Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14847

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Dated: March 2, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, January 21, 2011); John W. Busterud, identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 Regional Administrator, Region IX. OAR–2015–0189, at http:// FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory [FR Doc. 2020–05331 Filed 3–13–20; 8:45 am] www.regulations.gov or via email to _ action because SIP approvals are BILLING CODE 6560–50–P R6AIR [email protected]. Follow the exempted under Executive Order 12866; online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments • Does not impose an information ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION cannot be edited or removed from collection burden under the provisions AGENCY Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 any comment received to its public U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 40 CFR Part 52 docket. Do not submit any information • Is certified as not having a [EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0189; FRL–10006– electronically that is considered to be significant economic impact on a 02–Region 6] Confidential Business Information (CBI) substantial number of small entities or other information whose disclosure is under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Arkansas restricted by statute. Multimedia U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Regional Haze and Visibility Transport submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be • Does not contain any unfunded State Implementation Plan Revisions accompanied by a written comment. mandate or significantly or uniquely and Withdrawal of Federal The written comment is considered the affect small governments, as described Implementation Plan official comment with multimedia in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act AGENCY: Environmental Protection submissions and should include all of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Agency (EPA). discussion points desired. The EPA will generally not consider comments or • Does not have federalism ACTION: Proposed rule. implications as specified in Executive their contents located outside of the Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act primary submission (i.e., on the web, 1999); (CAA or the Act), the Environmental cloud, or other file sharing systems). For Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to additional submission methods, please • Is not an economically significant approve a revision to the Arkansas State contact James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745, regulatory action based on health or Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by [email protected]. For the full EPA safety risks subject to Executive Order the State of Arkansas through the public comment policy, information 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Arkansas Division of Environmental about CBI or multimedia submissions, • Is not a significant regulatory action Quality (ADEQ) on August 13, 2019. and general guidance on making subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR The SIP submittal addresses effective comments, please visit https:// 28355, May 22, 2001); requirements of the Act and the www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa- • Is not subject to requirements of Regional Haze Rule for visibility dockets. Section 12(d) of the National protection in mandatory Class I Federal Docket: The index to the docket for Technology Transfer and Advancement areas (Class I areas) for the first this action is available electronically at Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because implementation period. The EPA is www.regulations.gov and in hard copy application of those requirements would proposing to approve an alternative at the EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; measure to best available retrofit Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270–2102. and technology (BART) for sulfur dioxide While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information • Does not provide the EPA with the (SO2), particulate matter (PM), and may be publicly available only at the discretionary authority to address nitrogen oxide (NOX) at the Domtar hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted disproportionate human health or Ashdown Mill and elements of the SIP material), and some may not be publicly environmental effects with practical, submittal that relate to these BART available at either location (e.g., CBI). appropriate, and legally permissible requirements at this facility. In addition, methods under Executive Order 12898 we are proposing to approve the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). withdrawal from the SIP the previously James E. Grady, EPA Region 6 Office, approved PM10 BART limit and the Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 1201 In addition, the SIP is not approved federal implementation plan (FIP) Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 72570, to apply on any Indian reservation land provisions for the Domtar Ashdown 214–665–6745; [email protected]. or in any other area where the EPA or Mill. The EPA is also concurrently To inspect the hard copy materials, an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a proposing to approve Arkansas’ please schedule an appointment with tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of interstate visibility transport provisions Mr. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665– Indian country, the rule does not have from the August 10, 2018, regional haze 7253. tribal implications and will not impose SIP submittal as supplemented by the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: substantial direct costs on tribal visibility transport provisions in the Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ governments or preempt tribal law as October 4, 2019, interstate transport SIP or ‘‘our’’ mean ‘‘the EPA.’’ specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 submittal, which covers the following FR 67249, November 9, 2000). national ambient air quality standards Table of Contents List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 (NAAQS): The 2006 24-hour fine I. Background particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS; the A. Regional Haze Principles Environmental protection, Air 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2008 B. Requirements of the CAA and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule pollution control, Incorporation by and 2015 eight-hour ozone (O3) NAAQS; reference, Intergovernmental relations, the 2010 one-hour nitrogen dioxide C. BART Requirements D. BART Alternative Requirements Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and (NO2) NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour recordkeeping requirements, Volatile E. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable SO2 NAAQS. Progress Requirements organic compounds. DATES: Written comments must be F. Previous Actions on Arkansas Regional Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. received on or before April 15, 2020. Haze

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14848 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

G. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Fine particulates which cause haze are that would exist under estimated 2¥ ¥ 5 Submittal sulfates (SO4 ), nitrates (NO3 ), natural conditions. In most of the H. Arkansas Visibility Transport organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon eastern Class I areas of the United II. Evaluation of the Arkansas Regional Haze (EC), and soil dust.2 PM precursors States, the average visual range was less Phase III SIP Submittal 2.5 A. Summary of Arkansas’ BART consist of SO2, NOX, volatile organic than 30 km, or about one-fifth of the Alternative for Domtar Ashdown Mill compounds (VOCs), and in some cases, visual range that would exist under B. Demonstration That BART Alternative ammonia (NH3). Airborne PM2.5 can estimated natural conditions. Since the Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress scatter and absorb the incident light promulgation of the original Regional 1. List All BART-Eligible Sources Within and, therefore, lead to atmospheric Haze Rule in 1999, CAA programs have the State opacity and horizontal visibility reduced emissions of haze-causing 2. List All BART-Eligible Sources and degradation. Regional haze limits visual pollution, lessening visibility Source Categories Covered by the distance and reduces color, clarity, and impairment and resulting in improved Alternative Program contrast of view. PM can cause serious 6 3. Analysis of BART and Associated 2.5 average visual ranges. Emission Reductions adverse health effects and mortality in humans. It also contributes to B. Requirements of the CAA and the 4. Analysis of Projected Emission EPA’s Regional Haze Rule Reductions Achievable Through BART environmental effects such as acid Alternative deposition and eutrophication. In section 169A, enacted as part of the 5. Determination That Alternative Emissions that affect visibility include a 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress wide variety of natural and man-made created a program for protecting than BART sources. Natural sources can include visibility in the nation’s national parks C. Requirement That Emission Reductions windblown dust and soot from and wilderness areas. This section of the Take Place During the Period of the First CAA establishes as a national goal the Long-Term Strategy wildfires. Man-made sources can D. Demonstration That Emission include major and minor stationary prevention of any future, and the Reductions From Alternative Measure sources, mobile sources, and area remedying of any existing, visibility Will Be Surplus sources. Reducing PM2.5 and its impairment in mandatory Class I E. Implementation of the BART Alternative precursor gases in the atmosphere is an Federal areas where impairment results Through Permit Conditions effective method of improving visibility. from manmade air pollution. Congress F. EPA’s Conclusion on Arkansas’ BART Data from the existing visibility added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 Alternative Determination for Domtar monitoring network, ‘‘Interagency that added visibility protection G. Consultation With States and Federal Monitoring of Protected Visual provisions, and the EPA promulgated Land Managers III. Evaluation of Arkansas’ Long-Term Environments’’ (IMPROVE), shows that final regulations addressing regional Strategy Provisions for Domtar Ashdown visibility impairment caused by air haze as part of the 1999 Regional Haze Mill pollution occurs virtually all of the time Rule, which was most recently updated IV. Evaluation of Reasonable Progress at most national parks and wilderness in 2017.7 The Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Domtar Ashdown Mill areas. In 1999, the average visual range 3 revised the existing 1980 visibility V. Evaluation of Arkansas Visibility in many mandatory Class I Federal regulations and established a more Transport areas 4 in the western United States was comprehensive visibility protection A. Fully-Approved Regional Haze SIP To 100–150 kilometers (km), or about one- program for Class I areas. The Meet Visibility Transport Requirement B. Alternative Demonstration To Meet half to two-thirds of the visual range requirements for regional haze, found at Visibility Transport Requirement 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included C. EPA’s Conclusion on Arkansas Visibility rapidly than fine particles and usually will be in the EPA’s broader visibility Transport found relatively close to emission sources. Fine protection regulations at 40 CFR particles can be transported long distances by wind VI. Evaluation of CAA Section 110(1) and can be found in the air thousands of miles from 51.300–309. The regional haze VII. Proposed Action where they were formed. regulations require states to demonstrate A. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP 2 Organic carbon can be emitted directly as reasonable progress toward meeting the Submittal particles or formed through reactions involving national goal of a return to natural B. FIP Withdrawal gaseous emissions. Elemental carbon, in contrast to visibility conditions for Class I areas by C. Arkansas Visibility Transport organic carbon, is exclusively of primary origin and D. CAA Section 110(1) emitted by the incomplete combustion of carbon- 2064. The CAA requirement in section VIII. Incorporation by Reference based fuels. Elemental carbon particles are 169A(b)(2) to submit a regional haze SIP IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews especially prevalent in diesel exhaust and smoke applies to all fifty states, the District of from wild and prescribed fires. Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States I. Background 3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in km or miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against were required to submit the first A. Regional Haze Principles the sky by a typical observer. implementation plan addressing 4 Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of visibility impairment caused by regional Regional haze is visibility impairment national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness haze no later than December 17, 2007.8 that is produced by a multitude of areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in sources and activities that are located 5 existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 1999). across a broad geographic area and emit 6 An interactive story map depicting efforts and 1 consultation with the Department of Interior, fine particulates (PM2.5) into the air. promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility was recent progress by the EPA and states to improve identified as an important value. The extent of a visibility at national parks and wilderness areas 1 Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5 mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes may be visited at: http://arcg.is/29tAbS3. microns (mm) in diameter and usually form in boundaries, such as park expansions. Although 7 See the July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final secondary in nature indirectly from other sources. states and tribes may designate additional areas as action (64 FR 35714), as amended on July 6, 2005 Particles less than or equal to 10 mm in diameter Class I, the requirements of the visibility program (70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60631), June are referred to as PM10. Particles greater than PM2.5 set forth in the CAA applies only to mandatory 7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and on January 10, 2017 (82 but less than PM10 are referred to as coarse mass. Class I Federal areas. Each mandatory Class I FR 3079). Coarse mass can contribute to light extinction as Federal area is the responsibility of a Federal Land 8 See 40 CFR 51.308(b). Also, under 40 CFR well and is made up of primary particles directly Manager (FLM). When the term ‘‘Class I area’’ is 51.308(f)–(i), the EPA requires subsequent updates emitted into the air. Fine particles tend to be man- used in this action, it means ‘‘mandatory Class I to the regional haze SIPs for each implementation made, while coarse particles tend to have a natural Federal areas.’’ See 44 FR 69122 (November 30, period. The next update for the second origin. Coarse mass settles out from the air more 1979) and CAA Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i). implementation period is due by July 31, 2021.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14849

C. BART Requirements reasonable progress than would be attempt to make use of all available Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA achieved through the installation and information and data which can inform directs states to evaluate the use of operation of BART. In order to a decision while recognizing the relative BART controls at certain categories of demonstrate that the alternative strengths and weaknesses of that existing major stationary sources built program achieves greater reasonable information in arriving at the soundest 14 between 1962 and 1977.9 Under 40 CFR progress than source-specific BART, a decision possible. This array of 51.308(e)(1)(ii), any BART-eligible state must demonstrate that its SIP information and other relevant data source 10 that is reasonably anticipated meets the requirements in 40 CFR must be of sufficient quality to inform 13 to cause or contribute to visibility 51.308(e)(2)(i) to (iv). The state must the comparison of visibility impacts impairment in a Class I area is classified conduct an analysis of the best system between BART and the alternative. A as subject-to-BART.11 States are directed of continuous emission control weight of evidence comparison may be to conduct BART determinations for technology available and the associated warranted when there is confidence that each source classified as subject-to- reductions for each source subject-to- the difference in visibility impacts BART. These large, often under- BART covered by the alternative between BART and the alternative scenarios are expected to be large controlled, older stationary sources are program. enough to show that an alternative is required to procure, install, and operate Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), better than BART. The EPA will BART controls to address visibility the state must provide a determination carefully consider this evidence in impacts. The determination must be under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise evaluating any SIPs submitted by States based on an analysis of the best system based on ‘‘clear weight of evidence’’ that employing such an approach. of continuous emission control the alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR Finally, under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii) technology available and associated and (iv), all emission reductions for the emission reductions achievable. States 51.308(e)(3) provides two specific tests applicable under specific circumstances alternative program must take place are required to identify the level of during the period of the first long-term control representing BART after for determining whether the alternative measure achieves greater reasonable strategy for regional haze, and all the considering the five statutory factors set emission reductions resulting from the 12 progress than BART. Under the first test, out in CAA section 169A(g)(2). States alternative program must be surplus to must establish emission limits, a if the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under those reductions resulting from schedule of compliance, and other measures adopted to meet requirements measures consistent with the BART BART, and the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, of the CAA as of the baseline date of the determination process for each source SIP. These requirements are discussed subject-to-BART. then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable in more detail in subsequent sections of D. BART Alternative Requirements progress. Under the second test, if the this proposed action. A State may opt to implement or distribution of emissions is significantly E. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable require participation in an emissions different, then the State must conduct Progress Requirements dispersion modeling to determine the trading program or other alternative In addition to BART requirements, 40 difference in visibility between BART measure rather than require sources CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i to iv) requires each and the alternative measure for each subject-to-BART to install, operate, and state to include in its SIP a long-term impacted Class I area, for the twenty maintain BART. Such an emissions strategy for the planning period that trading program or other alternative percent best and worst days. The addresses regional haze visibility measure must achieve greater modeling would demonstrate greater impairment for each Class I area located reasonable progress if both of the within the state and outside the state 9 See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(7), which lists the 26 following two criteria are met: (i) that may be affected by emissions source categories of major stationary sources Visibility does not decline in any Class generated from within the state. The potentially subject-to-BART. I area, and (ii) there is an overall 10 long-term strategy is the vehicle for BART-eligible sources are those sources that improvement in visibility, determined fall within one of 26 source categories that began ensuring continuing reasonable progress operation on or after August 7, 1962, and were in by comparing the average difference toward achieving natural visibility existence on August 7, 1977, with potential between BART and the alternative over conditions. It is a compilation of all emissions greater than 250 tons per year (tpy). (See all affected Class I areas. control measures in the SIP that a state 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, section II). Alternatively, under 40 CFR 11 will use during the implementation Under the BART Guidelines, states may select 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), states may show based a visibility impact threshold, measured in period to meet the applicable reasonable deciviews (dv), below which a BART-eligible on ‘‘clear weight of evidence’’ that the progress goals (RPGs) established under source would not be expected to cause or contribute alternative achieves greater reasonable 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) for each Class I to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The progress than would be achieved area.15 The RPGs established by the State must document this threshold in the SIP and through the installation and operation of specify the basis for its selection of that value. Any source with visibility impacts that model above the BART at the covered sources. As stated 14 See 71 FR 60612, 60622 (October 13, 2006). threshold value would be subject to a BART in the EPA’s revisions to the Regional Factors which can be used in a weight of evidence determination review. The BART Guidelines Haze Rule governing alternatives to determination in this context may include, but not acknowledge varying circumstances affecting source-specific BART determinations, be limited to, future projected emissions levels different Class I areas. States should consider the under the alternative as compared to under BART; number of emission sources affecting the Class I weight of evidence demonstrations future projected visibility conditions under the two areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual scenarios; the geographic distribution of sources sources’ impacts. Any visibility impact threshold 13 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(ii) is reserved. Under 40 likely to reduce or increase emissions under the set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv. CFR 51.308(e)(2)(v), ‘‘At the State’s option, a alternative as compared to BART sources; (See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1). provision that the emissions trading program or monitoring data and emissions inventories; and 12 The State must take into consideration the five other alternative measure may include a geographic sensitivity analyses of any models used. statutory factors: (1) Costs of compliance, (2) the enhancement to the program to address the 15 See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i to iv). For the first energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, requirement under 40 CFR 51.302(b) or (c) related planning period, contributing and impacted states (3) any existing control technology present at the to reasonably attributable impairment from the must develop coordinated emission management source, (4) the remaining useful life of the source, pollutants covered under the emissions trading strategies. Impacted states must demonstrate that and (5) the degree of visibility improvement. program or other alternative measure.’’ Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14850 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

