actions that would demonstrate that the level of specificity of the
recordkeeping requirements here is inconsistent with what has been
approved in other SIPs. Commenter's suggestions do not reflect how the
regulations are worded regarding recordkeeping and reporting,
therefore, we conclude that the commenter has failed to establish how
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 51 Subpart K,
and the BART guidelines are not met by conditions 36 and 43.\93\ Permit
conditions 36 and 43 clearly require maintaining ``all records''
necessary to determine compliance ``for at least 5 years.'' This is
sufficient under the regional haze regulations. Further, such broad
terms encompass many if not all of the specific enumerated types of
records the commenter claims should be retained. The recordkeeping
provisions in conditions 36 and 43 are, therefore, not lacking and are
sufficient enough on their own merit to meet 40 CFR 51 Subpart K and
the BART-alternative requirements of subpart P. As mentioned in the
previous response, Appendix B sections II through IV of the permit lay
out specific guidelines for CEMS operating conditions. These CEMS
conditions are reflected in and administered by the State under APCEC
Rule 19.703--Continuous Emission Monitoring. The State applies APCEC
Rule 19.705 \94\--Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements to air
pollution sources subject to the regulation.\95\ The State made clear
in its August 2019 SIP Submittal, at page 2, that these provisions
apply to the Domtar Ashdown Mill for purposes of implementing the BART
alternative emission limitations at Power Boilers No. 1 and No. 2.
These requirements will become federally enforceable

against Domtar with final approval of this SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 40 CFR 51.210-214.
    \91\ Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze
Rule, Appendix Y.
    \92\ See Laumann Legal comments on behalf of the National Parks
Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, and Earthjustice (pages
11-13).
    \93\ We note that section 110(a)(2)(F) of the statute only
establishes such requirements ``as may be prescribed by the
Administrator.'' Therefore, the language of 110(a)(2)(F) does not
apply directly to our evaluation of a SIP revision. Rather, the
specific monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements that
apply to our evaluation of the SIP revision are those that have been
``prescribed,'' i.e., promulgated, in the governing regulations at
subparts K and P of Part 51.
    \94\ Under APCEC Rule 19.705--Record Keeping and Reporting
Requirements, the State, ``maintains records on the nature and
amounts of federally regulated air pollutants emitted to the air by
the equipment in question. All records, including compliance status
reports and excess emissions measurements shall be retained for at
least five years, and shall be made available to any agent of the
Department or EPA during regular business hours. Stationary sources
are subject to supply the following information, correlated in units
of the applicable emissions limitations, to the DEQ: (1) General
process information related to the emissions of federally regulated
air pollutants into the air. (2) Emissions data obtained through
sampling or continuous emissions monitoring. Information and data
shall be submitted to the Department by a responsible official on
such forms and at such time intervals as prescribed by applicable
federal regulations or the Department. Reporting periods shall be a
twelve-month period. Each emission inventory is to be accompanied by
a certifying statement, signed by the owner(s) or operator(s) and
attesting that the information contained in the inventory is true
and accurate to the best knowledge of the certifying official. The
certification shall include the full name, title, signature, date of
signature, and telephone number of the certifying official.''
    \95\ See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
state's SIP, they are state- and federally-enforceable 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: EPA's 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 51.308(e)(2)(iii),
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. 7410(a)(2)(F)(ii) and the BART guidelines. However, section
110(a)(2)(F) 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 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 BART-
alternative implementation measures of 51.308(e)(2)(iii) are satisfied.
The commenter mentions that the SIP lacks any requirements for
reporting, but that is not the case. APCEC Rule 19 Chapter 7--Sampling,
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 19.705(C), 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 19.705(A)). Inspectors audit these records
during site inspections. Therefore, Domtar does have a pre-existing
annual reporting requirement, and, with the approval of the BART-
alternative emission limits into the State's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
    \97\ See Aug. 2019 SIP Submittal at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is also worth noting that as a source subject to Title V
requirements, it is subject to annual deviation reports under APCEC
Rule 26.703(E)(3)(c). 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 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 State's 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 State's SIP and are state-
and federally-enforceable by virtue of being in the SIP. As the State's
SIP submittal explains,\98\ ``For compliance with the CAA Regional Haze
Program's 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

