[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32284-32287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14692]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189; FRL-9964-52-Region 6]


Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of 
Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal 
Implementation Plan; Revision of Federal Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
revise the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that was published in the 
Federal Register on September 27, 2016, to address certain regional 
haze and visibility transport requirements under the Federal Clean Air 
Act (the Act, or CAA) for the State of Arkansas. The specific portions 
of the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP that the EPA is proposing to revise 
are the compliance dates for the nitrogen oxide (NOX) 
emission limits for the Entergy White Bluff Plant (White Bluff) Units 1 
and 2, the Entergy Independence Plant (Independence) Units 1 and 2, and 
the American Electric Power (AEP) Flint Creek Unit 1. EPA is proposing 
to extend the compliance dates for the NOX emission limits 
for these five electric generating units (EGUs) by 21 months to January 
27, 2020.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 
2017.
    Public Hearing: We are holding an information session--for the 
purpose of providing additional information and informal discussion for 
our proposal, and a public hearing--to accept oral comments into the 
record, as follows:
    Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2017
    Time: Information Session: 2:00 p.m.-2:45 p.m.
    Public hearing: 3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. (including break from 5:00 
p.m.-5:30 p.m.)
    Please see the ADDRESSES section for the location of the hearing in 
North Little Rock, AR.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2015-0189, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact Dayana Medina, (214) 665-
7241; [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/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).
    Hearing location: Arkansas Public Service Commission, Public 
Service Commission Building, 1000 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 
72201-4314.
    The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity 
to present information and opinions to us concerning our proposal. 
Interested parties may also submit written comments, as discussed in 
the proposal. Written statements and supporting information submitted 
during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as 
any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public 
hearing. We will not respond to comments during the public hearings. 
When we publish our final action, we will provide written responses to 
all significant oral and written comments received on our proposal. To 
provide opportunities for questions and discussion, we will hold an 
information session prior to the public hearing. During the information 
session, EPA staff will be available to informally answer questions on 
our proposed action. Any comments made to EPA staff during an 
information session must still be provided orally during the public 
hearing, or formally in writing within 30 days after completion of the 
hearings, in order to be considered in the record. At the public 
hearings, the hearing officer may limit the time available for each 
commenter to address the proposal to three minutes or less if the 
hearing officer determines it to be appropriate. We will not be 
providing equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make 
computerized slide presentations. Any person may provide written or 
oral comments and data pertaining to our proposal at the public 
hearings. Verbatim English language transcripts of the hearing and 
written statements will be included in the rulemaking docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dayana Medina, (214) 665-7241; 
[email protected].

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

I. Background

    On September 27, 2016, we published a rule titled ``Promulgation of 
Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and 
Interstate Visibility Transport Federal

[[Page 32285]]

Implementation Plan'' (Arkansas Regional Haze FIP or FIP) addressing 
certain requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and interstate 
visibility transport.\1\ Among other things, the final FIP established 
NOX emission limits for White Bluff, Independence, and Flint 
Creek, and required compliance with these emission limits within 18 
months of the effective date of our final action (i.e., April 27, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 66332; see also 81 FR 68319 (October 4, 2016) 
(correction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ), submitted a petition to the EPA dated 
November 22, 2016, seeking reconsideration and an administrative stay 
of specific portions of the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP pursuant 
to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA and section 705 of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Petitions dated November 23, 2016, 
seeking reconsideration and administrative stay of the FIP were also 
submitted by Entergy Arkansas Inc., Entergy Mississippi Inc., and 
Entergy Power LLC (collectively ``Entergy'') and the Arkansas Electric 
Cooperative Corporation (AECC), which are owners of Flint Creek, White 
Bluff, and Independence. The Energy and Environmental Alliance of 
Arkansas (EEAA), which is an ad-hoc association that has members who 
own or operate Flint Creek, White Bluff, and Independence, also 
submitted a petition dated November 28, 2016, seeking reconsideration 
and administrative stay of the FIP.\2\ The petitioners raised a number 
of issues, including EPA's decision to shorten the compliance dates for 
the NOX emission limits for Flint Creek, White Bluff, and 
Independence from the proposed 3 years to 18 months in the final FIP 
without specifically requesting comment on the shorter 18-month 
compliance dates. Entergy, AECC, and EEAA also stated in their 
petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay that the 18-month 
NOX compliance dates required by the FIP are infeasible and 
do not allow sufficient time for the owners and operators of the 
facilities to develop, plan, obtain prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) permits, install, tune, and test the low 
NOX burner control equipment that is needed to comply with 
the NOX emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Please see the docket for this rulemaking for a copy of the 
petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay submitted by 
ADEQ, Entergy, AECC, and EEAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated April 14, 2017, EPA announced the convening of a 
proceeding to reconsider the appropriate compliance dates for the 
NOX emission limits for Flint Creek, White Bluff, and 
Independence.\3\ EPA determined that the petitioners raised objections 
to the NOX compliance timeframes that were impracticable to 
raise during the comment period and that are of central relevance to 
the rule under 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA also 
published a notice in the Federal Register on April 25, 2017, 
administratively staying the effectiveness of the 18-month 
NOX compliance dates in the FIP for a period of 90 days.\4\ 
In that action, we also stated that reconsideration would allow for 
additional public comment on the 18-month NOX compliance 
deadlines. We are proposing to revise the NOX compliance 
deadlines for the 5 affected units as part of the reconsideration 
process and requesting comment on our proposed decision to extend these 
dates by 21 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See letter dated April 14, 2017, regarding ``Convening a 
Proceeding for Reconsideration of Final Rule, `Promulgation of Air 
Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and 
Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan,' 
published September 7, 2016. 81 FR 66332.'' A copy of this letter is 
included in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189.
    \4\ 82 FR 18994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that in a letter dated June 7, 2017, the State 
committed to develop and submit to EPA this summer a Regional Haze SIP 
revision to replace our FIP, which would include NOX 
requirements for the EGUs. Our action today revising the compliance 
dates for NOX does not preclude the State from submitting 
and EPA acting on a SIP revision addressing that element. As we have 
previously stated,\5\ we remain committed to work with the State on a 
SIP revision that would replace our FIP. We are proposing a revision to 
our FIP at this time to address the impending April 27, 2018 
NOX compliance deadlines required by the FIP for Flint 
Creek, White Bluff, and Independence, prior to the anticipated SIP 
submittal by the State and to provide the owners of the units with 
regulatory certainty regarding their compliance deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 81 FR 66333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions for Reconsideration of the NOX Compliance 
Deadlines and EPA's Proposed Action

