Quiero saber acerca de...

15128

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
As can be seen in Table 2, the shortterm emission limits pph for the Arkansas BART alternative are less than the previously permitted limits, the Arkansas baseline 20012003 actual emissions, and the BART FIP baseline
emissions mixture of 20012003 and 20092011 actual emissions for SO2, NOX, and PM/PM10/PM2.5. Therefore, the Arkansas BART alternative results in short-term increment expansion for SO2 and PM/PM10/PM2.5 pollutants
there is no short term increment for NOX. Therefore, removal of the FIP and approval of the Arkansas BART
alternative would not interfere with PSD
increments.

TABLE 2SHORT TERM EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
Emission Rate pph 30 boiler-operating day rolling average
Condition
SO2
Power Boiler No. 1 580 MMBTU/hr Previously Permitted Prior to natural gas conversion
Arkansas SIP BART Baseline 20012003
BART FIP Baseline
Arkansas BART Alternative
Power Boiler No. 2 820 MMBTU/hr Previously Permitted
Arkansas SIP BART Baseline 20012003
BART FIP Baseline
Arkansas BART Alternative
Power Boiler No. 1 & Power Boiler No. 2
Previously Permitted Prior to Power Boiler No. 1 natural gas conversion
Arkansas SIP BART Baseline 20012003
BART FIP Baseline
Arkansas BART Alternative

NOX

PM10

1,285
442.5
21.0
0.5

247.5
179.5
207.4
191.1

343
169.5
30.4
5.2

984
788.2
788.2
435

574
526.8
526.8
293

82
81.6
81.6
81.6

2,269
1,230.7
809.2
435.5

821.5
706.3
734.2
484.1

425
251.1
112
86.8

Not 30 boiler-operating day rolling average Prior to Power Boiler No. 1 natural gas conversion. See Permit No. 287AOPR2 8/16/2001.
DEQ permits for Domtar are available at https www.adeq.state.ar.us/home/pdssql/p_facil_info.aspx?AFINDash=41-00002&AFIN=4100002.
See Plantwide Condition 32 of DEQ Air Permit No. 0287AOPR22 limits in Table 1 of the proposed approval 85 FR 14854.

As discussed above, EPAs technical documentation shows that approval of the Arkansas SIP submittal is not prohibited under CAA section 110l. As also explained above, CAA section 110l does not prohibit states from submitting a SIP less stringent than a FIP or replacing a SIP with a less stringent SIP. Even though the requirements adopted in the SIP
revision here do not match the emissions limitations in the FIP, there is no expectation that approval of the SIP
will interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any other requirements under the Act.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

E. Interstate Visibility Transport and Regional Haze Reasonable Progress Requirements Comment E.1: A state can satisfy prong 4 interstate transport requirements with a fully approved regional haze SIP. EPAs proposal contains numerous fatal flaws and EPA
cannot approve the States SIP submittal for Domtar Ashdown Mill. Therefore, EPA similarly cannot approve prong 4
since the State does not have a fully approvable regional haze SIP. Similarly, EPA cannot determine the States SIP
meets the reasonable progress requirements under 40 CFR 51.308d1
since the States BART alternative fails to comply with the Act and regulations.
Response: We disagree with the commenters assertion that EPA is
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:10 Mar 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

prohibited from approving the Arkansas SIP submission regarding interstate visibility transport requirements and regional haze reasonable progress requirements. As explained in our proposed rule,136 a state can demonstrate compliance with CAA
section 110a2DiII prong 4 by either having a fully-approved regional haze SIP or by demonstrating that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with another air agencys plans to protect visibility.137 The State addressed interstate visibility transport requirements in its 2018 Phase II SIP
revision, as supplemented by the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision submitted October 4, 2019, for the following NAAQS: the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight-hour O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour NO2
NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour SO2
NAAQS. The States analysis in the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP supersedes the interstate visibility transport portion of the 2017
infrastructure SIP.138
136 See
85 FR 14847.
Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan SIP Elements under CAA
sections 110a1 and 110a2 by Stephen D.
Page Sept. 13, 2013, pages 3235.
138 See 83 FR 6470. The State submitted a SIP
revision that addressed all four infrastructure prongs from section 110a2Di for the 2008 lead 137 See
PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

As to the first basis for approval, the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision 139 Phase I, the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision 140 Phase II, and this action the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP revision together fully address the States outstanding regional haze requirements for the first planning period and address the deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
that were identified in EPAs March 12, 2012, action. Thus, Arkansas now has a fully-approved regional haze SIP for the first planning period. This is sufficient under EPAs 2013 infrastructure SIP
guidance to determine that Arkansas has also adequately addressed interstate visibility transport under prong 4 for the above-listed NAAQS.
As an alternative basis for approval of Arkansas CAA section 110a2DiII
prong 4 SIP submittals, EPA finds that DEQ provided an adequate demonstration that it is not interfering with other states visibility programs in the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP submittal, which addressed the prong 4 requirements for Pb NAAQS, the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 O3 NAAQS, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We deferred taking action on the 110a2DiII prong 4 portion of that infrastructure SIP for a future rulemaking with the exception of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
139 83 FR 5927.
140 84 FR 51033.

E:FRFM22MRR1.SGM

22MRR1