even if the conditions are revised as part of a permit amendment until
such time as the EPA approves any revised conditions into the SIP. The
permittee shall remain subject to both the initial SIP-approved
conditions and the revised conditions, until EPA approves the revised
conditions'' (emphasis added). Because of this, should the Title V
permit expire, be modified, or transferred, any person who owns or
operates this facility, including the current permittee, will still be
subject to these conditions as a result of their being incorporated
into the federally enforceable SIP. We note in addition that permits
are transferable due to changes in ownership of a source, given proper
notification to the director including required disclosures.\99\ In
terms of expiration, the Arkansas program is based on a one permit
system meaning that a source contains a single document that contains
both the Title I New Source Review (NSR) and Title V permit conditions/
requirements. The conditions of the NSR permit do not ever expire.
Title V permits do have a permit expiration date, but the expiration of
the Title V permit does not impact the ``status'' of NSR permit
requirements.\100\ These requirements live on unless modified/removed
via an NSR permit action. Because NSR permit changes are automatically
updated in the Title V permit there isn't any impact on operational
status if the NSR permit was modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See DEQ Air permit #0287-AOP-R22 (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.
    \99\ See the criteria for change of ownership addressed in APCEC
Reg.19.407(B).
    \100\ To avoid expiration, sources apply for a renewal of the
Title V permit at least six months prior to expiration in order to
operate under a permit shield (in cases where a renewed permit is
not issued prior to expiration). If a case exists where a source
does not meet this six-month timeline, the Title V permit would
expire according to the expiration date and the source could no
longer operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the provisions in conditions 32 and 33 and in other
provisions addressing ownership will continue to be enforceable
requirements, regardless of who owns or operates this facility, and DEQ
and EPA will continue to be able to enforce these measures. We,
therefore, disagree that these conditions need to place requirements on
the ``owners and operators'' rather than the ``permittee'' to be
permanently enforceable.
    Comment B.6: The SIP lacks enforceable provisions regarding
permanent retirement. The SIP provides an option for permanent
retirement of Power Boiler No. 1, but permit condition 34 lacks
enforceable language. This permit condition and EPA's proposal lack the
details necessary for enforcement. For example, it fails to explain
what a ``disconnection notice'' is and what information is contained in
the notice. Therefore, the public is unable to assess whether a
``disconnection notice'' is a permanent action that satisfies the BART
requirements. EPA is prohibited from approving this additional BART
alternative since the condition contains vague and unenforceable
language.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the SIP lacks
enforceable provisions in condition 34 regarding permanent retirement.
The term ``disconnection notice'' is self-defining in that it simply
describes DEQ receiving communication in the form of a notice after
Power Boiler No. 1 has already been taken out of service and is
permanently retired. ``Permanently retired'' self-evidently means that
once the power boiler is taken out of service it will never operate
again. Indeed, this has already occurred. As indicated in a November
18, 2020, letter \101\ to DEQ from Domtar, the No. 1 Power Boiler was
placed in standby mode and stopped operating in April 2016. That letter
also documented that the unit was disconnected and permanently retired
on August 6, 2018, with the removal of a section of boiler feedwater
piping that prevents the boiler from producing steam. In addition,
finalization of the permit amendment 0287-AOP-R23 removed authority for
Domtar to operate No. 1 Power Boiler. As stated in an April 15, 2020,
permit revision,\102\ ``By request of the facility, this source has
been retired and removed from the permit as a source in permit revision
#23. The specific conditions have been marked, by request of the
facility, as reserved in order to not change the numbering of the
subsequent conditions. SN-03 is subject to the Regional Haze Program,
specifically the BART Alternative. These conditions can be found
starting with Plantwide Condition 32.'' Because Domtar has requested
that Power Boiler No. 1 be retired and removed as a source from the
permit, the source specific permit provisions have been removed from
the permit for Power Boiler No. 1 and they are not authorized to
operate the unit. Power Boiler No. 1 is in compliance with the BART
alternative limits by virtue of being permanently retired and therefore
not emitting any of the relevant visibility pollutants. The numerical
emission limits will apply, even though the unit has been taken out of
service. DEQ has State authority established in its SIP, including
APCEC Rule Chapter 7, for any other reporting requirements including
documenting source retirement of this unit.\103\ For this reason, this
condition does not lack enforceable provisions for retirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See November 18, 2020 Disconnection Notice from Domtar for
Power Boiler No. 1 (SN-03) in the docket of this action.
    \102\ See DEQ Air Permit No. 0287-AOP-R23 included in the docket
of this action.
    \103\ See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment B.7: The SIP neither specifies a compliance date nor
requires compliance at all times. BART must reflect the best system of
continuous emission reduction and the BART limits must apply at all
times. EPA must clarify that the permit conditions proposed for
approval in the SIP apply at all times. Furthermore, permit conditions
38 and 41 cross reference test methods found in other regulations that
are inconsistent with the BART requirements since they do not require
compliance at all times and exempt emissions during certain activities.
These regulations and associated test methods are inconsistent with
BART in that they do not require compliance at all times and exempt
emissions during certain activities.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the permit conditions
do not apply at all times. There is no language in the proposed limits
to suggest that they do not apply at all times. Conditions 32 and 37,
which describe the emission rates for the power boilers, both say,
``The permittee shall not exceed the emission rates set forth in the
following table. The limits are based on a 30-day boiler operating day
rolling average. 30 boiler operating day rolling average is defined as
the arithmetic average of 30 consecutive daily values in which there is
any hour of operation, and where each daily value is generated by
summing the pounds of pollutant for that day and dividing the total by
the sum of the hours the boiler was operating that day. A day is from 6
a.m. one calendar day to 6 a.m. the following calendar day.
[Reg.19.304, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), and 40 CFR 52.173].'' The language
for permit conditions 38 and 41 describes ongoing compliance action
into the future and does not indicate that the emission limits would
cease or not apply continuously. Therefore, the BART alternative limits
that we proposed to approve do indeed apply at all times.
    The commenter argues that certain permit conditions cross-reference
test methods in other regulations (i.e., the NESHAP, MACT and NSPS),
which they allege are inconsistent with BART requirements since they do
not require compliance at all times and exempt emissions during certain
activities. The