    We have carefully reviewed and taken into consideration the 
petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay submitted by the 
State of Arkansas, Entergy, AECC, and EEAA regarding the 18-month 
compliance date for the NOX emission limits at Flint Creek 
Unit 1, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and Independence Units 1 and 2. We 
have determined that the petitions for reconsideration raise certain 
arguments related to the 18-month NOX compliance dates that 
have merit, provide site-specific information regarding the 
infeasibility of an 18-month compliance date, and warrant proposing a 
revision to the FIP with regard to the 18-month NOX 
compliance deadlines.
    The State of Arkansas, Entergy, AECC, and EEAA stated in their 
petitions that EPA proposed a 3-year NOX compliance deadline 
for the affected units and that we did not indicate in the proposed 
rulemaking that we were considering a shorter compliance date. 
Additionally, the petitioners stated that EPA failed to provide an 
opportunity to comment on the owners' ability to comply with a 
shortened compliance date. EEAA pointed out that if EPA would have 
afforded the owners and operators adequate notice and opportunity to 
comment on the shortened NOX compliance deadlines, they 
would have provided comment and supporting information concerning why 
an 18-month compliance deadline is inadequate. The petitioners also 
argued that because we did not provide notice and an opportunity to 
comment on shortened compliance deadlines, the 18-month NOX 
compliance deadlines are not a logical outgrowth of the FIP proposal.
    We agree with the petitioners that our FIP proposal did not 
specifically state that we were soliciting public comment on shorter 
NOX compliance dates for the five units. We recognize that 
the wording in our proposed rulemaking was not clear with respect to 
this issue, but our intent was to solicit public comment on all aspects 
of our FIP proposal. This includes even those aspects of our FIP 
proposal for which we did not specifically state that we were 
soliciting public comment. However, in consideration of the 
petitioners' comments, we are proposing to extend the NOX 
compliance dates for the 5 affected units and providing notice and 
opportunity for public comment on the proposed revisions to the 
compliance dates. Other issues raised by the petitioners concerning the 
inadequacy of an 18-month NOX compliance deadline are 
discussed in the subsections that follow.

A. Petitioners' Claims Regarding the Infeasibility of 18-Month 
NOX Compliance Deadlines

    Entergy's petition, which was incorporated by reference by both 
AECC and EEAA, asserted that the comments

