Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

promulgated by the FIP, which is now being withdrawn in this action, the compliance schedule did not require that these limits be in effect until October 27, 2021. Domtar has been in compliance with those schedules for both boilers for the past three years.
For these reasons, the States BART
alternative SIP revision for Domtar Ashdown Mill meets the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308e2iii: It documents that the required reductions took place during the period of the first long-term strategy i.e. before the end of 2018 and those reductions continued up until the point the enforceable BART alternative emission limits took effect at the state level. The BART alternative limits are now in effect, satisfying the implementation-schedule requirement of e2iii, and the SIP establishes relevant monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, as set forth in plantwide permit conditions 32 to 43
and the associated provisions of the States SIP-approved monitoring and compliance regulations found at APCEC
Rule 19, Chapter 7.114
D. The CAA 110l Anti-Backsliding Provision Comment D.1: The proposed rule violates the Clean Air Acts antibacksliding requirement at 42 U.S.C.
7410l because compared to the existing federal plan, the States plan would result in greater air pollution.
EPAs proposal explains that based on an assessment of current air quality in the areas most affected by this SIP
revision, we are concluding that the less stringent SO2 emission limits in the Phase III SIP will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. EPAs proposal fails to explain and provide information regarding what areas it assessed and the basis for its assessment. Moreover, EPAs analysis only considers regional haze and the NAAQS, and not other CAA
requirements such as PSD increments.
Moreover, the increase in SO2 emissions under the SIP relative to the FIP violates the Clean Air Acts section 110l antibacksliding provision, which provides that the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of this chapter. Section 110l prohibits plan revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement, including a BART
determination. When determining 114 See 52.170c table for EPA-approved regulations in the Arkansas SIP.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:10 Mar 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

whether a plan revision interferes with NAAQS attainment, EPA has interpreted section 110l as preventing plan revisions that would increase overall air pollution or worsen air quality. In Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 6th Cir.
2006, EPA interpreted section 110l as allowing the agency to approve a plan revision that weakened some existing control measures while strengthening others, but only as long as actual emissions in the air are not increased.
The Eleventh Circuit and the Seventh Circuit have upheld EPAs section 110l interpretation as prohibiting plan revisions that would increase emissions or worsen air quality.115 In a discussion regarding a challenge to the Nevada regional haze plan, the Ninth Circuit also suggested that a haze plan that weakens or removes any pollution controls would violate section 110l.116 Emissions under the Domtar BART alternative would increase, which is plainly at odds with CAA antibacksliding requirements and the interpretation of these provisions in various circuit courts.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the proposed rule violates the CAAs anti-backsliding requirement due to an increase in SO2
emissions under the SIP relative to the FIP. For the reasons explained below, EPA concludes that CAA section 110l does not prohibit approval of this SIP.
Under CAA Section 110l, the EPA
cannot approve a plan revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of this chapter. 117 Section 110l applies to all requirements of the CAA, and it applies to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria pollutants. The EPA interprets section 110l as applying to all NAAQS
that are in effect, including those for 115 Indiana v. EPA, 796 F.3d 803 7th Cir. 2015;
Alabama Envtl. Council v. EPA, 711 F.3d 1277
11th Cir. 2013.
116 WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1064
9th Cir. 2014.
117 Note that reasonable further progress as used in CAA section 110l is a reference to that term as defined in section 301a i.e., 42 U.S.C.
7501a, and as such means reductions required to attain the NAAQS set for criteria pollutants under section 109. This term as used in section 110l and defined in section 301a is not synonymous with reasonable progress as that term is used in the regional haze program. Instead, section 110l provides that the EPA cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with regional haze requirements including reasonable progress requirements insofar as they are other applicable requirements of the CAA.

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

15125

which SIP submissions have not been made. A section 110l demonstration should address all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of a plan revision, even if the SIP
provision was originally adopted only to address one particular NAAQS. In general, the level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110l demonstration will vary depending on the nature of the revision. Where available attainment demonstration or maintenance plans indicate that any change in emissions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement, EPA may rely on such plans to demonstrate that section 110l does not prohibit approval of the plan.
A state, instead of submitting an air quality analysis showing that the revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement, may substitute equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a plan to ensure actual emissions to the air are not increased and thus preserve status quo air quality. Equivalent emissions reductions are reductions that are equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the control measure approved into the plan. To show that compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, adequate justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions should represent actual emissions reductions achieved in a contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing control measure in order to preserve the status quo air quality. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions reductions should also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus. A showing that the substitute measures preserve status quo air quality is generally sufficient to demonstrate noninterference through this alternative approach.
As an initial matter, the commenter misstates the EPAs interpretation of CAA section 110l. Neither EPA nor any court has concluded, as the commenter asserts, that plan revisions are permissible only if emissions to the air are not increased. The case cited by the commenter, Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 6th Cir. 2006, involved a situation in which the state had opted to substitute equivalent emission reductions to compensate for emission changes associated with the plan revision, and the EPA concluded that the offsetting emission reductions were adequate to
E:FRFM22MRR1.SGM

22MRR1