commenter specifically identifies this flaw in condition 38 pertaining
to 40 CFR 60 and condition 41 pertaining to 40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD.
Programs like the NESHAP, MACT, and NSPS have different requirements,
such as performance testing that is carried out over certain time
frames that demonstrates compliance for particular pollutants. While
those types of emission tests may have been designed to serve a
different regulatory purpose, they are not in conflict with the BART
requirements; nor do they override the BART alternative emission limits
express set forth in the permit. There is no legal or regulatory
barrier to incorporating performance testing requirements found in
other regulatory programs as a means of implementing and ensuring
compliance with a BART alternative. The commenter fails to demonstrate
with reasonable specificity how the use of testing requirements that
are intended to meet other criteria are in conflict or fail to meet the
BART alternative requirements.
    Further, the State made clear which test methods from those
regulations are required for demonstrating compliance with these
conditions. With respect to condition 38's reference to 40 CFR 60, the
requirement to use CEMS to demonstrate compliance for SO2
and NOX is clear, unambiguous, and continuous. The State is
being all-inclusive when referring to Part 60 to include all of the
general provisions in Subpart A related to CEMS such as 40 CFR 60.8 for
performance tests, 40 CFR 60.13 pertaining to monitoring requirements,
and Appendix B to Part 60 that includes performance specifications. In
addition, these permit conditions also implement APCEC Rule 19.703--
Continuous Emission Monitoring, which is already part of the approved
SIP, and applies to this source. Appendix B sections II through IV of
the permit lay out specific guidelines for CEMS operating conditions.
With respect to condition 41's reference to 40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD,
condition 41 clearly explains that the applicable PM10
compliance demonstration requirements from 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD
shall be utilized. These requirements, which are at 40 CFR 63.7505-
63.7541, do not cease and are ongoing. In response to comment B.8 in
section III of this final action, we address the alternative option
provided in the permit for monitoring emissions from Power Boiler #2
when that unit is combusting natural gas. Either method, however,
provides for demonstration of continuous compliance with the BART
alternative emission limits for PM10. For these reasons, the
test methods in conditions 38 and 41 are sufficient to provide
continuous compliance and are not in conflict with the BART
requirements.
    The commenter particularly notes that because the permit conditions
do not reference specific sections in these regulations, it is unclear
whether the startup, shutdown, and malfunction emissions are included
or exempt from monitoring. The commenter does not establish with
reasonable specificity which of the performance testing or monitoring
requirements from part 60 or part 63 would be affected here by
provisions in those parts relating to ``startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.'' Also, Table 10 to subpart DDDDD of Part 63 shows that
SSM plan requirements and actions taken to minimize emissions during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not required for subpart DDDDD.
    The commenter lastly mentions that the State's SIP fails to include
the schedule and timetable for compliance. We address comments
regarding the schedule and timetable for compliance in response to
comment C.1 in section III.C of this final action. These new BART
alternative limits became enforceable by the State immediately upon
issuance of a minor modification letter sent by the State to Domtar on
February 28, 2019. The two Domtar power boilers have already been
operating at emission levels below the proposed BART alternative
emission limits since December 2016, three years before the limits
became enforceable, continuing to do so through February 2019 and up to
the present. The BART alternative limits and all associated permit
conditions will become federally enforceable upon the effective date of
this final action approving the SIP.
    Comment B.8: The PM10 test method for Power Boiler No. 2
permit is inappropriately conditioned on applicability under another
regulation. The BART emission limits must have test methods that apply
at all times. Permit condition 41 lacks enforceability in this regard.
This permit condition is conditioned on when a National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rule applies to this
boiler. In other words, ``while'' the boiler ``is subject to'' the
NESHAP, the requirements of the NESHAP rule are used to demonstrate
compliance. In the event this boiler is no longer subject to the
NESHAP, there would no longer be compliance demonstration requirements
for the BART emission limits. This provision lacks specificity
regarding the specific test methods in 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD
that apply and fails to identify what entity is required to meet these
requirements.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the PM10
test method for Power Boiler No. 2 permit is inappropriately
conditioned on applicability under another regulation. The commenter
suggests that the word ``while'' in condition 41 is being used to allow
avoidance of the BART alternative emission limit for PM10.
As we explained in our proposed action,\104\ ``Since Power Boiler No. 2
is subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart [DDDDD], the applicable
PM10 compliance demonstration requirements under the Boiler
MACT shall be utilized to demonstrate compliance for PM10
emissions (condition 41). If Power Boiler No. 2 switches to natural gas
combustion, the applicable natural gas AP-42 emission factors of 0.6 lb
SO2/MMscf, 280 lb NOX/MMscf, and 7.6 lb
PM10/MMscf in conjunction with natural gas fuel usage
records (condition 40) shall be used to demonstrate compliance with the
BART emission limits.'' \105\ Therefore, ``while'' is used to draw a
contrasting relationship between MACT, subpart DDDDD, and switching to
natural gas combustion. If Power Boiler No. 2 switches to natural gas,
fuel usage records will then apply for compliance demonstration. If the
boiler does not burn natural gas only, then Power Boiler No. 2 is
subject to 40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD as an ongoing requirement for
PM10, and that requirement would not cease at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See 85 FR 14847, 14862.
    \105\ See AP 42, Fifth Edition Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,
section 1.4, Tables 1.4-1 and 2 pertaining to natural gas
combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also claims that permit condition 41 fails to
identify which specific test methods found in 40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD
would apply. We disagree with this statement. Although the revised
permit condition 41 does not spell out specific test methods, that does
not mean it is not clear which test methods apply. In regard to 40 CFR
63 DDDDD, boiler MACT test methods are quite detailed and specific and
are based on the source-specific unit type and pollutant emissions to
be tested. It is clear from the pollutant, fuel type, and the nature of
the emission unit here which of the tests would apply under DDDDD.
Therefore, there is sufficient information to determine compliance.
Table 10 to subpart DDDDD of Part 63 shows the applicable general
provisions and includes performance testing requirements in 40 CFR
63.7.

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
63.7555(d)(1)) which is what will occur if Power Boiler No. 2 burns
natural gas, as previously stated. Using the most conservative
PM10 AP-42 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. EPA's 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 State's 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 19.701--Purpose, 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 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. Sec.  8-
4-203 as referenced by Ark. Code Ann. Sec. Sec.  8-4-304 and 8-4-311,
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 51.212(c), is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Credible Evidence Revisions, 62 FR 8314, 8316 (February
24, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment B.10: The proposal lacks an analysis and determination as
to whether the monitoring requirements are met. Section 110(a)(2)(F)(i)
covers monitoring emissions by owners and operators from stationary
sources, and 40 CFR 51.214 contains explicit monitoring requirements.
EPA's proposal fails to explain whether the permit conditions proposed
for approving into the SIP meet these requirements.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the
proposal lacks an analysis and determination as to whether the permit
conditions meet the monitoring requirements in CAA section
110(a)(2)(F)(i) 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 51.308(e)(2)(iii), 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, 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 State's plan
requiring monitoring of this source's 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 51.308(e)(2)(iii). Therefore, the applicable
monitoring requirements for this SIP revision are being met.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 51.308(e)(2)(iii). EPA's proposal describes the emission
reductions, but fails to explain whether the SIP contains the
provisions necessary to satisfy regulatory

