Document ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0426-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: AR021.01 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arkansas; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report, Proposed rule, 15 pages.
Posted Date: 2019-03-28T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11697-11711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05861]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0426; FRL-9990-62-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress 
Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor through the 
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on June 2, 2015. 
The SIP submittal addresses requirements of the federal regulations 
that direct the State to submit a periodic report that assesses 
progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for 
regional haze with a determination of adequacy of the existing 
implementation plan.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-
0426, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
grady.james@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit any information electronically that is considered 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions 
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The 
written comment is considered the official comment with multimedia 
submissions and should include all discussion points desired. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or their contents located outside 
of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file 
sharing systems). For additional submission methods, please contact 
James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745, grady.james@epa.gov. For the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA 
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may 
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location 
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745; 
grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment with Mr. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' each mean ``the EPA.''

Table of Contents:

I. Background
    A. The Regional Haze Program
    B. Previous Actions on Arkansas Regional Haze
    C. Arkansas' Regional Haze Progress Report SIP Revision
II. Evaluation of Arkansas' Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 
Revision
    A. Class I Areas
    B. Status of Implementation of Measures
    1. BART Controls
    2. Reasonable Progress Source Controls
    3. CAIR and CSAPR
    4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    5. Agriculture and Forestry Smoke Management
    6. Additional Federal Programs
    7. EPA's Conclusion on the Status of Implementation of Measures
    C. Emission Reductions From Implementation of Measures
    D. Visibility Conditions and Changes
    E. Emission Tracking
    F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
    H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
    I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Implementation Plan
    J. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
III. The EPA's Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The Regional Haze Program

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that occurs over a wide 
geographic area primarily from the pollution of fine particles 
(PM2.5) emitted into the air.\1\ Fine particles causing haze 
consist of sulfates (SO4\2\ -), nitrates 
(NO3-), organics, elemental carbon (EC), and soil 
dust.\2\ Airborne PM2.5 can scatter

[[Page 11698]]

and absorb the incident light and, therefore, lead to atmospheric 
opacity and horizontal visibility degradation. Regional haze limits 
visual distance and reduces color, clarity, and contrast of view. 
PM2.5 can cause serious adverse health effects and mortality 
in humans. It also contributes to environmental effects such as acid 
deposition and eutrophication. Emissions that affect visibility include 
a wide variety of natural and man-made sources. Reducing 
PM2.5 and its precursor gases in the atmosphere is an 
effective method of improving visibility. PM2.5 precursors 
consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5 microns 
([micro]m) in diameter and usually form secondary in nature 
indirectly from other sources. Particles less than or equal to 10 
[micro]m in diameter are referred to as PM10. Particles 
greater than PM2.5 but less than PM10 are 
referred to as coarse mass. Coarse mass can contribute to light 
extinction as well and is made up of primary particles directly 
emitted into the air. Fine particles tend to be man-made, while 
coarse particles tend to have a natural origin. Coarse mass settles 
out from the air more rapidly than fine particles and usually will 
be found relatively close to emission sources. Fine particles can be 
transported long distances by wind and can be found in the air 
thousands of miles from where they were formed.
    \2\ Organic carbon (OC) can be emitted directly as particles or 
formed through reactions involving gaseous emissions. Elemental 
carbon, in contrast to organic carbon, is exclusively of primary 
origin and emitted by the incomplete combustion of carbon-based 
fuels. Elemental carbon particles are especially prevalent in diesel 
exhaust and smoke from wild and prescribed fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, ``Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE), shows that 
visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all of 
the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. In 1999, the 
average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks 
and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting 
certain size criteria) in the western United States was 100-150 
kilometers (km), or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range 
that would exist under estimated natural conditions.\4\ In most of the 
eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range 
was less than 30 km, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would 
exist under estimated natural conditions. CAA programs have reduced 
emissions of some haze-causing pollution, lessening some visibility 
impairment and resulting in partially improved average visual 
ranges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in km or miles, at 
which a dark object can be viewed against the sky by a typical 
observer.
    \4\ 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
    \5\ An interactive ``story map'' depicting efforts and recent 
progress by EPA and states to improve visibility at national parks 
and wilderness areas may be visited at: http://arcg.is/29tAbS3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a 
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas where 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.\6\ Congress added 
section 169B to the CAA in 1990 that added visibility protection 
provisions, and the EPA promulgated final regulations addressing 
regional haze as part of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, which was most 
recently updated in 2017.\7\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the 
existing 1980 visibility regulations and established a more 
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The 
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are 
included in the EPA's broader visibility protection regulations at 40 
CFR 51.300-309. The regional haze regulations require states to 
demonstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of a 
return to natural visibility conditions for Class I areas both within 
and outside states by 2064. The CAA requirement in section 169A(b)(2) 
to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all fifty states, the District 
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States were required to submit the 
first implementation plan addressing visibility impairment caused by 
regional haze no later than December 17, 2007.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks 
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in 
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in consultation with the 
Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 
visibility was identified as an important value. The extent of a 
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, 
such as park expansions. Although states and tribes may designate 
additional areas as Class I, the requirements of the visibility 
program set forth in the CAA applies only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' When the term ``Class 
I area'' is used in this action, it means ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and CAA 
Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
    \7\ See the July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final action (64 FR 
35714), as amended on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006 
(71 FR 60631), June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and on January 10, 2017 
(82 FR 3079).
    \8\ See 40 CFR 51.308(b). The EPA's regional haze regulations 
require subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 
51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use 
of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls at certain 
categories of existing major stationary sources \9\[thinsp]built 
between 1962 and 1977. These large, often under-controlled, older 
stationary sources are required to procure, install, and operate BART 
controls to address visibility impacts from them. Under the Regional 
Haze Rule, any of these BART-eligible sources \10\ that are reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class 
I area are determined to be subject-to-BART.\11\ States are directed to 
conduct BART determinations for each source classified as subject-to-
BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires states (or EPA in the case of 
a FIP) to identify the level of control representing BART after 
considering the five statutory factors set out in CAA section 
169A(g)(2). States must establish emission limits, a schedule of 
compliance, and other measures consistent with the BART determination 
process for each source subject-to-BART. In lieu of requiring source-
specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt 
alternative measures, as long as the alternative provides greater 
reasonable progress toward improving visibility than BART. Namely, the 
alternative must be ``better than BART.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(7) (listing the set of ``major 
stationary sources'' potentially subject-to-BART).
    \10\ See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, II. How to Identify BART-eligible 
Sources.
    \11\ Under the BART Guidelines, states may select a visibility 
impact threshold, measured in deciviews (dv), below which a BART-
eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The state must document 
this threshold in the SIP and state the basis for its selection of 
that value. Any source with visibility impacts that model above the 
threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review. The 
BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting 
different Class I areas. States should consider the number of 
emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the 
magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any visibility impact 
threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv. See 40 
CFR 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1.
    \12\ The required content of BART alternative measures is 
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Previous Actions on Arkansas Regional Haze

    Arkansas submitted a regional haze SIP on September 9, 2008, to 
address the requirements of the first regional haze implementation 
period. On August 3, 2010, the State submitted a SIP revision with 
mostly non-substantive changes that addressed Arkansas Pollution 
Control and Ecology Commission (APCEC) Regulation 19 Chapter 15.\13\ On 
September 27, 2011, the State submitted supplemental information to 
address the regional haze requirements. The EPA collectively refers to 
the original 2008 submittal and these revisions together as the 2008 
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. On March 12, 2012, the EPA partially 
approved and partially disapproved the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze 
SIP.\14\ Specifically, the EPA disapproved

[[Page 11699]]

