilities subject to that
plan at the time, the Olin Corporation and the Monsanto Company (now El
Dorado Chemical Company). A 1998 plan revision was approved to remove
the Olin Corporation, which had closed, and reflect a name change for
the El Dorado Chemical Company. The El Dorado facility later underwent
reconstruction and is now subject to the NSPS for sulfuric acid plants
at 40 CFR part 60, subpart H. Since the El Dorado Chemical Company is
no longer subject to the EG for existing sulfuric acid plants, and
because there are no longer any subject facilities in Arkansas,
Arkansas requests that EPA withdraw approval of the Arkansas section
111(d) plan for sulfuric acid plants and accept the negative
declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants.
EPA proposes to agree with Arkansas's determination that due to the
reconstruction of the El Dorado Chemical Company, this facility is no
longer considered a designated facility subject to the Sulfuric Acid
Plants EG. EPA also proposes that approval of the Arkansas section
111(d) plan for sulfuric acid plants can be withdrawn as there are no
longer any existing sulfuric acid plants in the State of Arkansas.
B. Kraft Pulp Mills Plan Revision
The Arkansas regulations implementing the requirements of the Kraft
Pulp Mills EG are codified in APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8, with specific
requirements for existing kraft pulp mills outlined in Rule 19.804.
Since the Arkansas plan and plan revision for existing kraft pulp mills
were approved by EPA on September 12, 1984, and March 10, 1998,
Arkansas made additional changes to the state regulations implementing
the Kraft Pulp Mills EG requirements at APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8.
Changes to APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8, as adopted through January 28,
2022 by APC&EC, were submitted to EPA for review in Arkansas's June 20,
2022 submittal.
The amendments to APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8 include name changes
and
[[Page 72725]]
removal of the International Paper Company, Camden Facility (permit
voided March 1, 2001), from the list of sources subject to the
requirements as the facility is permanently closed. The amendments also
realign the frequency of TRS compliance testing from annually to every
five years, consistent with the requirements for new kraft pulp mills
under 40 CFR, part 60, subpart BBa. EPA notes that the kraft pulp mills
provisions in Arkansas's revised plan provide that compliance testing
is not required for units with a continuous TRS emissions monitor, and
that these facilities are required by the plan to have equipment
installed for continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) for TRS. This
provision to require CEM for existing kraft pulp mills and waiving of
compliance testing requirements for units with CEM has not changed from
the previously EPA-approved plan for existing kraft pulp mills. The
amendments adopted into Rule 19 also include additional non-substantive
stylistic and formatting changes.
EPA's detailed discussion and rationale of the Arkansas kraft pulp
mill plan revision can be found in in the EPA Technical Support
Document (TSD) for this proposed rule, which is available in the
docket. The TSD also contains a comparison of the 1998 EPA-approved
Arkansas kraft pulp mills plan provisions and the June 20, 2022 plan
provisions. EPA proposes to approve the revisions to the Arkansas kraft
pulp mills plan submitted on June 20, 2022 as meeting applicable
Federal requirements under the Kraft Pulp Mills EG and the implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve the state plan revision for existing
kraft pulp mills, accept the negative declaration for existing sulfuric
acid plants and withdraw approval of the Arkansas state plan for
existing sulfuric acid plants, and amend the agency regulations at 40
CFR part 62, subpart E, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
EPA proposes that this action meets CAA section 111(d) requirements for
plan revisions, negative declarations, and plan approval withdrawals in
accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A,
and the applicable guidance and EG requirements.
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
Information on Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and how EPA defines
environmental justice can be found in the section titled ``Statutory
and Executive Order Reviews'' in this proposed rule. EPA is providing
additional analysis of environmental justice associated with this
action. The results of this analysis are being provided for
informational and transparency purposes, not as a basis of our proposed
action.