requirements. For example, there are no compliance dates in the SIP
that shows the emission limitations were enforceable in the first
planning period. Furthermore, there is nothing in the SIP that
demonstrates the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
applied during the first planning period. Therefore, EPA lacks a basis
to approve the SIP as meeting the element of the rule that the emission
reductions occurred within the first planning period. Related to this
issue, EPA's proposal suggests that the SIP included compliance
schedules for Domtar, but the SIP fails to include any compliance
schedules.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the SIP fails to
demonstrate that the required emission reductions occurred during the
first planning period or that the SIP otherwise fails to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). In our proposed approval, we
explained that even though the BART alternative emission limits became
enforceable by the State upon issuance of a minor modification letter
sent by the State to Domtar on February 28, 2019,\109\ Domtar provided
documentation demonstrating that Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 have been
operating at emission levels below the BART alternative emission limits
since December 2016. This shows that although the limits became
enforceable shortly after the 2008 to 2018 planning period ended,
Domtar had been in compliance with those limits for three years prior
to the first planning period ending. Domtar's emission levels remained
below the BART alternative levels up to the point at which the State's
BART alternative emission limits and associated requirements became
enforceable in February 2019. This is sufficient for the SIP submittal
to meet the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See Minor Modification Letter entitled, ``Application for
Minor Modification Determination of Qualifying Minor Modification,''
included with the SIP revision and in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter argues that there is nothing in the SIP that
demonstrates the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
applied to the source during the first planning period. First, 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii) does not impose this requirement and neither does any
other provision of the BART alternative regulations. Rather, in order
to demonstrate that BART alternative emission limits are being achieved
by the end of the first planning period, ``the State must provide a
detailed description of the emissions trading program or other
alternative measure, including schedules for implementation, the
emission reductions required by the program, all necessary
administrative and technical procedures for implementing the program,
rules for accounting and monitoring emissions, and procedures for
enforcement.'' \110\ EPA does not interpret this language as requiring
that the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
associated with a BART alternative must be in place and be state- or
federally-enforceable before the end of the first planning period. The
SIP must include such requirements, but with respect to demonstrating
when they are applied to the source, it is reasonable that such
requirements accompany the BART alternative. As discussed in the
paragraph above, the reductions secured under the BART alternative have
been documented to occur before the end of the first planning period,
and the documentation further demonstrates that the requisite emission
levels were maintained up until the point that the State imposed the
enforceable BART-alternative emission limits and associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements on the source. This is
sufficient to satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the compliance documentation included a letter dated
December 20, 2018, submitted to DEQ by Domtar,\111\ providing emissions
data for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 from December 2016 to November 2018.
The letter noted that because Power Boiler No. 1 has been in standby
mode, it has emitted zero emissions since early 2016. The letter also
provided CEMS daily average and thirty-day rolling average emissions
data for SO2 and NOX for Power Boiler No. 2 from
December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2018. Based on that CEMS data,
the highest thirty-day rolling averages for Power Boiler No. 2 were
found to be 294 pph SO2 and 179 pph NOX, which
are below the BART alternative emission limits of 435 pph
SO2 and 293 pph NOX. The December 20, 2018 letter
explained that compliance with the PM10 BART alternative
limit for Power Boiler No. 2 is demonstrated via compliance with the
Boiler MACT. Based on previous compliance stack testing results
conducted by Domtar in January 2016, PM10 emissions for
Power Boiler No. 2 are equal to 34 pph PM10, which is below
the BART alternative PM10 emission limit of 81.6 pph
PM10.\112\ This demonstrates that Power Boilers No. 1 and
No. 2 at the Ashdown Mill satisfy the timing requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii) and shows that the necessary emission reductions
associated with the BART alternative occurred during the first long-
term strategy period for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See letter from Domtar to DEQ entitled, ``Demonstration of
Compliance with Proposed BART Alternative,'' included with the SIP
revision documenting compliance with the Phase III SIP emission
limits.
    \112\ See information provided in letters dated December 20,
2018, and January 19, 2017, submitted by Domtar to DEQ. These
letters can be found in the ``Documentation of Compliance with Phase
III SIP Emission Limits'' section of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to being in compliance before the first implementation
period ended, Domtar submitted additional letters to DEQ showing
continued compliance for both power boilers. The letters contained CEMS
emission data from January 2018 to April 2019.\113\ This CEMS data
demonstrated continued compliance for Power Boiler No. 2 by showing
emission levels below the BART alternative emission limits beyond 2018.
Domtar noted that Power Boiler No. 1 continued to be in standby mode
and that its emissions have been zero since early 2016.The Domtar
letters also noted that the CEMS daily average and thirty-day rolling
average emissions for SO2 and NOX were below the
BART alternative limits for each month from January 2018 to April 2019.
Additionally, based on the previous January 2016 Boiler MACT stack
testing results, actual PM10 emissions from Power Boiler No.
2 were conservatively estimated to be 48 pph PM10, which is
below the BART alternative emission limit of 81.6 pph PM10
for Power Boiler No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See letters from Domtar to DEQ dated February 21, 2019;
March 15, 2019; April 16, 2019; and May 16, 2019. These letters can
be found in the ``Documentation of Compliance with Phase III SIP
Emission Limits'' section of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter argues that there are no compliance dates in the SIP
that show that the emission limitations were enforceable in the first
planning period. This is not required by EPA's regulations, as
explained above. In addition, there is no schedule for future
compliance because the source is already complying with the emission
limits which are already in place and enforceable through the State
permit. Upon the effective date of this final action the emission
limits (and associated requirements) will be federally enforceable.
These provisions have never been administratively or judicially stayed,
are currently in effect, and will remain in effect; the source has been
compliant with those requirements. We note with respect to the
SO2 and NOX BART limits

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 State's BART alternative SIP revision for
Domtar Ashdown Mill meets the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii):
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 (e)(2)(iii), 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 State's SIP-approved monitoring and compliance regulations found at
APCEC Rule 19, Chapter 7.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. The CAA 110(l) Anti-Backsliding Provision