[[Page 32286]]

submitted by environmental groups,\6\ on which we based our decision to 
shorten the NOX compliance deadlines for the five units, 
relied on an expert report and a 10-year-old vendor association report 
that did not take into account site-specific considerations that could 
affect the installation and deployment time of low NOX 
burner controls.\7\ EEAA also asserted that the 10-year old vendor 
association report did not take into account permitting considerations, 
a company's internal project development and approval process, site-
specific factors, or reliability concerns. Entergy and EEAA asserted 
that the 18-month compliance deadline for installation of the low 
NOX burner and separated overfire air equipment at White 
Bluff and Independence is not feasible because it does not allow the 
owners and operators sufficient time to prepare and submit an air 
permit application, obtain the permit through the public notice and 
participation process, comply with the affected companies' internal 
planning and prudence review procedures, complete a request for 
proposal process, select a vendor, procure equipment, schedule outages, 
install the control equipment, conduct equipment tuning and testing, 
and train staff on the operation of the control equipment. AECC also 
asserted in its petition that the 18-month NOX compliance 
deadlines for the five units are extremely difficult, if not 
impossible, to meet and are unprecedented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See comments submitted by Earthjustice, National Parks 
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club, dated August 7, 2015, on 
the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP proposal. These comments can be found 
in Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189.
    \7\ AECC and EEAA's petitions address Flint Creek, White Bluff, 
and Independence. Entergy's petition focuses on White Bluff and 
Independence, but many of the arguments raised by Entergy are also 
applicable to Flint Creek.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Entergy and EEAA pointed out that the installation of the 
NOX control equipment requires that the company first 
develop a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit 
application for each facility and submit to ADEQ. Entergy's petition 
explains that the processing of the permit application by ADEQ is 
expected to take no less than 6--8 months, but could take longer 
depending on a number of factors outside of the company's control. The 
State's permitting process involves a public notice and participation 
process, and the length of time it takes to issue the permit is 
dependent upon the volume and complexity of the comments received as 
well as on ADEQ's resources. Additionally, Entergy pointed out that any 
member of the public could appeal issuance of the final permit to the 
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission and, absent 
additional regulatory proceedings, could result in an automatic stay of 
the permit pending resolution of the appeal. Entergy stated in its 
petition that it has obtained the necessary PSD permit for installation 
of the NOX control equipment at White Bluff, but is still in 
the process of developing the PSD permit application for Independence.
    Entergy and EEAA also explained in their petitions that the 
affected companies have internal planning procedures that affect their 
schedule for installation of the NOX controls. These 
internal planning procedures include risk and prudence reviews, as well 
as a process for obtaining competitive bids from multiple vendors. 
Entergy asserted that these internal planning procedures are in place 
to attempt to ensure cost recovery, and that circumventing these 
procedures places the owners at risk of making investments that the 
Arkansas Public Service Commission later determines are not in the 
public interest and therefore not eligible for cost recovery. Entergy 
explained that once a vendor is selected, the company must negotiate 
the final contract and that it would then take the vendor approximately 
8 months to design and fabricate the equipment. Each unit will then 
have to be taken offline for approximately 6-7 weeks for installation 
of the control equipment. Entergy explained that after installation of 
the control equipment, the company must conduct boiler tuning, 
performance verification testing, a final phase of fine-tuning of the 
equipment, staff training, and must validate operating configurations 
to determine which combinations result in the best load profile. In its 
petition for reconsideration, Entergy stated that in light of these 
site-specific considerations, the owners and operators need 3 years to 
install the control equipment and comply with their NOX 
emission limits. Entergy and EEAA stated that requiring the affected 
units to comply with shorter NOX compliance deadlines would 
force the owners to undertake an accelerated schedule that involves 
non-compliance with company prudence procedures and increases the cost 
and financial risk incurred by the owners, with no guarantee that the 
units will actually be able to meet their NOX emission 
limits by the shorter compliance date.
    AECC asserted in its petition that a 3-year NOX 
compliance deadline is as expeditiously as practicable for the affected 
units, especially taking into consideration that the four units at 
White Bluff and Independence are within the same regional transmission 
organization system that would be affected by outages related to 
installation of the NOX control equipment. AECC also 
asserted that a NOX compliance schedule less than 3 years 
would require an accelerated construction schedule such that the 
controls could not be optimally scheduled to minimize the cost of 
replacement energy and system reliability could potentially be 
compromised. EEAA expressed similar concerns, stating that an 18-month 
compliance schedule for the 5 affected units is inadequate for the 
installation of the controls, in particular when required for multiple 
units that represent a significant amount of baseload generating 
capacity within the State.

B. EPA's Assessment of Petitioners' Claims and EPA's Proposed Action

    We agree with the petitioners that the comments submitted by 
environmental groups on which we based our decision to shorten the 
NOX compliance deadlines for the five units relied on an 
expert report and a 10-year-old vendor association report that did not 
take into account site-specific considerations that could affect the 
installation and deployment time of low NOX burner 
equipment. Since our proposed rulemaking did not specifically state a 
range of compliance dates that we were soliciting comment on for the 
NOX emission limits for the five units, we accept the 
owners' claims that they did not anticipate that we might finalize 
shorter compliance dates and therefore did not comment on site-specific 
factors that affect their ability to meet shorter compliance dates. We 
also acknowledge that the owners of the affected units raise a valid 
point that the compliance date needs to account for the PSD permitting 
process required for the installation of the NOX control 
equipment, including the possibility of delays in the regulatory 
permitting process that could affect the owners' ability to meet an 18-
month compliance deadline.
    We acknowledge that we were not aware of and thus could not take 
into consideration the companies' internal planning and prudence review 
procedures when we shortened the NOX compliance deadlines. 
We find that the steps and processes Entergy, AECC, and EEAA discussed 
in their petitions that must be taken by the owners and operators of 
the affected units in order to install and begin operating the 
NOX control equipment are reasonable and

