Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Continuous compliance is demonstrated for PM10 under MACT, subpart DDDDD
by maintaining the appropriate operating limit, depending on the control technology used see Table 4 of subpart DDDDD. In this case, Power Boiler No. 2 uses venturi scrubbers so a site-specific minimum scrubber pressure drop and minimum flow rate operating limit according to 40 CFR
63.7530 would be used as the operating parameters. If no control device is used to demonstrate compliance with the PM10 limit, the facility must monitor operating load see item 8 of Table 4 and item 10 of Table 8 based on the operating limit set during the most recent PM10 performance test item 8 of Table 4 of subpart DDDDD, or by maintaining fuel records 40 CFR
63.7555d1 which is what will occur if Power Boiler No. 2 burns natural gas, as previously stated. Using the most conservative PM10 AP42 factor highest factor for boiler combustion indicates that the BART alternative emission limits will be met even when firing natural gas at full capacity.
Finally, the commenter mentions that this provision fails to identify what entity is required to meet these requirements i.e., the owner or operator. The has been addressed previously in our response to comment B.5.
Comment B.9: The permit conditions appear to preclude the use of any credible evidence. EPAs proposal fails to explain whether the test procedures in the permit conditions are the only evidence that may be used to demonstrate compliance. EPA must disapprove the States SIP submittal if approving these permit conditions were to preclude the use of any credible evidence.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the permit conditions in any way preclude or appear to preclude the use of any credible evidence. The commenter does not identify anything in the permit or the Arkansas SIP that would preclude the use of other credible evidence. Both the SIP and the permit make clear that credible evidence can be used to determine compliance.
First, the SIP includes APCEC
Regulation 19.701Purpose, which states, The purpose of this chapter is to generally define the powers of the Department in requiring sampling, monitoring, and reporting requirements at stationary sources. The Department shall enforce all properly incorporated and delegated federal testing requirements at a minimum. Any credible evidence based on sampling, monitoring, and reporting may be used to determine violations of applicable
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:10 Mar 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

emission limitations Similarly, general provision 27 of the Domtar permit provides that, Any credible evidence based on sampling, monitoring, and reporting may be used to determine violations of applicable emission limitations. Reg.18.1001, Reg.19.701, Ark. Code Ann. 84203 as referenced by Ark. Code Ann. 84304 and 8
4311, and 40 CFR 52 Subpart E
Lastly, the Credible Evidence Revisions rule revised 40 CFR parts 51, 52, 60, and 61 to permit the use of any credible evidence i.e., both reference test data and comparable non-reference test data to prove or disprove CAA violations in enforcement actions. In this regard, the preamble to the rule states: These revisions make clear that enforcement authorities can prosecute actions based exclusively on any credible evidence, without the need to rely on any data from a particular reference test. 106
Therefore, although the permit does not specifically identify all types of evidence that may be used to determine compliance or non-compliance, neither the permit conditions nor the SIP
preclude the use of any credible evidence. Furthermore, any attempt to specifically enumerate the types of evidence that may be used to determine compliance would undermine the purpose of the Credible Evidence Revisions rule. Thus, the requirement in subpart K, 40 CFR 51.212c, is met.
Comment B.10: The proposal lacks an analysis and determination as to whether the monitoring requirements are met. Section 110a2Fi covers monitoring emissions by owners and operators from stationary sources, and 40 CFR 51.214 contains explicit monitoring requirements. EPAs proposal fails to explain whether the permit conditions proposed for approving into the SIP meet these requirements.
Response: We disagree with the commenters assertion that the proposal lacks an analysis and determination as to whether the permit conditions meet the monitoring requirements in CAA
section 110a2Fi and 40 CFR
51.214. The Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision meets the applicable monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 51.214. In addition, it meets the applicable requirements found in 40 CFR 51.308e2iii, which discusses rules for accounting and monitoring emissions, and procedures for enforcement of BART alternatives.
This is established through our analysis of the monitoring regime discussed above in response to comments 2.B.3, 106 Credible Evidence Revisions, 62 FR 8314, 8316 February 24, 1997.

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

15123

2.B.4, and 2.B.7. Commenter does not provide any further information with reasonable specificity as to how the applicable monitoring requirements in subparts K or P fail to be met. As discussed previously, the Arkansas SIP
includes procedures in APCEC
Regulation 19.703,107 including detailed information regarding CEMS, which DEQ has authority to administer. These procedures are already part of the States plan requiring monitoring of this sources emissions. Because these monitoring provisions have already been adopted into the Arkansas SIP, the permit conditions pertaining to the BART alternative conditions will be administered under these existing approved provisions for monitoring.
This is sufficient to meet the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 51.214 and 40
CFR 51.308e2iii. Therefore, the applicable monitoring requirements for this SIP revision are being met.108
C. Requirements for Emissions Reductions To Occur During the First Implementation Period and a Compliance Schedule Comment C.1: The SIP fails to demonstrate that emission reductions occurred during the first planning period by December 31, 2018 pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308e2iii. EPAs proposal describes the emission reductions, but fails to explain whether the SIP contains the provisions necessary to satisfy regulatory 107 APCEC Rule 19.703 includes detailed information regarding Continuous Emissions Monitoring. Any stationary source subject to this regulation shall, as required by federal law and upon request of the Department: A Install, calibrate, operate, and maintain equipment to continuously monitor or determine federally regulated air pollutant emissions in accordance with applicable performance specifications in 40
CFR part 60 Appendix B as of the effective date of the federal final rule published by EPA in the Federal Register on February 27, 2014 79 FR
11271, and quality assurance procedures in 40 CFR
part 60 Appendix F as of the effective date of the federal final rule published by EPA in the Federal Register on February 27, 2014 79 FR 11274, and other methods and conditions that the Department, with the concurrence of the EPA, shall prescribe.
Any source listed in a category in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix P as of the effective date of the federal final rule published by EPA in the Federal Register on November 7, 1986 51 FR 40675, or in 40 CFR
part 60 as of August 30, 1992, shall adhere to all continuous emissions monitoring or alternative continuous emission monitoring requirements stated therein, if applicable. B Report the data collected by the monitoring equipment to the Department at such intervals and on such forms as the Department shall prescribe, in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P, Section 4.0 Minimum Data Requirements as of the effective date of the federal final rule published by EPA in the Federal Register on November 7, 1986 51 FR 40675, and any other applicable reporting requirements promulgated by the EPA.
108 See 52.170c table for EPA-approved regulations in the Arkansas SIP.

E:FRFM22MRR1.SGM

22MRR1