    Comment D.1: The proposed rule violates the Clean Air Act's ``anti-
backsliding'' requirement at 42 U.S.C. 7410(l) because compared to the
existing federal plan, the State's plan would result in greater air
pollution. EPA's proposal explains that ``[b]ased 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.''
EPA's proposal fails to explain and provide information regarding what
areas it assessed and the basis for its assessment. Moreover, EPA's
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 Act's section 110(l) anti-backsliding provision, which
provides that ``[t]he 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 110(l)
prohibits plan revisions that would interfere with any applicable
requirement, including a BART determination. When determining whether a
plan revision interferes with NAAQS attainment, EPA has interpreted
section 110(l) 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
110(l) as allowing the agency to approve a plan revision that weakened
some existing control measures while strengthening others, but only
``[a]s long as actual emissions in the air are not increased.'' The
Eleventh Circuit and the Seventh Circuit have upheld EPA's section
110(l) 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 110(l).\116\ Emissions under the
Domtar BART alternative would increase, which is plainly at odds with
CAA anti-backsliding requirements and the interpretation of these
provisions in various circuit courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with the commenter that ``the proposed rule
violates the CAA's 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 110(l) does not
prohibit approval of this SIP.
    Under CAA Section 110(l), 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 110(l) 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 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect,
including those for which SIP submissions have not been made. A section
110(l) 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 110(l) 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 110(l) does not prohibit approval of
the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Note that ``reasonable further progress'' as used in CAA
section 110(l) is a reference to that term as defined in section
301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means reductions
required to attain the NAAQS set for criteria pollutants under
section 109. This term as used in section 110(l) (and defined in
section 301(a)) is not synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as
that term is used in the regional haze program. Instead, section
110(l) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 EPA's
interpretation of CAA section 110(l). 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

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 EPA's
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See Kentucky Resources, 467 F.3d at 996 (evaluating the
EPA's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Seventh Circuit decision mentioned by commenter--Indiana v.
EPA, 796 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2015)--does not support commenter's
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 110(l) or that section 110(l) prohibits approval of any SIP
revision which leads to an increase in emissions.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Id.
    \122\ Id.
    \123\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Ninth Circuit decision commenters cite--WildEarth 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 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 EPA's approval of the SIP
contravened CAA section 110(l).\124\ In brief, the court explained that
a plan approval that does not weaken or remove pollution controls would
not violate section 110(l). The court did not, however, suggest that
any plan that weakens or removes pollution controls would necessarily
violate CAA section 110(l). Several courts have deferred to EPA's
interpretation of the phrase ``would interfere'' in CAA Section
110(l).\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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Id. at 1074.
    \125\ See, e.g., Alabama Envtl. Council v. EPA, 711 F.3d 1277,
1292-93 (11th Cir. 2013); Galveston-Houston Ass'n for Smog
Prevention v. EPA, 289 Fed. Appx. 745, 754 (5th Cir. 2008); Kentucky
Resources Council, 467 F.3d at 995.
    \126\ See Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 423 F.3d 989, 997
(9th Cir. 2005).
    \127\ 83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 EPA's 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

previously approved Arkansas' interstate transport SIP submittals under
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which established that emissions from Arkansas
do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour or 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
in any other state.\128\ Concerning SO2 nonattainment areas
in other states,\129\ the nearest SO2 nonattainment area to
Domtar is within Titus County, Texas, approximately 100 km away. EPA
designated part of Titus County, around the Monticello Power Plant, as
nonattainment in Round 2 of the SO2 designations
process.\130\ Domtar is also not near any large SO2 sources
in other states. Large SO2 sources greater than 100 tpy
SO2 in Oklahoma [IP Vaillant Paper Mill (100 km away) and
Hugo Station (119 km away)] and Texas [Welsh Power Plant (95 km away)]
are all approximately 100 km away from Domtar, which is too far for
Domtar to contribute to air quality in those areas. 50 km is the useful
distance to which AERMOD is considered accurate. Therefore, under the
Data Requirements Rule (DRR), sources beyond 50 km were determined to
not cause concentration gradient impacts within the area of analysis.
The distance between Domtar and any of the large SO2 sources
in neighboring states makes it unlikely that SO2 emissions
from Arkansas interact with emissions from another state in such a way
as to contribute to existing nonattainment of the 2010 one-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The DRR SO2 monitor \131\ for the
Welsh Power Plant (the closest large source to Domtar), showed
attainment and characterized the air quality design value for 2017 to
2019 as 28 parts per billion (ppb) SO2 which is below the
2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb SO2. For these
reasons, we conclude that emissions from Domtar will not adversely
impact air quality in PM2.5 or SO2 nonattainment
areas in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See 78 FR 53269 (August 30, 2013) regarding the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 83 FR 47569 (November 7, 2018)
regarding the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    \129\ See TSD associated with the Arkansas SO2
transport final action (84 FR 55864) in Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-
2019-0438 titled, ``Technical Support Document Arkansas SIP
Addressing the Interstate Transport of Air Pollution Requirements of
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard March 2019.'' (pages 24-25)
    \130\ See 81 FR 89870.
    \131\ Texas installed and began operation of a new, approved
monitor in Titus County on December 7, 2016 to characterize air
quality around the Welsh Power Plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter argues that DEQ addressed the reasonable progress
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) based on faulty analysis that
the BART alternative for Domtar is approvable. We addressed objections
to the BART alternative under 40 CFR 51.308(e) in section III.A of this
final action and explained why the BART alternative provides greater
reasonable progress for regional haze. We also explained how the
reasonable progress requirements for regional haze under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1) are being met, and found that reasonable progress was not
impacted by the transition from the BART FIP requirements to the BART
alternative at Domtar. Therefore, the BART alternative does not
interfere with ``reasonable progress'' under the Regional Haze Rule as
an ``other CAA requirement'' that could be affected under CAA 110(l).
    The commenter mentioned that EPA's analysis only considers regional
haze and the NAAQS, and not the other CAA requirements, for example,
PSD increments. The commenter asserts that, for this reason also, EPA
fails to demonstrate that withdrawing the FIP and approving the State's
SIP complies with Section 110(l) of the Act. EPA did not evaluate PSD
increments in the proposal for two reasons: (1) Both power boilers were
in operation before the major source baseline trigger dates for all
three pollutants with increments (SO2, NOX, and
PM/PM10/PM2.5); and (2) both the FIP limits and
alternative BART limits are less than past actual emissions (both on an
annual tons per year basis and a short-term emission rate basis), so
increment around the Domtar facility was being expanded, not consumed.
We noted in our proposed approval that the BART alternative emission
rates were 44 percent lower for SO2 and 51 percent lower for
NO2 compared to previously permitted emission rates.\132\
Based on this and the knowledge that the power boilers historically
have operated greater than 56 percent of their permitted rates on a
short term and annual basis, it can be concluded that increment was
being expanded by the BART alternative. The major source baseline
trigger date for PM/PM10/PM2.5 and SO2
increment was August 7, 1977. The major source baseline trigger date
for NOX was February 8, 1988. Both Power Boiler No. 1 and
Power Boiler No. 2 are baseline increment sources since they received
permits and/or were in operation before the major source baseline date
for NOX, SO2 and PM/PM10/
PM2.5 increments. PM/PM10/PM2.5,
SO2, and NOX all have annual increment standards;
SO2 has a three-hour and a 24-hour increment standard, and
PM/PM10/PM2.5 all have 24-hour Class II increment
standards. The Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) that Domtar facility
is located in is AQCR 22, and the minor source baseline date for AQCR
22 was triggered for PM/PM10/PM2.5 and
SO2 by a PSD permit modification (Domtar permit 287-AR-3) on
May 31, 1983.133 134 The NOX minor source
baseline date was triggered for NOX in AQCR 22 by a PSD
permit modification (Domtar permit 946-A) on August 31, 1989.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ See proposed approval notice (85 FR 14854).
    \133\ Arkansas AQCR Map (https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/permits/pdfs/aqcr.pdf).
    \134\ Arkansas Minor Source Baseline Dates (https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/permits/pdfs/minor_source_baseline_dates.pdf).
    \135\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conversion of Power Boiler No. 1 to burn only natural gas was
an increment expanding change. For the purpose of overall increment
analysis, we evaluated the emissions of Power Boiler No. 1 prior to the
conversion of only burning natural gas as these emissions were part of
the pre-BART baseline. As can be seen in Table 1, the annual emission
limits (tpy) for the Arkansas BART alternative are less than the
Arkansas baseline actual emissions for SO2, NOX,
and PM/PM10/PM2.5. Therefore, the Arkansas BART
alternative results in annual increment expansion for all three
pollutants.