EPA conducted screening analyses using EJSCREEN, an environmental
justice mapping and screening tool that provides EPA with a nationally
consistent dataset and approach for combining various environmental and
demographic indicators.\8\ The EJSCREEN tool presents these indicators
at a Census block group (CBG) level or a larger user-specified
``buffer'' area that covers multiple CBGs.\9\ An individual CBG is a
cluster of contiguous blocks within the same census tract and generally
contains between 600 and 3,000 people. EJSCREEN is not a tool for
performing in-depth risk analysis, but is instead a screening tool that
provides an initial representation of indicators related to
environmental justice and is subject to uncertainty in some underlying
data (e.g., some environmental indicators are based on monitoring data
which are not uniformly available; others are based on self-reported
data).\10\ To help mitigate this uncertainty, we have summarized
EJSCREEN data within larger ``buffer'' areas covering multiple block
groups and representing the average resident within the buffer areas
surrounding the sources. We present EJSCREEN environmental indicators
to help screen for locations where residents may experience a higher
overall pollution burden than would be expected for a block group with
the same total population. These indicators of overall pollution burden
include estimates of ambient particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) and
ozone concentration, a score for traffic proximity and volume,
percentage of pre-1960 housing units (lead paint indicator), and scores
for proximity to Superfund sites, risk management plan (RMP) sites, and
hazardous waste facilities.\11\ EJSCREEN also provides information on
demographic indicators, including percent low-income, communities of
color, linguistic isolation, and education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The EJSCREEN tool is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen">https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen</a>.
\9\ See <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html">https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html</a>.
\10\ In addition, EJSCREEN relies on the five-year block group
estimates from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. The
advantage of using five-year over single-year estimates is increased
statistical reliability of the data (i.e., lower sampling error),
particularly for small geographic areas and population groups. For
more information, see <a href="https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_general_handbook_2020.pdf">https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_general_handbook_2020.pdf</a>.
\11\ For additional information on environmental indicators and
proximity scores in EJSCREEN, see ``EJSCREEN Environmental Justice
Mapping and Screening Tool: EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,''
Chapter 3 (October 2022) at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/ejscreen_technical_document.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/ejscreen_technical_document.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA prepared EJSCREEN reports covering a buffer area of
approximately 3-mile radii and 6-mile radii for areas with insufficient
population data around each of the existing kraft pulp mills identified
by ADEQ as subject to the CAA section 111(d) plan for kraft pulp mills.
Table 1 presents a summary of results from the EPA's screening-level
analysis for the areas surrounding each existing kraft pulp mill in
Arkansas compared to the U.S. as a whole, where the kraft pulp mill was
located in an area where more than one of the EJ indices were greater
than the 80th percentiles. The full, detailed EJSCREEN report is
provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 1--EJSCREEN Analysis Summary for Existing Arkansas Kraft Pulp Mills With EJ Indices Above 80%ile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values for buffer areas (radius) for each kraft pulp mill and the U.S. (percentile within U.S. where indicated)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variables Georgia- Pacific
Evergreen Packing Twin Rivers Pine Bluff Corporation (Ashley, Domtar A.W. (Little U.S.
(Jefferson, 3 miles) (Jefferson, 3 miles) 3 miles) River, 3 miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollution Burden Indicators:
[[Page 72726]]
Particulate matter (PM2.5), 9.33 [micro]g/m\3\ 9.36 [micro]g/m\3\ 9.21 [micro]g/m\3\ 9.72 [micro]g/m\3\ 8.67 [micro]g/m\3\ (--
annual average. (72nd %ile). (72nd %ile). (68th %ile). (80th %ile). ).
Ozone, summer seasonal average 40.1 ppb (32nd %ile).. 40.3 ppb (33rd %ile).. 38.3 ppb (22nd %ile). 40.8 ppb (36th %ile). 42.5 ppb (--).
of daily 8-hour max.
Traffic proximity and volume 180 (44th %ile)....... 210 (47th %ile)....... 48 (23rd %ile)....... 75 (29th %ile)....... 760 (--).
score *.
Lead paint (percentage pre-1960 0.21% (49th %ile)..... 0.27% (55th %ile)..... 0.38% (64th %ile).... 0.17% (44th %ile).... 0.27% (--).
housing).
