Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter, 4436-4438 [2014-01587]
Download as PDF
4436
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(b) Tolls established by agreement
between Canada and the United States,
and known as the St. Lawrence Seaway
Schedule of Tolls, shall be paid by
pleasure crafts with prepaid tickets
purchased in Canadian funds using
credit card ticket dispensers located at
pleasure craft docks or Paypal on the
Seaway Web site. At U.S. locks, the toll
is paid in U.S. funds or the preestablished equivalent in Canadian
funds or through payment via Pay.gov
on the Seaway Web site.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Vessel representatives with past
due toll accounts, unpaid after 45 days,
may be subject to the suspension of
preclearance for each vessel of which a
preclearance has been given and/or the
immediate removal of the waved
security for the toll charges set in
§ 401.26(c) and § 401.26(d.)
■ 18. In § 401.79, add a new paragraph
(b)(5) to read as follows:
§ 401.79 Advance notice of arrival, vessels
requiring inspection.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(5) A tall ship or vessel of an unusual
design is subject to Seaway yearly
inspection.
Issued at Washington, DC, on January 22,
2014. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation.
Carrie Lavigne,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014–01488 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–61–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0500; FRL–9905–83–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a portion of a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submittal from the State of
Louisiana to address Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) requirements that prohibit
air emissions which will contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in any other
state for the 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). EPA proposes to
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 Jan 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
determine that the existing SIP for
Louisiana contains adequate provisions
to prohibit air pollutant emissions from
significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) in any
other state as required by the Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before February 27, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2011–0500, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions.
• Email: Mr. Carl Young at
young.carl@epa.gov.
• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy
Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0500.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at
214–665–7253.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl
Young, (214) 665–6645, young.carl@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA’s Evaluation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Interstate Transport and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
In 2006, we established a revised 24hour NAAQS for PM2.5 of 35
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)
(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 6114). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA identifies four
distinct elements related to the
evaluation of impacts of interstate
transport of air pollutants with respect
to a new or revised NAAQS. In this
action for the state of Louisiana, we are
addressing the first two elements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.1 The first
element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requires that each SIP for a new or
revised NAAQS contain adequate
measures to prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants that
will ‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment’’ of the NAAQS in
another state. The second element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires
that each SIP for a new or revised
NAAQS prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity in the state
from emitting pollutants that will
‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the
applicable NAAQS in any other state.
B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate
Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
EPA has addressed the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past
1 This proposed action does not address the two
elements of the transport SIP provision (in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) regarding interference
with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in
another state.
E:\FR\FM\28JAP1.SGM
28JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
regulatory actions.2 The final CrossState Air Pollution Rule (Transport
Rule) addressed the first two elements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the
eastern United States with respect to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76
FR 48208). The Transport Rule was
intended to replace the earlier Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was
judicially remanded.3 See North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir.
2008) modified on rehearing, 550 F.3d
1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 21,
2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating
the Transport Rule. See EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7
(D.C. Cir. 2012). The court also ordered
EPA to continue implementing CAIR in
the interim. On June 24, 2013, the
Supreme Court granted the United
States’ petition for certiorari and agreed
to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision in
EME Homer City. The Supreme Court
held oral arguments on December 10,
2013. In the meantime, and unless the
EME Homer City decision is reversed or
otherwise modified by the Supreme
Court, EPA intends to act in accordance
with the D.C. Circuit opinion in EME
Homer City.
C. Louisiana’s Submittals
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
On May 16, 2011, Louisiana
submitted a SIP revision to address the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The submittal stated that the
State had adequate provisions to
prohibit air pollutant emissions from
within the State that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS based on Louisiana having
EPA-approved CAIR SIPs requiring
certain electric generating units to
participate in sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide trading programs (72 FR
39741; 72 FR 55064). On May 21, 2013,
the State submitted a letter to EPA
serving as a technical supplement for
2 See NO SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27,
X
1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR
25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8,
2011).