                                       Table 1--Annual Emissions Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Emission rates (tpy)
                            Condition                            -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        SO2             NOX            PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Baseline (Actual Emissions)............................           3,544           3,216             491
Arkansas BART FIP...............................................             493           2,420             537
Arkansas BART Alternative.......................................           1,907           2,120             380
BART Alternative Reduction from Baseline (Baseline Minus                   1,637           1,096             111
 Alternative)...................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen in Table 2, the short-term emission limits (pph) for
the Arkansas BART alternative are less than the previously permitted
limits, the Arkansas baseline (2001-2003 actual emissions), and the
BART FIP baseline emissions (mixture of 2001-2003 and 2009-2011 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 2--Short Term Emissions Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Emission Rate (pph) (30 boiler-operating day
                                                                                rolling average)
                            Condition                            -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        SO2             NOX            PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Boiler No. 1 (580 MMBTU/hr)
    Previously Permitted (Prior to natural gas conversion) *....           1,285           247.5             343
    Arkansas SIP BART Baseline (2001-2003)......................           442.5           179.5           169.5
    BART FIP Baseline...........................................            21.0           207.4            30.4
    Arkansas BART Alternative **................................             0.5           191.1             5.2
Power Boiler No. 2 (820 MMBTU/hr)
    Previously Permitted........................................             984             574              82
    Arkansas SIP BART Baseline (2001-2003)......................           788.2           526.8            81.6
    BART FIP Baseline...........................................           788.2           526.8            81.6
    Arkansas BART Alternative **................................             435             293            81.6
Power Boiler No. 1 & Power Boiler No. 2
    Previously Permitted (Prior to Power Boiler No. 1 natural              2,269           821.5             425
     gas conversion) *..........................................
    Arkansas SIP BART Baseline (2001-2003)......................         1,230.7           706.3           251.1
    BART FIP Baseline...........................................           809.2           734.2             112
    Arkansas BART Alternative **................................           435.5           484.1            86.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not 30 boiler-operating day rolling average (Prior to Power Boiler No. 1 natural gas conversion). See Permit
  No. 287-AOP-R2 (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. 0287-AOP-R22 limits in Table 1 of the proposed approval (85
  FR 14854).

    As discussed above, EPA's technical documentation shows that
approval of the Arkansas SIP submittal is not prohibited under CAA
section 110(l). As also explained above, CAA section 110(l) 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.

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. EPA's proposal
contains numerous fatal flaws and EPA cannot approve the State's 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 State's SIP
meets the reasonable progress requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
since the State's BART alternative fails to comply with the Act and
regulations.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that EPA is
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
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 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 agency's 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
State's 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.
    \137\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' by
Stephen D. Page (Sept. 13, 2013), (pages 32-35).
    \138\ See 83 FR 6470. The State submitted a SIP revision that
addressed all four infrastructure prongs from section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 lead (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 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 portion of that
infrastructure SIP for a future rulemaking with the exception of the
2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 State's outstanding regional haze requirements for the
first planning period and address the deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP that were identified in EPA's March 12, 2012, action.
Thus, Arkansas now has a fully-approved regional haze SIP for the first
planning period. This is sufficient under EPA's 2013 infrastructure SIP
guidance to determine that Arkansas has also adequately addressed
interstate visibility transport under ``prong 4'' for the above-listed
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ 83 FR 5927.
    \140\ 84 FR 51033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative basis for approval of Arkansas' CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 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