Superfund proximity score *.... 0.013 (8th %ile)...... 0.014 (9th %ile)...... 0.027 (26th %ile).... 0.035 (33rd %ile).... 0.13 (--).
RMP proximity score *.......... 0.14 (25th %ile)...... 0.29 (48th %ile)...... 0.88 (72nd %ile)..... 0.65 (65th %ile)..... 0.77 (--).
Hazardous waste proximity score 0.23 (34th %ile)...... 1.1 (58th %ile)....... 1.7 (67th %ile)...... 0.041 (7th %ile)..... 2.2 (--).
*.
Demographic Indicators:
People of color population..... 79% (83rd %ile)....... 82% (84th %ile)....... 40% (59th %ile)...... 40% (59th %ile)...... 40% (--).
Low-income population.......... 52% (82nd %ile)....... 57% (86th %ile)....... 49% (79th %ile)...... 47% (77th %ile)...... 30% (--).
Linguistically isolated 0% (0th %ile)......... 0% (0th %ile)......... 0% (0th %ile)........ 0% (0th %ile)........ 5% (--).
population.
Population with less than high 9% (51st %ile)........ 16% (73rd %ile)....... 14% (68th %ile)...... 10% (57th %ile)...... 12% (--).
school education.
Population under 5 years of age 4% (39th %ile)........ 7% (66th %ile)........ 4% (39th %ile)....... 8% (76th %ile)....... 6%.
Population over 64 years of age 16% (53rd %ile)....... 10% (27th %ile)....... 22% (72nd %ile)...... 21% (70th %ile)...... 16% (--).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The traffic proximity and volume indicator is a score calculated by daily traffic count divided by distance in meters to the road. The Superfund
proximity, RMP proximity, and hazardous waste proximity indicators are all scores calculated by site or facility counts divided by distance in
kilometers.
This proposed action is proposing to approve Arkansas's June 20,
2022 CAA section 111(d) plan revision \12\ for kraft pulp mills and
accept Arkansas's negative declaration for existing sulfuric acid
plants; changes from the previously approved Arkansas plan for kraft
pulp mills are discussed under the section titled ``The EPA's
Evaluation'' in this proposed rule. As mentioned previously in this
rulemaking, total reduced sulfur (TRS) is considered a welfare-related
pollutant. Information on TRS and its relationship to negative health
impacts can be found at the Federal Register document titled ``Kraft
Pulp Mills, Notice of Availability of Final Guideline Document'' (44 FR
29828, May 22, 1979).\13\ We expect that this action will generally
have neutral environmental and health impacts on all populations,
including people of color and low-income populations, in Arkansas that
are located near an existing kraft pulp mill. At a minimum, this action
would not worsen any existing air quality and is expected to ensure the
area is meeting requirements to attain air quality standards. Further,
there is no information in the record indicating that this action is
expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on a particular group of people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As supplemented on August 24, 2022, and August 31, 2022.
\13\ See also, the Kraft Pulp Mills EG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to the Arkansas regulations as described in the
section titled ``Proposed Action'' in this proposed rule. The Arkansas
regulations at APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8, 111(d) Designated Facilities,
contain Arkansas's CAA section 111(d) plan provisions for existing
kraft pulp mills. We have made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA
section 111(d) submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429;
40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus,
in reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions, EPA's role is
to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason:
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by
Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), and was therefore
not
[[Page 72727]]
subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it does not contain any
information collection activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
This action is certified to not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). This action will approve plan revisions and accept negative
declarations pursuant to CAA section 111(d) and will therefore have no
net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action will not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe
has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rulemaking does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental
health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per the definitions of ``covered
regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive order. Therefore,
this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves
a state program.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution and Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action
is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. The EPA performed an environmental justice analysis, as
described in the section titled ``Environmental Justice
Considerations'' in this proposed rule. The analysis was done for the
purpose of providing additional context and information about this
rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the
nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have
a neutral impact on the air quality of the affected area. In addition,
there is no information in the record upon which this action is based
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 16, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2023-23254 Filed 10-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 23, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.