State provide an assessment of the and associated RPGs for each applicable Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.22 Among visibility improvement anticipated to Class I area. We commonly refer to this other things, the FIP established SO2, 16 result for that planning period. as the ‘‘reasonable progress analysis’’ or NOX, and PM10 emission limits under Section 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that a ‘‘four-factor analysis.’’ the BART requirements for nine units at state consider certain minimum factors six facilities: Arkansas Electric F. Previous Actions on Arkansas (the long-term strategy factors) in Cooperative Corporation (AECC) Carl E. Regional Haze developing its long-term strategy for Bailey Plant Unit 1 Boiler; AECC John each Class I area.17 States have The State of Arkansas submitted a L. McClellan Plant Unit 1 Boiler; significant flexibility in establishing regional haze SIP on September 9, 2008, American Electric Power/Southwestern RPGs but must determine whether intended to address the requirements of Electric Power Company (AEP/ additional measures beyond BART and the first regional haze implementation SWEPCO) Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. other controls are needed for reasonable period. On August 3, 2010, the State 1; Entergy 23 Lake Catherine Plant Unit progress during the first planning period submitted a SIP revision with mostly 4 Boiler; Entergy White Bluff Plant based on a consideration of the non-substantive changes that addressed Units 1 and 2 Boilers and the Auxiliary following four reasonable progress Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Boiler; and the Domtar Ashdown Mill factors set out in section 169A(g)(1) of Commission (APCEC) Regulation 19, Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. The FIP also 19 the CAA: (1) The costs of compliance; Chapter 15. On September 27, 2011, established SO2 and NOX emission (2) the time necessary for compliance; the State submitted a supplemental limits under the reasonable progress (3) the energy and non-air quality letter that clarified several aspects of the requirements for the Entergy environmental impacts of compliance; 2008 submittal. The EPA collectively Independence Plant Units 1 and 2. and (4) the remaining useful life of any refers to the original 2008 submittal, the Following petitions for potentially affected sources.18 States supplemental letter, and the 2010 reconsideration 24 submitted by the must demonstrate in their regional haze revision together as the 2008 Arkansas State, industry, and ratepayers, on April SIPs how these factors are considered Regional Haze SIP. On March 12, 2012, 25, 2017, the EPA issued a partial when selecting their long-term strategies the EPA partially approved and partially administrative stay of the effectiveness disapproved the 2008 Arkansas of the FIP for ninety days.25 During that they have included all measures necessary in their Regional Haze SIP.20 Specifically, the period, Arkansas started to address the SIPs to obtain their share of emission reductions EPA disapproved certain BART disapproved portions of its regional needed to meet the RPGs for a Class I area. States compliance dates; the State’s haze SIP through several phases of SIP must document the technical basis that they relied upon to determine the apportionment of emission identification of certain BART-eligible revisions. On July 12, 2017, the State reduction obligations necessary and identify the sources and subject-to-BART sources; submitted its proposed Phase I SIP baseline emissions inventory on which their certain BART determinations for NOX, submittal (the Arkansas Regional Haze strategies are based. States must also identify all SO2, and PM10; the State’s reasonable NO SIP revision) to address NO BART anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment X X considered in developing the strategy, such as progress analysis; and a portion of the requirements for all electric generating major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, State’s long-term strategy. The units (EGUs) and the reasonable and area sources. remaining provisions of the 2008 progress requirements with respect to 16 The process for setting RPGs is as follows: (1) Arkansas Regional Haze SIP were NOX. These NOX provisions were Identify sources that impact visibility; (2) evaluate approved. The final partial disapproval potential controls based on consideration of the previously disapproved by the EPA in four reasonable progress factors; (3) project the started a two-year FIP clock that our 2012 final action on the 2008 visibility conditions based on implementation of obligated the EPA to either approve a Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The on-the-books and additional selected controls; (4) SIP revision and/or promulgate a FIP to Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP compare the projected visibility conditions to the uniform rate of progress (URP) needed to attain address the disapproved portions of the submittal replaced all source-specific 21 natural visibility conditions by year 2064 for each action. Because a SIP revision NOX BART determinations for EGUs Class I area; (5) determine an RPG for each Class addressing the deficiencies was not established in the FIP with reliance I area based on this analysis that will improve the approved and the FIP clock expired in upon the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule visibility at or beyond the URP on the most impaired days and ensure no degradation for the April 2014, the EPA promulgated a FIP (CSAPR) emissions trading program for least impaired days. The Regional Haze Rule allows (the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP) on O3 season NOX as an alternative to NOX for the selection of an RPG at a given Class I area September 27, 2016, to address the BART. The SIP submittal addressed the that provides for a slower rate of improvement than disapproved portions of the 2008 NOX BART requirements for Bailey Unit the URP for that area, but in that case a state must demonstrate that the URP is not reasonable and that 1, McClellan Unit 1, Flint Creek Boiler the RPG selected is. (see 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). 19 The September 9, 2008 SIP submittal included No. 1, Lake Catherine Unit 4; White 17 These factors are: (1) Emission reductions due APCEC Regulation 19, Chapter 15, which is the Bluff Units 1 and 2, and the Auxiliary to ongoing air pollution control programs, including state regulation that identified the BART-eligible Boiler. The revision did not address measures to address reasonably attributable and subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas and visibility impairment (RAVI); (2) measures to established BART emission limits for subject-to- NOX BART for Domtar Ashdown Mill mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) BART sources. The August 3, 2010 SIP revision did Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. On February emissions limitations and schedules for compliance not revise Arkansas’ list of BART-eligible and 12, 2018, we took final action to to achieve the reasonable progress goal; (4) source subject-to-BART sources or revise any of the BART approve the Arkansas Regional Haze retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke requirements for affected sources. Instead, it management techniques for agricultural and included mostly non-substantive revisions to the forestry management purposes including plans as state regulation. 22 See FIP final action on September 27,2016 (81 currently exist within the state for these purposes; 20 See the final action on (March 12, 2012) (77 FR FR 66332) as corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and 14604). 68319). control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect 21 Under CAA section 110(c), the EPA is required 23 ‘‘Entergy’’ collectively means Entergy Arkansas on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, to promulgate a FIP within two years of the Inc., Entergy Mississippi Inc., and Entergy Power and mobile source emissions over the period effective date of a finding that a state has failed to LLC. addressed by the long-term strategy. make a required SIP submission or has made an 24 Copies of the petitions for reconsideration and 18 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals incomplete submission, or of the effective date that administrative stay submitted by the State of under the Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007, the EPA disapproves a SIP in whole or in part. The Arkansas; Entergy; Arkansas Electric Cooperative memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting FIP requirement is terminated only if a state Corporation (AECC); and the Energy and Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to submits a SIP, and the EPA approves that SIP as Environmental Alliance of Arkansas (EEAA) are the EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions meeting applicable CAA requirements before available in the docket of this action. 1–10 (pp.4–2, 5–1). promulgating a FIP. 25 See 82 FR 18994.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14851

NOX SIP revision and to withdraw the Arkansas. In addition, it established 120,000 pounds per hour (pph). Power corresponding NOX provisions of the revised RPGs for Arkansas’ two Class I Boiler No. 2 was installed in 1975 and FIP.26 areas and revised the State’s long-term is authorized to burn a variety of fuels The State submitted its Phase II SIP strategy provisions. The submittal did including coal, petroleum coke, TDF, revision (the Arkansas Regional Haze not address BART and associated long- natural gas, wood waste, clean SO2 and PM SIP revision) on August 8, term strategy requirements for Domtar cellulosic biomass (e.g. bark, wood 2018, that addressed most of the Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and residuals, and other woody biomass remaining parts of the 2008 Arkansas 2, but they are addressed in this materials), bark, and wood chips used to Regional Haze SIP that were proposed action. On September 27, absorb oil spills. It is equipped with a disapproved in the March 12, 2012, 2019, we took final action to approve a traveling grate; 32 a combustion air action. The August 8, 2018, SIP portion of the Arkansas Regional Haze system that includes over-fire air; 33 34 submittal was intended to replace the SO2 and PM SIP revision and to multi-clones for PM10 removal; and federal SO2 and PM10 BART withdraw the corresponding parts of the two venturi scrubbers in parallel for 29 determinations as well as the reasonable FIP. The August 8, 2018, SIP also removal of SO2 and remaining progress determinations established in contained a discussion of the interstate particulates. Power Boiler No. 2 has a the FIP with the State’s own visibility transport provisions, as heat input rating of 820 MMBtu/hr and determinations. Specifically, the SIP discussed in more detail in Section I.H. an average steam generation rate of revision addressed the applicable SO approximately 600,000 pph. 2 G. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP and PM BART requirements for Bailey ADEQ’s original BART analyses and 10 Submittal Unit 1; SO2 and PM10 BART determinations (dated October 2006 and requirements for McClellan Unit 1; SO2 On August 13, 2019, ADEQ submitted March 2007) for Power Boilers No. 1 BART requirements for Flint Creek the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III and 2 were included in the 2008 35 Boiler No. 1; SO2 BART requirements SIP (Phase III SIP revision) which we Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. In our for White Bluff Units 1 and 2; SO2, NOX, are proposing to approve in this action. 2012 action, we approved ADEQ’s and PM10 BART requirements for the The submittal contains a BART identification of these two units as White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; 27 and alternative measure to address BART BART-eligible; ADEQ’s determination included a requirement that Lake and the associated long-term strategy that these units are subject-to-BART; Catherine Unit 4 not burn fuel oil until requirements for two subject-to-BART and ADEQ’s PM10 BART determination 36 SO2 and PM BART determinations for sources (Power Boilers No. 1 and 2) at for Power Boiler No. 1. In that action, the fuel oil firing scenario are approved the Domtar Ashdown paper mill located we also disapproved the SO2 and NOX into the SIP by the EPA.28 The submittal in Ashdown, Arkansas. Power Boiler BART determinations for Power Boiler addressed the reasonable progress No. 1 was first installed in 1967–1968 No. 1; and the SO2, NOX, and PM10 requirements with respect to SO2 and and is currently permitted to burn only BART determinations for Power Boiler 30 PM10 emissions for Independence Units natural gas. It is capable of burning a No. 2. In the 2016 Arkansas Regional 1 and 2 and all other sources in variety of other fuels too including bark, Haze FIP and its associated technical wood waste, tire-derived fuel (TDF), support document (TSD),37 the EPA 26 See 82 FR 42627 (September 11, 2017) for the municipal yard waste, pelletized paper promulgated SO2, NOX, and PM10 proposed approval. See also 83 FR 5915 and 83 FR fuel, fuel-oil, and reprocessed fuel-oil emission limits for these boilers. The 5927 (February 12, 2018) for the final action. but is not authorized to do so. It is FIP BART limits were based on 27 The Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP equipped with a wet electrostatic revision established a new NO emission limit of X 31 32 A traveling grate is a moving grate used to feed 32.2 pounds per hour (pph) for the Auxiliary Boiler precipitator (WESP) but the fuel to the boiler for combustion. to satisfy NOX BART and replaced the SIP requirements to operate the WESP were 33 determination that we previously approved in our Over-fire air typically recirculates a portion of removed since it is permitted to the flue gas back to both the fuel-rich zone and the final action on the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP combust natural gas only. Power Boiler combustion zone to achieve complete burnout by revision. In the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision, ADEQ incorrectly identified the Auxiliary No. 1 has a design heat input rating of encouraging the formation of nitrogen (N2) rather Boiler as participating in the CSAPR trading 580 million British Thermal units per than NOX. 34 A cyclone separator is an air pollution control program for O3 season NOX to satisfy the NOX hour (MMBtu/hr) and an average steam device shaped like a conical tube that creates an air BART requirements. The new source-specific NOX generation rate of approximately BART emission limit that we approved in our final vortex as air moves through it causing larger action on the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM particles (PM10) to settle as the cleaner air passes SIP revision corrected that error. 29 See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for through. Multi-clones are a sequence of cyclone 28 separators in parallel used to treat a higher volume The 2012 action disapproved SO2, NOX, and proposed approval and 84 FR 51033 (September 27, PM BART for the fuel oil firing scenario for the 2019) for final approval. The Arkansas Regional of air. In this particular case, the cleaner air travels Entergy Lake Catherine Plant Unit 4, but a FIP Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision also addressed to the venturi scrubbers to remove the smaller BART determination was not established. Instead, separate CAA requirements related to interstate remaining particles like PM2.5 and SO2. the FIP included a requirement that Entergy not visibility transport under CAA section 35 See ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology burn fuel oil at Lake Catherine Unit 4 until final 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), but we did not take action on that Determination Domtar Industries Inc., Ashdown EPA approval of BART determinations for SO2, part of the submittal. We are incorporating by Mill (AFIN 41–00002),’’ originally dated October NOX, and PM. In the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX reference the visibility transport portion of the 31, 2006 and revised on March 26, 2007, prepared SIP revision, Arkansas relied on participation in Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision by Trinity Consultants Inc. This was included as CSAPR for O3 season NOX to satisfy the NOX BART in this proposed action. part of the Phase III submittal and included in the requirement for its subject-to-BART EGUs, 30 Power Boiler No. 1 operates as natural gas only docket of this action. including Lake Catherine Unit 4. When we took subject to the Gas 1 subcategory defined under 40 36 See the March 12, 2012 final action (77 FR final action on the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP CFR 63.7575. See ADEQ Air Permit No. 0287–AOP– 14604). revision, we also took final action to withdraw the R22 (page 64) in the docket of this action. 37 See final FIP action on September 27, 2016 (81 31 FIP NOX emission limit for the natural gas firing An electrostatic precipitator is an air pollution FR 66332) as corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR scenario for Lake Catherine Unit 4. In the Arkansas control device that functions by electrostatically 68319) and the associated TSD, ‘‘AR020.0002–00 Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, Entergy charging particles in a gas stream that passes TSD for EPA’s Proposed Action on the Arkansas committed to not burn fuel oil at Lake Catherine through collection plates with wires. The ionized Regional Haze FIP’’ in Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR– Unit 4 until final EPA approval of BART for SO2 particulate matter is attracted to and deposited on 2015–0189 for the FIP BART analysis for SO2 and and PM. This commitment was made enforceable the plates as the cleaner air passes through. A wet NOX for Power Boiler No. 1; and SO2, NOX, and by the State through an Administrative Order that electrostatic precipitator is designed to operate with PM10 for Power Boiler No. 2. This was included as was adopted and incorporated in the Arkansas water vapor saturated air streams to remove liquid part of the Phase III submittal and included in the Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. droplets such as sulfuric acid. docket of this action.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14852 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