the six NAAQS previously mentioned. Arkansas documented its
apportionment of emission reduction obligations needed at the affected
Class I areas in other states and provided a demonstration that the SIP
includes approved federally enforceable measures that contribute to
achieving the 2018 RPGs set for those areas.\141\ The demonstration
showed that emissions within Arkansas' jurisdiction do not interfere
with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility, as expressed via
the 2018 reasonable progress goals for Class I areas in other states.
In particular, Arkansas' SIP submittals demonstrated that the RPGs for
the only two Class I areas outside Arkansas potentially impacted by
Arkansas emissions, Hercules-Glades Wilderness and Mingo National
Wildlife Refuge, in Missouri, were achieving the visibility goals that
were determined through interstate consultation. Further, the emissions
from certain EGU sources in Arkansas are demonstrated to be below the
levels Arkansas had agreed to in the interstate consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See 85 FR 14847, 14865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, Arkansas has fulfilled its prong 4 visibility
transport requirements for 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 in accordance with EPA's 2013
infrastructure SIP guidance. This alternative basis for approving these
SIP submittals is not dependent on Arkansas having a fully approved
Regional Haze SIP for the first planning period, and it is not
dependent on the emission reductions achieved by the BART alternative
for the two BART sources at Domtar Ashdown Mill. Thus, this basis for
these prong 4 approvals is independent and severable from any other
aspect of this action. Such approvals, on this basis, would not be
affected by any administrative or judicial action altering, modifying,
vacating, remanding, staying, or enjoining any other aspect of this
action.
    The commenter's objections to EPA approving reasonable progress
requirements have been addressed in previous responses in this
document.

F. Comments From Domtar

    Comment F.1: Overall the commenter agrees with EPA's summary of
ADEQ's BART Alternative for the Ashdown Mill, and further agrees that
the BART Alternative, by the clear weight of evidence, achieves greater
reasonable progress than the FIP. Commenter supports EPA's
determination that the BART Alternative meets the applicable Regional
Haze requirements and supports approving DEQ's Regional Haze Phase III
SIP submittal. Commenter also agrees and supports EPA's determination
that with this submittal ADEQ has satisfied all of the regional haze
first planning period SIP requirements for Domtar.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's support of our proposed
approval.
    Comment F.2: The commenter believes a sufficient demonstration was
made to grant an exemption under 40 CFR 51.303. However, for purposes
of these comments, the commenter supports EPA's proposal with the
reservation that it reserves the right to raise challenges to EPA's
modeling approach in any effort to impose further reductions on the
Ashdown Mill emissions in any subsequent Regional Haze SIP proceedings
that may involve the Ashdown Mill.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's support of our proposed
approval. An exemption under 40 CFR 51.303 is outside the scope of this
action.
    Comment F.3: Two nonsubstantive corrections were suggested for
consideration to make the proposed action record factually correct, but
do not affect the BART alternative limits or conditions: \142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ See March 16, 2020 proposed approval (85 FR 14847).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     At 14851, middle column about two-thirds of the way down,
referring to Power Boiler 1: `It is equipped with a wet electrostatic
precipitator. . . .' It should be stated `It was. . . .' The wet
electrostatic precipitator is no longer needed after the boiler was
converted to burn natural gas.
     At 14855, middle column just above Table 2, referring to
the FIP's nitrogen oxide (NOX) BART determination for Power
Boiler 2: `. . . achieved by the installation and operation of low
NOX burners.' The reference to low NOX burners
needs to be removed.''
    Response: The EPA agrees with commenter's non substantive textual
edits and the proposed SIP approval should read as follows:
    At 14851, ``It is equipped with a wet electrostatic precipitator''
should be changed to read:
    ``It was equipped with a wet electrostatic precipitator.'' With the
conversion and permit modification to burn only natural gas, the wet
electrostatic precipitator is no longer needed to control PM emissions
from Power Boiler 1.
    At 14855, ``The NOX Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) determination for Power Boiler No. 2 is an emission limit of 345
pph on a thirty boiler-operating-day rolling average, achieved by the
installation and operation of low NOX burners'' should be
changed to read: ``The NOX BART determination for Power
Boiler No. 2 is an emission limit of 345 pph on a thirty boiler-
operating-day rolling average consistent with the installation and
operation of low NOX burners.'' (see 81 FR 66332, 66348). A
BART determination is an emission limit based on the determination of a
particular control strategy considering the BART factors, rather than a
requirement to undertake the selected control.
    These non-substantive textual edits do not impact our analysis and
our final decision regarding approval of the BART alternative for Power
Boilers No. 1 and 2.

IV. Final Action

A. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Submittal

    We finalize approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision (submitted August 13, 2019) as meeting the applicable regional
haze BART alternative provisions set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) for
the Domtar Ashdown Mill. Specifically, we finalize approval of the
regional haze program-specific plantwide conditions 32 to 43 from
section VI of permit revision #0287-AOP-R22 (effective August 1, 2019)
into the SIP for implementing the Domtar BART alternative. These
plantwide conditions of permit #0287-AOP-R22 \143\ include
SO2, NOX, and PM10 emission limits and
associated conditions for implementing these BART alternative limits
for Power Boiler No. 1 and Power Boiler No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ The permittee will continue to be subject to the
conditions as approved into the SIP even if the conditions are
revised as part of a permit amendment by DEQ until such time as EPA
approves any revised conditions into the SIP. The permittee shall
remain subject to both the initial SIP-approved conditions and the
revised SIP conditions, unless and until EPA approves the revised
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We finalize approval of the reasonable progress components under 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1), to the extent they relate to Domtar Power Boilers No.
1 and 2. With the approved Phase I and II SIP revision requirements and
the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III BART alternative requirements
being approved in this final action, Arkansas has addressed all
reasonable progress requirements under 40 CFR51.308(d)(1) with a fully-
approved regional haze SIP. We,

therefore, finalize approval of the emission limits and schedules of
compliance long-term strategy element under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(3)
pertaining to the Domtar Ashdown Mill in the August 13, 2019,
submittal. With the final approval of the BART alternative requirements
for the Domtar Ashdown Mill being addressed in this action, DEQ has
satisfied all long-term strategy requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3), as pertains to the first planning period for regional
haze. We agree with DEQ's determination that the revised 2018 RPGs in
the Phase II action do not need to be revised further. We finalize
approval of the State's withdrawal of the current PM10 BART
determination of 0.07 lb/MMBtu for Power Boiler No. 1 in the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, and approve its replacement with the
PM10 BART alternative limit in the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP submittal. We finalize approval of Arkansas' consultation
with FLMs and Missouri and finalize our determination that the SIP
submittal satisfies the consultation requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i).