certain BART compliance dates; the State's identification of certain 
BART-eligible sources and subject-to-BART sources; certain BART 
determinations for NOX, SO2, and PM; the State's 
reasonable progress analysis and RPGs; and a portion of the State's 
long-term strategy (LTS). The remaining provisions of the 2008 Arkansas 
Regional Haze SIP were approved. The final partial disapproval started 
a two-year federal implementation plan (FIP) clock that obligated the 
EPA to either approve a SIP revision or promulgate a FIP to address the 
disapproved portions of the action.\15\ Because a SIP revision was not 
received and since the FIP clock expired in April 2014, the EPA 
promulgated a FIP (the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP) on September 27, 
2016 to address the disapproved portions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional 
Haze SIP.\16\ Among other things, the FIP established SO2, 
NOX, and PM emission limits under the BART requirements for 
nine units at six facilities: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation 
(AECC) Carl E. Bailey Plant Unit 1 Boiler; AECC John L. McClellan Plant 
Unit 1 Boiler; SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1; Entergy Lake 
Catherine Plant Unit 4 Boiler; Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2 
Boilers and the Auxiliary Boiler; and the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power 
Boilers No. 1 and 2. The FIP also established SO2 and 
NOX emission limits under the reasonable progress 
requirements for the Entergy Independence Plant Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The September 9, 2008 SIP submittal included APCEC 
Regulation 19, Chapter 15, which is the state regulation that 
identified the BART-eligible and subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas 
and established BART emission limits for subject-to-BART sources. 
The August 3, 2010 SIP revision did not revise Arkansas' list of 
BART-eligible and subject-to-BART sources or revise any of the BART 
requirements for affected sources. Instead, it included mostly non-
substantive revisions to the state regulation.
    \14\ See the final action on March 12, 2012 (77 FR 14604).
    \15\ Under CAA section 110(c), EPA is required to promulgate a 
FIP within 2 years of the effective date of a finding that a state 
has failed to make a required SIP submission or has made an 
incomplete submission, or of the date that EPA disapproves a SIP in 
whole or in part. The FIP requirement is terminated only if a state 
submits a SIP, and EPA approves that SIP as meeting applicable CAA 
requirements before promulgating a FIP. CAA section 302(y) defines 
the term ``federal implementation plan'' in pertinent part, as a 
plan (or portion thereof) promulgated by EPA ``to fill all or a 
portion of a gap or otherwise correct all or a portion of an 
inadequacy'' in a SIP, and which includes enforceable emission 
limitations or other control measures, means or techniques 
(including economic incentives, such as marketable permits or 
auctions or emissions allowances).
    \16\ See FIP final action (81 FR 66332) as corrected on October 
4, 2016 (81 FR 68319).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following petitions for reconsideration \17\ submitted by the 
State, industry, and ratepayers, the EPA issued a partial 
administrative stay of the effectiveness of the FIP for ninety days on 
April 25, 2017.\18\ During that period, on July 12, 2017, the State 
submitted a proposed SIP submittal (the Arkansas Regional Haze 
NOX SIP revision) to address NOX BART 
requirements for all EGUs and the reasonable progress requirements with 
respect to NOX. These NOX provisions were 
previously disapproved by the EPA in our 2012 final action for the 2008 
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX 
SIP submittal replaced all source-specific NOX BART 
determinations established in the FIP with reliance upon the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program for ozone 
(O3) season NOX as an alternative to 
NOX BART. The SIP submittal addressed the NOX 
BART requirements for Bailey Unit 1, McClellan Unit 1, Flint Creek 
Boiler No. 1, Lake Catherine Unit 4; White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and the 
Auxiliary Boiler. The revision did not address NOX BART for 
Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. On February 12, 2018, we 
took final action to approve the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX 
SIP revision and to withdraw the corresponding parts of the FIP.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See the docket associated with this proposed rulemaking for 
a copy of the petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay 
submitted by the State of Arkansas; Entergy Arkansas Inc., Entergy 
Mississippi Inc., and Entergy Power LLC (collectively ``Entergy''); 
AECC; and the Energy and Environmental Alliance of Arkansas (EEAA).
    \18\ 82 FR 18994.
    \19\ See 82 FR 42627 (September 11, 2017) for the proposed 
approval. See also 83 FR 5915 and 83 FR 5927 (February 12, 2018) for 
the final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State submitted another SIP revision (the Arkansas Regional 
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision) on August 8, 2018, that 
addressed most of the remaining parts of the 2008 Arkansas Regional 
Haze SIP disapproved in 2012. The August 8, 2018 SIP submittal was 
intended to replace the federal SO2 and PM BART 
determinations for EGUs as well as the reasonable progress 
determinations established in the FIP with the State's own 
determinations. Specifically, the SIP revision addressed the applicable 
SO2 and PM BART requirements for Bailey Unit 1; 
SO2 and PM BART requirements for McClellan Unit 1; 
SO2 BART requirements for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1; 
SO2 BART requirements for White Bluff Units 1 and 2; 
SO2, NOX, and PM BART requirements for the White 
Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; \20\ and Lake Catherine Unit 4. The submittal 
addressed the reasonable progress requirements for Independence Units 1 
and 2 and all other sources in Arkansas. In addition, it established 
revised RPGs for Arkansas' two Class I areas and revised the State's 
long-term strategy provisions. The submittal did not address BART and 
associated long-term strategy requirements for Domtar Ashdown Mill 
Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. On November 30, 2018, we proposed approval 
of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision and to 
withdraw the corresponding parts of the FIP.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP 
revision established a new NOX emission limit of 32.2 pph 
for the Auxiliary Boiler to satisfy NOX BART and replace 
the SIP determination that we previously approved in the Arkansas 
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision. In the Arkansas Regional 
Haze NOX SIP revision, ADEQ incorrectly identified the 
Auxiliary Boiler as participating in the CSAPR trading program for 
O3 season NOX to satisfy the NOX 
BART requirements but the new source specific NOX BART 
emission limit corrects that error.
    \21\ See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for proposed approval. 
The Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision also 
addressed separate CAA requirements related to interstate visibility 
transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), but we did not 
propose action on that part of the submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Arkansas' Regional Haze Progress Report SIP Revision

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), each state is required to submit a progress 
report that evaluates progress toward the RPGs for each Class I area 
within the state and each Class I area outside the state which may be 
affected by emissions from within the state. In addition, 40 CFR 
51.308(h) requires states to submit, at the same time as the progress 
report, a determination of adequacy of the existing regional haze 
implementation plan.\22\ The progress report for the first planning 
period is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze 
SIP and must take the form of a SIP revision. Arkansas submitted its 
initial regional haze SIP on September 9, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide in the 
progress report an assessment of whether the current 
``implementation plan'' is sufficient to enable the states to meet 
all established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term 
``implementation plan'' is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze 
Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or Tribal Implementation Plan. As such, 
the Agency may consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those 
in a state's regional haze plan in assessing the adequacy of the 
``existing implementation plan'' under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 2, 2015, Arkansas submitted its progress report to the EPA 
in the form of a SIP revision under 40 CFR 51.308. As described in 
further detail in section II of this proposed rulemaking, to address 
the progress report requirements, the State provided: (1) A description 
of the status of measures in the approved regional haze SIP; (2) a 
summary of emission reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of 
visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state (and for two 
Class I areas in Missouri); (4) an analysis tracking the changes in 
emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5) an 
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within 
or outside the state that have limited or

[[Page 11700]]

impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving 
visibility; (6) an assessment of whether the approved regional haze SIP 
elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State (and other 
states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the state) to meet 
all established RPGs; (7) a review of the State's visibility monitoring 
strategy; and (8) a determination of adequacy of the existing 
implementation plan.

II. Evaluation of Arkansas' Regional Haze Progress Report SIP Revision

    On June 2, 2015, the EPA received Arkansas' periodic report on 
progress for the State's regional haze SIP in the form of a SIP 
revision. That submission is the subject of this proposed approval. The 
periodic report for the first implementation period assessed visibility 
progress toward the 2018 RPGs for Class I areas in the state. It also 
assessed visibility progress in general for two Class I areas in 
Missouri that may be affected by emissions from within the state. The 
progress report asserted that Arkansas was committed to remedying the 
disapproved portions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP submission. 
At this time, the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP 
revision,\23\ the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP 
revision (if EPA's proposed approval is finalized),\24\ and the 
remaining part of the FIP that addresses the BART and associated long-
term strategy requirements for Domtar together fully address the 
deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. These deficiencies 
were previously identified in 2012 by the EPA and acknowledged by ADEQ 
in its June 2, 2015 progress report SIP. The 2018 Arkansas Regional 
Haze SO2 and PM SIP submission provides more recent 
visibility information in addition to the visibility data presented by 
ADEQ in the 2015 progress report. The recent data shows visibility 
improvement that is exceeding the revised visibility goals set for 2018 
for the Arkansas Class I areas. Furthermore, up-to-date emission trends 
indicate that SO2, NOX, and PM emissions have all 
been decreasing. The EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve Arkansas' 
progress report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 
CFR 51.308(g) and (h), as explained in further detail in each 
subsequent section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5927).
    \24\ See the EPA's proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 
62204). We note that in the event this proposed rule is not 
finalized, there is already FIP in place which addresses the 
previously identified deficiencies. Thus, regardless of whether the 
EPA finalizes the proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze 
SO2 and PM SIP revision, Arkansas will have an 
implementation plan in place that fully addresses the regional haze 
requirements for the first implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Class I Areas

    Arkansas has two Class I areas within its borders that are 
addressed in the progress report: Upper Buffalo and Caney Creek 
Wilderness areas.\25\ Visibility impairment at Arkansas' two Class I 
areas was tracked in units of deciviews,\26\ which is related to the 
cumulative sum of visibility impairment from individual aerosol species 
as measured by two monitors in the IMPROVE Network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Upper Buffalo Wilderness area, located in Newton County, 
Arkansas, is an oak-hickory forest with intermittent portions of 
shortleaf pine located in the Ozark National Forest and offers 
12,108 acres of boulder strewn and rugged scenery along the Buffalo 
River. Caney Creek Wilderness is located in Polk County, Arkansas, 
and covers 14,460 acres on the southern edge of the Ouachita 
National Forest and protects a rugged portion of the Ouachita 
Mountains.
    \26\ A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light 
extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to 
uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of 
conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The preamble to the 
Regional Haze Rule provides additional details about the deciview 
(64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through collaboration with the Central Regional Air Planning 
Association (CENRAP),\27\ ADEQ worked with the central states to assess 
state-by-state contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class 
I areas in Arkansas and those affected by emissions from Arkansas. ADEQ 
used CENRAP as the main vehicle for developing its regional haze SIP 
for the first implementation period. The results reported by ADEQ in 
the progress report compared available monitored visibility conditions 
to improvements that were projected based on the technical analysis and 
emission inventories that were a part of the CENRAP modeling.\28\ 
CENRAP generated regional photochemical modeling results, visibility 
projections, and source apportionment modeling to assist in identifying 
contributions to visibility impairment at Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo 
Wilderness Areas in Arkansas. ADEQ also indicated through CENRAP 
modeling results that two Class I areas outside Arkansas' borders at 
Hercules Glades and Mingo Wilderness areas in Missouri were impacted by 
emissions from within Arkansas. In the ensuing sections, we discuss how 
the State addressed the progress report requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(g) and (h) for these Class I areas, and we show our analysis and 
proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied the 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The CENRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments, 
state governments and various federal agencies representing the 
central states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas, 
Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota; and tribal governments included 
in these states) that provided technical and policy tools for the 
central states and tribes to comply with the EPA's Regional Haze 
regulations. Due to lack of funding, CENRAP subsequently ceased to 
function and Arkansas is communicating through the Central States 
Air Resource Agencies (CenSARA) with the other states that were part 
of CENRAP.
    \28\ See the technical support document (TSD) for CENRAP 
Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State 
Implementation, found in Appendix 8.1 of the 2008 Arkansas Regional 
Haze SIP. The TSD can be found in the docket for the proposal at 
http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is EPA-R06-OAR-2008-
0727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Status of Implementation of Measures

    The State evaluated the status of implementation of all measures in 
its 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP in accordance with the requirements 
under 40 CFR 51.308(g).\29\ These measures were designed to address 
sulfate, particulate organic matter, and nitrate, which are the three 
largest contributors \30\ to visibility impairment at Upper Buffalo and 
Caney Creek Wilderness areas. Ammonium sulfate is primarily from 
SO2 precursor emissions from EGU point sources; \31\ nitrate 
is primarily from mobile and point sources emissions; and particulate 
organic matter is from area sources, particularly emissions from 
fires.\32\ The major measures identified in the 2008 Arkansas Regional 
Haze SIP to control

[[Page 11701]]

these pollutants and listed in the progress report are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The progress report was not required to include information 
on the status of implementation of measures that became part of the 
implementation plan after the submission of the progress report. 
However, the EPA is including a discussion of measures from the 
recent SIP submittals to complement the progress report and to 
provide up-to-date information since the progress report's 
submission in 2015. Concerning the aspects of the 2008 Arkansas 
Regional Haze SIP that had been disapproved by the EPA in 2012 
before the 2015 submission of the progress report, none involved new 
SIP measures with compliance deadlines prior to the submission of 
the progress report. Thus, our 2012 disapprovals do not necessarily 
affect the progress report requirement regarding reporting on the 
status of implementation of measures included in the implementation 
plan.
    \30\ See Figures 2.1 and 2.2 from the 2015 regional haze 
progress report (pages 16-17) which shows the 2007 to 2011 five-year 
averages. The percent contributions of the major haze pollutant 
contributors for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo are as follows: (65% 
and 56%) sulfate, (11% and 16%) nitrate, (15% and 18%) particulate 
organic matter, 10% attributed to both sites for coarse mass, EC, 
and soil.
    \31\ See Figure 2.3 of the progress report that shows Percent 
Contribution by Source to SO2 Emissions in Arkansas for 
2011: Non-EGU point sources account for 12 percent SO2 
emissions, fires account for 8 percent, and approximately one 
percent SO2 emissions are made up of area and mobile 
sources (on- and off-road).
    \32\ See progress report SIP revision (page 16).