consideration of the 2006 and 2007 final minor permit modification letter to enforcement of a new or revised BART analyses, a revised BART analysis Domtar,41 which included enforceable NAAQS.46 This type of SIP submission (dated May 2014),38 and additional emission limitations and compliance is referred to as an infrastructure SIP. information provided by Domtar for the schedules for the BART alternative. Section 110(a)(1) provides the timing disapproved BART determinations. On ADEQ submitted its third corrective and procedural requirements for March 20, 2018, Domtar provided ADEQ regional haze SIP submittal to the EPA infrastructure SIPs. Specifically, each with a proposed BART alternative based on August 13, 2019, which is the subject state is required to make a new SIP on changing boiler operations as part of of this proposed rulemaking (the submission within three years after the company’s planned re-purposing Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP promulgation of a new or revised and mill transformation from paper revision). The Phase III SIP revision primary or secondary NAAQS. Section production to fluff pulp production. On includes Domtar’s BART alternative 110(a)(2) lists the substantive elements September 5, 2018, Domtar further approach and revises all of the prior that states must address for revised its BART alternative approach BART determinations for Power Boilers infrastructure SIPs to be approved by in response to additional boiler No. 1 and 2 at the Ashdown Mill. The the EPA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes operation changes planned at the Phase III SIP submittal also incorporates four distinct elements related to Ashdown Mill.39 In October 2018, plantwide provisions from the August 1, interstate transport of air pollution, ADEQ proposed a SIP revision that 2019, permit including emission limits commonly referred to as prongs, that included Domtar’s BART alternative and conditions for implementing the must be addressed in infrastructure SIP approach to address the BART BART alternative.42 If the EPA takes submissions. The first two prongs are requirements for Power Boilers 1 and 2 final action to approve the Arkansas codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and at the Ashdown Mill.40 Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision, the third and fourth prongs are codified The October 2018 proposal included ADEQ will have a fully-approved in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). These four an administrative order as the regional haze SIP for the first prongs prohibit any source or type of enforceable mechanism for the emission implementation period. The Arkansas emission activities in one state from: 43 limits established under the BART Regional Haze NOX SIP revision, the • Contributing significantly to alternative; and the order also contained Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM nonattainment of the NAAQS in another monitoring, reporting, and SIP revision,44 and the Arkansas state (prong 1); recordkeeping requirements for the Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision (if • interfering with maintenance of the boilers. During the State’s public approved by EPA) will together fully NAAQS in another state (prong 2); comment period, Domtar submitted address all deficiencies of the 2008 • interfering with measures that comments stating that while it agrees Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that EPA prevent significant deterioration of air with the BART alternative approach and previously identified in the March 12, quality in another state (prong 3); and with the emission limits themselves, it 2012 partial approval/disapproval • interfering with measures that does not agree with the use of the action.45 protect visibility in another state (prong administrative order as the enforceable 4 or ‘‘visibility transport’’). H. Arkansas Visibility Transport mechanism of the proposed SIP We are only addressing the prong 4 revision. Domtar requested that the Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA element in this proposed action. The portion of its New Source Review (NSR) direct each state to develop and submit Prong 4 element is consistent with the permit containing the regional haze to the EPA a SIP that provides for the requirements in the regional haze requirements be included in the implementation, maintenance, and program, which explicitly require each proposed SIP revision as the enforceable state to address its share of emission mechanism instead of the 41 See ADEQ Air permit #0287–AOP–R22 reductions needed to meet the RPGs for administrative order. ADEQ addressed (effective August 1, 2019) included as part of the surrounding Class I areas. The EPA most Phase III submittal and is included in the docket of recently issued guidance that addressed Domtar’s request in April 2019 by this action. 47 proposing a supplemental SIP revision 42 See ADEQ Air permit #0287–AOP–R22, prong 4 on September 13, 2013. The to the October 2018 proposal. The Section VI, Plantwide Conditions #32 to #43. The 2013 guidance indicates that a state can supplemental SIP revision proposal ‘‘Regional Haze Program (BART Alternative) satisfy prong 4 requirements with a replaced the administrative order with Specific Conditions’’ portion of the Plantwide fully-approved regional haze SIP that Conditions section of the permit states the the incorporation of certain provisions following: ‘‘For compliance with the CAA Regional meets 40 CFR 51.308 or 309. of Domtar’s revised NSR permit into the Haze Program’s requirements for the first planning Alternatively, in the absence of a fully- SIP as the enforceable mechanism for period, the No. 1 and 2 Power Boilers are subject- approved regional haze SIP, a state may Domtar’s regional haze requirements. to-BART alternative measures consistent with 40 meet the prong 4 requirements through CFR 51.308. The terms and conditions of the BART On August 1, 2019, the ADEQ issued a alternative measures are to be submitted to EPA for a demonstration showing that emissions approval as part of the Arkansas SIP. Upon initial within its jurisdiction do not interfere 38 See ‘‘Supplemental BART Determination EPA approval of the permit into the SIP, the with another air agency’s plans to Information Domtar A.W. LLC, Ashdown Mill permittee shall continue to be subject to the protect visibility. Lastly, the guidance (AFIN 41–00002),’’ originally dated June 28, 2013 conditions as approved into the SIP even if the states that prong 4 is pollutant-specific, and revised on May 16, 2014, prepared by Trinity conditions are revised as part of a permit Consultants Inc. in conjunction with Domtar A.W. amendment until such time as the EPA approves so infrastructure SIPs only need to LLC. This was included as part of the Phase III SIP any revised conditions into the SIP. The permittee submittal and is included in the docket of this shall remain subject to both the initial SIP-approved 46 See the final rules promulgating the NAAQS action. conditions and the revised conditions, until EPA requirements: 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006); 77 39 See section III.B of the Arkansas Regional Haze approves the revised conditions.’’ FR 50033 (August 20, 2012); 80 FR 11573 (March Phase III submittal and the associated September 4, 43 See final action approved on February 12, 2018 4, 2015); 80 FR 38419 (July 6, 2015); 78 FR 53269 2018, ‘‘Ashdown Mill BART Alternative TSD’’ in (83 FR 5927). (August 29, 2013); 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). the docket of this action. 44 See final action approved on September 27, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016); 75 FR 35520 (June 40 The proposed October 2018 SIP revision was 2019 (84 FR 51033) and the proposed approval on 22, 2010); 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010); and 78 intended to replace the portion of our FIP November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204). FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). addressing Domtar and would also resolve the 45 The proposed approval of the Arkansas 47 See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State claims regarding Domtar in petitions for review of Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal is not Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA the FIP that are currently being held in abeyance, proposing to revise the Arkansas Regional Haze sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ by Stephen D. State of Arkansas v. EPA, No. 16–4270 (8th Cir.). Phase I or II SIP revisions. Page (Sept. 13, 2013), (pages 32–35).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14853

address the particular pollutant SIP revision 50 for the 2006 and 2012 affected Class I areas in Arkansas and (including precursors) for which there is PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 and 2015 O3 Missouri: Caney Creek Wilderness, a new or revised NAAQS for which the NAAQS, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the Upper Buffalo Wilderness, Hercules- SIP is being submitted that is interfering 2010 NO2 NAAQS. All other applicable Glades Wilderness, and Mingo National with visibility protection. infrastructure SIP requirements in the Wildlife Refuge.53 The BART alternative On March 24, 2017, the State October 4, 2019, SIP submission have analysis is based on a demonstration submitted a SIP revision that addressed been or will be addressed in separate that the clear weight of evidence of the all four infrastructure prongs from rulemakings. alternative will result in greater section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 lead II. Evaluation of the Arkansas Regional reasonable progress than the FIP BART (Pb) NAAQS, the 2006 and 2012 PM 2.5 Haze Phase III SIP Submittal limits. We agree with the State’s NAAQS, the 2008 O3 NAAQS, the 2010 assessment and propose to approve the SO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 NO2 On August 13, 2019, the EPA received Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP NAAQS. We deferred taking action on a SIP revision (The Arkansas Regional revision on the basis that it satisfies the the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 portion of Haze Phase III SIP), which we are requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) as that infrastructure SIP for a future proposing to approve in this action. The explained in further detail in each rulemaking with the exception of the submittal contains a BART alternative subsequent section. We also propose to 2008 Pb NAAQS.48 On August 10, 2018, measure pursuant to 40 CFR withdraw the FIP provisions concerning the State also included a discussion on 51.308(e)(2) for Domtar Ashdown Mill’s BART for the Domtar power boilers, as Power Boilers No. 1 and 2.51 ADEQ visibility transport in its Phase II they will be replaced by our approval of submitted this SIP revision to address Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM the State’s BART alternative. In the remaining deficiencies identified by SIP revision, but we deferred proposing addition, we propose to approve the EPA in the March 12, 2012 previous action on the visibility transport additional requirements that rely on the 49 partial approval/disapproval action on requirements in that submittal too. In Domtar BART alternative measure. the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP the Phase II SIP revision, ADEQ These include the State’s revisions to its concluded that Missouri is on track to revision. The SIP revision establishes an alternative to BART for SO , NO , and long-term strategy and the components achieve its visibility goals; that observed 2 X of the State’s reasonable progress visibility progress from Arkansas PM10 for Power Boilers No. 1 and No. 2; and replaces all of the prior SIP- determination for Arkansas’ Class I sources are not interfering with areas (discussed in sections III and IV). Missouri’s RPG achievements for approved and FIP BART determinations for those units. Specifically, it replaces We also propose to approve the Hercules-Glades Wilderness and Mingo interstate visibility transport National Wildlife Refuge; and that no the SIP-approved PM10 BART determination 52 for Power Boiler No. 1; requirements under CAA section additional controls on Arkansas sources 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for pollutants that are necessary to ensure that other states’ the SO2 and NOX FIP BART determinations for Power Boiler No. 1; affect visibility in Class I areas in nearby Class I areas meet their visibility goals states. Our evaluation of the interstate and the SO2, NOX, and PM10 FIP BART for the first planning period. On October visibility transport requirements 4, 2019, the State submitted the determinations for Power Boiler No. 2. The Phase III SIP revision includes the pertaining to a portion of the August 10, Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate 2018, Phase II Arkansas Regional Haze Transport SIP revision to meet the State’s assessment of Domtar’s BART SO2 and PM SIP, as supplemented by requirements of CAA section alternative, including analysis of the modeled visibility impacts across four- the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate 110(a)(2)(D) regarding interstate Transport SIP revision (submitted on transport for the 2015 O3 NAAQS. In 50 See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for October 4, 2019) is discussed in section that SIP submittal, Arkansas also proposed approval and 84 FR 51033 (September 27, V. addressed the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 2019) for final action. The Arkansas Regional Haze NAAQS, the 2008 O3 NAAQS, the 2010 SO2 and PM SIP revision addressed separate CAA A. Summary of Arkansas’ BART requirements related to interstate visibility SO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Alternative for Domtar Ashdown Mill prong 4 visibility transport obligations transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), but we did not take action on that part of the submittal. The State’s BART alternative in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and we are We are incorporating by reference the prong 4 operating conditions and emission rates proposing to approve those prong 4 portion of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM requirements in this action. The State’s SIP revision in this proposed action. 53 prong 4 visibility transport analysis in 51 Previously, on March 20, 2018, Domtar Arkansas has two Class I areas within its provided to ADEQ a proposed BART alternative borders: Upper Buffalo and Caney Creek Wilderness the October 4, 2019 submittal based on boiler operational changes, fuel switching areas. Upper Buffalo Wilderness area, located in supersedes the prong 4 visibility and repurposing of Ashdown Mill to produce fluff Newton County, Arkansas, is an oak-hickory forest transport portion of the March 24, 2017, paper. On September 5, 2018, Domtar proposed to with intermittent portions of shortleaf pine located infrastructure SIP submittal and ADEQ a revised BART alternative with new in the Ozark National Forest and offers 12,108 acres supplements the August 10, 2018, Phase emission limits and modeling that would of boulder strewn and rugged scenery along the accommodate potential further changes in operation Buffalo River. Caney Creek Wilderness is located in II Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM at the Ashdown Mill and it is included with this Polk County, Arkansas, and covers 14,460 acres on SIP submittal. See the associated September 4, 2018 the southern edge of the Ouachita National Forest 48 The EPA approved the visibility transport TSD, ‘‘Ashdown Mill BART Alternative TSD’’ in and protects a rugged portion of the Ouachita requirement for the 2008 Pb NAAQS only in the the docket of this action in Docket No. EPA–R06– Mountains. Two Class I areas outside Arkansas’ February 2018 final action effective March 16, 2018 OAR–2015–0189. borders at Hercules-Glades Wilderness and Mingo (see 83 FR 6470). 52 See the final action on March 12, 2012 (77 FR National Wildlife Refuge in Missouri are impacted 49 See 84 FR 51033, 51054 (September 27, 2019). 14604). by emissions from within Arkansas.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14854 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

are summarized in Table 1.54 Under the were adjusted downward from their to the 2001 to 2003 baseline rate in the BART alternative, Power Boiler No. 1 previous permitted emission rates of 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP and operates at maximum permitted 984 pph SO2 and 574 pph NOX (44 and the 2016 FIP, which is slightly less than emission rates consistent with the 51 percent, respectively, of previous the previous permitted maximum rate of 55 56 combustion of natural gas. The permitted rates). The PM10 emission 82 pph PM10 (99.5 percent of the prior emission rates for Power Boiler No. 2 rate for Power Boiler No. 2 is equivalent authorized rate).

TABLE 1—BART ALTERNATIVE EMISSION RATES *

Emission Unit Operating scenario Pollutant rates (pph)

Power Boiler No. 1 ...... Burn only natural gas ...... SO2 ...... 0.5 NOX ...... 191.1 PM10 ...... 5.2 Power Boiler No. 2 ...... Adjusted emission rates for SO2 and NOX ...... SO2 ...... 435 NOX ...... 293 PM10 ...... 81.6 * These limits are for a thirty boiler-operating-day rolling average as defined in Plantwide Condition #32 of ADEQ Air Permit No. 0287–AOP– R22.

B. Demonstration That BART action on the 2008 SIP submittal, the accordance with RAVI under 40 CFR Alternative Achieves Greater EPA approved the majority of the State’s 51.302(c) or source-specific BART under Reasonable Progress list of BART-eligible sources. The 2008 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1); or otherwise Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP omitted addressed under source-specific BART State must demonstrate that the Georgia Pacific Crossett Mill Boiler 6A or the 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) BART 58 alternative measure will achieve greater from the list of BART-eligible sources, alternative provisions. In this instance, reasonable progress than would have but it was later included in the list of the BART alternative measure covers resulted from the installation and BART-eligible sources adopted into two BART-eligible units, Power Boilers operation of BART at all sources APCEC Regulation No. 19, Chapter 15. No. 1 and 2 at Domtar Ashdown Mill. The most recently updated BART- subject-to-BART in the State and All other BART-eligible sources have eligible source list by the State is in the covered by the alternative program. This already been addressed in the 2008 demonstration must be based on the August 8, 2018, Arkansas Regional Haze SO and PM SIP revision, which the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP and following five criteria, which are 2 60 59 subsequent SIP revisions. As a result, addressed in the subsequent sections: EPA approved on September 27, 2019. This recent list includes the Domtar we propose to find that the Arkansas (1) A list of all BART-eligible sources Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision within the State. Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and meets the requirement of 40 CFR (2) A list of all BART-eligible sources No. 2 as BART-eligible. Therefore, with and source categories covered by the this revision, all BART-eligible sources 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B). alternative. within the State have been identified in 3. Analysis of BART and Associated (3) An analysis of BART and the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. We Emission Reductions associated emission reductions. propose to find that the existing list in (4) The projected emission reductions the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), achievable through the alternative SIP revision fulfills the requirement of the SIP must include an analysis of measure. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A) to provide a BART and the associated emission (5) A determination that the list of all BART-eligible sources within reductions achievable at the Domtar alternative achieves greater reasonable the State. Ashdown Mill for Power Boilers No. 1 progress than BART. 2. List All BART-Eligible Sources and and 2. ADEQ relied on the BART 1. List All BART-Eligible Sources Source Categories Covered by the determinations in the 2016 FIP for Within the State Alternative Program comparison to the baseline emissions Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), and analysis of emission reductions the SIP must include a list of all BART- each BART-eligible source in the State under BART. The BART determinations eligible sources within the State. The must be subject to the requirements of in the 2016 FIP were based on State included a list of facilities with the alternative program, have a federally consideration of ADEQ’s 2006 and 2007 BART-eligible sources in Arkansas in its enforceable emission limitation original 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze determined by the State and approved SIP submittal.57 As part of the final 2012 by the EPA as meeting BART in