3 CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 Jan 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The letter
stated that because the more recent and
improved air quality modeling
evaluating interstate transport for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS conducted by EPA
for the Transport Rule is now available
and supports the conclusion that
emissions in Louisiana do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in any other State, it was being
submitted as the basis for the
conclusions in lieu of the previous
technical information provided in the
May 16, 2011 submission. The submittal
and technical supplement document the
State’s assessments that Louisiana
emissions will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, in any other
state for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
submittals and technical supplement are
available electronically through the
www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0500).
II. EPA’s Evaluation
4437
quality contributions of emissions from
upwind states on downwind 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations at the receptors for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
2012.4 As detailed in the Air Quality
Modeling TSDs, we used a threshold of
1 percent of the NAAQS to identify
linkages between upwind states and
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors. With respect to
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, our
analysis for the Transport Rule found
that the 1 percent threshold captures a
high percentage of the total pollution
transport affecting downwind states
with nonattainment/maintenance
receptors.5 The air quality threshold
used for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
was 0.35 mg/m3 (1 percent of 35.0 mg/
m3). If a state’s air quality contribution
to downwind nonattainment/
maintenance receptors in all other states
did not exceed the threshold, it was
concluded that its emissions do not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in another state for the
NAAQS.
A. EPA’s Approach for Evaluating
Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
B. Evaluation of the State’s Submittals
To determine whether the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement is
satisfied, EPA must determine whether
a state’s emissions contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in any other
state. If this factual finding is in the
negative, then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
does not require any changes to a state’s
SIP. EPA is proposing to determine that
the existing SIP for Louisiana is
adequate to satisfy the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address
interstate transport requirements with
regard to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This
proposed conclusion is based on air
quality modeling originally conducted
by EPA to quantify each individual
eastern state’s (including Louisiana’s)
contributions to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance areas
during the rulemaking process for the
Transport Rule.
In the Transport Rule rulemaking, we
used air quality modeling to: (1) identify
locations projected to be nonattainment
or have maintenance problems in 2012
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(nonattainment and maintenance
receptors) and (2) quantify the air
EPA’s evaluation confirms Louisiana’s
analysis provided in the SIP submittal
for the State of Louisiana submitted on
May 16, 2011, and the technical
supplement submitted on May 21, 2013.
The air quality modeling performed for
the Transport Rule found that the
impact from Louisiana emissions on
both downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors was less than the
1 percent threshold for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA therefore did not find
emissions from Louisiana linked to any
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptors for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Below is a summary of the air quality
modeling results for Louisiana from
Table IV–9 of EPA’s Air Quality
Modeling TSD regarding Louisiana’s
largest contribution to both downwind
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance
areas.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4 See the Technical Support Documents for the
Transport Rule (proposal and final) found in the
regulations.gov e-docket for this action (EPA–R06–
OAR–2011–0500).
5 See section IV.F (Analysis of Contributions
Captured by Various Thresholds) of the Air Quality
Modeling TSD.
E:\FR\FM\28JAP1.SGM
28JAP1
4438
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
LOUISIANA’S LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS
NAAQS
Air quality threshold
(μg/m3)
Largest downwind
contribution to
nonattainment
(μg/m3)
Largest downwind
contribution to
maintenance
(μg/m3)
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 μg/m3) .............................................................
0.35
0.11
0.13
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Based on this analysis, we propose to
approve the portion of the May 16, 2011
Louisiana SIP submittal, and the
technical supplement submitted on May
21, 2013, determining that the existing
SIP for Louisiana contains adequate
provisions to prohibit air pollutant
emissions from contributing
significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state as
required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
We continue to believe it is
appropriate to rely on the modeling
conducted during the rulemaking for the
Transport Rule even though the rule
itself was vacated by the D.C. Circuit.
EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012).6 Nothing in
the EME Homer City opinion suggests
that the air quality modeling on which
our proposal relies is flawed or invalid
for any reason. In addition, nothing in
that opinion undermines or calls into
question our proposed conclusion that,
because emissions from Louisiana do
not contribute more than one percent of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to any
downwind area with nonattainment or
maintenance problems, Louisiana does
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in another state for this
NAAQS. Further, EPA is not proposing
to rely on any requirements of the
Transport Rule or emission reductions
associated with that rule to support its
conclusion that Louisiana has met its
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
C. Section 110(l) of the Act
Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits
EPA from approving any SIP revision
that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. The
SIP submittal from the State of
Louisiana contains no new regulatory
provisions and does not affect any
requirement in Louisiana’s applicable
implementation plan. Therefore, the
submission does not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
6 On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
EPA’s petition for certiorari and agreed to review
the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 Jan 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. EPA has
concluded, based on Louisiana’s and
EPA’s technical analysis, that the
existing Louisiana SIP is sufficient to
meet the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve a portion
of a SIP submittal for the State of
Louisiana submitted on May 16, 2011,
and the technical supplement submitted
on May 21, 2013, to address interstate
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Based on our evaluation we propose to
approve the portion of the SIP submittal
determining the existing SIP for
Louisiana contains adequate provisions
to prohibit air emissions from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in any other state as required by CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This action is
being taken under section 110 of the
Act.
IV. 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, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
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, as 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 Clean Air Act;
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, this proposed rule does
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 15, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014–01587 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\28JAP1.SGM
28JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4436-4438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01587]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0500; FRL-9905-83-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a portion of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the State of Louisiana to
address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements that prohibit air
emissions which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in any other state for the 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). EPA proposes to determine that the existing SIP for
Louisiana contains adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant
emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) in any other state as required by the
Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 27,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2011-0500, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
Email: Mr. Carl Young at young.carl@epa.gov.
Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-
0500. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph
below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, (214) 665-6645,
young.carl@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Interstate Transport and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
In 2006, we established a revised 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 of 35 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) (October
17, 2006, 71 FR 6114). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA identifies
four distinct elements related to the evaluation of impacts of
interstate transport of air pollutants with respect to a new or revised
NAAQS. In this action for the state of Louisiana, we are addressing the
first two elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ The first element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS
contain adequate measures to prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that
will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in
another state. The second element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS prohibit any source
or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting
pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of
the transport SIP provision (in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II))
regarding interference with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
EPA has addressed the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in
past
[[Page 4437]]
regulatory actions.\2\ The final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(Transport Rule) addressed the first two elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern United States with respect to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208).
The Transport Rule was intended to replace the earlier Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially remanded.\3\ See North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008) modified on rehearing,
550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the Transport
Rule. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012). The court also ordered EPA to continue implementing CAIR in
the interim. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the United
States' petition for certiorari and agreed to review the D.C. Circuit's
decision in EME Homer City. The Supreme Court held oral arguments on
December 10, 2013. In the meantime, and unless the EME Homer City
decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court, EPA
intends to act in accordance with the D.C. Circuit opinion in EME Homer
City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
\3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Louisiana's Submittals
On May 16, 2011, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision to address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittal stated that the State had
adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the
State that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on Louisiana
having EPA-approved CAIR SIPs requiring certain electric generating
units to participate in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide trading
programs (72 FR 39741; 72 FR 55064). On May 21, 2013, the State
submitted a letter to EPA serving as a technical supplement for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The letter stated that because the more
recent and improved air quality modeling evaluating interstate
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS conducted by EPA for the
Transport Rule is now available and supports the conclusion that
emissions in Louisiana do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other State, it was being submitted as the basis for the conclusions in
lieu of the previous technical information provided in the May 16, 2011
submission. The submittal and technical supplement document the State's
assessments that Louisiana emissions will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in any other state for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittals and technical
supplement are available electronically through the www.regulations.gov
Web site (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0500).
II. EPA's Evaluation
A. EPA's Approach for Evaluating Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
is satisfied, EPA must determine whether a state's emissions contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in any
other state. If this factual finding is in the negative, then section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any changes to a state's SIP. EPA
is proposing to determine that the existing SIP for Louisiana is
adequate to satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA
to address interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed conclusion is based on air
quality modeling originally conducted by EPA to quantify each
individual eastern state's (including Louisiana's) contributions to
downwind nonattainment and maintenance areas during the rulemaking
process for the Transport Rule.