 BART Controls
 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CSAPR
 Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
 Agriculture and Forestry Smoke Management
 Additional Federal Programs
1. BART Controls
    In the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, the State determined that 
there were eighteen facilities in Arkansas with BART-eligible 
sources.33 34 The State chose to exempt those sources that 
did not contribute to visibility impairment by performing a source-
specific screening analysis using CALPUFF modeling. After eliminating 
BART-eligible sources whose modeled contributions to visibility 
impairment were below the 0.5 dv threshold limit, nine boiler units 
from six different facilities were found to be subject-to-BART \35\ and 
are reflected in Table 2.2 of the progress report.\36\ In addition to 
these subject-to-BART units determined by the State in the 2008 
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, the progress report also included 
additional units from Georgia-Pacific Paper. As discussed in section 
I.B of this proposed action, the BART portion of the 2008 Arkansas 
Regional Haze SIP was partially approved and partially disapproved in 
our 2012 final action.\37\ We approved Arkansas' identification of 
BART-eligible sources from the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP with the 
exception of Georgia-Pacific's 6A Boiler, which we found to be BART-
eligible, instead of being excluded as stated by the State in the 2008 
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The EPA also approved the State's 
identification of subject-to-BART sources, with the exception of the 6A 
and 9A Boilers at Georgia-Pacific, which we found to be subject-to-BART 
instead of exempt.\38\ Because of this, the progress report included 
Georgia-Pacific's 6A and 9A Boilers as subject-to-BART at the time of 
its submittal in 2015. However, despite the EPA's previous disapproval 
of ADEQ's exemption finding, following the company's recent submission 
of additional technical information and analyses, the EPA ultimately 
agreed that Georgia Pacific's 6A and 9A Power Boilers are BART-
eligible, but are not subject-to-BART. ADEQ provided documentation 
supporting this determination in Appendix A of the 2018 Arkansas 
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision that the EPA proposed 
for approval on November 30, 2018. Therefore, the State's most recent 
identification of subject-to-BART units in the Arkansas Regional Haze 
SO2 and PM SIP revision is the same as originally presented 
in the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP (see Table 1):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ BART-eligible sources include certain categories of 
existing major stationary sources built between August 7, 1962 and 
August 7, 1977 and have potential emissions greater than 250 tons 
per year (tpy). See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, II. How to Identify BART-
eligible Sources.
    \34\ See Table 9.1 of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP (page 
45).
    \35\ See Table 9.2 and Figure 9.2 of the 2008 Arkansas Regional 
Haze SIP (page 48).
    \36\ See Arkansas Regional Haze Progress Report (page 20).
    \37\ See the final action at 77 FR 14604, March 12, 2012.
    \38\ See 77 FR 14606.

               Table 1--Subject-to-BART Units in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Facility                              Unit ID
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant............  Unit 1 Boiler.
Arkansas Electric Cooperative         Unit 1 Boiler.
 Corporation--Bailey Generating
 Station.
Arkansas Electric Cooperative         Unit 1 Boiler.
 Corporation--John L. McClellan
 Generating Station.
Entergy Lake Catherine Plant........  Unit 4 Boiler.
Entergy White Bluff Plant...........  Unit 1 Boiler.
                                      Unit 2 Boiler.
                                      Auxiliary Boiler.
Domtar--Ashdown Mill................  No. 1 Power Boiler.
                                      No. 2 Power Boiler.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ was unable to determine at the time of the progress report's 
submission when revisions to the 2012 disapproved portions of the SIP 
would be submitted to the EPA. ADEQ was working then with facilities 
and the EPA to develop the required five-factor analyses to address the 
disapproved BART determinations. Consequently, updated BART 
determinations and emission limits were not listed in the progress 
report by the State because they were not yet available. The BART 
determinations that were approved in 2012 were findings that the 
existing limitations met the BART requirements. Therefore, as of the 
submittal date of the progress report, there were not any new emission 
reductions from subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas due to 
implementation of BART limits more stringent than the existing limits. 
Accordingly, there were no required efforts to implement new measures 
on which the progress report was required to provide information. The 
EPA approved the following BART determinations in 2012 for the 2008 
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP: PM determination on SWEPCO Flint Creek 
Plant Boiler No. 1; SO2 and PM determinations for the 
natural gas firing scenario for Entergy Lake Catherine Plant Unit 4; PM 
determinations for both bituminous and sub-bituminous coal firing 
scenarios for Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2; and PM 
determination for Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 1.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Tables 4 and 5 from the proposal at 40 CFR 64186, 
64210-64211 (October 17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the June 2015 progress report submittal, the EPA 
finalized a FIP in 2016 that established new BART emission limits for 
the 2012 disapproved determinations.\40\ The FIP established 
SO2, NOX, and PM emission limits under the BART 
requirements for nine units at six facilities: SO2, 
NOX, and PM BART for AECC Bailey Plant Unit 1 and the AECC 
McClellan Plant Unit 1; SO2 and NOX BART for 
SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1; NOX BART for the 
natural gas firing scenario for Entergy Lake Catherine Plant Unit 4; 
\41\ SO2 and NOX BART for

[[Page 11702]]

Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2; SO2, 
NOX, and PM BART for Entergy White Bluff Plant Auxiliary 
Boiler; SO2 and NOX BART for Domtar Ashdown Mill 
Power Boiler No. 1; and SO2, NOX and PM BART for 
Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 2. The FIP also established 
SO2 and NOX emission limits under the reasonable 
progress requirements for Entergy Independence Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See final action on September 27, 2016 (81 FR 66332) as 
corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68319).
    \41\ The 2012 action had disapproved SO2, 
NOX, and PM BART for the fuel oil firing scenario for the 
Entergy Lake Catherine Plant Unit 4, but a FIP BART determination 
was not established. Instead, Entergy committed to not burn fuel oil 
at Lake Catherine Unit 4 until final EPA approval of BART for 
SO2 and PM for the fuel oil firing scenario. This 
commitment has now been made enforceable by the State through an 
Administrative Order that has been adopted and incorporated in the 
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State mentioned in the progress report that it was committed to 
correcting the 2012 disapproved portions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional 
Haze SIP. As described below and elsewhere, the State has made two 
submissions to fulfill this commitment. Each SIP revision contained 
updated BART determinations intended to replace the applicable FIP 
established limits from 2016.
    First, on February 12, 2018, the EPA approved the 2017 Arkansas 
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision.\42\ That submittal addressed 
the NOX BART determinations established in the FIP for the 
Arkansas subject-to-BART EGUs by replacing them with reliance upon the 
CSAPR emissions trading program for O3 season NOX 
as an alternative to source-specific NOX BART. The Arkansas 
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision also established that no new 
NOX emission controls were required beyond participation in 
CSAPR for O3 season NOX for any source to achieve 
reasonable progress for the first implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See final action on February 12, 2018 for the Arkansas 
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision (83 FR 5927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, on August 8, 2018, the State submitted the Arkansas 
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. That submittal 
addressed all remaining disapproved parts of the 2008 Arkansas Regional 
Haze SIP, with exception of the BART and associated long-term strategy 
requirements for the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. The 
majority of the BART determinations in that SIP revision were 
essentially identical to the BART determinations in the FIP except for 
different BART requirements for White Bluff units 1 and 2.\43\ The 
submittal established that each White Bluff unit was to comply with an 
updated SO2 BART emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu. That is 
based on the use of low sulfur coal and an enforceable commitment to 
cease coal combustion by the end of 2028. The submittal also 
established a new NOX emission limit of 32.2 pounds per hour 
(pph) to satisfy NOX BART for White Bluff's auxiliary 
boiler, replacing the determination in the Arkansas Regional 
NOX SIP revision (relying upon CSAPR to satisfy 
NOX BART) that we previously approved. The State made all of 
these BART determinations enforceable through administrative 
orders.\44\ The State determined that no additional SO2 or 
PM controls beyond BART were necessary for reasonable progress during 
the first planning period.\45\ The EPA proposed to approve a large 
portion of the SIP revision on November 30, 2018.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ For the White Bluff units, the FIP required an 
SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu with a five-year 
compliance date, based on the installation of dry scrubbers. The 
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision does not 
require the SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu, but it 
does require that Entergy move forward with its announced plans to 
cease coal combustion at the White Bluff Units by 2028 and to meet 
an SO2 emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu in the interim. 
Once the units cease coal combustion, SO2 emissions are 
expected to significantly decrease.
    \44\ The Administrative Orders can be found in the Arkansas 
Regional Haze SO2 and PM BART SIP Revision.
    \45\ In the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP 
revision, part of ADEQ's basis for determining the sources to 
further evaluate under the four reasonable progress factors was 
analyses and determinations for whether sources were subject-to-BART 
in the first implementation period. For the Domtar facility in 
particular, the State relied on the fact that a FIP is in place to 
address the BART requirements. In our November 30, 2018 proposed 
approval (83 FR 62204), we proposed to agree that this is an 
appropriate basis on which we find that nothing further is needed 
for reasonable progress at this source. If ADEQ chooses to submit a 
future SIP revision to address BART requirements for Domtar Power 
Boilers No. 1 and No. 2, we will evaluate the SIP submittal at that 
time and also whether it addresses reasonable progress requirements.
    \46\ See proposed action on November 30, 2018 for the Arkansas 
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision (83 FR 62204). Note 
that the SIP revision also addressed separate CAA requirements 
related to interstate visibility transport under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), but we did not propose action on that part of 
the submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision,\47\ the 
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision (if EPA's 
proposed approval is finalized),\48\ and the remaining part of the FIP 
that addresses the BART and associated long-term strategy requirements 
for Domtar together fully address the deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas 
Regional Haze SIP previously identified in 2012 by the EPA. The EPA is 
collectively providing all of these updated BART determination emission 
limits in Table 2 below since they were not all available at the time 
of the progress report's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 for the Arkansas 
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision (83 FR 5927).
    \48\ In the event that this proposed rule is not finalized, we 
note that there is already a FIP in place which addresses the 
previously identified deficiencies.