B. Arkansas Visibility Transport

    We finalize approval of the portion of the Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision (submitted
October 4, 2019) addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4
visibility transport for the following six NAAQS: 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. We
also finalize approval of the visibility transport portion of the 2018
Phase II SIP revision, as supplemented by the Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision. The State's
analysis in the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport
SIP supersedes the visibility transport portion of the 2017
infrastructure SIP. We finalize approval of the prong 4 portions of
these SIP submittals on the basis that Arkansas has a fully-approved
regional haze SIP with our final approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP submittal. The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision,\144\ the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision,\145\ and the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision
together fully address the deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP that were identified in the March 12, 2012 partial approval/
partial disapproval action. Arkansas has a fully-approved regional haze
SIP comprised of the portion of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
approved in our 2012 final action, the Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision, the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP revision, and the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision. A fully-approved regional haze plan ensures that emissions
from Arkansas sources do not interfere with measures required to be
included in another air agencies' plans to protect visibility. As an
alternative basis for approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong
4 for these NAAQS, we finalize a determination that Arkansas has
provided an adequate demonstration in the October 4, 2019 submittal
showing that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with
other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5927).
    \145\ See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for proposed approval
and 84 FR 51033 (September 27, 2019) for final approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. CAA Section 110(l)

    We finalize our determination that approval of the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision and concurrent withdrawal of the
corresponding parts of the FIP meet the provisions of CAA section
110(l).

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of revisions
to the Arkansas source specific requirements as described in the Final
Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov a
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides

that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 21, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available
retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility.

    Dated: March 10, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart E--Arkansas

0
2. In Sec.  52.170:
0
a. The table in paragraph (d), entitled ``EPA-Approved Arkansas Source-
Specific Requirements'' is amended by adding an entry for ``Domtar
Ashdown Mill'' at the end of the table.
0
b. In paragraph (e), the third table titled ``EPA-Approved Non-
Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas
SIP'' is amended by adding an entry for ``Arkansas Regional Haze Phase
III SIP Revision'' at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Arkansas Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                                          approval/
          Name of source            Permit or order No.   effective     EPA approval date         Comments
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Domtar Ashdown Mill..............  Permit..............     8/1/2019  3/22/2021 [Insert     Approval of
                                   #0287-AOP-R22.......                Federal Register      plantwide
                                                                       citation].            conditions 32 to 43
                                                                                of section VI from
                                                                                the permit,
                                                                                addressing emission
                                                                                limits for SO2,
                                                                                NOX, and PM10 and
                                                                                conditions for
                                                                                implementing the
                                                                                BART alternative
                                                                                for Power Boilers
                                                                                No. 1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

            EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                        Applicable        submittal/
      Name of SIP provision            geographic or      effective     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                    nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III   Statewide...........    8/13/2019  3/22/2021 [Insert     Approval of regional
 SIP Revision.                                                         Federal Register      haze SIP revision
                                                                       citation].            pertaining to the
                                                                                Domtar Ashdown mill
                                                                                that addresses SO2,
                                                                                NOX, and PM10 BART
                                                                                alternative
                                                                                requirements under
                                                                                40 CFR
                                                                                51.308(e)(2);
                                                                                reasonable progress
                                                                                components under 40
                                                                                CFR 51.308(d)(1);
                                                                                and long-term
                                                                                strategy components
                                                                                under 40 CFR
                                                                                51.308(d)(3) for
                                                                                this facility.

Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate  Statewide...........    10/4/2019  3/22/2021 [Insert     Approval of
 Transport SIP Revision.                                               Federal Register      visibility
                                                                       citation].            transport portion
                                                                                of this interstate
                                                                                transport SIP
                                                                                revision that
                                                                                addresses CAA
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
                                                                                for the following
                                                                                NAAQS: 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.
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM  Statewide...........     8/8/2018  3/22/2021 [Insert     Approval of
 SIP Revision.                                                         Federal Register      visibility
                                                                       citation].            transport portion
                                                                                of this regional
                                                                                haze SIP revision,
                                                                                as supplemented by
                                                                                the Arkansas 2015
                                                                                O3 NAAQS Interstate
                                                                                Transport SIP
                                                                                Revision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  52.173, add paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.173  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (h) Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Revision. The Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP Revision submitted on August 13, 2019, is
approved as follows:
    (1) The clear weight of evidence determination that the BART
alternative for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 satisfies all of the
applicable regional haze provisions set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)
to (iv) for the Domtar Ashdown Mill with respect to SO2,
NOX, and PM10.
    (2) The regional haze program-specific plantwide conditions 32 to
43 from section VI of Permit #0287-AOP-R22 are approved for Power
Boilers No. 1 and 2 for the Domtar Ashdown Mill, which contain
SO2, NOX, and PM10 emission limits and
conditions for implementing the BART alternative.
    (3) The approval of the withdrawal of the current PM10
BART determination of 0.07 lb/MMBtu for Power Boiler No. 1 in the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP and replacement with the PM10
BART alternative limit in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
Revision.
    (4) The reasonable progress components under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
pertaining to the Domtar Ashdown Mill are approved.
    (5) The long-term strategy component pertaining to the Domtar
Ashdown Mill that includes the emission limits and schedules of
compliance component under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(3) is approved.
    (6) Consultation and coordination in the development of the SIP
revision with the FLMs and with other states with Class I areas
affected by emissions from Arkansas sources, as required under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), is approved.
    (i) Portions of the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP Revision and Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP Revision addressing Visibility Transport. The portion of the
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision
addressing the visibility transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Arkansas for 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 are approved. The visibility
transport portion of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision, as supplemented by the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS
Interstate Transport SIP revision, is also approved.

[FR Doc. 2021-05362 Filed 3-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P