Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

15120

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
against Domtar with final approval of this SIP submittal.
The commenter lastly mentioned that these conditions fail to require that owners and operators are subject to the provisions in them. We address this in response to comment B.5 in section III.B of this final action. As mentioned in that response, we recognize Domtar as both the permittee and the owner subject to the permit conditions.
Further, because the permit conditions are being incorporated into the states SIP, they are stateand federallyenforceable on any owner or operator of this facility regardless of any changes that may occur in ownership of the facility or in the permit itself. Therefore, Domtar and any future owner or operator is subject to the provisions being approved in this action, including conditions 36 and 43, and DEQ will continue to enforce these measures with EPA oversight.
Comment B.4: EPAs proposal suggests there are reporting requirements for Power Boiler No. 1 in conditions 33 to 36 and in conditions 38
to 43 for Power Boiler No. 2 but these provisions do not contain requirements for reporting. The SIP lacks any requirements for reporting and EPA
must disapprove the SIP.
Response: The commenter asserts that conditions 33 to 36 for Power Boiler No.
1 and conditions 38 to 43 for Power Boiler No. 2 fail to contain reporting requirements as EPA suggests. However, permit conditions 36 and 43 state that all records shall be made available to any agent of DEQ or EPA upon request.
Accordingly, the records will be provided upon request by DEQ or EPA.
This is sufficient to satisfy periodic reporting of records in 40 CFR 51.211.
The general BART alternative implementation requirements of 51.308e2iii, which do not include a requirement of reporting on any specific time period, are also met. The commenter also suggests that the State is required to provide periodic reporting requirements as stated in 42 U.S.C.
7410a2Fii and the BART
guidelines. However, section 110a2F requires EPA to prescribe its requirements, and thus this provision is implemented through the applicable regulations. The BART guidelines call for adequate reporting and recordkeeping so that air quality agency personnel can determine the compliance status of the source. Permit conditions 36 and 43 clearly require maintaining all records necessary to determine compliance for at least 5
years and permit conditions 36 and 43
state that all records shall be made available to any agent of DEQ or EPA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:10 Mar 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

upon request so determination of compliance can be made.
Further, other SIP-approved provisions of Arkansas regulations also apply, ensuring the reporting obligations of 51.211 and the BARTalternative implementation measures of 51.308e2iii are satisfied. The commenter mentions that the SIP lacks any requirements for reporting, but that is not the case. APCEC Rule 19 Chapter 7Sampling, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, sets forth the powers of DEQ in requiring sampling, monitoring, and reporting requirements at stationary sources.96 As mentioned previously, the State made clear in its SIP submittal that the BART alternative SIP requirements for this source would be implemented in conjunction with preexisting SIP
requirements for sampling, monitoring, and reporting requirements under APCEC Rule 19 Chapter 7, thus ensuring that the emissions limitations applicable to this source under the BART
alternative are practically enforceable.97
Per APCEC Rule 19.705C, Domtar must submit annual reports demonstrating compliance with applicable emission limitations. In addition, they must keep all records demonstrating compliance for at least five years APCEC Rule 19.705A. Inspectors audit these records during site inspections.
Therefore, Domtar does have a preexisting annual reporting requirement, and, with the approval of the BARTalternative emission limits into the States regional haze SIP, their compliance with these emission limits will also be a part of that annual report going forward. For these reasons, the SIP is not lacking reporting requirements, including any periodic reporting requirement as required under part 51, subpart K.
It is also worth noting that as a source subject to Title V requirements, it is subject to annual deviation reports under APCEC Rule 26.703E3c. In addition, as a major source it is required to provide an annual emissions inventory. EPA finds that the reporting requirements applicable to Domtar under this SIP submittal are sufficient to meet the requirements of the BART
alternative regulations and subpart K.
Comment B.5: The SIP fails to require that the source surveillance provisions apply to owners and operators. The source surveillance provisions must apply to owners and operators of the source instead of the Title V permittee in permit condition 32. This provision does not meet the requirements of 96 See 52.170c table for EPA-approved regulations in the Arkansas SIP.
97 See Aug. 2019 SIP Submittal at 2.

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

subpart K. If the Title V permit were to expire, there would be no permittee to hold accountable. EPA must therefore disapprove this provision of the SIP
because it fails to identify the appropriate liable entity. Similarly, permit condition 33 fails to specify the entity responsible for making the demonstration, and therefore, EPA must also disapprove this provision.
Response: The commenter stated that the SIP fails to require that the source surveillance provisions apply to owners and operators. EPA disagrees with this comment because the terms of the permit are incorporated into the SIP and are therefore applicable to both the permittee and any other owner or operator of this facility. Currently, those entities are one and the same: Domtar.
Because conditions 32 and 33 in the permit both say permittee instead of owner and operator, the commenter asserts that nobody will be subject to the provisions in these conditions if the Title V permit were to expire. This is incorrect, and nothing in the States SIP
submittal or any other information before the EPA suggests that this is how these terms are to be interpreted. The terms permittee and owner are both used in the permit. Domtar is recognized as both the owner of the Ashdown mill who operates the boilers and the permittee of the Title V permit containing the revised conditions implementing the BART alternative.
The BART Alternative specific conditions portion of the plantwide conditions section of the permit clarifies that the permittee is the one who is subject to these conditions.
In addition, these requirements would not cease to apply if Domtar were for any reason to cease to be the permittee.
Although permittee is being used in the wording of the permit conditions, these conditions are being approved into the States SIP and are stateand federally-enforceable by virtue of being in the SIP. As the States SIP submittal explains,98 For compliance with the CAA Regional Haze Programs requirements for the first planning period, the No. 1 and 2 Power Boilers are subject-to-BART alternative measures consistent with 40 CFR
51.308. The terms and conditions of the BART alternative measures are to be submitted to EPA for approval as part of the Arkansas SIP. Upon initial EPA
approval of the permit into the SIP, the permittee shall continue to be subject to the conditions as approved into the SIP
98 See DEQ Air permit 0287AOPR22 page 203, the Regional Haze Program BART
Alternative Specific Conditions portion of the Plantwide Conditions section of the permit, Section VI, Plantwide Conditions 32 to 43.

E:FRFM22MRR1.SGM

22MRR1