                                      Table 2--Updated BART Determinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             BART emission limit
           Facility                        Unit            -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                   SO2               NOX              PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant......  Unit 1 Boiler.............  0.06 lb/MMBtu**.  Reliance on       0.1 lb/MMBtu.*
Arkansas Electric Cooperative   Unit 1 Boiler.............  Use fuel with      Participation    Use fuel with
 Corporation--Bailey            ..........................   sulfur limit of   in CSAPR          sulfur limit of
 Generating Station.            ..........................   0.5% by weight    Trading Program   0.5% by
Arkansas Electric Cooperative   Unit 1 Boiler.............   **.               for O3 season     weight.**
 Corporation--John L.                                       ................   NOX to satisfy   ................
 McClellan Generating Station.                              Use fuel with      NOX BART a.      Use fuel with
                                                             sulfur limit of                     sulfur limit of
                                                             0.5% by weight                      0.5% by
                                                             **.                                 weight.**
Entergy--Lake Catherine.......  Unit 4 Boiler b...........  (Natural gas                        (Natural gas
                                                             firing                              firing
                                                             scenario) Burn                      scenario) 45
                                                             natural gas                         pph and burn
                                                             only*.                              natural gas
                                                                                                 only.*
Entergy--White Bluff..........  Unit 1 Boiler.............  0.60 lb/MMBtu                       0.1 lb/MMBtu.*
                                                             [dagger].
                                Unit 2 Boiler.............  0.60 lb/                            0.1 lb/MMBtu.*
                                                             MMBtu[dagger].
                                Auxiliary Boiler..........  105.2 pph**.....  32.2 pph***.....  4.5 pph.**
Domtar--Ashdown Mill..........  No. 1 Power Boiler........  504 ppd [Dagger]  207.4 pph         0.07 lb/MMBtu.*
                                                                               [Dagger].

[[Page 11703]]

 
                                No. 2 Power Boiler........  91.5 pph          345 pp h[Dagger]  PM standard
                                                             [Dagger].                           under 40 CFR
                                                                                                 part 63,
                                                                                                 subpart DDDDD
                                                                                                 as
                                                                                                 revised.[Dagger
                                                                                                 ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The EPA approved this BART limit in the March 12, 2012 final action (77 FR 14604).
** This BART limit established in the FIP will be replaced with the State's own identical limit pending final
  approval of the August 8, 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. See the EPA's proposed approval
  on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
*** Note that we previously withdrew the 32.2 pph NOX limit from the FIP and approved Arkansas' reliance upon
  CSAPR to satisfy NOX BART (83 FR 5927). However, ADEQ's identification of the Auxiliary Boiler as
  participating in CSAPR for O3 season NOX was in error. Therefore, we proposed to withdraw our prior approved
  determination of the State's reliance upon CSAPR and replace it with 32.2 pph NOX to satisfy NOX BART for the
  auxiliary boiler in our proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. See the EPA's
  proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
[dagger] This is a new revised BART limit proposed in the August 8, 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
  revision. See the EPA's proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
[Dagger] The EPA established this FIP BART limit on September 27, 2016. See final action (81 FR 66332) as
  corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68319).
a The EPA approved this BART alternative in the February 12, 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP Revision final
  action (83 FR 5927).
b There is an enforceable ban (not a current BART Determination) by the State on burning fuel oil for Lake
  Catherine's unit 4 boiler until the EPA approves a SIP revision with BART determinations for the fuel oil
  firing scenario.

2. Reasonable Progress Source Controls
    In the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision and the 
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, ADEQ 
evaluated the need for additional source controls under the reasonable 
progress requirements. In determining reasonable progress, CAA section 
169(A)(g)(1) requires states to examine the cost of compliance, the 
time necessary for compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental 
impacts, and remaining useful life. In the Arkansas Regional Haze 
NOX SIP revision, the State determined that no additional 
NOX controls beyond participation in CSAPR for O3 
season NOX were necessary to satisfy the reasonable progress 
requirement with respect to NOX for the first implementation 
period.\49\ As discussed in Section II of our proposed action on the 
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, ADEQ 
determined that no additional SO2 and PM controls at 
Independence Units 1 and 2 or any other Arkansas sources are necessary 
under reasonable progress for the first implementation period.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The EPA approved this in the February 12, 2018 Arkansas 
Regional Haze NOX SIP Revision final action (83 FR 5927).
    \50\ See the EPA's proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional 
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 
62204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CAIR and CSAPR
    In 2005, the EPA issued CAIR,\51\ which participating states could 
rely on in lieu of BART for EGUs.\52\ CAIR was designed to address 
power plant pollution transported from one state to another via a cap-
and-trade system to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions 
as the target pollutants.\53\ In December 2008, the D.C. Circuit 
remanded CAIR to the EPA, leaving existing CAIR programs in place while 
directing the EPA to replace them with a new rule.\54\ Although CAIR 
was remanded, CAIR remained in effect at the time of the progress 
report's development and sources in Arkansas continued to comply with 
the state and federal requirements associated with CAIR. CAIR consisted 
of two phases of reductions for NOX and SO2. 
Phase I ran from 2009 to 2014 and Arkansas' NOX budget 
amounted to 11,514 tons NOX per annual O3 season. 
Phase II begun in 2015 and was set to continue indefinitely with 
Arkansas' NOX budget set at 9,116 tons NOX per 
annual O3 season. Table 2.3 of the progress report shows the 
NOX O3 season allocations distributed among the 
different Arkansas sources for the 2009 to 2017 time-period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 70 FR 25161 (May 12, 2005).
    \52\ See 70 FR 39104, 39139 (July 6, 2005).
    \53\ Although Arkansas was subject to certain NOX 
requirements of CAIR, including the statewide O3 season 
NOX budget, it elected not to rely on CAIR in its 2008 
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP to satisfy the NOX BART 
requirement for its EGUs. Note that it would have been sufficient 
for Arkansas to rely on CAIR to satisfy NOX BART.
    \54\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
modified, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2011, the EPA finalized CSAPR to replace CAIR.\55\ In 2012, the 
EPA published a final rule allowing states that participate in the 
CSAPR trading program to rely on CSAPR to satisfy BART for EGUs,\56\ 
including states participating only for O3 season 
NOX.\57\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to reduce power 
plant emissions that contribute to O3 and PM2.5 
pollution in other states. The rule requires reductions in 
O3 season NOX emissions that cross state lines 
for certain states under the O3 requirements, and reductions 
in annual SO2 and NOX emissions for certain 
states under the PM2.5 requirements. The EPA set emission 
budgets for each state covered by CSAPR. Allowances are allocated to 
affected sources based on these state emission budgets.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 76 FR 48207 (August 8, 2011).
    \56\ See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
    \57\ Arkansas EGUs are covered under CSAPR for O3 
season NOX. See 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011).
    \58\ The rule provides flexibility to affected sources, allowing 
sources in each state to determine their own compliance path. This 
includes adding or operating control technologies, upgrading or 
improving controls, switching fuels, and using allowances. Sources 
can buy and sell allowances and bank (save) allowances for future 
use as long as each source holds enough allowances to account for 
its emissions by the end of the compliance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since promulgating the use of CSAPR as an alternative to source-
specific BART for EGUs, the EPA has promulgated an update to the CSAPR 
program with more stringent budgets.\59\ The CSAPR update revised the 
O3 season NOX budget for Arkansas EGUs from 
15,110 tons NOX in 2015 to 12,048 tons NOX 
(10,132 tons NOX allocated to existing EGUs) in 2017 with a 
further reduction to 9,210 tons NOX (7,781 tons 
NOX allocated to existing EGUs) in 2018 and beyond.\60\ 
Participation in CSAPR