[[Page 32287]]

warrant proposing to extend the NOX compliance dates for the 
affected units. It is not our intent to require a compliance timeframe 
that could force the owners to expedite the planning, installation, and 
deployment of the NOX control equipment in such a way that 
would require omitting company planning procedures and other important 
processes the owners and operators have in place for projects such as 
this. We also believe it is prudent to establish compliance deadlines 
that allow the installation of the NOX controls to be 
optimally scheduled so as to not compromise system reliability, 
especially taking into consideration that four of the affected units 
are within the same regional transmission organization system. Entergy, 
AECC, and EEAA asserted that 3 years are needed to develop, plan, 
permit, install, tune, and test the equipment at the affected units, 
which is consistent with the compliance deadline we proposed in our 
April 8, 2015 FIP proposal.\8\ Additionally, as we noted in the 
``Background'' section of this proposed rulemaking, we published a 
notice in the Federal Register on April 25, 2017, administratively 
staying the effectiveness of the 18-month NOX compliance 
deadlines in the FIP for a period of 90 days as part of our 
reconsideration process for the NOX compliance deadlines.\9\ 
To also account for the 90 day stay of the effectiveness of these 
NOX compliance deadlines, we are proposing to extend the 
NOX compliance deadlines for Flint Creek Unit 1, White Bluff 
Units 1 and 2, and Independence Units 1 and 2 by a total of 21 months 
to January 27, 2020. We believe this is consistent with the requirement 
under the CAA section 169A(b)(2) and (g)(4) and the Regional Haze Rule 
under section 51.308(e)(1)(iv) to install and operate BART as 
expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after 
approval of the implementation plan revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 80 FR 18944.
    \9\ 82 FR 18994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Proposed Action

    After carefully considering the petitions for reconsideration of 
the NOX compliance deadlines submitted by Arkansas, Entergy, 
AECC, and EEAA, we are proposing to revise the Arkansas Regional Haze 
FIP by extending the NOX compliance deadlines for Flint 
Creek, White Bluff, and Independence. After carefully considering the 
information presented by the petitioners and to account for the 90 day 
stay of the effectiveness of these NOX compliance deadlines, 
we are proposing to extend the NOX compliance deadlines for 
Flint Creek Unit 1, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and Independence Units 1 
and 2 by a total of 21 months to January 27, 2020. Upon finalization of 
this proposed action, the reconsideration process for the 18-month 
NOX compliance deadlines will conclude.
    The revisions to the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP we are proposing at 
this time are limited to the NOX compliance dates for the 
five aforementioned units. We are not proposing to revise any other 
portions of the FIP in this proposed action. As such, we are not 
accepting public comment at this time on any issues unrelated to the 
NOX compliance dates for these units. However, we note that 
the reconsideration process under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) for other 
portions of the FIP, as discussed in our April 14, 2017 letter, is 
ongoing.\10\ If EPA determines through the ongoing reconsideration 
process that revisions to other parts of the FIP are warranted, we will 
propose such revisions in a future rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See letter dated April 14, 2017, regarding ``Convening a 
Proceeding for Reconsideration of Final Rule, `Promulgation of Air 
Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and 
Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan,' 
published September 7, 2016. 81 FR 66332.'' A copy of this letter is 
included in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available 
retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility.

    Dated: June 30, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart E--Arkansas

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.173 by revising (c) (7) and (25) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.173   Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (c)(7) Compliance dates for AEP Flint Creek Unit 1 and Entergy 
White Bluff Units 1 and 2. The owner or operator of AEP Flint Creek 
Unit 1 must comply with the SO2 emission limit listed in 
paragraph (c)(6) of this section by April 27, 2018, and with the 
NOX emission limit listed in paragraph (c)(6) by January 27, 
2020. The owner or operator of White Bluff Units 1 and 2 must comply 
with the SO2 emission limit listed in paragraph (c)(6) of 
this section by October 27, 2021, and must comply with the 
NOX emission limits listed in paragraph (c)(6) of this 
section by January 27, 2020.
* * * * *
    (c)(25) Compliance dates for Entergy Independence Units 1 and 2. 
The owner or operator of each unit must comply with the SO2 
emission limit in paragraph (c)(24) of this section by October 27, 
2021, and with the NOX emission limits by January 27, 2020.

[FR Doc. 2017-14692 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P