54 See Table 3 of the Arkansas Regional Haze 0287–AOP–R22 are 44.2, 51, and 99.5 percent of the description of each BART-eligible unit is included Phase III submittal (pages 9–10). See also Plantwide previous permit rates. The previous permitted in Appendix 9.1A. Conditions #32 to #43 from ADEQ Air permit emission rates for Power Boiler No. 2 in ADEQ Air 58 See 77 FR 14604, 14605 (March 12, 2012). #0287–AOP–R22. Permit No. 0287–AOP–R20 were 984 pph SO , 574 2 59 See Table 1 (pages 8–10) of the Arkansas 55 See ADEQ Air Permit No. #0287–AOP–R22. pph NOX, and 82.0 pph PM10. These are based on Regional Haze SO and PM SIP revision. The BART alternative emission rates for Power emission limits of 1.2, 0.7, and 0.1 lb/MMBtu for 2 60 Boiler No. 1 in the permit are 0.5 pph SO2, 191.1 SO2, NOX, and PM10 with a design heat input See the 2017 Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP pph NOX, and 5.2 pph PM10 and are based on the capacity of 820 MMBtu/hr. revision approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR max design heat input capacity of 580 MMBtu/hr. 57 See Figure 9.1 and Table 9.1 (page 45) of the 5927), and the 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 56 The BART alternative emission rates for Power 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP included in the and PM SIP revision approved on September 27, Boiler No. 2 in the current ADEQ Air permit No. docket of this proposed action. A detailed 2019 (84 FR 51033).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14855

BART analyses,61 a supplemental BART control efficiency with additional standard for boilers promulgated under analysis (dated May 2014) developed by scrubbing reagent and upgraded CAA section 112, which provides for a Domtar that included a five-factor scrubber pumps. This results in a PM10 emission limit of 0.44 lb/MMBtu 62 analysis, and additional information controlled emission rate of 91.5 pph SO2 and no additional control equipment. regarding the existing venturi scrubbers for Power Boiler No. 2. The NOX BART Power Boiler No. 2 falls under the 63 for Power Boiler No. 2. The SO2 BART determination for Power Boiler No. 1 is ‘‘biomass hybrid suspension grate’’ determination for Power Boiler No. 1 is an emission limit of 207.4 pph on a subcategory for the Boiler MACT at 40 the SO2 baseline emission rate of 21.0 thirty boiler-operating-day rolling CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD-National pph or 504 pounds per day (ppd) on a average with no additional control Emission Standards for Hazardous Air thirty boiler-operating-day rolling equipment needed. This emission limit Pollutants (NESHAP) for Major Sources: average, which does not require the is based on the boiler’s NOX baseline Industrial, Commercial, and installation of additional control emission rate. The NOX BART Institutional Boilers and Process equipment. The SO2 BART determination for Power Boiler No. 2 is Heaters. Finally, the EPA approved the determination for Power Boiler No. 2 is an emission limit of 345 pph on a thirty State’s PM10 BART determination of an emission limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu on boiler-operating-day rolling average, 0.07 lb/MMBtu for Power Boiler No. 1 a thirty boiler-operating-day rolling achieved by the installation and in 2012, which was based on the then- average, based on the boiler’s maximum operation of low NOX burners. The PM10 final Boiler MACT. The FIP BART limits heat input of 820 MMBtu/hr. This is BART determination for Power Boiler and the SIP-approved PM10 BART limit achieved by operating the existing No. 2 is subject to the maximum for Power Boiler No. 1 are listed in venturi scrubbers at ninety percent achievable control technology (MACT) Table 2.

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF EPA-APPROVED SIP AND FIP BART LIMITS FOR DOMTAR ASHDOWN MILL

Emission limits * Unit SO2 NOX PM10

Power Boiler No. 1 ...... 504 ppd ...... 207.4 pph ...... 0.07 lb/MMBtu.** Power Boiler No. 2 ...... 91.5 pph ...... 345 pph ...... Satisfied by reliance on applicable PM10 standard under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD (currently 0.44 lb/MMBtu). * See the final BART emission limits in Table 1 of the final action of the approved FIP (81 FR 66332, 66339). ** The EPA approved the State’s PM10 BART determination for Power Boiler No. 1 in the March 12, 2012, final action (77 FR 14604).

The baseline emission rates assumed FIP were based on the 2009 to 2011 from Power Boiler No. 1. In the 2016 in the 2016 FIP for purposes of adjusted baseline period. The adjusted FIP, we found that the use of the 2009 determining the visibility improvement 2009 to 2011 baseline rates for Power to 2011 baseline rates to be consistent anticipated from BART controls (based Boiler No. 1, as presented in the 2016 with the BART Guidelines, which on Domtar’s May 2014 supplemental FIP, were 21 pph SO2; 207.4 pph NOX; provide that the baseline emission rates BART analysis) are summarized in and 30.4 pph PM10. These replaced the should represent a realistic depiction of Table 3. The State did not make any 2001 to 2003 original baseline rates anticipated annual emissions for the changes in the Phase III SIP submittal to (442.5 pph SO2; 179.5 pph NOX; and source. The baseline rates for Power the modeled baseline emission rates 169.5 pph PM10) submitted by the State. Boiler No. 2 were based on the original presented in the 2014 report. ADEQ is The 2009 to 2011 period was used as the 2001 to 2003 baseline period. The 2001 relying on these baseline emission rates baseline for Power Boiler No. 1 because to 2003 baseline rates for Power Boiler for comparison of the BART alternative a WESP was installed on Power Boiler No. 2 as presented in the 2016 FIP were to BART (see Table 3 note). The baseline No. 1 in 2007 to meet MACT standards rates for Power Boiler No. 1 in Domtar’s under CAA section 112, resulting in a 788.2 pph SO2; 526.8 pph NOX; and 81.6 pph PM10. May 2014 BART analysis and our 2016 reduction in PM and SO2 emissions

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF BASELINE ANNUAL EMISSION RATES

Emission rates (tpy) * Unit SO2 NOX PM10

Power Boiler No. 1 (2009 to 2011 Baseline) ...... 92 908.4 133.2 Power Boiler No. 2 (2001 to 2003 Baseline) ...... 3,452 2,307.4 357.4

61 See ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology (AFIN 41–00002),’’ originally dated June 28, 2013 Proposed Action on the Arkansas Regional Haze Determination Domtar Industries Inc., Ashdown and revised on May 16, 2014, prepared by Trinity FIP’’ in Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0189 for Mill (AFIN 41–00002),’’ originally dated October Consultants Inc. in conjunction with Domtar A.W. the FIP BART analysis for SO2 and NOX for Power 31, 2006 and revised on March 26, 2007, prepared LLC. This was included as part of the Phase III SIP Boiler No. 1; and SO2, NOX, and PM10 for Power by Trinity Consultants Inc. This was included as submittal and included in the docket of this action Boiler No. 2. The FIP TSD was included as part of part of the Phase III SIP submittal and included in in Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0189. the Phase III SIP submittal and included in the the docket of this action in Docket No. EPA–R06– 63 See final FIP action on September 27, 2016 (81 OAR–2015–0189. FR 66332) as corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR docket of this action. 62 See ‘‘Supplemental BART Determination 68319) and the associated technical support Information Domtar A.W. LLC, Ashdown Mill document (TSD), ‘‘AR020.0002–00 TSD for EPA’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14856 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF BASELINE ANNUAL EMISSION RATES—Continued

Emission rates (tpy) * Unit SO2 NOX PM10

Total ...... 3,544 3,215.8 490.6 * These baseline rates from the FIP are being incorporated into this proposed action. These baseline emission rates are based on Table 43 of the April 8, 2015 proposed FIP (80 FR 18979) in terms of pph but have been converted here to tpy. Supporting documentation for this data was included in the SIP submittal from the State and is included in the docket of this action.

A summary of the annual emissions rates are based on the BART limits from the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP in resulting from the implementation of the 2016 Arkansas Regional Haze FIP the 2012 action. BART estimated by the State in the (see Table 2) and the approved PM10 Phase III SIP is shown in Table 4. These BART limit for Power Boiler No. 1 from

TABLE 4—ANNUAL BART EMISSION RATES

Emission rates (tpy) * Unit SO2 NOX PM10

Power Boiler No. 1 ...... 92 908.4 **177.8 Power Boiler No. 2 ...... 400.7 1,511.1 †359.16

Total ...... 492.7 2,419.5 536.9 * These BART rates are being incorporated into this proposed action. These BART emission rates are based on Table 1, ‘‘Final BART Emis- sion Limits’’ of the September 27, 2016, final action on the FIP (81 FR 66332, 66339) and the EPA-approved PM10 BART determination for Power Boiler No. 1 in the March 12, 2012, final action (77 FR 14604). These emission rates were reported in terms of pph but have been con- verted here to tpy. Supporting documentation for this data was included in the SIP submittal from the State and is included in the docket of this action. ** The estimated annual PM10 emission rate for Power Boiler No. 1 was calculated in Domtar’s May 2014 supplemental BART determination report using 0.066 lb/MMBtu (an emission factor developed from analysis of past stack testing) and a heat input rate from 2009 to 2011 of 11,069.67 MMBtu/day (461 MMBtu/hr), resulting in 30.4 pph PM10 (or 133.2 tpy). In the Phase III SIP submittal, for purposes of comparing the emission reductions achievable through BART versus the BART alternative, the State calculated the PM10 BART emission rate for Power Boiler No. 1 by multiplying the actual PM10 BART determination (0.07 lb/MMBtu) that was approved in the 2012 final action and a maximum design heat input capacity of 580 MMBtu/hr to reflect the current emission reductions achievable (resulting in 40.6 pph PM10 or 177.8 tpy) instead of re- lying on the analysis from the 2014 BART determination. † This does not reflect the FIP BART limit which is subject to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD Boiler MACT PM10 emission limit of 0.44 lb/ MMBtu for the biomass hybrid suspension grate subcategory (resulting in 360.8 pph). Instead, the State used the more conservative permit limit of 0.1 lb/MMBtu and the design heat input capacity of 820 MMBtu/hr, resulting in 82 pph, which is more stringent than the FIP limit.

Table 5 compares the BART controls for Power Boiler No. 2 reduce based on stack test data and actual heat controlled emissions from Power Boilers the total SO2 and NOX annual emissions input capacity while the estimated No. 1 and 2 to the baseline emissions by 3,051 and 796 tpy from the baseline BART emissions were based on the and shows the estimated annual (86 and 25 percent decreases, BART emission limit and the maximum emission reductions achievable with respectively). Calculated emissions capacity. We propose to find that the BART. The BART controls result in under the BART controls for PM10 Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP reduced SO2 and NOX emissions for exhibit slight increases in PM10 revision has met the requirement for an Power Boiler No. 2 only. There are no emissions for both power boilers analysis of BART and associated SO2 and NOX emission reductions totaling 46.3 tpy above the baseline emission reductions achievable at the expected to result from Power Boiler (nine percent increase in PM ). As 10 Domtar Ashdown Mill for Power Boilers No. 1 since the SO and NO BART mentioned in the Table 4 notes, this 2 X No. 1 and 2 under 40 CFR emission rates for Power Boiler No. 1 difference is because the calculated 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). are consistent with the baseline. BART baseline emissions by the State were

TABLE 5—DOMTAR EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE WITH BART

Power boilers 1 and 2 total emissions (tpy) Condition SO2 NOX PM10

Baseline ...... 3,544.3 3,215.8 490.6 BART ...... 492.7 2,419.5 536.9 Emission Reduction ...... 3,051 795.5 ¥46.3 * A negative number indicates an increase in emissions from the baseline.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14857

4. Analysis of Projected Emission both power boilers. The BART reductions between the BART Reductions Achievable Through BART alternative results in greater emission alternative and BART are slightly Alternative reductions of NOX and PM10 than the different, the State conducted Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), BART controls. The implemented BART dispersion modeling to determine the SIP must also include an analysis of alternative controls would reduce NOX differences in visibility improvement the projected emission reductions and PM10 emissions by 1,096 and 111 between BART and the alternative achievable through the BART tpy, respectively, from the baseline. The measure as discussed in section II.B.5. alternative measure. The estimated BART alternative reduces fewer SO2 We propose to find that ADEQ has met annual emission reductions achievable emissions compared to the BART the requirement in this section for with the BART alternative can be seen controls (BART achieves 3,051 tpy SO2 reporting an analysis of the projected in Table 6. The BART alternative would reduction) but still achieves a decrease emission reductions achievable through result in a decrease in SO2, NOX, and of 1,637 tpy SO2 from the baseline. the BART alternative measure under 40 PM10 emissions from the baseline for Since the distribution of emission CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).

TABLE 6—DOMTAR EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE WITH THE BART ALTERNATIVE

Power boilers 1 and 2 total emissions (tpy) Condition SO2 NOX PM10

Baseline ...... 3,544.3 3,215.8 490.6 BART Alternative ...... 1,907.5 2,120.3 380.18 Emission Reduction ...... 1,637 1,096 111

5. Determination That Alternative quality modeling methodology approach the BART alternative is focused on only Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress using the maximum 98th percentile the BART sources at Domtar. Than BART visibility impact of three modeled years ADEQ considered two methods of Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), using the CALPUFF model instead of modeling evaluation provided by the State must provide a determination modeled visibility conditions for the Domtar for this approach of using the under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise twenty percent best and worst days. maximum 98th percentile visibility based on the clear weight of evidence This modeling approach differs from the impact. Method 1 assesses visibility that the alternative measure achieves modeling contemplated under 40 CFR impairment on a per source per greater reasonable progress than BART. 51.308(e)(3) for BART alternatives. pollutant basis and does not account for Based on the data provided by Domtar However, this approach is consistent the full chemical interaction of in the BART alternative analysis, ADEQ with the approach recommended by the emissions from the two boilers. Method performed a clear weight of evidence BART guidelines 65 for comparing 1 was performed to create a direct approach to determine whether the different control options at a single comparison with the approach that the Ashdown Mill satisfies the requirements source when developing BART EPA used in the Arkansas Regional of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). Factors determinations relying on the 98th Haze FIP, based on the modeling submitted by Domtar in the 2014 which can be used in a weight of percentile visibility impact as the key analysis. The 2014 Domtar analysis and evidence determination in this context metric,66 and is also consistent with the the FIP focused on modeling each unit may include, but are not limited to, methodology followed in EPA’s 2016 future projected emissions levels under and pollutant separately to evaluate the FIP BART determination for Domtar. potential visibility benefit from specific the alternative as compared to under This approach is, therefore, acceptable BART and future projected visibility controls at each unit to inform the for the comparison of the proposed conditions under the two scenarios. BART determination. In method 2, all BART alternative to the FIP BART for When comparing the summary of sources and pollutants were combined Domtar since it is the same modeling overall emission reductions in Tables 5 into a single modeling run per year for used to determine BART in the FIP, and and 6, the BART alternative achieves the baseline and each control scenario. greater emission reductions than the Method 2 allows for interaction of the BART controls for NO and PM , but 65 See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y section III.A.3 and pollutants from both boilers, as emitted X 10 IV.D.5, ‘‘Guidelines for BART Determinations not for SO2. Because the BART controls Under the Regional Haze Rule.’’ CALPUFF is a pollutants from each unit disperse and achieve higher SO2 emission reductions single source air quality model that is compete for the same reactants in the than the BART alternative, the State also recommended in the BART Guidelines. Since atmosphere, providing modeled overall relied on a modeling analysis to support CALPUFF was used for this BART alternative impacts due to emissions from both analysis, the modeling results were post-processed its conclusion that Domtar’s BART in a manner consistent with the BART guidelines. units. The State followed the same alternative is better than BART.64 This 66 The EPA recognized the uncertainty in the general CALPUFF modeling protocol weight of evidence analysis is based on CALPUFF modeling results when the EPA made the and used the same meteorological data the comparison of emissions under the decision, in the final BART Guidelines, to inputs for the BART alternative BART and alternative control scenarios, recommend that the model be used to estimate the assessment as discussed in Appendix B 98th percentile visibility impairment rather than 67 as well as a modified version of the two- the highest daily impact value. ‘‘Most important, to the FIP TSD. Only the modeled part modeling test set forth in 40 CFR the simplified chemistry in the model tends to 51.308(e)(3), and described in section magnify the actual visibility effects of that source. 67 See final FIP action on September 27, 2016 (81 Because of these features and the uncertainties FR 66332) as corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR I.D of this action. The State used an air associated with the model, we believe it is 68319) and the associated FIP TSD, titled appropriate to use the 98th percentile—a more ‘‘AR020.0002–00 TSD for EPA’s Proposed Action 64 See BART Alternative Analysis Domtar A.W. robust approach that does not give undue weight to on the AR RH FIP’’ which was included in the SIP LLC, Ashdown Mill (AFIN 41–00002) submitted the extreme tail of the distribution.’’ (see 70 FR submittal from the State and in the docket of this March 20, 2018. 39104, 39121). Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14858 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

emission rates change to represent the BART alternative. ADEQ included an contained in Table 7 from method 2 and modeled scenarios for each method. analysis utilizing method 1 that shows the BART determinations 70 in Table 2 Domtar completed the BART that the BART alternative controls (see section II.B.3) form an appropriate alternative analysis using both methods achieve greater overall reductions in BART benchmark for the purposes of and documented that the proposed visibility impairment (Ddv) from the the evaluation of Domtar’s BART BART alternative results in greater baseline cumulatively across the four alternative. We agree with ADEQ that visibility improvement than the BART Class I areas when compared to BART because method 2 provides for the full controls at Caney Creek and on average (0.549 Ddv for the alternative versus chemical interaction of emissions from across the four Class I areas. The 0.473 Ddv for BART).68 ADEQ also both power boilers, method 2 analysis modeled baseline visibility impairment, included the visibility improvement results shown in Tables 7 and 8 are a in deciviews (dv), was compared to the anticipated (see Tables 7 and 8) at each more reliable assessment of the modeled visibility impairment under Class I area utilizing method 2 (the full anticipated overall visibility the implementation of the modeled chemistry assessment method).69 ADEQ improvement of controls than method 1 control scenarios for BART and the determined that the visibility benefits analysis results under each scenario.