[[Page 11704]]

for O3 season NOX is federally enforceable under 
40 CFR 52.38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See 81 FR 74504. On October 26, 2016, we finalized an 
update to CSAPR that addresses the 1997 O3 NAAQS portion 
of the remand as well as the CAA requirements addressing interstate 
transport for the 2008 O3 NAAQS.
    \60\ CSAPR has been subject to extensive litigation, and on July 
28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision generally upholding 
CSAPR but remanding without vacating the CSAPR emissions budgets for 
a number of states. Arkansas' O3 season NOX 
budgets were not included in the remand. EME Homer City Generation 
v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 12, 2018, we approved the Arkansas Regional Haze 
NOX SIP revision (effective March 14, 2018) which replaced 
all source-specific NOX BART determinations for EGUs 
established in the FIP with reliance upon the CSAPR emissions trading 
program for O3 season NOX as an alternative to 
NOX BART.\61\ The O3 season NOX 
requirements under CSAPR apply to all subject-to-BART units in Table 1 
of this proposed action except the Domtar No. 1 and 2 Power Boilers, 
and the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler. The Arkansas Regional Haze 
NOX SIP revision addressed the NOX BART 
requirements for Bailey Unit 1, McClellan Unit 1, Flint Creek Boiler 
No. 1, Lake Catherine Unit 4; White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and the 
Auxiliary Boiler. In that SIP submittal, ADEQ erroneously identified 
White Bluff's Auxiliary Boiler as participating in CSAPR for 
O3 season NOX and elected to rely on 
participation in that trading program to satisfy the Auxiliary Boiler's 
NOX BART requirements. Although we approved the SIP 
submittal on February 12, 2018,\62\ our approval of the State's 
reliance on CSAPR for O3 season NOX to satisfy 
the BART requirements for the Auxiliary Boiler was made in error. 
Therefore, we proposed to withdraw our approval of the State's reliance 
upon CSAPR for the Auxiliary Boiler and replace it with our approval of 
a source-specific 32.2 pph NOX BART emission limit related 
to the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP submitted on 
November 30, 2018.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See 82 FR 42627 (September 11, 2017) for the proposed 
approval. See also 83 FR 5927 and 83 FR 5915 (February 12, 2018) for 
the final action.
    \62\ See 83 FR 5927 (February 12, 2018).
    \63\ See the EPA's proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 
62204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    In accordance with Subchapter 11.4.1.6 of the 2008 Arkansas 
Regional Haze SIP, ADEQ tracked source retirement and replacement 
through ongoing point source inventories.64 65 The progress 
report showed that ADEQ has performed this tracking. Five new permitted 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) facilities were 
inventoried and the new corresponding total potential-to-emit (PTE) 
emissions for NOX and SO2 were reported at 5,833 
tpy and 7,374 tpy. The total actual NOX and SO2 
emissions,\66\ however, were reported lower at 1,741 tpy and 3,303 tpy, 
respectively. In addition, sixteen PSD facilities have shut down since 
2008, resulting in a total reduction of 15,893 tpy in permitted 
NOX emissions and a total reduction of 1,126 tpy in 
permitted SO2 emissions.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) requires the State of Arkansas to 
consider source retirement and replacement schedules in developing 
RPGs.
    \65\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires the State of Arkansas to 
consider measures to mitigate the impacts of construction 
activities.
    \66\ As reported by the facilities in their Annual Emissions 
Inventory Report for 2012.
    \67\ See Tables 2.4 through 2.6 of the progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Agriculture and Forestry Smoke Management \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires Arkansas to consider 
smoke management techniques for the purposes of agricultural and 
forestry management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The progress report mentioned that the State is currently relying 
on a Smoke Management Plan (SMP) in its 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP 
that the Arkansas Forestry Commission approved in 2007. Arkansas' SMP 
was designed to assure that prescribed fires are planned and executed 
in a manner designed to minimize the impacts from smoke produced by 
prescribed fires. The programs in this measure are generally designed 
to limit increases in emissions, rather than to reduce existing 
emissions.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Documentation of this SMP program is in Appendix 11.1 of 
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP or a copy may be found at http://forestry.arkansas.gov/Services/KidsTeachersEveryone/Documents/ArkansasVSMG.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Additional Federal Programs \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A) requires the State of Arkansas to 
consider emission reductions from ongoing pollution control programs 
in the development of its long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Arkansas also considered in its progress report the 
following ongoing pollution control programs in the 2008 Arkansas 
Regional Haze SIP as controls used for continuing emission reductions:
     Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS).\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012). Arkansas anticipated 
that reductions in SO2 emissions from the State's coal-
fired EGUs would occur as a result of the MATS rule. This rule 
allowed for the installation of pollution control equipment to meet 
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU--National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric 
Utility Steam Generating Units. At the time the progress report was 
submitted, Flint Creek planned to install a particular type of dry 
scrubber that controls SO2 and other acid gases called 
Novel Integrated Deacidification (NID) technology and Activated 
Carbon Injection (ACI) to comply with MATS. Since that time, Flint 
Creek did install the NID system on boiler unit 1. Because the 
scrubber system also meets the qualifications as being a BART 
control, the State is complying with the more stringent 
SO2 BART requirements included in the FIP and is meeting 
both rules using the same controls. The SO2 BART emission 
rate, therefore, was set at 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on the installation 
and operation of the NID technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tier 2 Vehicle Emission standards.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ EPA's Tier 2 fleet averaging program for on-road vehicles, 
modeled after the California LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle) II 
standards, became effective in the 2005 model year. The mix of 
vehicles a manufacturer sells each year must have average 
NOX emissions below a specified value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Heavy-Duty Highway Rule.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The Heavy-Duty Highway Rule was adopted on January 18, 
2001, by EPA with the objective of reducing emissions from diesel 
engines by setting a PM emission standard for new heavy-duty 
engines, which took effect with the 2007 model year. The rule also 
required reduction of sulfur in diesel fuel to facilitate the use of 
modern pollution control technology on these engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Highway Diesel and Non-Road Diesel Rules.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ These rules were initially effective in 2004 and were fully 
phased in by 2012. The non-road diesel rule set standards that 
reduced emissions by more than 90 percent from non-road diesel 
equipment and, beginning in 2007, the rule reduced fuel sulfur 
levels by 99 percent from previous levels. The reduction in fuel 
sulfur levels applied to most non-road diesel fuel in 2010 and 
applied to fuel used in locomotives and marine vessels in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Rule.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Rule resulted in better PM 
control from diesel engines. The EPA regulations required that at 
least 80 percent of highway diesel fuel in the United States be 
ULSD, and by 2010, all highway diesel fuel became ULSD. The EPA also 
required a major reduction in the sulfur content of diesel fuel 
intended for use in locomotive, marine, and non-road engines and 
equipment including construction, agricultural, industrial, and 
airport equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT).\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ The MACT standards are part of the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), provided under 40 
CFR part 63. See 76 FR 64186, 64198 and 70 FR 39162. CENRAP modeling 
demonstrated that VOCs from anthropogenic sources are not 
significant visibility-impairing pollutants at Caney Creek and Upper 
Buffalo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. EPA's Conclusion on the Status of Implementation of Measures
    The EPA proposes to find that the State has adequately addressed 
the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding reporting 
the status of implementation of measures in its implementation plan. 
The State's progress report documented the status of all measures 
included in its regional haze SIP (as of the submission of the progress 
report) and it also described additional measures that came into effect 
since the State's 2008 regional haze SIP was completed, including state 
regulations and various federal measures. All major control measures 
were identified and the strategy behind each control was explained. The 
State included a summary of the implementation status associated with 
each measure and quantified the benefits where possible. In addition, 
the progress report SIP adequately outlined the compliance timeframe 
for all controls.

[[Page 11705]]

C. Emission Reductions From Implementation of Measures

    The State presented emission data in its progress report that 
provided a summary of the emission trends and reductions achieved in 
the state through the implementation of the measures in the SIP. The 
State identified ammonium sulfate, particulate organic matter, and 
nitrate as the three largest pollutant contributors to visibility 
impairment caused by regional haze at Arkansas' Class I areas for the 
first implementation period.\77\ The progress report indicated that the 
primary cause of ammonium sulfate, the most significant haze 
contributor in Arkansas, is SO2 precursor emissions. In 
2011, point sources contributed to 90 percent of the overall 
SO2 emissions in Arkansas with EGUs responsible for 78 
percent of the total SO2 emissions.\78\ For this reason, the 
State focused on reporting emission reductions from EGU point sources 
in the progress report as an effective method of improving visibility 
in Arkansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See Figures 2.1 and 2.2 from the 2015 regional haze 
progress report (page 17). The percent contributions (2007-2011) of 
the major haze pollutant contributors for Caney Creek and Upper 
Buffalo are as follows: (65% and 56%) sulfate, (11% and 16%) 
nitrate, (15% and 18%) particulate organic matter, 10% attributed to 
both sites for coarse mass, EC, and soil.
    \78\ See the Arkansas progress report (page 18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State reported EGU point source emission data from Arkansas for 
NOX and SO2 for the 2000 to 2011 time-period.\79\ 
There were not any emission reductions from subject-to-BART sources in 
Arkansas due to implementation of BART limits when the progress report 
was submitted. Nevertheless, the overall EGU emissions trended downward 
from the baseline for NOX, with a slight uptick in 2011 for 
SO2 emissions. Arkansas noted that as of 2011, EGU emissions 
increased by 2,885 tpy for SO2 and decreased by 3,741 tpy 
for NOX from the 2002 baseline. During the 2002 to 2011 
time-span, on a heat input basis, both NOX and 
SO2 EGU emission rates (lb/MMBtu) decreased. This indicates 
that the overall average control efficiencies improved and the slight 
SO2 emissions uptick was a result of increased EGU 
activity.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See Table 3.1 in the Arkansas progress report (page 35).
    \80\ See Figure 3.2 in the Arkansas progress report (page 38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 below, provided by the EPA to complement the State's 
report, compares more recent emission trends going past 2011.\81\ It 
compares the 2002 to 2011 annual EGU emission trends provided by the 
State in the progress report to more recent annual EGU emission data 
provided by the EPA from 2012 to 2017.\82\ Table 3 shows that 
NOX and SO2 EGU point source emissions have 
decreased during the 2011 to 2017 time-period. Comparing 2011 emissions 
to the 2018 projected emissions developed for the 2008 SIP, the State 
projected annual SO2 emissions to increase by an additional 
125 tpy and annual NOX emissions to decrease by an 
additional 10,167 tpy in 2018 from 2011 observed emissions.\83\ The 
more recent emission data, however, shows a large decrease in 
SO2 emissions from EGUs. Specifically, from 2014 to 2015, 
there was a 30,354 tpy decrease in SO2 emissions and a 
14,783 tpy decrease in NOX emissions. This corresponds to a 
decline in EGU activity as noted by the decrease in heat input in 2015. 
EGU activity has since increased from 2015 to 2017, but the emissions 
remain well below 2014 emission levels. Overall, from the 2002 to 2017, 
SO2 emissions from EGUs have reduced by 22,969 tpy 
(increased 2,885 tpy from 2002 to 2011, then decreased 25,854 tpy from 
2011 to 2017) and NOX emissions have reduced by 14,579 tpy 
(decreased 3,741 tpy from 2002 to 2011, then decreased an additional 
10,838 tpy from 2011 to 2017). The State's progress report mentioned 
that further significant emission reductions would be realized from a 
final permit that was issued on August 25, 2013, at Flint Creek for the 
installation and operation of control equipment to significantly reduce 
SO2 emissions.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
    \82\ Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
    \83\ See Page 37 of the progress report.
    \84\ See ADEQ Air Permit No. 027-AOP-R6 (AFIN 04-00107). This 
permit allowed for the installation of pollution control equipment 
under the MATS rule with an SO2 emission limit of 0.2 lb/
MMBtu, and a compliance date of April 16, 2016. Since the issuance 
of that permit, ADEQ has submitted the Arkansas Regional Haze 
SO2 and PM SIP revision, which establishes an 
SO2 BART emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu, achievable by 
the equipment installed to meet MATS. The SIP revision requires 
compliance with the 0.06 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission limit by 
``the effective date of the Administrative Order,'' which requires 
compliance by August 7, 2018.