In the Transport Rule rulemaking, we used air quality modeling to:
(1) identify locations projected to be nonattainment or have
maintenance problems in 2012 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (nonattainment and maintenance receptors) and (2) quantify the
air quality contributions of emissions from upwind states on downwind
24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at the receptors for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012.\4\ As detailed in the Air
Quality Modeling TSDs, we used a threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS to
identify linkages between upwind states and downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors. With respect to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, our analysis for the Transport Rule found that
the 1 percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total
pollution transport affecting downwind states with nonattainment/
maintenance receptors.\5\ The air quality threshold used for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 0.35 [mu]g/m\3\ (1 percent of 35.0
[mu]g/m\3\). If a state's air quality contribution to downwind
nonattainment/maintenance receptors in all other states did not exceed
the threshold, it was concluded that its emissions do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another
state for the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the Technical Support Documents for the Transport Rule
(proposal and final) found in the regulations.gov e-docket for this
action (EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0500).
\5\ See section IV.F (Analysis of Contributions Captured by
Various Thresholds) of the Air Quality Modeling TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Evaluation of the State's Submittals
EPA's evaluation confirms Louisiana's analysis provided in the SIP
submittal for the State of Louisiana submitted on May 16, 2011, and the
technical supplement submitted on May 21, 2013. The air quality
modeling performed for the Transport Rule found that the impact from
Louisiana emissions on both downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors was less than the 1 percent threshold for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore did not find emissions from
Louisiana linked to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Below is a summary of the air quality modeling results for
Louisiana from Table IV-9 of EPA's Air Quality Modeling TSD regarding
Louisiana's largest contribution to both downwind PM2.5
nonattainment and maintenance areas.
[[Page 4438]]
Louisiana's Largest Contribution to Downwind PM2.5 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest downwind Largest downwind
Air quality contribution to contribution to
NAAQS threshold ([mu]g/ nonattainment maintenance ([mu]g/
m\3\) ([mu]g/m\3\) m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\)......... 0.35 0.11 0.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this analysis, we propose to approve the portion of the
May 16, 2011 Louisiana SIP submittal, and the technical supplement
submitted on May 21, 2013, determining that the existing SIP for
Louisiana contains adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant
emissions from contributing significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
We continue to believe it is appropriate to rely on the modeling
conducted during the rulemaking for the Transport Rule even though the
rule itself was vacated by the D.C. Circuit. EME Homer City Generation
L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012).\6\ Nothing in the EME Homer
City opinion suggests that the air quality modeling on which our
proposal relies is flawed or invalid for any reason. In addition,
nothing in that opinion undermines or calls into question our proposed
conclusion that, because emissions from Louisiana do not contribute
more than one percent of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to any
downwind area with nonattainment or maintenance problems, Louisiana
does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in another state for this NAAQS. Further, EPA is not
proposing to rely on any requirements of the Transport Rule or emission
reductions associated with that rule to support its conclusion that
Louisiana has met its 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted EPA's petition
for certiorari and agreed to review the D.C. Circuit's decision in
EME Homer City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Section 110(l) of the Act
Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. The SIP submittal from the State of
Louisiana contains no new regulatory provisions and does not affect any
requirement in Louisiana's applicable implementation plan. Therefore,
the submission does not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. EPA has concluded, based on
Louisiana's and EPA's technical analysis, that the existing Louisiana
SIP is sufficient to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve a portion of a SIP submittal for the
State of Louisiana submitted on May 16, 2011, and the technical
supplement submitted on May 21, 2013, to address interstate transport
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on our evaluation we propose
to approve the portion of the SIP submittal determining the existing
SIP for Louisiana contains adequate provisions to prohibit air
emissions from contributing significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This action
is being taken under section 110 of the Act.
IV. 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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
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, as 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 Clean Air Act; 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, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 15, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-01587 Filed 1-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P