TABLE 7—METHOD 2—VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT FROM BART CONTROLS (98TH PERCENTILE IMPACTS) MAX OF THREE MODELED YEARS

Visibility improvement Unit Class I area Baseline (dv) BART (dv) from controls (Ddv)

Both Boilers ...... Caney Creek Wilderness ...... 1.137 0.776 0.361 Upper Buffalo Wilderness ...... 0.163 0.103 0.060 Hercules-Glades Wilderness...... 0.118 0.057 0.061 Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ...... 0.072 0.038 0.034

Total ...... 1.49 0.974 0.516

TABLE 8—METHOD 2—VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT FROM BART ALTERNATIVE CONTROLS (98TH PERCENTILE IMPACTS) MAX OF THREE MODELED YEARS

Visibility BART improvement Unit Class I area Baseline (dv) alternative (dv) from controls (Ddv)

Both boilers ...... Caney Creek Wilderness ...... 1.137 0.753 0.384 Upper Buffalo Wilderness ...... 0.163 0.104 0.059 Hercules-Glades Wilderness...... 0.118 0.069 0.049 Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ...... 0.072 0.044 0.028

Total ...... 1.49 0.97 0.520

The BART alternative modeling in visibility improvement than BART even visibility impacts at Caney Creek, which Table 8 demonstrates that visibility does with the smaller reduction in SO2 is the Class I area impacted the most by not degrade in any Class I area from the emissions. Greater visibility the Domtar units. As a result, for Power baseline and shows greater visibility improvement occurs because Domtar’s Boiler No. 2, the visibility impacts improvement at Caney Creek and baseline NOX emissions contribute more resulting from NOX at Caney Creek 2¥ cumulatively across the four impacted to visibility impairment across all four outweigh SO4 species contributions 2¥ Class I areas than the modeled BART Class I areas for Power Boiler No. 1, and (from SO4 precursors) to impacts at controls in Table 7. Despite a smaller also contribute more at Caney Creek for the other three Class I areas combined reduction in SO2 emissions than BART Power Boiler No. 2 than other (see Table 9). The baseline visibility 71 (a 1,414 tpy SO2 difference), the BART pollutants. Specifically, for Power impacts and the benefits modeled under ¥ alternative results in 300 tpy fewer NOX Boiler No. 1, baseline modeled NO3 the control scenarios at Caney Creek are emissions and 157 tpy fewer PM10 and NO2 impacts have the highest significantly larger than at the other emissions compared to BART. The contribution to visibility impairment at Class I areas. additional reduction in NOX emissions all Class I areas. For Power Boiler No. ¥ under the BART alternative controls 2, baseline modeled NO3 and NO2 results in more overall modeled impacts are the primary driver for

action. See Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0189 cumulative visibility improvement under BART SIP and the FIP BART determinations for SO2, NOX, for a detailed discussion of the FIP modeled versus the BART alternative. See also the associated and PM10 for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. emission rates and results of the visibility September 4, 2018, ‘‘Ashdown Mill BART 71 See Appendix C ‘‘Supplemental BART modeling. Alternative TSD’’ which was included in the SIP Determination Information Domtar A.W. LLC, 68 See Table 4 of the Arkansas Regional Haze submittal from the State and in the docket of this Ashdown Mill (AFIN 41–00002),’’ originally dated Phase III SIP revision to see the method 1 results action in Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0189. (page 11). June 28, 2013 and revised on May 16, 2014, 70 69 See Table 5 (page 12) of the Arkansas Regional Associated with the approved PM10 BART prepared by Trinity Consultants Inc. in conjunction Haze Phase III submittal for a comparison of the determination for Power Boiler No. 1 in the 2008 with Domtar A.W. LLC.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14859

TABLE 9—BASELINE CALPUFF MODELED POLLUTANT SPECIES CONTRIBUTIONS TO IMPACTS FROM POWER BOILERS NO 1 AND 2*

98th Percentile Species contribution to impacts Unit Class I area visibility % % % % impacts (dv) 2¥ ¥ SO4 NO3 PM10 NO2

Power Boiler No. 1 ..... Caney Creek Wilderness ...... 0.335 2.23 85.26 6.68 5.83 Upper Buffalo Wilderness ...... 0.038 2.75 85.89 8.03 3.32 Hercules-Glades Wilderness ...... 0.020 2.70 91.82 3.94 1.55 Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ... 0.014 4.03 90.06 5.13 0.78 Power Boiler No. 2 ..... Caney Creek Wilderness ...... 0.844 22.04 70.68 4.58 2.69 Upper Buffalo Wilderness ...... 0.146 76.99 20.76 2.26 0 Hercules-Glades Wilderness...... 0.105 61.17 37.68 1.06 0.09 Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ... 0.065 81.46 15.47 3.07 0 * Max values among the three modeled years.

ADEQ determined that the BART other three Class I areas are smaller than day, which was selected as alternative controls reduce the overall those at Caney Creek and well below the representative of the highest impact (the visibility impairment from the baseline 0.5 dv threshold used by the State to 8th highest day).74 The average results by 0.520 Ddv for method 2 and is greater determine if a source contributes to across the top ten highest impacted days than the overall visibility improvement visibility impairment at a Class I area. also support that it is appropriate to modeled under BART, which is 0.516 We took this same approach in our 2016 focus on Caney Creek impacts (0.9819 Ddv. ADEQ noted that the most FIP to emphasize the visibility benefits dv baseline impairment) since they are impacted Class I area, Caney Creek at Caney Creek when considering much larger than impacts at the other (1.137 dv baseline impairment), different potential BART controls. Our Class I areas (see Table 10). The BART improves the greatest (0.384 Ddv) with FIP analysis also showed that the alternative results in more visibility the BART alternative for method 2, and anticipated visibility benefits due to improvement at Caney Creek and would experience greater visibility potential BART controls at the other slightly less at the other Class I areas improvement under the BART three Class I areas were much smaller.72 when compared to the BART limits, but alternative scenario than under the Tables 10 and 11, provided by the the visibility improvement at Caney BART scenario, which improves by EPA to complement the State’s analysis, Creek outweighs the difference in 0.361 Ddv. Given that baseline impacts compare the average visibility impact visibility benefit at the other three Class at Caney Creek are much larger than across the top ten highest impacted days I areas altogether. On average, (see Table impacts at the other Class I areas, it is at each Class I area (average 8th to 17th 11) the BART alternative controls reasonable to give greater weight to highest).73 This analysis provides a achieve greater overall visibility visibility benefits at Caney Creek due to broader look at those days with the improvement from the baseline the alternative over BART. The baseline highest impacts at each Class I area. The compared to BART for the ten highest visibility impacts and the level of results are consistent with the State’s impacted days (0.439 Ddv for the visibility benefit from controls at the analysis based on the 98th percentile alternative versus 0.423 Ddv for BART).

TABLE 10—AVERAGE MODELED VISIBILITY IMPACTS OF THE TEN HIGHEST IMPACTED DAYS [Average 8th–17th highest]

Visibility impacts (dv) Area (max of three modeled years) Baseline FIP limits Alternative

Caney Creek Wilderness ...... 0.982 0.692 0.655 Hercules-Glades Wilderness ...... 0.086 0.045 0.053 Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ...... 0.066 0.031 0.039 Upper Buffalo Wilderness ...... 0.138 0.082 0.087

Total ...... 1.273 0.850 0.834

72 See 80 FR 18944, 18978–18989 (April 8, 2015) the Phase III SIP. See ‘‘EPA—CALPUFF summary 74 See 70 FR 39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005), Regional and 81 FR 66332, 66347 (September 27, 2016). for Method 2.xlsx’’ for the EPA’s summary of the Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available 73 This data is based on the CALPUFF modeling modeling data, available in the docket for this Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations. provided by Domtar and relied on by the State in action.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14860 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 11—AVERAGE VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT OF THE TEN HIGHEST IMPACTED DAYS [Average 8th–17th highest]

Visibility improvement (Ddv) (max of three modeled years) Area BART BART alternative

Caney Creek Wilderness ...... 0.290 0.327 Hercules-Glades Wilderness ...... 0.041 0.034 Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ...... 0.035 0.027 Upper Buffalo Wilderness ...... 0.057 0.051

Total ...... 0.423 0.439

Table 12, also provided by the EPA to impacts from Domtar greater than 0.5 scenario. For days with modeled complement the State’s analysis, dv. Overall, the FIP limits and the BART visibility impacts over 0.5 dv, the FIP evaluates the modeled number of days alternative both significantly reduce the limits reduce the number of days from impacted by Domtar over 1.0 dv and 0.5 number of impacted days over 1.0 dv 82 to 36, compared to the BART dv for each scenario at each Class I and 0.5 dv from the baseline at Caney alternative which reduces the number to area.75 These metrics provide additional Creek. Table 12 shows that both the FIP 37 days. This metric of days impacted information comparing the frequency limits and the BART alternative reduce over 0.5 dv very slightly favors the FIP and duration of higher visibility the total modeled days with visibility limits over the BART alternative. impacts. Caney Creek is the only Class impacts over 1.0 dv from fifteen days in I area with days of modeled visibility the baseline to four days for each

TABLE 12—MODELED NUMBER OF DAYS WITH VISIBILITY IMPACTS OVER 0.5 DV AND 1.0 DV

Baseline FIP limits Alternative (days) (days) (days) Area Ddv Ddv Ddv Ddv Ddv Ddv ≥0.5 ≥1.0 ≥0.5 ≥1.0 ≥0.5 ≥1.0

2001 ...... Caney Creek...... 41 10 23 4 23 3 Upper Buffalo, Hercules-Glades, and Mingo ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 ...... Caney Creek...... 22 4 7 0 8 1 Upper Buffalo, Hercules-Glades, and Mingo ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 ...... Caney Creek...... 19 1 6 0 6 0 Upper Buffalo, Hercules-Glades, and Mingo ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total ..... Caney Creek ...... 82 15 36 4 37 4 Upper Buffalo, Hercules-Glades, and Mingo ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0

In accordance with our regulations days impacted over 0.5 dv and 1.0 dv. analysis of the ten highest impacted governing BART alternatives, we Our analysis of the ten highest impacted days and number of days impacted over support the use of a weight of evidence days similarly supports the conclusion 0.5 dv and 1.0 dv, we propose to determination as an alternative to the that the BART alternative provides for approve the determination by the State methodology set forth in 40 CFR greater reasonable progress than BART, that the BART alternative achieves 51.308(e)(3).76 In evaluating Arkansas’ but the analysis of the number of days greater reasonable progress than BART weight of evidence demonstration, we impacted over 0.5 dv and 1.0 dv slightly under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). have evaluated ADEQ’s analysis and favored BART over the BART C. Requirement That Emission additional model results (relying alternative. This single metric, however, Reductions Take Place During the primarily on the analysis of the 98th on which BART performed better than Period of the First Long-Term Strategy percentile impacts at Caney Creek), the the BART alternative (days impacted Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), analysis of emission reductions, and the over 0.5 dv) is not sufficient to outweigh the State must ensure that all necessary analysis of Domtar’s visibility impacts the substantial evidence presented using emission reductions take place during ¥ 2 ¥ due to NO3 compared to SO4 , the other metrics as to the relatively the period of the first long-term strategy which all support the conclusion that greater benefits of the BART alternative for regional haze, i.e. the first regional the BART alternative provides for over BART. Based on this weight of haze implementation period for greater reasonable progress than BART. evidence analysis of emission Arkansas. To meet this requirement, the In addition, we also considered our reductions and visibility improvement State must provide a detailed analysis of the ten highest impacted by the State (using the 98th percentile description of the alternative measure, days and our analysis of the number of metric) as complemented by the EPA’s including schedules for

75 This data is based on the CALPUFF modeling summary for Method 2.xlsx’’ for the EPA’s 76 71 FR 60622 (October 13, 2006). provided by Domtar and relied on by the State in summary of the modeling data, available in the the Phase III SIP revision. See ‘‘EPA—CALPUFF docket for this action.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14861

implementation, the emission 2018, submitted to ADEQ by Domtar,78 December 20, 2018 letter explained that reductions required by the program, all providing emissions data for Power compliance with the PM10 BART necessary administrative and technical Boilers No. 1 and 2 from December 2016 alternative limit for Power Boiler No. 2 procedures for implementing the to November 2018. The letter noted that is demonstrated via compliance with program, rules for accounting and because Power Boiler No. 1 has been in the Boiler MACT. Based on previous monitoring emissions, and procedures standby mode, it has emitted zero compliance stack testing results for enforcement. emissions since early 2016. The letter conducted by Domtar in January 2016, While the BART alternative emission also provided continuous emissions PM emissions for Power Boiler No. 2 limits became enforceable by the State 10 monitoring system (CEMS) daily average are equal to 34 pph PM ,79 which is immediately upon issuance of a minor 10 and thirty-day rolling average emissions below the BART alternative PM10 modification letter sent by the State to 80 Domtar on February 28, 2019,77 the data for SO2 and NOX for Power Boiler emission limit of 81.6 pph PM10. State notes in its Phase III SIP revision No. 2 from December 1, 2016 through Based on this demonstration, we are that Domtar provided documentation November 30, 2018. Based on this proposing to find that Power Boilers No. demonstrating that Power Boilers No. 1 CEMS data (see Table 13), the highest 1 and No. 2 at the Ashdown Mill satisfy and 2 have actually been operating at thirty-day rolling averages for Power the timing requirements of 40 CFR emission levels below the BART Boiler No. 2 were found to be 294 pph 51.308(e) that the necessary emission alternative emission limits since SO2 and 179 pph NOX, which are below reductions associated with the BART December 2016. This documentation the BART alternative emission limits of alternative occur during the first long- included a letter dated December 20, 435 pph SO2 and 293 pph NOX. The term strategy for regional haze.

TABLE 13—ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR POWER BOILER NO. 2 FROM DECEMBER 2016 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2018

Emission rates, (pph) (based on maximum of thirty-day rolling Date averages)

SO2 NOX PM10

December 2016 through November 2018 ...... 294 (¥141) 179 (¥114) 34 (¥47.6)

* The numbers in parentheses indicate an increase (+) or decrease (¥) in emissions from the BART alternative rates of 435 pph SO2; 293 pph NOX; and 81.6 pph PM10.