                                        Table 3--Annual NOX and SO2 Emissions From EGU Point Sources in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Heat input    NOX emission rate  SO2 emission rate
                               Year                                    NOX (tpy)       SO2 (tpy)        (MMBtu)         (lb/MMBtu)         (lb/MMBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002..............................................................          42,079          70,738     303,031,688              0.278              0.467
2005..............................................................          35,333          66,190     305,909,694              0.231              0.433
2008..............................................................          37,800          73,289     339,622,527              0.223              0.432
2011..............................................................          38,338          73,623     411,725,177              0.186              0.358
2012 *............................................................          34,847          76,326     440,336,753              0.158              0.347
2013 *............................................................          37,148          73,578     427,915,347              0.174              0.344
2014 *............................................................          38,396          75,898     410,742,039              0.187              0.370
2015 *............................................................          23,613          45,544     337,259,867              0.140              0.270
2016 *............................................................          26,892          46,573     382,621,452              0.141              0.243
2017 *............................................................          27,500          47,769     391,814,298              0.140              0.244
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Provided by the EPA from the EIS Gateway database.

    Table 4, provided by the EPA, compares National Emissions Inventory 
(NEI) data for total point sources from 2002 to 2014. This complements 
the categorized NEI point source data (EGU and non-EGU) inventoried by 
the State in the progress report from 2002 to 2011. It also provides 
reported emissions data from more current NEI versions than available 
when the progress report was submitted in 2015.\85\ Table 4 shows that 
fine particle and coarse mass PM emission reductions are considerably 
lower than their NEI 2002 totals when compared to more recent NEI 
data.\86\ PM10 point source emissions decreased by 6,427 tpy 
(39%) and PM2.5 point source emissions decreased by

[[Page 11706]]

5,600 tpy (49%) for the 2002 to 2014 period. NOX emissions 
stayed relatively steady at 71,000 tpy and SO2 emissions 
decreased slightly by 4.6 percent for the 2002 to 2014 period. Although 
the reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions are not 
especially pronounced for that time-period, the total point source 
emission trends are consistent with what is shown in Table 3 for EGU 
point sources from 2002 to 2014. We anticipate that the total NEI point 
source data going forward after 2014 will reflect the substantial 
decreases in PM, SO2, and NOX emissions as 
already displayed in the EGU point source reductions reported by CAMD 
data in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The State noted that NEI emissions data for 2011 in the 
progress report was obtained from 2011 NEI version 1.
    \86\ As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System 
(EIS) Gateway database for point sources only.

                    Table 4--NEI Total Point Source Emission Data for Arkansas for 2002-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    PM2.5 (tpy)
                      Year                           NOX (tpy)       SO2 (tpy)      PM10 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................          70,726          89,870          16,318          11,536
2005............................................          59,431          75,483           8,532           6,105
2008............................................          75,045          87,308          11,060           7,671
2011............................................          71,402          84,922          10,451           6,782
2014............................................          71,588          85,714           9,891           5,936
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above reductions, there will also be some 
additional future reductions due to more stringent CSAPR allocations 
and BART requirements implemented from the recent Arkansas Regional 
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. The CSAPR update revised the 
O3 season NOX budget for Arkansas units from 
15,110 tons NOX in 2015 to 12,048 tons NOX 
(10,132 tons NOX allocated to existing EGUs) in 2017 with a 
further reduction to 9,210 tons NOX (7,781 tons 
NOX allocated to existing EGUs) in 2018 and beyond. The 2017 
actual O3 season EGU emissions for Arkansas totaled 12,811 
tons NOX. Some EGUs chose to install combustion controls to 
comply with CSAPR that would reduce emissions year-round, not just in 
the O3 season. This includes the installation of low 
NOX burners at the White Bluff and Independence facilities. 
The 2018 actual O3 season EGU emissions for Arkansas totaled 
10,952 tons NOX.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State noted that, along with the replacement of CAIR with 
CSAPR, there have been many changes to the ongoing air pollution 
programs since EPA's partial approval of Arkansas' regional haze SIP in 
2012. These changes included more stringent emission standards, 
renewable fuel standards, fuel efficiency standards, marine and 
aircraft standards, mercury and air toxics standards, and various 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollution. Arkansas noted 
that these more recent air pollution programs are anticipated to result 
in even greater emission reductions that could result in further 
visibility improvement than the programs in place at the time the 2008 
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP revision was submitted to the EPA.
    Lastly, recent and planned retirements of various plants may result 
in further visibility improvement at Arkansas Class I areas. In the 
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, ADEQ noted 
the planned retirement of Lake Catherine by the end of 2028 and 
Entergy's plans to cease coal combustion at the Independence facility 
by the end of 2030. ADEQ also noted that there have been recent changes 
in operations at large point sources that have historically impacted 
Arkansas Class I areas, including the recent retirement of the Big 
Brown Plant, Sandow Plant, Monticello Plant, and the Deely Plant in 
Texas. The coal-fired units at the Tennessee Valley Authority Allen 
Plant, located in Memphis, Tennessee, were also scheduled to retire by 
June 2018 and be replaced with natural gas generators.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately 
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding a 
summary of emission reductions achieved for visibility impairing 
pollutants. Overall, the State demonstrated the emission reductions 
achieved for the major contributing visibility impairing pollutants in 
the State for the first implementation period. Emissions of 
SO2, NOX, and PM, the main contributors to 
regional haze in Class I areas potentially affected by emissions from 
Arkansas, have all been decreasing. As demonstrated by the more recent 
available data, the SO2 and NOX haze pollutant 
precursors from EGU point sources in the state have decreased from the 
baseline levels in 2002, especially since 2015. Also, the trend for 
fine particles and coarse mass emissions, pollutants that directly 
create haze, have been decreasing since 2002. Overall visibility 
conditions are improving as a result of these reductions together with 
decreases from outside of the state. With the implementation of the new 
BART controls and more stringent NOX allocations under 
CSAPR, further emission reductions should be realized and visibility 
impairment at affected Class I areas should continue to improve.

D. Visibility Conditions and Changes

    Arkansas included in its progress report the annual average 
visibility from 2001 to 2011 for the twenty percent best (least 
impaired) and twenty percent worst (most impaired) days at Caney Creek 
and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas.\88\ Although visibility conditions 
have varied from year-to-year, the progress report showed that both 
Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo have displayed an overall improvement in 
visibility since 2001.\89\ Arkansas reported that both areas showed 
improved visibility from the 2000 to 2004 baseline during the worst 
days for the most current period (2007 to 2011) and for the period 
previous to the most current (2005 to 2009) available at the time of 
the progress report's development.\90\ Both class I areas similarly are 
showing improvement from the baseline on the twenty percent best days 
and satisfy the goal of no visibility degradation for the first 
implementation period. Table 5 shows that the visibilities at Caney 
Creek and Upper Buffalo during the 2007 to 2011 period were 0.96 dv and 
0.67 dv below the baseline for the twenty percent best days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ The most and least impaired days in the regional haze rule 
refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in dv) for the 
twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest 
and lowest amount of visibility impairment, respectively, averaged 
over a five-year period (see 40 CFR 51.301). In this report, when we 
refer to ``best days'' we mean ``least impaired'' and when we refer 
to ``worst days'' we mean ``most impaired.''
    \89\ See Figures 4.1 to 4.2 and Tables 4.1 to 4.2 of the 
progress report (pages 41-43).
    \90\ Progress reports for the first implementation period used 
specific terms to describe time-periods. ``Baseline visibility 
conditions'' refers to conditions during the 2000 to 2004 time-
period. ``Current visibility conditions'' refers to the most recent 
five-year average data available at the time the State submitted its 
progress report for public review. ``Past five years'' refers to the 
five-year average previous to the five years used for ``current 
visibility conditions.''

[[Page 11707]]

                 Table 5--Visibility at Arkansas Class I Areas for the Twenty Percent Best Days
                                               [Five-Year Average]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline (2000-                                   Most recent
                  Class I area                      2004) (dv)      (2005-2009)     (2007-2011)   minus baseline
                                                                       (dv)            (dv)            (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caney Creek Wilderness..........................           11.39           11.06           10.43           -0.96
Upper Buffalo Wilderness........................           11.71           11.85           11.04           -0.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A negative sign indicates a reduction from the baseline.

    In the State's August 8, 2018 submittal (Arkansas Regional Haze 
SO2 and PM SIP), the State's 2018 RPGs from the 2008 
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo were 
revised downward to 22.47 dv and 22.51 dv for the twenty percent worst 
days.\91\ These revised RPGs are more stringent than what was 
established in the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP and account for the 
controls required in the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM 
SIP submittal.\92\ We proposed to agree with the State's newly revised 
2018 RPGs for the twenty percent worst days in our November 30, 2018 
proposed approval action.\93\ The Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 
and PM SIP submittal did not revise the RPG for the twenty percent best 
days that was included in the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See spreadsheet, sip-rev-rpg-calcs.xlsx, provided at 
https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/regional-haze.aspx.
    \92\ See page 54 of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 
and PM SIP revision.
    \93\ See the EPA's proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 
62204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6 provides more recent monitored visibility data presented by 
the State in the August 8, 2018 SIP revision for the twenty percent 
worst days at Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas.\94\ The 
observed values exhibit a consistent downward trend in the 
observations. When comparing the revised 2018 RPGs with the observed 
five-year visibility trends, Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo are already 
realizing more visibility improvement than needed to meet the revised 
2018 RPGs. Most recently, the visibility conditions at Caney Creek and 
Upper Buffalo during the 2012 to 2016 period were 1.83 dv and 1.95 dv 
below the 2018 revised RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See spreadsheet, visibility-progress.xlsx, provided at 
https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/regional-haze.aspx.

