Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

15126

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

maintain the status quo air quality.118
Because no attainment demonstrations were available to guide an analysis of whether the revision would interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, the EPA
had relied on its conclusion that status quo air quality would be maintained instead of conducting an air quality analysis evaluating the impact on attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The court upheld, as a reasonable reading of the statute entitled to deference, the EPAs conclusion that approval of the SIP revision was permissible in those circumstances.119
The court held that the use of substitute measures was permissible, not that such measures were required in every circumstance.120
The Seventh Circuit decision mentioned by commenterIndiana v.
EPA, 796 F.3d 803 7th Cir. 2015does not support commenters argument.
This case emphasizes that the EPA is required to determine whether the revision would, going forward, interfere with attainment. In Indiana, the court rejected arguments that the revised program could not be approved because it had led to a past O3 NAAQS
exceedance.121 The court also agreed that it was permissible for EPA to rely on the fact that the state demonstrated that substitute measures more than offset any increase associated with the plan revision. In the context of reviewing whether the substitute measures were sufficient, the court explained that EPA can approve a SIP
revision unless the agency finds it will make the air quality worse. 122 In doing so, however, the court did not hold that substitute measures are always required to demonstrate noninterference under CAA section 110l or that section 110l prohibits approval of any SIP revision which leads to an increase in emissions.123
The Ninth Circuit decision commenters citeWildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 9th Cir. 2014
also does not establish that EPA is prohibited from approving this SIP. In WildEarth Guardians, the Ninth Circuit 118 See Kentucky Resources, 467 F.3d at 996
evaluating the EPAs conclusion that the reductions were adequate to maintain status quo air quality.
119 See id. at 995.
120 In that same case, the court emphasized that it seems fairly clear that Congress did not intend that the EPA reject each and every SIP revision that presents some remote possibility for interference.
Thus, where the EPA does not find that a SIP
revision would interfere with attainment, approval of the revision does no violence to the statute.
Kentucky Resources, 467 F.3d at 994.
121 Id.
122 Id.
123 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:10 Mar 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

rejected a challenge to an EPA action approving a haze plan and concluded that WildEarth had identified nothing in the SIP that weakens or removes any pollution controls. And even if the SIP
merely maintained the status quo, that would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. For that reason, the court concluded that WildEarth had failed to show that EPAs approval of the SIP contravened CAA
section 110l.124 In brief, the court explained that a plan approval that does not weaken or remove pollution controls would not violate section 110l. The court did not, however, suggest that any plan that weakens or removes pollution controls would necessarily violate CAA section 110l.
Several courts have deferred to EPAs interpretation of the phrase would interfere in CAA Section 110l.125 In addition, determinations that are scientific in nature are entitled to the most deference on review.126 The county that Domtar is located in Little River County was previously designated as Attainment/
Unclassifiable. for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.127 In addition, EPA has evaluated the air quality impact of the repeal of the FIP requiring BART
controls and the approval of the BART
alternative limits. As mentioned in the proposed approval, the BART
alternative limits do not reduce SO2
emissions as much as the BART controls in the FIP; however, all areas in Arkansas have been and are currently attaining all of the NAAQS, even though the SO2 BART controls for Domtar have not been implemented. Those controls were not obligated to be in place until October 27, 2021, when the BART
emission limits would have taken effect under the FIP. Therefore, even though the BART alternative will not achieve the same level of emission reductions for SO2 as the BART FIP would have in 2021, there is no reason to expect that this will negatively impact current air quality, which is already sufficient to attain the SO2 NAAQS in Arkansas and as discussed further below any other areas that could be impacted by SO2
emissions from this source. Further, the State of Missouri did not rely on reductions from Domtar for its regional haze plans, and the EPA is not aware of nor has commenter identified any 124 Id.

at 1074.
e.g., Alabama Envtl. Council v. EPA, 711
F.3d 1277, 129293 11th Cir. 2013; Galveston Houston Assn for Smog Prevention v. EPA, 289
Fed. Appx. 745, 754 5th Cir. 2008; Kentucky Resources Council, 467 F.3d at 995.
126 See Assn of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 423
F.3d 989, 997 9th Cir. 2005.
127 83 FR 1098 January 9, 2018.
125 See,
PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

other air quality analyses that rely on implementation of the BART
requirements for Domtar in the FIP. The proposed withdrawal of the BART
provisions in the FIP and replacement with the BART alternative requirements in the SIP will not cause air quality to become worse than current air quality or interfere with existing plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
The more stringent SO2 emission limits for Domtar in the BART FIP did not go into effect before the SIP BART
alternative replaced them. Given that current air quality is already sufficient to attain the SO2 NAAQS in Arkansas and any other areas that could be impacted by SO2 emissions from this source, there is no evidence that withdrawal of the SO2 limits in the FIP
for Domtar and the approval of the SO2
emission limits in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision will interfere with attainment of the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS or the 2006
24-hour or the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS of which SO2 is a precursor.
In addition, Domtar provided documentation demonstrating that Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 have actually been operating at emission levels below the BART alternative emission limits since December 2016. At this time, all areas that would be potentially impacted by the increase in SO2
emissions allowed under the SIP
revision as compared to the FIP are attaining the 2010 one-hour SO2
NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS without the FIP-required controls being in operation. Based on this assessment of current air quality in the areas most affected by this SIP
revision, we conclude that the less stringent SO2 emission limits in the Phase III SIP will not interfere with attainment of these NAAQS.
The commenter states that EPAs proposal fails to explain and provide information regarding what areas it assessed and the basis for its assessment. With respect to regional haze requirements, we disagree with the commenter. We explained in the proposal that we considered all Class I
areas in Arkansas and also considered those in Missouri, which is the only State that was determined to potentially be impacted by sources from within Arkansas for the first implementation period. Missouri is currently not relying on emission reductions from Domtar in its regional haze plan.
Further, there are no PM2.5 or SO2
nonattainment areas in any other state that could be impacted by the emissions from Domtar. Regarding PM
nonattainment areas in other states, EPA

E:FRFM22MRR1.SGM

22MRR1