Domtar submitted additional letters to to be in standby mode and that its January 2016 Boiler MACT stack testing ADEQ containing CEMS emission data emissions have continued to be zero results, actual PM10 emissions from from January 2018 to April 2019.81 This since early 2016. The Domtar letters also Power Boiler No. 2 were conservatively CEMS data demonstrates continued noted that the CEMS daily average and estimated to be 48 pph PM10, which is compliance for Power Boilers No. 1 and thirty-day rolling average emissions for below the BART alternative emission 2 by showing emission levels below the SO2 and NOX were below the BART limit of 81.6 pph PM10 for Power Boiler BART alternative emission limits alternative limits for each month from No. 2.82 beyond 2018 (see Table 14). Domtar January 2018 to April 2019. noted that Power Boiler No. 1 continued Additionally, based on the previous

TABLE 14—ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR POWER BOILER NO. 2 FROM JANUARY 2019 TO APRIL 2019

Emission rates, (pph) * (based on maximum of thirty-day rolling Date averages)

SO2 NOX PM10

January 2019 ...... 280 (¥155) 170 (¥123) 48 (¥33.6) February 2019 ...... 305 (¥130) 178 (¥115) 48 (¥33.6) March 2019 ...... 270 (¥165) 153 (¥140) 48 (¥33.6) April 2019 ...... 250 (¥185) 137 (¥156) 48 (¥33.6)

* The numbers in parentheses indicate an increase (+) or decrease (¥) in emissions from the BART alternative rates of 435 pph SO2; 293 pph NOX; and 81.6 pph PM10.

77 See Minor Modification Letter entitled, Boiler No. 2 are 0.059 lb/MMBtu (thirteen percent 81 See letters from Domtar to ADEQ dated ‘‘Application for Minor Modification Determination of the MACT standard of 0.44 lb/MMBtu), which February 21, 2019; March 15, 2019; April 16, 2019; of Qualifying Minor Modification,’’ included with Domtar estimated to equal 34 pph based on a heat and May 16, 2019. These letters can be found in the the SIP revision and in the docket for this action. input of 569 MMBtu/hr during testing. ‘‘Documentation of Compliance with Phase III SIP 78 See letter from Domtar to ADEQ entitled, Emission Limits’’ section of the Arkansas Regional 80 See information provided in letters dated ‘‘Demonstration of Compliance with Proposed Haze Phase III SIP revision. December 20, 2018, and January 19, 2017, BART Alternative,’’ included with the SIP revision 82 The PM emission rates were based on the submitted by Domtar to ADEQ. These letters can be 10 documenting compliance with the Phase III SIP 0.059 lb/MMBtu stack testing result (thirteen emission limits. found in the ‘‘Documentation of Compliance with percent of the MACT standard, 0.44 lb/MMBtu) and 79 Based on the January 2016 stack testing, it was Phase III SIP Emission Limits’’ section of the a maximum heat input capacity of the boiler of 820 found that the actual PM10 emissions from Power Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision. MMBtu/hr.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14862 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

We propose to conclude that the State limits became enforceable by the State (condition 36). Compliance with SO2, has adequately addressed the applicable immediately upon issuance of the minor NOX, and PM10 emission limits (435, provisions under 40 CFR modification letter sent to Domtar on 293, and 81.6 pph, respectively) for 51.308(e)(2)(iii) to ensure all reductions February 28, 2019.86 87 The final permit Power Boiler No. 2 is based on a thirty- take place during the period of the first revision that became effective August 1, day boiler operating day rolling average long-term strategy. 2019 (0287–AOP–R22) includes (condition 37). Compliance with the plantwide conditions 32 through 43 that SO2 and NOX emission limits for Power D. Demonstration That Emission contain enforceable emission limits for Boiler No. 2 is based on CEMS data that Reductions From Alternative Measure NOX, SO2, and PM10 (see Table 1) as is subject to 40 CFR part 60, as amended Will Be Surplus well as compliance requirements for the (condition 38). Since Power Boiler No. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), power boilers. Compliance with SO2, 2 is subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart the SIP must demonstrate that the NOX and PM10 emissions limits (0.5, DDDDD, the applicable PM10 emission reductions resulting from the 191.1, and 5.2 pph, respectively) for compliance demonstration requirements alternative measure will be surplus to Power Boiler No. 1 is based on a thirty- under the Boiler MACT shall be utilized those reductions resulting from day boiler operating day rolling to demonstrate compliance for PM10 measures adopted to meet requirements average 88 based on natural gas fuel emissions (condition 41). If Power of the CAA as of the baseline date of the usage records and the following AP–42 Boiler No. 2 switches to natural gas SIP. When promulgating this emission factors: 0.6 lb SO2/MMscf, 280 combustion, the applicable natural gas requirement in 1999, the EPA explained lb NOX/MMscf, and 7.6 lb PM10/MMscf AP–42 emission factors of 0.6 lb SO2/ 89 that emission reductions must be (conditions 32 and 33). In the event MMscf, 280 lb NOX/MMscf, and 7.6 lb ‘‘surplus to other Federal requirements Power Boiler No. 1 is permanently PM10/MMscf in conjunction with as of the baseline date of the SIP, that retired, the BART alternative limits and natural gas fuel usage records (condition is, the date of the emission inventories conditions applicable to Power Boiler 40) shall be used to demonstrate on which the SIP relies.’’ 83 The baseline No. 1 shall be satisfied by the compliance with the BART emission date for the 2008 Arkansas Regional permanent retirement and ADEQ receipt limits. In the event Power Boiler No. 2 Haze SIP emission inventory was of a disconnection notice (condition 34). is permanently retired, the BART previously established as 2002 during Records showing compliance for Power alternative limits and conditions SIP planning stages for the first Boiler No. 1 are required and shall be applicable to Power Boiler No. 2 shall implementation period.84 In the retained for at least five years and made be satisfied by the permanent retirement Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP available to ADEQ or EPA upon request and ADEQ receipt of a disconnection revision, ADEQ states that the BART notice (condition 39).90 Records alternative emission reductions are for approval as part of the Arkansas SIP, which showing compliance for Power Boiler ADEQ has done through submittal of the Phase III No. 2 are required and shall be retained based on operational changes for SIP revision. The Plantwide Conditions also state Domtar and are surplus to reductions as that upon initial EPA approval of the permit into for at least five years and made available of the baseline of the 2008 Arkansas the SIP, the permittee shall continue to be subject to ADEQ or EPA upon request Regional Haze SIP. We agree with the to the conditions as approved into the SIP even if (condition 43). With the EPA the conditions are revised as part of a permit concurrence with the State, Domtar may State that the emission reductions amendment until such time as the EPA approves required by the State’s BART alternative any revised conditions into the SIP. The permittee request alternative sampling or are additional and will not result in shall remain subject to both the initial SIP-approved monitoring methods that are equivalent double-counting of reductions from conditions and the revised conditions, until the to the methods specified in conditions EPA approves the revised conditions. 32 to 35 for Power Boiler No. 1, and in other Federal requirements since they 86 See Minor Modification Letter entitled, will occur after the original 2002 ‘‘Application for Minor Modification Determination conditions 37 to 41 for Power Boiler No. emission inventory. Therefore, we of Qualifying Minor Modification,’’ included with 2 (conditions 35 and 42). We propose to propose to find that the Domtar BART the SIP revision and in the docket for this action. approve these specific plantwide permit 87 Under APCEC Reg. 26.1007, ‘‘a source may provisions for the BART alternative as alternative meets the requirements of 40 make the change proposed in its minor permit CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). modification application upon receipt of written source-specific SIP requirements. notification from the Department.’’ After the source E. Implementation of the BART makes the proposed change and until the F. EPA’s Conclusion on Arkansas’ BART Alternative Through Permit Conditions Department takes action on the minor modification Alternative Determination for Domtar application, the source ‘‘must comply with both the The Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III applicable requirements governing the change and We are proposing to find that the SIP revision incorporates certain the proposed permit terms and conditions.’’ State submitted as part of their Arkansas provisions of the permit that became 88 A thirty-day boiler operating day rolling Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision all effective August 1, 2019 and includes average is defined as the arithmetic average of thirty of the required plan elements under 40 consecutive daily values in which there is any hour CFR 51.308(e)(2) and documentation of all conditions for implementing the of operation, and where each daily value is Domtar BART alternative and making it generated by summing the pounds of pollutant for all required analyses for the BART enforceable in practice.85 The emission that day and dividing the total by the sum of the alternative determination. We are hours the boiler was operating that day. A day is proposing to find that the State from 6 a.m. one calendar day to 6 a.m. the following 83 See 64 FR 35714, 35742 (July 1, 1999); see also calendar day. demonstrated through a clear weight of 70 FR 39104, 39143 (July 6, 2005). 89 AP–42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission evidence approach that the BART 84 See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Factors, has been published since 1972 as the alternative achieves greater reasonable Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory primary compilation of the EPA’s emission factor progress than would be achieved SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM , and Regional Haze 2.5 information. It contains emission factors and through the installation and operation of Programs, November 8, 2002. process information for more than 200 air pollution 85 See Plantwide Conditions #32 to #43 from source categories. The emission factors have been BART. The State also established that permit #0287–AOP–R22. For compliance with the developed and compiled from source test data, all necessary emission reductions took CAA Regional Haze Program’s requirements for the material balance studies, and engineering estimates. place during the period of the first long- first planning period, the No. 1 and 2 Power Boilers The Fifth Edition of AP–42 was published in are subject-to-BART alternative measures consistent January 1995. Since then, the EPA has published term strategy, and that no double- with 40 CFR 51.308. These Plantwide Conditions supplements and updates to the fifteen chapters state that the terms and conditions of the BART available in Volume I, Stationary Point and Area 90 This is a notice to ADEQ that indicates that a alternative measures are to be submitted to the EPA Sources. unit is being taken permanently out-of-service.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14863

counting of emission reductions would Natural Resources (MDNR) on August 9, IV. Evaluation of Reasonable Progress occur but would be surplus to those 2018, providing notification of the Requirements for Domtar Ashdown from other Federal requirements as of proposed SIP revision and electronic Mill 2002, the baseline date for the 2008 access to the draft and related On September 27, 2019, in our final SIP.91 The BART alternative limits in documents. Missouri did not provide action on the Arkansas Regional Haze this proposed action are enforceable by comments to Arkansas on the proposed SO2 and PM SIP revision, we the State through certain provisions in SIP revision. determined that Arkansas had fully Permit No. 0287–AOP–R22. These We propose to find that Arkansas addressed the reasonable progress specific permit conditions have been provided an opportunity for requirements under section 51.308(d)(1) submitted as part of the Arkansas consultation to the FLMs and to for the first implementation period and Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal as Missouri for the proposed SIP revision, we agreed with the State’s revised RPGs source-specific SIP requirements. as required under section 51.308(i)(2) for its Class I areas. In that action, we We, therefore, propose to approve the and 51.308(d)(3)(i). noted that the 2016 FIP BART BART alternative demonstration for III. Evaluation of Arkansas’ Long-Term requirements for Domtar were still in Domtar as meeting the applicable place but we agreed with the State that Strategy Provisions for Domtar requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). as long as those requirements continue Ashdown Mill We also propose to approve the specific to be addressed by the measures in the plantwide permit provisions for the We approved the majority of FIP, nothing further is needed to satisfy BART alternative as source-specific SIP Arkansas’ long-term strategy the reasonable progress requirements for requirements. We propose to withdraw requirements in the 2012 final action on the first implementation period. We the SO2, NOX, and PM10 BART emission the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. acknowledged in that action that we limits in the FIP and associated Because we disapproved some of would assess the August 13, 2019, compliance requirements for Domtar ADEQ’s BART determinations and Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Power Boiler Nos. 1 and 2; and replace disagreed with the calculated RPGs for submittal to address the regional haze them with the State’s SO2, NOX, and Arkansas’ two Class I areas in that requirements for Domtar and evaluate PM10 BART alternative emission action, we disapproved the any conclusions drawn by ADEQ limitations and compliance corresponding emission limits and regarding the need to conduct a requirements in the Arkansas Regional schedules of compliance section under reasonable progress analysis for that Haze Phase III SIP revision. In addition, 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) since that section facility. In addition, we stated that we we propose to approve the State’s relies on the State having approved would also assess the August 13, 2019, replacement of the current PM10 BART BART determinations and established submittal to see if changes are needed determination of 0.07 lb/MMBtu that RPGs as part of its long-term strategy. with respect to the revised RPGs, based was approved for Power Boiler No. 1 in The 2016 FIP later established emission on any differences between the SIP and our March 2012 final action on the 2008 limits and included revised RPGs that FIP-based measures for Domtar. Arkansas Regional Haze SIP with the became components of the long-term In the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase PM10 BART alternative limit. strategy for Arkansas’ Class I areas. The III SIP submittal, which we are proposing to approve in this action, the G. Consultation With States and Federal EPA-approved Phase I and II SIP BART alternative analysis performed for Land Managers revisions (mentioned in section I.F of this action) replaced all of the 2016 FIP the Domtar power boilers is based, in The Regional Haze Rule requires BART determinations with enforceable part, on an assessment of the same states to provide the designated FLMs SIP measures except for the factors that must be addressed in a with an opportunity for consultation at requirements pertaining to the two reasonable progress analysis least sixty days prior to holding any 92 Domtar power boilers. With our establishing the RPGs. The 2007 public hearing on a SIP revision for approval of the Phase II SIP revision, all guidance for reasonable progress regional haze for the first of the elements of the long-term strategy explains that, ‘‘it is reasonable to implementation period. Arkansas sent were approved except for those conclude that any control requirements emails to the FLMs on August 9, 2018, pertaining to Domtar. ADEQ did not imposed in the BART determination providing notification of the proposed revise the long-term strategy elements in also satisfy the RPG-related SIP revision and electronic access to the the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III requirements for source review in the draft SIP revision and related SIP submittal except for inclusion of first RPG planning period. Hence, you documents. The FLMs did not provide enforceable emission limitations and may conclude that no additional comments to Arkansas on the proposed compliance schedules for Domtar. emission controls are necessary for SIP revision. ADEQ is addressing those remaining FIP these sources in the first planning The Regional Haze Rule at section 93 BART requirements for Domtar with the period.’’ This rationale applies for 51.308(d)(3)(i) also provides that if a BART alternative provisions in section Domtar since a previous BART state has emissions that are reasonably II of this action. Based upon this, we determination for Domtar was anticipated to contribute to visibility propose to approve the emission limits impairment in a Class I area located in 92 See 40 CFR 51.308(d). The State must evaluate and schedules of compliance section another state, the state must consult and determine the emission reduction measures under 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) pertaining to with the other state(s) in order to that are necessary to make reasonable progress by Domtar in the Arkansas Regional Haze considering the costs of compliance, the time develop coordinated emission Phase III SIP submittal. Pending final necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air management strategies. Since Missouri quality environmental impacts of compliance, and approval of the BART alternative has two Class I areas impacted by the remaining useful life of any potentially affected requirements for the Domtar Ashdown Arkansas sources, Arkansas sent an anthropogenic source of visibility impairment. Mill being addressed in this action, 93 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals email to the Missouri Department of ADEQ will have satisfied all long-term Under the Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting 91 The emission limits and estimated annual strategy requirements under section Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to emission reductions under the BART alternative are 51.308(d)(3) for the first implementation EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 presented in Tables 1 and 6, respectively. period. (pp. 4–2, 4–3, and 5–1).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14864 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