                                     Table 6--Visibility at Arkansas Class I Areas for the Twenty Percent Worst Days
                                                                   [Five-Year Average]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Baseline (2000-
                      Class I area                          2004) (dv)      (2005-2009)     (2007-2011)     (2009-2013)     (2012-2016)    2018 Revised
                                                                               (dv)            (dv)            (dv)            (dv)          RPGs (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caney Creek Wilderness..................................           26.36           25.33           23.00           22.22           20.64           22.47
Upper Buffalo Wilderness................................           26.27           25.86           24.15           22.15           20.56           22.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately 
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) with respect 
to visibility conditions at Arkansas' Class I areas. The State provided 
five-year average baseline visibility conditions from 2000 to 2004, the 
five-year average visibility conditions from 2007 to 2011, and the 
five-year average visibility conditions for 2005 to 2009. The State 
calculated the change in visibility between the baseline average and 
the most recent five-year average available (2007 to 2011). The results 
were tabulated for the twenty percent worst and best days and then 
compared to the 2018 RPGs to determine the amount of visibility 
improvement achieved. Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas 
have both demonstrated improved visibility for the most impaired and 
least impaired days since 2001. Based on the five-year rolling 
averages, both wilderness areas have already exceeded the amount of 
visibility improvement needed to meet the more stringent revised 2018 
RPGs for the twenty percent worst days. Analysis of the visibility data 
from Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas also shows that the 
goal of no visibility degradation on the twenty percent best days has 
been achieved.

E. Emission Tracking

    In its progress report, ADEQ presented categorized NEI emission 
inventories for 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011, as well as CENRAP projected 
inventories for 2018. The pollutants inventoried included 
SO2, NOX, NH3, VOC, PM2.5, 
and PM10. The inventories were categorized for all major 
visibility-impairing pollutants under major anthropogenic source 
groupings. The anthropogenic source categorization included point and 
non-point EGUs; on and non-road mobile sources; area sources; fugitive 
and road dust; fire, and agricultural/biogenic sources. The 2008 and 
2011 NEI inventories were the most recent comprehensive inventories of 
updated actual emissions available at the time the State prepared its 
progress report. The State, therefore, emphasized those NEI inventories 
in the progress report and then compared the categorized inventory 
changes from 2011 to the 2002 baseline emissions.\95\ A summary of the 
total state NEI emissions from the progress report can be seen below in 
Table 7 along with more recent complementary data from 2014 provided by 
the EPA to show emission trends going past 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See Table 5.1 (page 46-47) of the progress report.

[[Page 11708]]

                                                    Table 7--Comparison of Total State NEI Emissions
                                                                          [tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                                  SO2             NOX             NH3             VOC            PM2.5           PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002....................................................         126,707         239,487         124,297         228,032          62,505         243,372
2005....................................................         126,707         239,487         134,156         312,648         108,362         296,149
2008....................................................          94,113         247,734         131,710       1,427,040         124,829         443,213
2011....................................................          95,123         260,737         132,940       1,643,979         144,191         467,527
2014 *..................................................          91,033         212,638          76,114       1,625,837         119,957         369,682
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Provided by the EPA from the EIS gateway database.

    The NEI emissions increased from 2002 to 2011 except for 
SO2 emissions. The State explained in the progress report 
that the total SO2 emissions decreased as a result of 
phasing in low sulfur (500 ppm) Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel fuels for 
nonroad, locomotive, and marine engines beginning in 2007. The emission 
increase for the remaining pollutants in table 7 was due to an emission 
rise in 2011 that happened across the board. Fires were the primary 
cause of the emission increase for SO2, PM2.5, 
PM10, and NH3, but road dust also impacted PM 
during that time. Area sources were the chief contributor to 
NOX increases and agricultural sources contributed the most 
to VOC emission increases in 2011.\96\ The State believes that much of 
the increases for NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 
may have been due to the use of newer modeling methodologies that were 
not available when the baseline projections were developed in 2002.\97\ 
The State also observed that NOX and PM2.5 
emissions trended downward in the point EGU category between 2002 and 
2011.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See Table 5.1 of the progress report (page 46 to 47).
    \97\ See page 47 of progress report. Emission changes were seen 
in the on-road mobile source inventory between 2008 and 2011 as a 
result of the transition from EPA's MOBILE6 model to the Motor 
Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model for estimation of 
emissions. Increases in on-road mobile source PM10 and 
PM2.5 emissions have been documented as part of the new 
model's estimation methodology. The transition to MOVES model 
estimation methodology also resulted in increased NOX 
emissions for on-road mobile sources. Modeling figures for fires 
also accounted for a major portion of the estimated emission 
increase for PM2.5 from 2008 to 2011.
    \98\ See Table 5.4 of the progress report (Page 51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The updated 2014 NEI data in table 7 shows that the total state 
emissions decreased from 2011 for all of the visibility impairing 
pollutants except VOCs, which slightly increased.\99\ The source 
categories in table 8 below (provided by the EPA) are the driving 
factors causing the total NEI emission decreases from 2011 to 
2014.\100\ When comparing the individual categories, agricultural/
biogenic and area source emissions account for the majority of emission 
increases from 2011 to 2014 with small increases also resulting from 
fugitive dust and point sources. Those increases are offset, though, by 
large reductions in the rest of the categories, resulting in overall 
net decreases of all pollutant emissions. Although fire emissions had a 
big impact on visibility impairing pollutants in 2011, there was a 
major improvement in 2014 indicated by reductions of all pollutants 
except NH3, especially PM and VOC emissions. 
PM10, PM2.5, and VOC emissions from fire showed 
large reductions of 26,678 tpy, 22,058 tpy, and 49,182 tpy 
respectively. Likewise, road dust previously impacted PM levels in 2011 
but showed substantial reductions of 105,187 tpy PM10 and 
11,448 tpy PM2.5 in 2014. Point sources had increases of 
NOX, SO2, NH3, and VOC emissions but 
they netted out due to overall net decreases from the other source 
categories. Lastly, mobile emissions reduced for every pollutant except 
a small inconsequential non-road mobile increase for NH3. 
NOX and VOC exhibited the most mobile emission reductions of 
15,124 tpy NOX and 8,397 tpy VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See 70 FR 39162. VOC emissions did increase since 2008, but 
CENRAP modeling demonstrated that VOCs are not significant 
contributors to visibility impairment at Caney Creek and Upper 
Buffalo Wilderness areas.
    \100\ As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System 
(EIS) Gateway database.

                                                       Table 8--2014 Emission Data (tpy) and the Category Changes Since 2011 for Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                         NOX                       SO2                       PM10                      PM2.5                     NH3                         VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural/Biogenic...........  18,588 (-6,744).........  0.......................  153,477 (+17,805).........  30,009 (+2,875)........  58,981 (-58,976).......  1,342,516 (-119,084)
Area \101\......................  15,472 (-14,701)........  321 (-1,684)............  26,423 (+15,513)..........  16,455 (+8,428)........  905 (+479).............  69,117 (-10,484)
Fires...........................  8,743 (-5,897)..........  4,624 (-2,946)..........  59,755 (-26,678)..........  50,198 (-22,058).......  13,094 (+824)..........  133,197 (-49,182)
Fugitive Dust...................  0.......................  0.......................  17,143 (+1,953)...........  1,714 (+195)...........  0......................  0
Road Dust.......................  0.......................  0.......................  97,066 (-105,187).........  11,373 (-11,448).......  0......................  0
Non-road Mobile.................  18,819 (-3,337).........  41 (-16)................  1,926 (-391)..............  1,835 (-376)...........  28 (+1)................  23,204 (-6,161)
On-road Mobile..................  79,428 (-11,787)........  333 (-27)...............  4,001 (-970)..............  2,436 (-545)...........  1,235 (-72)............  33,171 (-2,236)
Point Sources...................  71,588 (+186)...........  85,714 (+792)...........  9,891 (-560)..............  5,936 (-846)...........  1,871 (+610)...........  24,632 (+1,821)
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emission Change.......  -42,279.................  -3,881..................  -98,515...................  -23,775................  -57,134................  -185,326
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The numbers in parentheses indicate an increase (+) or decrease (-) in emissions from 2011.

    The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately 
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The State 
tracked changes in emissions by category across the entire emission 
inventory and the results show that the emissions from SO2, 
NOX, and PM, the main contributors of regional haze in 
Arkansas, have all decreased since the 2008 SIP submittal. The analysis 
provides the most recent period for which data was available in 
practical terms (2008 to 2011) from when the State submitted its 
regional haze SIP.\102\ The EPA provided an additional update

[[Page 11709]]

with 2014 NEI data to complement the State's report. These data 
indicate that overall emissions of all visibility impairing pollutants 
have reduced from 2011 to 2014. SO2, NOX, and PM 
emissions have continued to show a downward trend since the 2008 
submittal.\103\ As discussed in section II.C. in this proposed 
rulemaking, more recent available data shows that SO2 and 
NOX emissions from EGU point sources in the state have 
decreased from the baseline levels in 2002, especially since 2015. The 
EPA concludes that the State presented an adequate analysis tracking 
emission trends for the key visibility impairing pollutants across 
Arkansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See Page 45 of the progress report.
    \102\ While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for 
emission inventory changes is the time-period since the current 
regional haze SIP was submitted, there is an inevitable time lag in 
developing and reporting complete emissions inventories once 
quality-assured emissions data becomes available. Therefore, there 
is some flexibility in the five-year time-period that states can 
select.
    \103\ See 70 FR 39162. VOC emissions did increase since 2008, 
but CENRAP modeling demonstrated that VOCs are not significant 
contributors to visibility impairment at Caney Creek and Upper 
Buffalo Wilderness areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress

    The State indicated in the progress report \104\ that there were no 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions that limited or impeded 
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility as 
contemplated by the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The State's Class 
I areas showed overall downward trends in visibility impairment. The 
State's current analysis of emission reductions and categorized 
inventories presented in the progress report, along with more recent 
emission data evaluated by the EPA in this action (see sections II.C 
and II.E), show that no significant changes in emissions within the 
state are occurring to impede visibility improvement or adversely 
affecting the two Class I areas in Arkansas. There are also no 
significant emission changes from sources outside of Arkansas that are 
adversely affecting Arkansas' Class I areas. Through consultation with 
adjacent states, it was determined and agreed upon that additional 
emission reductions from other states are not necessary to address 
visibility impairment at Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas 
for the first implementation period.\105\ The participating states also 
determined before the 2008 SIP submittal through regional modeling that 
Missouri's Class I areas were expected to be on course to meet their 
respective 2018 RPGs. The current data confirms the projected trend and 
shows that all Class I areas within and outside the state impacted by 
Arkansas emissions are now currently meeting their RPGs for the first 
implementation period as discussed in section II.G of this action. No 
significant changes in emissions have limited or impeded progress in 
improving visibility. The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has 
adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) 
regarding assessing any changes that could impede visibility progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See Page 54 of the progress report.
    \105\ See 76 FR 64196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs

    In its progress report, the State assessed the strategies in the 
2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP based upon projected emissions and 
modeling results. The State determined that the strategies were 
sufficient to enable Arkansas and other states with Class I areas 
affected by emissions from Arkansas to meet all established RPGs. The 
evaluation set forth by the State in the progress report for the Class 
I areas in Arkansas was based on the RPGs established in the 2008 
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that were disapproved in the 2012 action.
    As part of the 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM 
SIP revision, Arkansas reevaluated its RPGs and long-term strategy. The 
2008 SIP RPGs for the twenty percent worst days were recently replaced 
by the State with new revised RPGs \106\ defined in the Arkansas 
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.\107\ The 2018 RPGs 
for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo were revised slightly downward from 
the 2008 SIP RPGs to 22.47 dv and 22.51 dv for the twenty percent worst 
days. The revised 2018 RPGs were estimated based on scaling Arkansas 
SO4\2-\ and NO3\-\ point source impacts from 
CENRAP's 2018 CAMx modeling results by the change in emissions of NOx 
and SO2 due to revised regional haze SIP controls required 
by the end of 2018. The State made updates to reflect the most recent 
three years of data (2014 to 2016) for emissions and heat inputs that 
were used for Arkansas EGUs. Currently, both Caney Creek and Upper 
Buffalo Wilderness areas are achieving greater visibility improvement 
than the revised 2018 RPGs.\108\ Based on available monitored data, the 
current visibility trendlines are below their respective 2018 RPGs from 
the baseline conditions and visibility is continuing to improve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See the sip-rev-rpg-calcs.xlsx spreadsheet at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/regional-haze.aspx.
    \107\ See page 48 of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 
and PM SIP revision.
    \108\ See Figures 11 and 12 on pages 50 to 52 of the Arkansas 
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sources in Arkansas also impact Hercules Glades and Mingo 
Wilderness Class I areas in Missouri. Arkansas stated in its progress 
report that the 2018 RPGs for Missouri's Class I areas would be met, 
but it did not restate those 2018 RPGs or compare them to the available 
monitored data. Recent information for these areas, however, 
complements the State's analysis and shows that Missouri is indeed 
currently on track to achieve its 2018 RPGs for Hercules Glades and 
Mingo Wilderness.\109\ The 2012 to 2016 five-year rolling average of 
observed visibility impairment for the twenty percent haziest days at 
Hercules Glades Wilderness Area is 20.72 dv (2.34 dv below Missouri's 
2018 RPG). The 2012 to 2016 five year-rolling average of observed 
visibility impairment for the twenty percent haziest days at Mingo 
Wilderness Area is 22.34 dv (1.37 dv below Missouri's 2018 RPG goal). 
Arkansas concluded that the visibility improvement observed at the 
IMPROVE monitors indicates that sources in Arkansas are not interfering 
with the achievement of Missouri's 2018 RPGs for Hercules Glades and 
Mingo Wilderness Areas. Therefore, we are proposing to find that 
Arkansas' implementation plan is sufficient to ensure that other 
states' visibility RPGs for the first planning period for their 
respective Class I areas are being met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See Visibility Progress_Update_2016.xlsx in the docket of 
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately 
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to assess 
the current strategy to meet RPGs. The State has assessed the 
implementation plan in place at the time the progress report was 
submitted, and we find that the implementation plan as it currently 
exists is sufficient to enable the state of Arkansas and other nearby 
states to meet their RPGs. The realized and planned controls and 
reductions that form the current strategy for this first implementation 
period are sufficient to meet the revised RPGs as established in the 
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. Both Class I 
areas in Arkansas are currently meeting the revised 2018 RPGs for the 
twenty percent worst days. Visibility data from Caney Creek and Upper 
Buffalo Wilderness areas also show that the goal of no visibility 
degradation for the twenty percent best days is being achieved. 
Missouri's two Class I areas are also on track to achieve their 
visibility reduction goals.

[[Page 11710]]

H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    The monitoring strategy for regional haze in Arkansas relies upon 
participation in the IMPROVE \110\ network, which is the primary 
monitoring network for regional haze nationwide. The IMPROVE network 
provides a long-term record for tracking visibility improvement or 
degradation. Arkansas currently relies on data collected through the 
IMPROVE network to satisfy the regional haze monitoring requirement as 
specified in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). Data from IMPROVE show 
that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually 
all the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. The 
average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and 
memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting 
certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100-150 km, 
or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist 
without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I 
areas of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 
km, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under 
estimated natural conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its progress report, Arkansas summarized the existing IMPROVE 
monitoring network and its intended continued reliance on IMPROVE for 
visibility planning. In Arkansas, there are two IMPROVE sites. The 
first IMPROVE site is located in Polk County at the Ouachita National 
Forest and represents the 14,460 acres of the Caney Creek Wilderness. 
The second IMPROVE site is located in Newton County at the Ozark 
National Forest and represents the 11,801 acres of the Upper Buffalo 
Wilderness area, including the original Wilderness and the additions to 
it.\111\ Arkansas is committed to meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(4)(iv), and reports annually to the EPA visibility data for 
each of Arkansas' Class I areas. For the progress report, Arkansas has 
evaluated its monitoring network and found that there have not been any 
changes from the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP network. Arkansas 
reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring network. 
Arkansas also explained the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring 
network for tracking visibility trends at its Class I areas and 
identified no expected changes in this network. The EPA proposes to 
conclude that the State has adequately addressed the applicable 
provision under 40 CFR 51.308 for a visibility monitoring strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Table 8.1 in the progress report (page 63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Implementation Plan

    Arkansas noted that it was committed to correcting the portions of 
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that were disapproved by the EPA 
and provided a negative declaration stating that no additional controls 
were necessary during the first implementation period.\112\ Since the 
progress report's submission in 2015, the EPA promulgated a FIP and the 
State subsequently submitted two SIP revisions to fulfill its 
commitment to address the disapproved portions identified in the 2012 
action (the 2017 Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision and 
the 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP 
revision).\113\ When considering the new SIP requirements; the SIP 
requirements that we proposed for approval; the remaining FIP elements; 
the visibility and emission information provided in the progress 
report; and the more recent data evaluated by the EPA; it is clear that 
the implementation plan is adequate to meet its emission reductions and 
visibility goals for the first implementation period. Current 
visibility conditions in Arkansas have improved beyond the more 
stringent 2018 RPGs that were introduced in the 2018 Arkansas Regional 
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. Visibility has also improved 
at both Missouri Class I areas affected by Arkansas sources. Lastly, 
the updated emission trends show that SO2, NOX, 
and PM emissions (the main contributors to regional haze in Arkansas) 
have all been decreasing. The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP 
revision,\114\ the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP 
revision (if EPA's proposed approval is finalized),\115\ and the 
remaining part of the FIP that addresses the BART and associated long-
term strategy requirements for Domtar together fully address the 
deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. Because the SIP 
and FIP will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX 
emission reductions relied upon by Arkansas and other states in setting 
their RPGs, the EPA is proposing to approve Arkansas' finding that 
there is no need for revision of the existing implementation plan to 
achieve the RPGs for the Class I areas in Arkansas and in nearby states 
impacted by Arkansas sources. We, therefore, propose to approve 
Arkansas' negative declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no 
additional controls are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Specifically, the EPA disapproved certain BART compliance 
dates; the State's identification of certain BART-eligible sources 
and subject-to-BART sources; certain BART determinations for 
NOX, SO2, and PM; the reasonable progress 
analysis and RPGs; and a portion of the long-term strategy. The 
remaining provisions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP were 
approved.
    \113\ See final action approved on February 12, 2018 for the 
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision (83 FR 5927) and 
the EPA's proposed approval on November 30, 2018 for the Arkansas 
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision (83 FR 62204).
    \114\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5927).
    \115\ Proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Consultation With Federal Land Managers

    The Regional Haze Rule requires the State to provide the designated 
Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with an opportunity for in-person 
consultation at least sixty days prior to holding any public hearings 
on a SIP revision for the first implementation period. Arkansas invited 
the FLMs to comment on its draft progress report on April 25, 2014, for 
a sixty-day comment period ending June 24, 2014, that was extended 
until June 27, 2014, per FLM request. The FLM's comments and Arkansas' 
responses are presented in Appendix A of the progress report. ADEQ also 
engaged in multiple conference calls arranged by CenSARA for the 
central states with the designated FLMs which took place on February 
27, 2012, April 30, 2013, July 30, 2013, August 13, 2013, and September 
12, 2013. The EPA proposes to conclude that Arkansas has adequately 
addressed the applicable FLM provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(i).

III. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the State of Arkansas' regional 
haze five-year progress report SIP revision (submitted June 2, 2015) as 
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(g). The EPA is also proposing to approve the State of Arkansas' 
determination of adequacy under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no additional 
controls are needed. Lastly, the EPA is proposing to find that the 
State of Arkansas fulfilled its requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(i) 
regarding state coordination with FLMs.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does

[[Page 11711]]

not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).In addition, the 
SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any 
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe 
has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule 
does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best Available 
Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility, 
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 21, 2019.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019-05861 Filed 3-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P