developed in the 2016 FIP. That BART below the BART alternative emission state can satisfy prong 4 requirements is analysis was compared to the BART limits since December 2016 (as with a fully-approved regional haze SIP alternative controls in the Arkansas discussed in section II.C), so emission that meets the requirements found in 40 Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal. reductions from Domtar are reflected in CFR 51.308 or 309. Requirements under As detailed in Section II above, the the current monitoring data which 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) specifically BART alternative measures for Domtar shows that current visibility conditions require that a state participating in a result in greater visibility improvement are better than the revised 2018 RPGs. regional planning process include all than the BART requirements in the FIP We propose to agree with ADEQ that the measures needed to achieve its and the previously approved BART BART alternative for Domtar would apportionment of emission reduction PM10 limit for Power Boiler No. 1. We have only a minor impact on the 2018 obligations agreed upon through that propose to agree with ADEQ’s RPGs previously established in the process. A fully-approved regional haze conclusion in the Arkansas Regional Phase II SIP revision and that there is no plan will ensure that emissions from Haze Phase III submittal that nothing need to revise them in conjunction with sources under an air agency’s further is needed to satisfy the this action. jurisdiction are not interfering with reasonable progress requirements for the We propose to approve the reasonable measures required to be included in first implementation period. progress components under 40 CFR other air agencies’ plans to protect ADEQ also provided calculations in 51.308(d)(1) relating to Domtar Power visibility. The 2009 guidance,100 which the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III Boilers No. 1 and 2. With the approved the 2013 guidance built upon, explained SIP submittal, estimating the effect of Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM how the development of regional haze emission reductions from the BART SIP revision requirements and the SIPs was intended to occur in a alternative on the 2018 revised RPGs for Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III BART collaborative environment among the Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo.94 alternative requirements being states. It was envisioned that through ADEQ scaled CENRAP’s CAMx 95 2018 addressed in this proposed action this process states would coordinate modeled light extinction components (pending final approval), Arkansas will emission controls to protect visibility 2· from Arkansas sources for SO4 and ¥ have addressed all reasonable progress and take action to achieve the emission NO3 in proportion to emission requirements under section 51.308(d)(1) reductions relied upon by other states in reductions anticipated for SO2 and NOX and will have a fully-approved regional their reasonable progress from the SIP controls in the previously haze SIP for the first implementation demonstrations. approved Phase I and Phase II SIPs, as period. Alternatively, the 2013 guidance wells as the BART alternative controls explains that in the absence of a fully- V. Evaluation of Arkansas Visibility for Domtar. The estimation of the approved regional haze SIP, a state may Transport revised 2018 RPGs in the Phase II SIP meet the prong 4 requirement through a accounted for emission reductions On October 4, 2019, the State demonstration showing that emissions anticipated under the FIP for Domtar, submitted the Arkansas 2015 O3 within its jurisdiction do not interfere and the emission reductions due to the NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP with another air agencies’ plans to controls in the Phase I and Phase II SIP revision to meet the requirements of protect visibility. According to the 96 revisions. In our final action on the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) regarding guidance, such an infrastructure SIP Arkansas Regional Haze SO and PM 2 interstate transport for the 2015 O3 submission would need to include an SIP revision, we agreed with the State’s NAAQS. In that proposed SIP submittal, analysis of measures that limit 97 revised RPGs for its Class I areas. We Arkansas addressed the prong 4 visibility-impairing pollutants and note that based on IMPROVE visibility transport obligations in section ensure that the reductions conform with monitoring data, both Caney Creek and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 and 2012 any mutually agreed upon regional haze Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas are PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 O3 RPGs for Class I areas in other states. achieving greater visibility improvement NAAQS; the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; and the 98 A. Fully-Approved Regional Haze SIP to than the revised 2018 RPGs. ADEQ 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We are proposing to estimated that the emission reductions approve these elements in this action. Meet Visibility Transport Requirement from the BART alternative would All other applicable Infrastructure SIP The State indicated in the October 4, negligibly impact the revised 2018 RPGs requirements for that SIP submission 2019, Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS established in the Phase II SIP revision have been or will be addressed in Interstate Transport SIP submittal that a for the twenty percent worst days. As a separate rulemakings. On August 10, fully-approved regional haze SIP will result, ADEQ did not make revisions to 2018, the State also submitted a meet the prong 4 visibility transport the 2018 RPGs for its Class I areas in the discussion on visibility transport in its requirement of CAA section Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Phase II Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The Arkansas submittal. Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 and PM SIP revision. In this action, we Regional Haze NOX SIP revision (Phase 101 have been operating at emission levels are also proposing to approve that I), the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 portion of the Phase II SIP submittal as and PM SIP revision (Phase II),102 and 94 See Excel spreadsheet ‘‘Phase III SIP Rev supplemented by the 2015 O3 NAAQS the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III RPG.xlsx,’’ which is part of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision and can be found in the Interstate Transport SIP revision. SIP revision, if finalized, together will docket for this proposed rulemaking. The EPA most recently issued fully address the deficiencies in the 95 Comprehensive Air Quality Model with guidance for infrastructure SIPs on extensions, i.e. CAMx, is a multi-scale, three- September 13, 2013. The 2013 guidance 100 See ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required dimensional photochemical grid model. lays out how a state’s infrastructure SIP Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 96 See appendix F6 of the Arkansas Regional Haze Hour Fine Particle (PM ) National Ambient Air submission may satisfy prong 4.99 The 2.5 SO2 and PM SIP revision. Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ by William T. Harnett 97 The 2018 RPGs for Caney Creek and Upper guidance indicates that one way that a (September 25, 2009). Buffalo were revised slightly downward from the 101 Final action approved on February 12, 2018 2008 SIP RPGs to 22.47 dv and 22.51 dv for the 99 See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State (83 FR 5927). twenty percent worst days. Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 102 Final action approved on September 27, 2019 98 See Figures 11 and 12 of the Arkansas Regional Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ by (84 FR 51033). Proposed approval on November 30, Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision (pages 50–52). Stephen D. Page (Sept. 13, 2013). 2018 (83 FR 62204).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14865

2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP as visibility impairment in specific Class I EGUs in the Phase I and II SIP identified in our March 12, 2012 final areas affected by emissions from submittals that were approved by the action. If we take final action to approve Arkansas. ADEQ used CENRAP as the EPA. ADEQ summarized those measures the Phase III SIP submittal, Arkansas main vehicle for developing its 2008 in the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS will have a fully-approved regional haze regional haze SIP for the first Interstate Transport SIP and then SIP for the first planning period. This implementation period.104 CENRAP compared the SIP-controlled emissions will ensure that emissions from developed regional photochemical to what was originally projected. The Arkansas will not interfere with modeling results, visibility projections State demonstrated that its emission measures required to be included in for 2018, and source apportionment reduction obligations have been met other air agencies’ plans to protect modeling to assist in identifying because the EPA-approved Phase I and visibility. We are, therefore, proposing contributions to visibility impairment. II SIP revision controls achieve greater to approve the CAA section Two Class I areas outside Arkansas’ emission reductions than Arkansas had 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility transport borders, Hercules-Glades Wilderness committed to by reducing the emissions elements included in the 2018 Arkansas and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge in to less than the projections used to Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, Missouri, were identified as being develop Missouri’s 2018 RPGs for as supplemented in the Arkansas 2015 impacted by emissions generated from Hercules-Glades and Mingo for the first 105 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP within Arkansas. Based on the implementation period.110 revision. These revisions address prong emission assessments and modeled Specifically, the Phase I SIP revision 4 for the following NAAQS: The 2006 visibility impacts, the EPA agreed with 24-hour PM NAAQS; the 2012 annual the 2018 RPGs developed by Missouri replaced source-specific NOx emission 2.5 limits for EGUs with reliance on CSAPR PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight- that account for Arkansas’ emission for O3 season NOX as an alternative to hour O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour contributions to those two Class I 106 BART. The CSAPR update revised the NO2 NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour areas. O3 season NOX budget for Arkansas SO2 NAAQS. Finalization of the In the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Arkansas prong 4 visibility transport Interstate Transport SIP, ADEQ units from 15,110 tons NOX in 2015 to elements in these submittals on the presented the CENRAP modeled 2018 12,048 tons NOX (11,808 allocated to basis of a fully-approved SIP is projected contributions to visibility existing EGUs) in 2017. The budget was contingent upon final approval of the impairment at Missouri’s two Class I further reduced to 9,210 tons NOX Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP areas that included particulate source (9,025 allocated to existing EGUs) in submittal. apportionment (PSAT) results. CENRAP 2018 and beyond, which is 5,164 tons contracted with ENVIRON International less than the 2014 to 2016 O3 season B. Alternate Demonstration to Meet and the University of California at average. When comparing the 2018 O3 Visibility Transport Requirement Riverside (Collectively ‘‘Environ/UCR’’) season emissions, Arkansas totaled As stated previously, the 2013 to perform the emissions and air quality 10,952 tons NOX, which is 2,912 tons guidance provides that in the absence of modeling. The CENRAP modeling below the 13,865 tons projected for a fully-approved regional haze SIP, a projected that Arkansas emissions EGUs. ADEQ noted that three of the state may meet the prong 4 requirement contribute 7.6 percent of the total light Arkansas subject-to-BART EGUs, White through a demonstration showing that extinction at Hercules-Glades and 4.4 Bluff units 1 and 2 and Flint Creek, have emissions within its jurisdiction do not percent of the total light extinction at recently installed low NOX burners with interfere with other air agencies’ plans Mingo.107 Based on the projected separated overfire air to reduce NOX to protect visibility. ADEQ provided CENRAP modeling results, ADEQ noted emissions. The Phase II SIP revision such a demonstration in the Arkansas that both Hercules-Glades and Mingo included measures to address all 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport were expected to achieve visibility remaining disapproved portions of the SIP submittal that addresses the improvements greater than or equal to 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, with requirements of CAA section what would be achieved under a the exception of those portions 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the six NAAQS uniform rate of progress by 2018.108 The specifically pertaining to the Domtar previously mentioned. Arkansas modeling included some emission Ashdown Mill, the only non-EGU documented its apportionment of reductions anticipated from BART subject-to-BART facility in Arkansas. emission reduction obligations needed controls at EGUs in Arkansas and other The Phase II SIP revision controls are at affected Class I areas in other states states. Missouri set its RPGs based on estimated to reduce the total annual SO2 and provided a demonstration that the these 2018 visibility projections by emissions from Arkansas subject-to- SIP includes approved federally CENRAP and did not request Arkansas BART sources to 18,699 tons lower than enforceable measures that contribute to to include any specific measures beyond what was assumed in the 2018 achieving the 2018 RPGs set for those the anticipated BART reductions projections (see Table 15). We are areas. included as inputs in the projected proposing to find that the controlled Through collaboration with the modeling.109 ADEQ met its share of emission rates from each of these SIP Central Regional Air Planning emission reduction obligations that revisions show that Arkansas has Association (CENRAP),103 ADEQ Missouri agreed to and relied on in obtained its share of the emission worked with other central states to establishing their own RPGs by reductions agreed upon and necessary assess state-by-state contributions to implementing BART emission limits for to achieve the 2018 RPGs set by

103 The CENRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal 105 See 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP (page ‘‘Technical Support Document for CENRAP governments, state governments and various federal 45). Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support agencies representing the central states (Texas, 106 77 FR 38007 (June 26, 2012). Regional Haze State Implementation Plans.’’ Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, 107 109 See Alpine Geophysics, LLC (2006) ‘‘CENRAP Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota; and tribal governments See Figures 69 to 72 from the Arkansas 2015 included in these states) that provided technical O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP submittal Regional Haze Control Strategy Analysis Plan.’’ and policy tools for the central states and tribes to (pages 98–102). 110 See Tables 15 and 16 from the Arkansas 2015 108 comply with the EPA’s Regional Haze regulations. Environ International Corporation and O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP submittal (page 104 77 FR 14604 (March 12, 2012). University of California at Riverside (2007). 103).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14866 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Missouri at Hercules-Glades and Mingo areas for the first planning period.

TABLE 15—2018 PROJECTED SO2 EMISSIONS COMPARED TO PHASE II CONTROLLED EGU SO2 EMISSIONS [Tons]

Annual Annual emis- 2018 projected sion reduc- Subject-to-BART facility 111 controlled emissions 112 tions beyond emissions the projections

Entergy Arkansas White Bluff * ...... 45,970 29,175 113 16,795 Arkansas Electric Cooperatives John L. McClellan ...... <1 75 ¥75 Southwestern Power Company Flint Creek ...... 2,896 907 1,989 Arkansas Electric Cooperatives Carl E. Baily Generating Station ...... 0 10 ¥10 Entergy Arkansas Lake Catherine ...... 0 <1 0

Total ...... 48,866 30,167 18,699

* There are no source-specific NOX measures for Arkansas subject-to-BART EGUs, except for a limit for White Bluff Auxiliary boiler. The Phase I SIP revision replaced source-specific NOx emission limits for EGUs in the FIP with reliance on CSAPR for O3 season NOX as an alter- native to BART.

The 2018 emission projections did not Thus, Arkansas has demonstrated that it 16 to show that additional SO2 and NOX assume any emission reductions from is meeting its visibility transport emission reductions of 333 tpy and Domtar. Therefore, Missouri did not rely obligations even without the BART 1,719 tpy, respectively, will occur from on any reductions from the Domtar alternative emission limits for the the Domtar BART alternative controls Ashdown Mill when calculating 2018 Domtar Ashdown Mill in the Phase III evaluated in section II of this proposed RPGs for Mingo and Hercules-Glades. SIP revision. The EPA is adding Table action.

TABLE 16—ARKANSAS PHASE III SIP CONTROLLED EMISSIONS FOR DOMTAR BART ALTERNATIVE [Tons]

2018 projected emissions SIP-controlled emissions SIP emission reduction Subject-to-BART facility SO2 NOX SO2 NOX SO2 NOX

Domtar Ashdown Mill ...... 2,241 3,839 1,907 2,120 333 1,719

The visibility improvement observed C. EPA’s Conclusion on Arkansas submittal. The Arkansas Regional Haze at the IMPROVE monitors by ADEQ in Visibility Transport NOX SIP revision, the Arkansas the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate We propose to approve the CAA Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, Transport SIP indicates that Missouri is section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility and the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase achieving greater visibility improvement transport provisions included in the III SIP revision (if approved) together for Hercules-Glades and Mingo than October 4, 2019, Arkansas 2015 O3 fully address all deficiencies of the 2008 Missouri’s 2018 RPGs.114 The 2012 to NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that were 2016 five-year rolling average of revision for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 identified in our March 12, 2012, partial observed visibility impairment for the NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5 approval/disapproval action. A fully- twenty percent haziest days at Hercules- NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight-hour approved regional haze plan will ensure Glades Wilderness Area is 20.72 dv O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour NO2 that emissions from Arkansas will not (2.34 dv below Missouri’s 2018 RPG). NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour SO2 interfere with measures required to be The 2012 to 2016 five year-rolling NAAQS on the basis that Arkansas will included in other air agencies’ plans to average of observed visibility have a fully-approved Regional Haze protect visibility as required by CAA impairment for the twenty percent SIP once we finalize our proposed section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In addition, haziest days at Mingo National Wildlife approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze we propose to find that Arkansas has Refuge is 22.34 dv (1.37 dv below Phase III SIP submittal. We also propose provided an adequate demonstration in Missouri’s 2018 RPG goal). to approve the visibility transport the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate portion of the August 8, 2018, Phase II Transport SIP revision. The SIP revision as supplemented by the demonstration adequately shows that October 4, 2019, Arkansas 2015 O3 emissions within Arkansas’ jurisdiction NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP do not interfere with other air agencies’

111 These values have been included in the action. It can also be accessed at https:// 113 Entergy (2017) ‘‘Updated BART Five-Factor spreadsheet that Arkansas adapted from a www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/pdfs/ Analysis for SO2 for Units 1 and 2’’ for White Bluff Reasonable Progress Goal scaling spreadsheet regional-haze/f.6-sip-rev-rpg-data-sheet.xlsx. Steam Electric Station (Available at https:// developed by EPA for use in determining the extent 112 Except for White Bluff Controlled Emission www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/pdfs/ that changes in control requirements are anticipated regional-haze/appendix-d-d.1—d.8.pdf). to result in changes in visibility impairment on the Rates, controlled emission rates can be found on the twenty percent worst days for Arkansas Class I 2018 tab of the F.6 SIP Rev RPG Data Sheet. 114 See Figures 73 and 74 of the Arkansas 2015 areas. This spreadsheet was included in the (https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/ O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP submittal submittal by the State and is in the docket of this pdfs/regionalhaze/f.6-sip-rev-rpg-data-sheet.xlsx). (pages 109–110).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14867

plans to protect visibility because of progress requirements for regional haze SO2 limits in the FIP for Domtar and the EGU control measures in the EPA- under the CAA as discussed in sections approval of the SO2 emission limits in approved Phase I and Phase II SIP II, III, and IV of this action. For these the Phase III SIP revision will interfere revisions. reasons, we propose to find that our with attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. In proposed approval of the Arkansas addition, as noted in section II.C of this VI. Evaluation of CAA Section 110(l) Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision and action, Domtar provided documentation Under CAA Section 110(l), the EPA concurrent proposed withdrawal of the demonstrating that Power Boilers No. 1 cannot approve a plan revision ‘‘if the corresponding parts of the FIP do not and 2 have actually been operating at revision would interfere with any interfere with the CAA requirements emission levels below the BART applicable requirement concerning pertaining to BART or reasonable alternative emission limits since attainment and reasonable further progress under 40 CFR 51.308(d) or (e). December 2016. At this time, and progress, or any other applicable We also propose to find that approval notwithstanding the fact that the FIP requirement of this chapter.’’ 115 of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III provisions have not gone into effect, the Sections II, III, and IV of this action SIP revision and concurrent withdrawal areas that would be potentially explain how the Arkansas Regional of the corresponding parts of the FIP impacted by the increase in SO2 Haze Phase III SIP revision will comply pertaining to Domtar will not interfere emissions allowed under the SIP with the requirements of the regional with attainment and maintenance of the revision as compared to the FIP are haze program. i.e., the other applicable NAAQS. The EPA interprets CAA attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Based requirements. Based on those section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS on an assessment of current air quality conclusions, we propose to approve that that are in effect, including those that in the areas most affected by this SIP the SIP revision will not interfere with have been promulgated but for which revision, we are concluding that the less the regional haze requirements in the the EPA has not yet made designations. stringent SO2 emission limits in the CAA, including requirements pertaining The EPA has concluded that 110(l) can Phase III SIP will not interfere with to BART or reasonable progress under be satisfied by demonstrating that attainment of the NAAQS. 2- 40 CFR 51.308(d) or (e). 40 CFR 51.308 substitute measures ensure that status Since SO4 is a precursor to PM, there details the required process for quo air quality is preserved. However, is also a need to address whether determining the appropriate emission 110(l) can also be satisfied by an air withdrawal of the FIP and approval of limitations and compliance schedules quality analysis demonstrating that any the SIP revision will interfere with for the regional haze program. As change in emissions will not interfere attainment of the PM NAAQS. There is with any applicable requirement discussed in section II of this action, the no evidence that withdrawal of the SO2 State followed the prescribed process concerning attainment and reasonable limits in the FIP and the approval of the further progress, or any other applicable for determining the level of control SO2 emission limits in the SIP revision required for the BART alternative for the CAA requirement. In general, the level will interfere with attainment of the PM Domtar Ashdown Mill and adequately of rigor needed for any CAA section NAAQS. At this time, and supported its determination with 110(l) demonstration will vary notwithstanding the fact that the FIP analysis that meets the requirements depending on the nature of the revision, provisions have not gone into effect, the under section 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). In its potential impact on air quality and areas that would be potentially the air quality in the affected area. As section III of this notice, we explain impacted by the increase in SO2 how ADEQ submitted emission limits discussed in sections II.B.3 and II.B.4 of emissions are attaining the 2006 and this action,116 the BART alternative and schedules of compliance pertaining 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. to the Domtar Ashdown Mill that will limits do not reduce SO2 emissions as For these reasons we propose to satisfy all long-term strategy much as the BART controls, however, conclude that the proposed approval of requirements under section all areas in Arkansas have been and are the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III 51.308(d)(3). In section IV of this notice, currently attaining all of the NAAQS, SIP revision and withdrawal of the we discuss how ADEQ fully addressed even though the BART controls for remaining FIP will not interfere with the reasonable progress requirements Domtar have not been implemented. attainment or maintenance of the under section 51.308(d)(1) and we agree Therefore, even though the BART NAAQS in Arkansas. that no additional controls are necessary alternative will not achieve the same VII. Proposed Action to achieve reasonable progress for the level of emission reductions for SO2, this will not negatively impact current first implementation period. Our A. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP air quality, which is already sufficient to proposed approval of the Arkansas Submittal attain the SO NAAQS in Arkansas. Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision is 2 Further, the State of Missouri did not We propose to approve the Arkansas supported by our evaluation of the rely on reductions from Domtar for its Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision State’s analytical conclusions and our Regional Haze plans and the EPA is not (submitted August 13, 2019) as meeting rationale that the State has met the aware of any other air quality analyses the applicable regional haze BART BART alternative and reasonable that rely on implementation of the alternative provisions set forth in 40 BART requirements for Domtar in the CFR 51.308(e)(2) for the Domtar 115 Note that ‘‘reasonable further progress’’ as used in CAA section 110(l) is a reference to that FIP. Thus, the proposed withdrawal of Ashdown Mill. We propose to approve term as defined in section 301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. the BART provisions in the FIP and the reasonable progress components 7501(a)), and as such means reductions required to replacement with the BART alternative under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) relating to attain the NAAQS set for criteria pollutants under requirements in the SIP will not Domtar Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. With section 109. This term as used in section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a)) is not synonymous with negatively impact current air quality. the approved Phase I and II SIP revision ‘‘reasonable progress’’ as that term is used in the While it is true that the FIP included requirements and the Arkansas Regional regional haze program. Instead, section 110(l) more stringent SO2 emission limits for Haze Phase III BART alternative provides that the EPA cannot approve plan Domtar than the BART alternative, there requirements being addressed in this revisions that interfere with regional haze requirements (including reasonable progress is no evidence that withdrawal of the proposed action (pending final requirements) as far as they are ‘‘other applicable approval), Arkansas will have addressed requirements’’ of the CAA. 116 See Tables 5 and 6 of this proposed action. all reasonable progress requirements

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 14868 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules

under section 51.308(d)(1) with a fully- Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP D. CAA Section 110(l) approved regional haze SIP. We, submittal. In addition, we propose to We propose to find that approval of therefore, propose to approve the approve the State’s withdrawal of the the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III emission limits and schedules of current PM10 BART determination of SIP revision and concurrent withdrawal compliance section under 0.07 lb/MMBtu for Power Boiler No. 1 of the corresponding parts of the FIP, as 51.308(d)(3)(v)(3) pertaining to the in the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, proposed, meet the provisions of CAA Domtar Ashdown Mill in the August 13, and propose to replace it with our section 110(l). 2019, submittal. Pending final approval approval of the PM10 BART alternative of the BART alternative requirements limit in the Arkansas Regional Haze VIII. Incorporation by Reference for the Domtar Ashdown Mill being Phase III SIP submittal. In this action, we propose to include addressed in this action, ADEQ will in a final rule regulatory text that have satisfied all long-term strategy C. Arkansas Visibility Transport includes incorporation by reference. In requirements under section We propose to approve the portion of accordance with the requirements of 1 51.308(d)(3). We agree with ADEQ’s CFR 51.5, we propose to incorporate by the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate determination that the revised 2018 Transport SIP revision (submitted reference revisions to the Arkansas RPGs in the Phase II action do not need October 4, 2019) addressing CAA source specific requirements as to be further revised. We propose to find section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will that Arkansas has fulfilled its visibility transport provisions for consultation requirements to FLMs and continue to make, these documents Arkansas for the 2006 24-hour PM to Missouri for the proposed SIP 2.5 generally available electronically NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM submittal under sections 51.308(i)(2) 2.5 through www.regulations.gov and in NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight-hour and 51.308(d)(3)(i). Lastly, we propose hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office O NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour NO to approve regional haze program- 3 2 (please contact James E. Grady, 214– NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour SO specific plantwide conditions 32 to 43 2 665–6745, [email protected] for NAAQS. We also propose to approve from section VI of permit revision more information). the visibility transport portion of the #0287–AOP–R22 into the SIP (effective 2018 Phase II SIP revision, as IX. Statutory and Executive Order August 1, 2019) for implementing the supplemented by the Arkansas 2015 O Reviews Domtar BART alternative. Specifically, 3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP these plantwide conditions of permit Under the CAA, the Administrator is #0287–AOP–R22 are to be included in revision. The State’s analysis in the required to approve a SIP submission the SIP and approved as source-specific Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate that complies with the provisions of the SIP requirements for Power Boilers No. Transport SIP supersedes the visibility Act and applicable Federal regulations. 1 and 2 are as follows: 117 transport portion of the 2017 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). infrastructure SIP. We propose to Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the • The SO2, NOX, and PM10 emission limits in pph for Power Boiler No. 1 approve the prong 4 portions of these EPA’s role is to approve state choices, (condition 32) and Power Boiler No. 2 SIP submittals on the basis that provided that they meet the criteria of (condition 37) based on a thirty boiler Arkansas will have a fully-approved the CAA. Accordingly, this action operating day rolling average. regional haze SIP if we finalize our merely proposes to approve state law as • Monitoring, recordkeeping, and proposed approval of the Arkansas meeting Federal requirements and does reporting requirements for Power Boiler Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal. not impose additional requirements No. 1 (conditions 33 to 36) and Power The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP beyond those imposed by state law. For 118 Boiler No. 2 (conditions 38 to 43). revision, the Arkansas Regional Haze that reason, this action: 119 • SO2 and PM SIP revision, and the Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory B. FIP Withdrawal Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP action’’ subject to review by the Office We propose to withdraw the revision (if finalized) together will fully of Management and Budget under remaining portions of the Arkansas address the deficiencies of the 2008 Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Regional Haze FIP at 40 CFR 52.173 that Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that were October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and 13771 (82 FR impose SO2 and NOX BART identified in the March 12, 2012, partial requirements for Domtar Ashdown Mill approval/disapproval action. A fully- 9339, February 2, 2017); • Does not impose an information Power Boiler No. 1; and SO2, NOX, and approved regional haze plan ensures collection burden under the provisions PM10 BART requirements for Domtar that emissions from Arkansas sources Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 2. We do not interfere with measures required of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 propose to replace these portions of the to be included in another air agencies’ U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a withdrawn FIP with our approval of the plans to protect visibility. As an significant economic impact on a State’s SO , NO , and PM BART alternative basis for approval of CAA 2 X 10 substantial number of small entities alternative emission limitations in the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for these NAAQS, we propose to find that under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 117 For compliance with the CAA Regional Haze Arkansas has provided an adequate • Program’s requirements for the first planning demonstration in the October 4, 2019 Does not contain any unfunded period, Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 are subject-to- mandate or significantly or uniquely BART alternative measures consistent with 40 CFR submittal showing that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere affect small governments, as described 51.308. Upon final EPA approval of the permit into in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the SIP, the permittee continues to be subject to the with other air agencies’ plans to protect conditions as approved into the SIP even if the visibility. of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); conditions are revised as part of a permit • Does not have Federalism amendment by ADEQ until such time as EPA implications as specified in Executive 118 approves any revised conditions into the SIP. The Final action approved on February 12, 2018 Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, (83 FR 5927). permittee shall remain subject to both the initial 1999); SIP-approved conditions and the revised SIP 119 See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for • conditions, unless and until EPA approves the proposed approval and 84 FR 51033 (September 27, Is not an economically significant revised conditions. 2019) for final approval. regulatory action based on health or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 51 / Monday, March 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 14869

safety risks subject to Executive Order comment on whether good cause exists available electronically in ASCII, 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); for granting a blanket six-month Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. • Is not a significant regulatory action extension of the effective date of new The complete text may be purchased subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR truth-in-billing requirements in the from the Commission’s copy contractor, 28355, May 22, 2001); Television Viewer Protection Act of 445 12th Street SW, Room CY–B402, • Is not subject to requirements of 2019, until December 20, 2020. Washington, DC 20554. Alternative section 12(d) of the National DATES: Comments are due on or before formats are available for people with Technology Transfer and Advancement April 6, 2020; reply comments are due disabilities (Braille, large print, Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because on or before April 13, 2020. electronic files, audio format), by application of those requirements would ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, sending an email to [email protected] or be inconsistent with the CAA; and calling the Commission’s Consumer and • identified by MB Docket No. 20–61, by Does not provide the EPA with the any of the following methods: Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) discretionary authority to address, as • Federal Communications 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 appropriate, disproportionate human Commission’s website: http:// (TTY). health or environmental effects, using fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the Synopsis practicable and legally permissible instructions for submitting comments. methods, under Executive Order 12898 • Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or 1. On December 20, 2019, Congress (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). enacted the Television Viewer messenger delivery, by commercial 1 In addition, the SIP is not approved overnight courier, or by first-class or Protection Act of 2019 (TVPA), which to apply on any Indian reservation land overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All added section 642 to Title VI of the or in any other area where the EPA or Communications Act of 1934, as filings must be addressed to the 2 an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a Commission’s Secretary, Office of the amended (the Act). Section 642 tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Secretary, Federal Communications requires multichannel video Indian country, the proposed rule does Commission. programming distributors (MVPDs) to not have tribal implications and will not • All hand-delivered or messenger- ‘‘give consumers a breakdown of all impose substantial direct costs on tribal delivered paper filings for the charges related to the MVPD’s video governments or preempt tribal law as Commission’s Secretary must be service’’ before entering into a contract 3 specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 with a consumer for service, and also FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, gives consumers 24 hours in which to cancel such service without penalty. In List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand addition, section 642 requires greater Environmental protection, Air deliveries must be held together with transparency in electronic bills and pollution control, Best Available rubber bands or fasteners. Any prohibits MVPDs and providers of fixed Retrofit Technology, Carbon monoxide, envelopes and boxes must be disposed broadband internet access service from Incorporation by reference, of before entering the building. charging consumers for equipment they Intergovernmental relations, Lead, • Commercial overnight mail (other do not provide. Section 642 of the Act, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail as added by the TVPA, becomes matter, Reporting and recordkeeping and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 effective June 20, 2020, six months after requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD the date of enactment of the TVPA; dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic 20701. however, the Commission for ‘‘good compounds. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, cause’’ may extend the effective date by Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Express, and Priority mail must be six months.4 In this Public Notice, we seek comment on whether, pursuant to Dated: March 6, 2020. addressed to 445 12th Street SW, section 1004(b) of the TVPA, good cause Kenley McQueen, Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities: Contact the exists for granting a blanket extension of Regional Administrator, Region 6. FCC to request reasonable section 642’s effective date by six [FR Doc. 2020–05106 Filed 3–13–20; 8:45 am] accommodations (accessible format months, until December 20, 2020. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P documents, sign language interpreters, Parties advocating for a blanket CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] extension should explain in detail the or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) bases for their assertion that the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 418–0432. effective date should be so extended. COMMISSION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Raelynn 1 The TVPA was enacted as Title X of the 47 CFR Chapter 1 ‘‘Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020’’ Remy, [email protected] or (202) (H.R. 1865, 116th Cong.). [MB Docket No. 20–61; DA 20–203] 418–2120. 2 Although the TVPA amended the Act in other SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a respects, this Public Notice concerns only those Media Bureau Seeks Comment on amendments made by section 1004(a) of the TVPA. summary of a Public Notice, DA 20–203, Whether To Extend the Effective Date 3 Section 642(a) of the Act, as added by section released by the Commission’s Media of New Truth-In-Billing Requirements 1004(a) of the TVPA, indicates that information Bureau on February 27, 2020. The full in the Television Viewer Protection Act about fees and other charges can be provided by text is available for public inspection phone, in person, online, or by other reasonable of 2019 and copying during regular business means, and that a copy of this information must be sent to consumers by email, online link, or other AGENCY: Federal Communications hours in the FCC Reference Center, reasonably comparable means not later than 24 Commission. Federal Communications Commission, hours after entering into a contract. 4 ACTION: Proposed rule. 445 12th Street SW, Room CY–A257, See TVPA, section 1004(b) (‘‘Section 642 of the Washington, DC 20554. This document [Act] . . . shall apply beginning on the date that is SUMMARY: 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. In this document, the Media will also be available via https:// The [Commission] may grant an additional 6-month Bureau of the Federal Communications docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA– extension if [it] finds that good cause exists for such Commission (Commission) seeks 20–203A1.docx. Documents will be . . . extension.’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS