[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11839-11858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4676]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0510; FRL-9640-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing a partial disapproval and a partial 
limited approval of a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana 
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) on June 13, 2008, that 
addresses regional haze (RH) for the first implementation period. This 
revision was submitted to address the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or Act) and the EPA's rules that require states to prevent any 
future and remedy any existing man-made impairment of visibility in 
mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from 
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to 
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure 
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural 
visibility conditions in Class I areas. In a separate action, the EPA 
has previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Louisiana regional 
haze SIP because of deficiencies in the state's regional haze SIP 
submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to the EPA of the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR). In today's action, the EPA is proposing a 
partial disapproval because of deficiencies in Louisiana's regional 
haze SIP submittal that go beyond the issues addressed in the EPA's 
proposed limited disapproval. The EPA is also proposing a partial 
limited approval of those elements of this SIP revision not addressed 
by our partial disapproval. The partial limited approval of the RH 
requirements for Louisiana is based on the conclusion that the 
revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Louisiana SIP. This action is 
being taken under section 110 and part C of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2008-0510, by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are 
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not 
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries 
of boxed information.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-6762.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-
0510. Our 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 we 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 us 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, we recommend 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 we cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, we 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: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by 
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an 
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two 
working days in advance of your visit. There will be

[[Page 11840]]

a fee of 15 cents per page for making photocopies of documents. On the 
day of the visit, please check in at our Region 6 reception area at 
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection during 
official business hours, by appointment, at the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-2164; fax number 
214-665-6762; email address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Content

I. Executive Summary of Proposed Action
II. What is the background for our proposed actions?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for regional haze sips?
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
    H. Coordination With Federal Land Managers
IV. Our Analysis of Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP
    A. Identification of Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
    3. Natural Visibility Impairment
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Evaluation of Louisiana's Reasonable Progress Goals
    D. Evaluation of Louisiana's BART Analyses
    1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
    2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    3. BART Determinations
    a. ConocoPhillips
    b. Rhodia
    c. Sid Richardson Carbon Company
    E. Long-Term Strategy
    1. Emissions Inventories
    a. Louisiana's 2002 Emission Inventory
    b. Louisiana's 2018 Emission Inventory
    2. Visibility Projection Modeling
    3. Sources of Visibility Impairment
    a. Sources of Visibility Impairment in the Breton Class I Area
    b. Louisiana's Contribution to Visibility Impairment in Class I 
Areas Outside the State
    4. Consultation for Other States Class I Areas
    5. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy Factors
    a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    c. Emissions Limitations and Schedules of Compliance
    d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    f. Enforceability of Emissions Limitations and Control Measures
    g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes
    F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
    H. Coordination With Federal Land Managers
    I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
    J. Determination of the Adequacy of Existing Implementation Plan
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Executive Summary of Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing a partial limited approval of Louisiana's June 
13, 2008, SIP revision addressing regional haze (RH) under CAA sections 
301(a) and 110(k)(3) because certain provisions of the revision 
strengthen the Louisiana (LA) SIP. The EPA is also proposing a partial 
disapproval of the LA RH SIP submittal because the submittal includes 
several deficient provisions. The deficiencies identified in today's 
action go beyond those identified in the limited disapproval proposed 
on December 30, 2011 (76 FR 82219). Certain elements of the State's 
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) evaluations and 
determinations are not fully adequate to meet the federal requirements. 
Additionally, as a result of the deficiencies related to BART, the 
Long-Term Strategy (LTS) and Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) are not 
fully adequate to meet federal requirements. Finally, because 
visibility impacts from smoke are significant in Louisiana, we propose 
that Louisiana should finalize its Smoke Management Plan (SMP). The 
portions of the revision proposed for limited approval nevertheless 
represent an improvement over the current SIP, and make considerable 
progress in fulfilling the applicable CAA RH program requirements. This 
proposed rulemaking and the accompanying Technical Support Document 
(TSD) explain the basis for EPA's proposed partial limited approval and 
partial disapproval.
    Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing 
guidance,\1\ a limited approval results in approval of portions of the 
SIP submittal, even though they are deficient and prevent EPA from 
granting a full approval of the SIP revision. In an earlier proposed 
action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of Louisiana's RH SIP 
revision for not meeting all the applicable requirements of the CAA (76 
FR 82219). In today's proposed action, having concluded based on a 
careful review of the LA RH SIP revision that there are deficiencies in 
the SIP beyond those identified in the proposed limited disapproval of 
the LA RH SIP, we are proposing a partial disapproval of those 
additional deficiencies and a partial limited approval of the rest of 
the LA RH SIP. The partial limited approval proposes to give limited 
approval to those portions of the SIP that are not being disapproved in 
today's action for their benefit in strengthening the SIP even though 
they do not fully meet regional haze requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-X 
(1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, we are proposing to find that the following elements 
of the submittal fully satisfy federal requirements insofar as the 
elements do not rely on the sulfur dioxide (SO2) reductions 
from CAIR: The State's identification of affected Class I areas; the 
establishment of baseline, natural and current visibility conditions, 
including the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP); coordination of 
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) and RH 
requirements; the RH monitoring strategy and other SIP requirements 
under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4); the State's commitment to submit periodic RH 
SIP revisions and periodic progress reports describing progress towards 
the State's RPGs; the State's commitment to make a determination of the 
adequacy of the existing SIP at the time a progress report is 
submitted; and the State's coordination with Federal Land Managers 
(FLMs).
    We are proposing to find that Louisiana's RPGs meet some federal

[[Page 11841]]

requirements, but also contain some deficiencies. We are proposing to 
find that the State's RPGs are deficient given our proposed finding 
that certain of Louisiana's BART determinations are not fully 
approvable. In general, the State followed the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1), but these goals do not reflect appropriate emissions 
reductions from BART.
    For LTS, we are proposing to find that the State's LTS satisfies 
many of the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3); however, we are 
proposing to find that the submitted LTS is deficient because a portion 
of it relies on BART determinations that we are proposing to 
disapprove. Also, because visibility impacts from smoke are significant 
in Louisiana, we propose to find that that Louisiana should finalize 
its SMP.
    For the BART analyses for sources other than electric generating 
units (EGUs), we are proposing to find that the State's identification 
of subject-to-BART sources meets federal requirements in part, but that 
the state should have identified Mosaic Fertilizer as being subject to 
BART and made a BART determination for the source. This is discussed in 
more detail in section IV.D.2 of this action. We are also proposing to 
find that LDEQ's BART determinations for Conoco Phillips, Rhodia, and 
Sid Richardson Carbon Black are not fully approvable. These BART 
determinations are discussed in more detail in section IV.D.3 of this 
action.
    As noted above, in an earlier proposed action, EPA proposed a 
limited disapproval of the Louisiana regional haze SIP. EPA's proposed 
limited disapproval is based on deficiencies in the state's regional 
haze SIP submittal arising from the state's reliance on CAIR to meet 
certain regional haze requirements. In the same December 30, 2011 
notice, EPA proposed to find that the Transport Rule,\2\ a rule issued 
in 2011 to address the interstate transport of NOX and 
SO2 in the eastern United States would, like CAIR, provide 
for greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would 
BART. 76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to 
revise the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) to allow states to substitute 
participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for 
source-specific BART. This proposed revision applies only to EGUs in 
the states in the Transport Rule region and only to the pollutants 
subject to the requirements of the Transport Rule. States such as 
Louisiana that are subject to the requirements of the Transport Rule 
trading program only for nitrogen oxides (NOX) must still 
address BART for EGUs for SO2 and other visibility impairing 
pollutants. See, 76 FR at 82224. Consequently, while we proposed on 
December 30, 2011 to issue a federal implementation plan (FIP) to 
address the deficiencies in Louisiana's SIP associated with the BART 
requirements for NOX for EGUs, we did not propose a plan to 
address the deficiencies associated with the BART requirements for 
SO2. The docket for this earlier EPA proposed limited 
disapproval of Louisiana's regional haze SIP may be found at Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Louisiana also relied on CAIR in assessing the need for emissions 
reductions from EGUs to ensure reasonable progress. Consequently, 
Louisiana will have to reconsider whether reductions of SO2 
from EGUs, whether subject to BART or not, are appropriate for ensuring 
reasonable progress.
    Where a submittal addresses a mandatory requirement of the CAA, we 
must, within 24 months following a final disapproval, either approve a 
SIP or promulgate a FIP. CAA section 110(c)(1). At this time, we are 
not proposing a FIP for the portions of the Louisiana RH SIP we are 
proposing in this action to find deficient because LDEQ has expressed 
its intent to revise the Louisiana RH SIP by correcting the 
deficiencies. We are electing to not propose a FIP at this time in 
order to provide Louisiana time to correct these deficiencies. However, 
a final partial disapproval of Louisiana's RH SIP will start the two-
year mandatory FIP clock. If the State submits an approvable rule 
revision during the FIP clock period, final approval of the rule 
revision correcting the deficiencies will terminate the FIP clock.

II. What is the background for our proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 
(e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil 
dust), and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and 
in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine 
particulate matter that impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing 
light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible 
distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious 
health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental 
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas 
\4\ (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See, 
64 FR 35715, July 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
    \4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See, 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in 
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 
156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. See, 
44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979. The extent of a mandatory Class I 
area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park 
expansions. See, 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have 
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility 
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal 
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See, 42 
U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term ``Class I area'' is used in this 
action, it means a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
the EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in 
Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single

[[Page 11842]]

source or small group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment.'' 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the 
first phase in addressing visibility impairment. The EPA deferred 
action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until 
monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships 
between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on 
July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing 
visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions 
addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive 
visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for 
regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in the 
EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of 
the main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in 
section III of this proposal. The requirement to submit a regional haze 
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 
Islands.\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first 
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no 
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the RH program will require long-term 
regional coordination among states, tribal governments and various 
federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air quality 
in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds 
of kilometers (km). Therefore, to address effectively the problem of 
visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to RH can originate from sources 
located across broad geographic areas, we have encouraged the states 
and tribes across the United States (U.S.) to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address RH and related issues. 
The RPOs first evaluated technical information to better understand how 
their states and tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and 
then pursued the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions 
of particulate matter and other pollutants leading to RH.
    The Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) is an 
organization of states, tribes, federal agencies and other interested 
parties that identifies RH and visibility issues and develops 
strategies to address them. The CENRAP is one of the five RPOs across 
the U.S. and includes the states and tribal areas of Nebraska, Kansas, 
Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

    The following is a summary and basic explanation of the regulations 
covered under the RHR. See, 40 CFR 51.308 for a complete listing of the 
regulations under which this SIP is being evaluated.

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

    RH SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the national goal 
of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. Section 
169A of the CAA and our implementing regulations require states to 
establish long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward 
meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give specific 
attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence on 
August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific RH SIP requirements are discussed in further detail in this 
section.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for 
measuring visibility. See, 70 FR 39104. This visibility metric 
expresses uniform changes in the degree of haze in terms of common 
increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from 
pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is sometimes 
expressed in terms of the visual range, which is the greatest distance, 
in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can just be 
distinguished against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure for 
tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview change 
is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human 
eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility of one deciview.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim 
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), 
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The RH SIPs must contain measures that ensure 
``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and 
remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by man-made air 
pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause RH. The 
national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., man-made sources 
of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each RH SIP submittal and periodically review 
progress every five years, midway through each 10-year implementation 
period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine the degree of 
impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least 
impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility 
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In 
addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility 
conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national 
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural 
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then 
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. We have 
provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, 
natural and current visibility conditions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under 
the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-005, available 
at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf, 
(hereinafter referred to as ``our 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance''); and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional 
Haze Rule, (EPA-454/B-03-004, September 2003, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter 
referred to as our ``2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the first RH SIPs that were due by December 17, 2007, 
``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of

[[Page 11843]]

visibility impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 20 
percent most impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. 
Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required to 
calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for each Class I 
area, based on the average of annual values over the five-year period. 
The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural 
visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to 
attain natural visibility, while the future comparison of baseline 
conditions to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of 
progress made. In general, the 2000--2004 baseline period is considered 
the time from which improvement in visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of RH SIPs from 
the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, one for 
the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I area for 
each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. See, 70 FR 3915; 
See also 64 FR 35714. The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or 
rates of progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that 
provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., 
``background'') visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days 
over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period. Id.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in our RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in our Reasonable Progress 
Guidance.\8\ In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (the 
URP) and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress, which states are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state 
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I State'') must also consult 
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states 
with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at 
the Class I State's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the 
Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. 
Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA 
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources with the potential to emit greater than 250 tons per 
year (tpy) or more of any visibility impairing pollutant in order to 
address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 
169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires states to revise their SIPs to 
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress 
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that 
certain categories of existing major stationary sources \9\ built 
between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best 
Available Retrofit Technology'', as determined by the state or us in 
the case of a plan promulgated under section 110(c) of the CAA. Under 
the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such 
``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We promulgated regulations addressing RH in 1999, 64 FR 35714 (July 
1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.\10\ These regulations 
require all states to submit implementation plans that, among other 
measures, contain either emission limits representing BART for certain 
sources constructed between 1962 and 1977, or alternative measures that 
provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. 
Cir. 2002), the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit issued a ruling vacating and remanding the BART provisions 
of the regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART guidelines to 
address the court's ruling in that case. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, we published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
Part 51 (``BART Guidelines'') to assist states in determining which of 
their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in 
determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. 70 
FR 39104. In making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired 
electric generating plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 
750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set forth in the BART 
Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART 
Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources; 
however, all subject to BART sources are required to comply with the 
five BART factors (or steps) (40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)).
    The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be 
logically broken down into three steps: First, states identify those 
sources that meet the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth 
in 40 CFR 51.301; \11\ second, states determine whether each identified 
source ``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to 
cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area'' 
(a source that fits this description is ``subject to BART,'') and; 
third, for each source subject to BART, states then identify the 
appropriate type and the level of control for reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the 
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air 
pollutant, were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 
1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 
specifically listed source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. We have stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class 
I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would

[[Page 11844]]

not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. 
States have three options for exempting a BART-eligible source from the 
BART requirements, including dispersion modeling demonstrating that the 
source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in a Class I area, use of model plants to exempt 
sources with common characteristics, and cumulative modeling to show 
that no sources in Louisiana are subject to BART. Any source with 
emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a 
BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying 
circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider 
the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and 
the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any exemption 
threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv. See also, 
40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source'' 
used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission 
units at a facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source. 
In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires 
that states consider the following factors: (1) The costs of 
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the 
source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree 
of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to 
result from the use of such technology. States are free to determine 
the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor. See, 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(ii).
    A RH SIP must include source-specific BART emission limits and 
compliance schedules for each source subject to BART (See, CAA section 
169A(b)(2), 40 CFR 51.308(e), and 64 FR 35714, 35741). Once a state has 
made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and in 
operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years 
after the date of our approval of the RH SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) and 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, 
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all 
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting for the BART controls on the source. See, CAA section 110(a).
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the RH program, the EPA made just such a demonstration for the 
CAIR. See, 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). The EPA's regulations provide 
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade program under 40 
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain 
subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected 
BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions 
of SO2 and NOX. See, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because 
the CAIR did not address direct emissions of PM, states were still 
required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject 
to BART for that pollutant. The CAIR required controls of both 
SO2 and NOX in Louisiana. Challenges to the CAIR, 
however, resulted in the remand of the rule to the EPA. See, North 
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The EPA issued the 
Transport Rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of 
NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States. See, 76 
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). On December 30, 2011, the EPA proposed to 
find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve 
greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART 
in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. 76 FR 82219. Based 
on this proposed finding, the EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 
allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under 
the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. The transport rule 
requires control of NOX during the ozone season in 
Louisiana. It does not, however, require control of SO2. The 
EPA has not taken final action on that rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their RH SIP a 10- to 15-year strategy for making 
reasonable progress, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that 
states include a LTS in their RH SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of 
all control measures a state will use during the implementation period 
of the specific SIP submittal to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS must 
include ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and 
other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' 
for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state. 
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). Also, a state with a 
Class I area impacted by emissions from another state must consult with 
such contributing state, (id.) and must also demonstrate that it has 
included in its SIP all measures necessary to obtain its share of 
emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for 
the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). The RPOs have provided forums for 
significant interstate consultation, but additional consultations 
between states may be required to sufficiently address interstate 
visibility issues. This is especially true where two states belong to 
different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI)

    As part of the RHR, we revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing RH 
visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, in accordance 
with

[[Page 11845]]

40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, the state must revise 
its plan to provide for review and revision of a coordinated LTS for 
addressing RAVI and RH, and the state must submit the first such 
coordinated LTS with its first RH SIP. Future coordinated LTS and 
periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be 
submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic 
progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and (g), respectively. 
The periodic review of a state's LTS must report on both RH and RAVI 
and must be submitted to us as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of RH 
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I 
Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be coordinated with 
the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance 
with this requirement may be met through ``participation'' in the 
IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the 
network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first RH SIP, and it 
must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also 
provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not 
sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to RH visibility impairment at Class 
I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to RH visibility 
impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to RH SIPs that 
address the first implementation period. See, 40 CFR 51.308(f). 
Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions 
will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will 
continue to be met.

H. Coordination With Federal Land Managers

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to 
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include 
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment 
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the 
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of 
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must 
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments 
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for 
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the 
state's visibility protection program, including development and review 
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of 
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of 
visibility in Class I areas.

IV. Our Analysis of Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP

A. Identification of Affected Class I Areas

    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(d) of the RHR, the State of Louisiana 
has identified one Class I area within its borders, Breton National 
Wilderness Area (Breton NWA, or Breton). Part of a long chain of 
barrier islands, the area comprises a small part of the Breton National 
Wildlife Refuge located in the Breton Sound off the southeast coast of 
Louisiana. Breton NWA was identified by the LDEQ in its SIP. The FLM 
for Breton NWA is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) a bureau 
within the U.S. Department of Interior. The Louisiana RH SIP 
establishes RPGs for Breton and a LTS to achieve these goals within the 
first RH implementation period ending in 2018.
    In developing its SIP, the LDEQ also considered whether Louisiana 
emissions from Louisiana sources impact visibility at Class I areas 
outside of the state and determined that Louisiana emissions do not 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas outside 
the State. Class I areas outside of Louisiana that were considered by 
the LDEQ included the 14,460 acre Caney Creek Wilderness Area in 
southwest Arkansas. In other parts of its SIP, the LDEQ does examine 
the impact of Louisiana's emissions on the visibility at other Class I 
areas as well.
    We propose to find that the LDEQ correctly identified the Breton 
Class I area in Louisiana, and other Class I areas outside of its 
borders that may be impacted by emissions from Louisiana sources.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the RHR and in accordance 
with the EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 
Under the Regional Haze Rule, (``Visibility Guidance''),\12\ the LDEQ 
calculated baseline/current\13\ and natural visibility conditions for 
Breton NWA on the most impaired and least impaired days, as summarized 
below (and further described in the TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under 
the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, September 2003.
    \13\ As this is the first RH SIP submittal, the calculated 
baseline visibility condition and the current visibility condition 
will be the same. We expect that subsequent RH SIP submittals will 
reflect different calculated numbers for baseline and current 
visibility conditions due to the change in conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in the Visibility 
Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction 
using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle 
components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. This 
calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural

[[Page 11846]]

concentrations of fine particle components (or from components measured 
by the IMPROVE monitors). As documented in the Visibility Guidance, the 
EPA allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to the 
Visibility Guidance to estimate the values that characterize the 
natural visibility conditions of Class I areas. One alternative 
approach is to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of 
natural concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative 
is to use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the 
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\14\ The purpose of this 
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate 
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light 
extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
Federal agencies (including the EPA and FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 
monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the creation of 
Federal and State implementation plans for the protection of 
visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to 
identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for 
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The IMPROVE program 
has also been a key participant in visibility-related research, 
including the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, analysis 
techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and source 
attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LDEQ opted to use the new IMPROVE equation to calculate the 
``refined'' natural visibility conditions. For Breton NWA, the LDEQ 
used the new IMPROVE equation to calculate the ``refined'' natural 
visibility value for the 20 percent worst days to be 11.93 deciviews 
and for the 20 percent best days to be 4.25 deciviews. We reviewed the 
LDEQ's estimates of the natural visibility conditions for Breton NWA 
and are proposing to find them acceptable using the new IMPROVE 
equation.
    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science \15\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate 
(SO4), nitrate (NO3), and organic carbon. It also 
adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon (particulate organic 
matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms are added to the 
equation to account for light extinction by sea salt and light 
absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific values are used 
for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to atmospheric gases) 
to account for the site-specific effects of elevation and temperature. 
Separate relative humidity enhancement factors are used for small and 
large size distributions of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and 
for sea salt. The terms for the remaining contributors, elemental 
carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and coarse mass terms, do 
not change between the original and new IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
discussed in Chapter 5 and Appendix B of the LDEQ's TSD for the 
Louisiana RH SIP and in numerous published papers. See for example: 
Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for 
Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. 
March 2006. Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative 
Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, 
available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm and Pitchford, 
Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE 
Algorithm to Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report 
of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data 
Analysis Workgroup. September 2006, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the RHR and in accordance 
with the Visibility Guidance, the LDEQ calculated baseline visibility 
conditions for Breton NWA. The baseline condition calculation begins 
with the calculation of light extinction, using the IMPROVE equation. 
The IMPROVE equation sums the light extinction\16\ resulting from 
individual pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates. As with the 
natural visibility conditions calculation, the LDEQ chose to use the 
new IMPROVE equation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The amount of light lost as it travels over one million 
meters. The haze index, in units of deciviews (dv), is calculated 
directly from the total light extinction, bext expressed 
in inverse megameters (Mm-1), as follows: HI = 10 
ln(bext/10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000-
2004, and baseline conditions must be calculated using available 
monitoring data. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2). The Breton IMPROVE monitor did 
not meet the data capture requirements of the RHR for the 2000-2004 
monitoring period; however, data from a nearby monitoring site, the 
Gulfport SEARCH site, was used to supplement the Breton monitoring 
data. We found the use of this data to be acceptable. The Breton 
monitor was subsequently destroyed in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina and 
since replaced and relocated. The LDEQ calculated the baseline 
conditions at the Breton Class I area as 25.73 deciviews on the 20 
percent worst days, and 13.12 deciviews on the 20 percent best days. We 
have reviewed the LDEQ's estimation of baseline visibility conditions 
at Breton and are proposing to find these estimates acceptable.
3. Natural Visibility Impairment
    To address 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), the LDEQ also calculated the 
number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural 
visibility conditions for the best and worst days at Breton NWA. For 
the 20 percent worst days, the LDEQ calculated the number of deciviews 
by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions to be 
13.80 dv (baseline of 25.73 dv, minus natural conditions of 11.93 dv). 
For the 20 percent best days at Breton, the baseline conditions exceed 
natural visibility conditions by 8.87 dv (baseline of 13.12 dv, minus 
natural conditions of 4.25 dv). We have reviewed the LDEQ's estimates 
of the natural visibility impairment at Breton NWA and are proposing to 
find these estimates acceptable.
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, the LDEQ analyzed and determined the URP 
needed to reach natural visibility conditions by the year 2064. In so 
doing, the LDEQ compared the baseline visibility conditions to the 
natural visibility conditions in Breton NWA and determined the URP 
needed in order to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. The 
LDEQ constructed the URP consistent with the requirements of the RHR 
and our 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a straight 
graphical line from the baseline level of visibility impairment for 
2000-2004 to the level of visibility conditions representing no 
anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for Breton NWA.
    Using a baseline visibility value of 25.73 dv and a ``refined'' 
natural visibility value of 11.93 dv for the 20 percent worst days for 
Breton, the LDEQ calculated the URP to be approximately 0.23 dv per 
year. This results in a total reduction of 13.80 dv that are necessary 
to reach the natural visibility condition of 11.93 dv in 2064 for 
Breton NWA. The URP results in a visibility improvement of 3.22 dv for 
Breton for the period covered by this SIP revision submittal (up to and 
including 2018).

              Table 1--Summary of Uniform Rate of Progress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Visibility metric                       Breton NWA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Conditions.......................  25.73 dv.
Natural Visibility........................  11.93 dv.
Total Improvement by 2064.................  13.80 dv.
Improvement for this SIP by 2018..........  3.22 dv.

[[Page 11847]]

 
Uniform Rate of Progress..................  0.23 dv/yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to find that LDEQ has appropriately calculated the 
URP and has satisfied the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).

C. Evaluation of Louisiana's Reasonable Progress Goals

    We are proposing to find that Louisiana's RPGs meet some federal 
requirements, but also contain some deficiencies. This section 
discusses three RPG requirements as they relate to the LA RH SIP: (1) 
Establishment of the RPG; (2) reasonable progress four factor analysis; 
and (3) reasonable progress consultation. See the TSD for a more 
detailed discussion of RPG requirements and the LA RH SIP for RPGs. The 
establishment of RPGs and the reasonable progress four factor analysis 
for Louisiana are linked to the EPA's CAIR and the Transport Rule. As 
discussed in the Executive Summary above, in an earlier proposed action 
the EPA proposed a limited disapproval of the LA RH SIP (76 FR 82219). 
As discussed in that proposal, a number of states, including Louisiana, 
fully consistent with the EPA's regulations at the time, relied on the 
trading programs of the CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-
adopted reasonable progress goals. Louisiana also relied on the CAIR in 
assessing the need for emissions reductions from EGUs to ensure 
reasonable progress. As a result, Louisiana will have to consider 
whether EGUs previously covered by the CAIR, whether subject to BART or 
not, should be controlled to ensure reasonable progress.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Because the Transport Rule will result in greater emission 
reductions overall than the CAIR, the EPA did not include the RPGs 
set by affected states in its December 30, 2011 limited disapproval 
(Transport Better than BART proposal, December 30, 2011, 76 FR 
82219).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to find that the State's RPGs are deficient given 
our proposed finding, discussed in section IV.D. below, that certain of 
Louisiana's BART determinations are not fully approvable. In general, 
the State followed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1), but these 
goals do not reflect appropriate emissions reductions from BART.
Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goals
    The LDEQ adopted the CENRAP modeled 2018 visibility conditions as 
the RPGs for Breton NWA Class I area. The LDEQ established a RPG of 
22.51 dv for Breton for 2018 for the 20% worst days. This represents a 
3.22 dv improvement over a baseline of 25.73 dv.
    The CENRAP's projections for 2018 for the 20% worst and best days 
for Breton, which Louisiana used in developing its RPGs for Breton, are 
shown in the LA RH SIP Appendix B titled, ``Technical Support Document 
for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze 
State Implementation Plans.'' \18\ A comparison of the LDEQ's predicted 
rate of progress to the glide path on the 20% worst days shows that, 
with projected control of Louisiana sources, Louisiana will be very 
close to the glide path throughout the first planning period.\19\ The 
CENRAP modeling shows that for the 20% best days, there would be a 0.90 
dv improvement in visibility from the baseline for Breton. See, 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The TSD for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to 
Support RH State Implementation is found in Appendix B of the 
Louisiana RH SIP.
    \19\ See the LA RH SIP submittal, Chapter 8, Section 8.5, Figure 
8.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LDEQ's Reasonable Progress ``Four Factor'' Analysis
    In establishing RPGs for a Class I area, the State is required by 
CAA Sec.  169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to ``[c]onsider the 
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and 
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining 
useful life of any potentially affected sources, and include a 
demonstration showing how these factors were taken into consideration 
in selecting the goal.'' In addition to this explicit statutory 
requirement, the RHR also establishes an analytical requirement to 
ensure that each state considers carefully the suite of emission 
reduction measures necessary to attain the URP. The RHR provides that 
the EPA will consider both the state's consideration of the four 
factors in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and its analysis of the URP ``[i]n 
determining whether the State's goal for visibility improvement 
provides for reasonable progress.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii). As 
explained in the preamble to the RHR, the URP analysis was adopted to 
ensure that states use a common analytical framework and to ensure an 
informed and equitable decision making process to ensure a transparent 
process that would, among other things, ensure that the public would be 
provided with the information necessary to understand the emission 
reductions needed, the costs of such measures, and other factors 
associated with improvements in visibility. 64 FR at 35733.
    In establishing its RPGs for 2018 for the 20% worst days, the LDEQ 
relied on the improvements in visibility that were anticipated to 
result from federal, State, and local control programs that were either 
currently in effect or with mandated future-year emission reduction 
schedules that predate 2018, including BART emission limitations 
projected by the LDEQ. Based on the emissions reductions from these 
measures, the CENRAP modeled the projected visibility conditions 
anticipated at each Class I area in the region in 2018, and the LDEQ 
used these results to establish RPGs.
    States do have discretion in setting RPGs, but are required to do 
more than establish RPGs that meet or exceed the URP. The LDEQ did 
provide an analysis that considered the four statutory factors under 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to evaluate the potential of controlling certain 
sources or source categories for addressing visibility impacts from 
man-made sources within its borders.
    The LDEQ provides an analysis in Appendix H, CENRAP Regional 
Control Strategy Analysis Plan, showing that the URP goals are 
reasonable. In addition, the LDEQ provided a discussion of the four 
factors required for this analysis: costs of compliance, time for 
compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance, and remaining useful life of any potentially affected 
sources in Chapter 10 of the RH SIP.
    In identifying and prioritizing potential regional haze control 
strategies, the LDEQ referenced the Alpine Geophysics report for the 
CENRAP. Table 7-4 of this report outlines potential facilities that 
could be considered when developing a subregional SO2 
control strategy with the associated approximate costs (see the LA RH 
SIP Appendix H). TSD Table 4 shows the facilities in Louisiana 
identified in the Alpine report that potentially significantly impact 
visibility at Breton for which controls may be available. The LDEQ 
found that significant reductions would be achieved from consent 
decrees and the CAIR, and further examined the sources in Louisiana 
identified in the Alpine report for potential reductions. More 
information about the state's discussion

[[Page 11848]]

is available in section IV.C of the TSD and in the LA RH SIP submittal.
Reasonable Progress Consultation
    The LDEQ worked with the Visibility Improvement--States and Tribal 
Associations of the Southeast (VISTAS) and the CENRAP states to jointly 
develop the consultation strategy. The LDEQ used the CENRAP as the main 
vehicle for facilitating collaboration with FLMs and other states in 
developing its RH SIP. The LDEQ was able to use the CENRAP generated 
products, such as regional photochemical modeling results and 
visibility projections, and source apportionment modeling to assist in 
identifying neighboring states' contributions to the visibility 
impairment at Breton NWA.
    The LDEQ determined that in addition to Louisiana, the following 
states make a contribution to decreased visibility in Louisiana's Class 
I area: Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (see Table 5 of the TSD for 
this proposal). The LDEQ conducted consultations in the form of face-
to-face meetings and conference calls. Participants in the consultation 
process included states and tribes, the CENRAP and other RPOs, the EPA, 
and FLMs. The participating states determined that regional modeling 
and other findings based on existing and proposed controls arising from 
local, state, and federal requirements indicated that the Class I area 
in Louisiana is expected to meet the rate of progress goals for the 
first implementation period ending in 2018. The LDEQ determined that 
additional emissions reductions from other states were not necessary to 
address visibility impairment at Breton for the first implementation 
period ending in 2018, and all states participating in its 
consultations agreed with this.

D. Evaluation of Louisiana's BART Analyses

    BART is an element of Louisiana's LTS for the first implementation 
period. As discussed in more detail in section III.D of this proposal, 
the BART evaluation process consists of three components: (1) An 
identification of all the BART-eligible sources; (2) an assessment of 
whether those BART-eligible sources are subject to BART; and (3) a 
determination of any BART controls. The LDEQ addressed these steps as 
follows:
1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
    An initial step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. The LDEQ identified the 
BART-eligible sources in Louisiana by utilizing the three eligibility 
criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and our regulations (40 
CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the facility fit within 
one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the 
emission unit(s) began operation on or after August 6, 1962, and was in 
existence on August 6, 1977; and (3) potential emissions of any 
visibility-impairing pollutant from subject units are 250 tpy or more.
    The LDEQ determined that the visibility-impairing pollutants in 
Louisiana include SO2, NOX, and PM, using PM less 
than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) as an indicator for PM 
(LA RH SIP, Chapter 9, p. 36). This is consistent with the RHR (40 CFR 
51 Appendix Y, III.A.2). See the TSD for more information.
    The LDEQ sent a letter and survey form, together with guidance 
materials, requesting information about BART eligibility to every 
reporter (1167 facilities) to the emissions inventory for the state 
requesting information about BART eligibility. Of the 1167 facilities 
contacted, 1165 facilities responded, and reported 76 BART-eligible 
facilities. Of the two non-responders, one was found to be out of 
business, and the other was determined to have minor emissions. See the 
TSD for more information. Each of the 76 BART-eligible facilities is 
identified in Table 6 of the TSD. We agree with the LDEQ's 
identification of BART-eligible sources.
2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    The next step of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e. those 
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to 
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute 
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Following the 
identification of those sources that were determined to be BART 
eligible, the LDEQ performed a combination approach to determine 
whether BART-eligible sources would cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment at Breton. The LDEQ used a combination of an individual 
source attribution approach (dispersion modeling), and, for sources 
with common characteristics, a model plant approach.\20\ Please see the 
TSD and Appendix A of the TSD for more details regarding how sources 
were exempted from BART by the LDEQ and our analysis of this modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The ``model plant'' approach can be used to determine 
whether a category of sources that share specific characteristics 
should be exempted from BART because these sources are not 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a 
Class I area. See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y.III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Louisiana considered each of the 76 BART-eligible facilities 
described earlier using the modeling methodologies described below.
Modeling Methodology
    The BART Guidelines direct states to address SO2, 
NOX, and PM emissions as visibility-impairing pollutants, 
and states must exercise their ``best judgment to determine whether 
ammonia or VOC emissions from a source are likely to have an impact on 
visibility in an area.'' See, 70 FR 39162. As noted above, the LDEQ 
determined that the visibility-impairing pollutants in Louisiana are 
SO2, NOX, and particulate matter. Louisiana 
decided to not consider VOCs and ammonia among visibility-impairing 
pollutants for several reasons, as discussed in the TSD. We propose to 
accept the State's decision to address only SO2, 
NOX, and PM as the visibility impairing pollutants.
    Consistent with BART Guidelines, the LDEQ used the CALPUFF modeling 
system to determine whether individual sources identified as BART-
eligible were subject to or exempt from BART. For this modeling, 
Louisiana considered 76 BART-eligible facilities, as discussed in 
section IV.D.1. Based on this analysis, Louisiana identified 27 
facilities for further consideration due to visibility impact above a 
0.5 dv contribution threshold. These facilities are discussed in the 
next section of this action and are identified in Table 7 of the TSD. 
We are proposing to find the LDEQ's chosen modeling methodology and 
screening approach are acceptable.
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to 
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that an important step is to 
set a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single 
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``[a] single source 
that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be 
considered to `cause' visibility impairment.'' 70 FR 39104, 39161. The 
BART Guidelines also state that ``the appropriate threshold for 
determining whether a source contributes to

[[Page 11849]]

visibility impairment ``may reasonably differ across states,'' but 
``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining 
whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment should not be 
higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' Id. Further, in setting a contribution 
threshold, states should ``consider the number of emissions sources 
affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the 
individual sources' impacts.'' The Guidelines affirm that states are 
free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the location of a 
large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a Class I area 
justifies this approach. Considering the number of sources affecting 
Louisiana's Class I area and the magnitude of each source's impact, the 
LDEQ used a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for determining which 
sources are subject to BART. We propose to accept the State's selection 
of 0.5 dv as the threshold value.
    For the 27 facilities referenced above, Louisiana requested that 
the facilities provide additional modeling: Screening Modeling and, for 
sources that failed the Screening Modeling, Refined Modeling. Those 
facilities that the LDEQ requested to conduct this additional modeling 
and the results of the individual Screening and Refined Modeling 
analyses for each of these sources are shown in Table 7 of the TSD.\21\ 
Our evaluation of these modeling results showed that there was one 
facility, Mosaic Fertilizer Uncle Sam Plant (Mosaic), which had modeled 
visibility impacts that exceeded the 0.5 dv contribution threshold, but 
which the LDEQ determined was not subject to BART. At the time of the 
submittal, the LDEQ's modeling showed that, using then-current permit 
maximum hourly emission rates, Mosaic had an operating emissions rate 
of 2,250 lbs/hr (maximum) and a significant modeled visibility impact 
at Breton of over 0.5 dv. At that time, Mosaic was reviewing 
possibilities for future control strategies on the A-Train Sulfuric 
Acid Stack that could be expected to reduce SO2 emissions 
for the facility. For purposes of performing a refined modeling 
analysis and exempting the source from BART requirements, Mosaic 
considered potential future emission rates based on future controls, 
and used a modeling data input of 258.3 lbs/hr (maximum). Although 
future controls were being considered, they were not yet in place. The 
RHR states that a source can be exempted if its visibility impacts at 
the time the SIP is developed are less than the screening value. See, 
70 FR 39118. Because Mosaic's impacts were greater than the screening 
value, at that time, the LDEQ should have completed a full five factor 
analysis to assure the appropriate BART level of control was 
implemented (as discussed in section IV.D.3). Therefore, we propose to 
find that the LDEQ erred in exempting the Mosaic facility from BART. 
For those facilities for which Screening and Refined Modeling was 
provided, with the exception of Mosaic, we propose to approve the 
modeling in the LA RH SIP submittal that identifies which sources are 
exempt from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The LDEQ provided screening modeling results for all 
sources identified as BART-eligible; see Appendix E of the LA RH SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources Subject to BART
    The sources that were not exempt from the BART requirements via 
dispersion modeling analyses and/or the use of model plants are subject 
to BART. For sources subject to BART in Louisiana, the LDEQ must make a 
determination of BART. The LDEQ identified three sources as subject to 
BART and we identified one more, Mosaic, as discussed previously in 
this proposal. All four of these sources are shown in Table 2.

                              Table 2--Non-EGU Sources in Louisiana Subject to BART
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Facility name               BART emission units        Source category        Pollutants evaluated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ConocoPhillips Co. Alliance Refinery  Various emission points  Petroleum Refinery.....  SO2
                                       in facility.                                     NOX
                                                                                        PM10
Rhodia, Inc.........................  Sulfuric Acid Units 1    Sulfuric Acid..........  SO2
                                       and 2.
Sid Richardson Carbon Company.......  Units 1, 2, and 3        Carbon Black...........  SO2
                                       flares and dryers 2, 3
                                       and 4.
Mosaic Fertilizer Uncle Sam Plant *.  Various emission points  Chemical Process         None *
                                       in facility *.           Facility *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This facility was identified by EPA as subject to BART.

    Louisiana did not submit source-specific BART evaluations for EGUs 
in its analysis because the state chose to meet BART requirements for 
EGUs for SO2 and NOX by participation in the 
CAIR, and because modeling results showed that the PM emissions from 
EGUs did not warrant further control. This is discussed further in the 
next section.
3. BART Determinations
    The next component of a BART evaluation is to perform the BART 
analysis. BART is a source-specific control determination, based on 
consideration of several factors set out in section 169A(g)(2) of the 
CAA. These factors include the costs of compliance and the degree of 
improvement in visibility associated with the use of possible control 
technologies. The EPA issued BART Guidelines (Appendix Y to Part 51) in 
2005 to clarify the BART provisions based on the statutory and 
regulatory BART requirements (70 FR 39164). The BART Guidelines 
describe the BART analysis as consisting of the following five basic 
steps:
     Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control 
Technologies,
     Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options,
     Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining 
Control Technologies,
     Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results, and
     Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
    We note the BART Guidelines provide that states must follow the 
guidelines in making BART determinations on a source-by-source basis 
for 750 MW power plants but are not required to use the process in the 
guidelines when making BART determinations for other types of sources. 
States with subject-to-BART units with a generating capacity less than 
750 MW are strongly encouraged to follow the BART Guidelines in making 
BART determinations, but they are not required to do so. However, the 
requirement to perform a BART analysis

[[Page 11850]]

that considers ``the technology available, the costs of compliance, the 
energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any 
pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful 
life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which 
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such 
technology,'' is found in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and the RHR, and 
applies to all subject-to-BART sources.
    For three facilities, ConocoPhillips Co., Rhodia Inc., and Sid 
Richardson Carbon Company, the LDEQ submitted a BART analysis under 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). For each of these facilities, we propose to 
find that the BART analysis satisfies part of the requirements, but 
does not satisfy all of the requirements. A summary of our proposed 
findings for these facilities is provided below. For more details, 
please see our evaluation of the BART determination for each subject-
to-BART unit, in the TSD.
    As previously discussed, we are proposing to find that the state 
should have identified Mosaic as being subject to BART and made a BART 
determination for the source. This is discussed in more detail in 
section IV.D.2 of this action.
    Also, as discussed in the Executive Summary above, in an earlier 
proposed action EPA proposed a limited disapproval of the LA RH SIP (76 
FR 82219). EPA's proposed limited disapproval is based on deficiencies 
in the LA RH SIP submittal arising from the state's reliance on the 
CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements. States such as 
Louisiana that are subject to the requirements of the Transport Rule 
trading program only for NOX must still address BART for 
EGUs for SO2 and other visibility impairing pollutants. See, 
76 FR at 82224. While we proposed on December 30, 2011 to issue a FIP 
to address the deficiencies in Louisiana's SIP associated with the BART 
requirements for NOX for EGUs, we did not propose a FIP to 
address the deficiencies associated with the BART requirements for 
SO2. Louisiana also relied on the CAIR in assessing the need 
for emissions reductions for SO2 from EGUs to satisfy BART 
requirements. Consequently, Louisiana will have to re-evaluate EGUs 
with respect to SO2 BART requirements.
a. ConocoPhillips
    The ConocoPhillips Alliance Refinery is a petroleum refinery near 
Belle Chasse Louisiana and is a subject-to-BART source. On December 5, 
2005, ConocoPhillips and the EPA entered into a Consent Decree 
(CD).\22\ The BART engineering analysis, provided by ConocoPhillips 
utilized emission reductions that are mandated per the CD for the 
fluidized catalytic cracker, the process refinery flares and the crude 
unit heater. Implementing these control projects per the CD emissions 
reductions will result in reducing the overall site visibility impacts. 
The visibility improvements resulting from this CD are discussed 
further in the TSD. However, the LDEQ did not provide a complete BART 
evaluation for these units. The submittal does not analyze controls for 
these units using the five steps as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e). Also, 
no emissions limits for BART for these units were included in the LA RH 
SIP. Therefore, for the units covered by the CD, the LDEQ must provide 
BART analyses for the units to meet BART requirements (40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)).\23\ Also, a unit's BART emissions limits must be 
a part of the RH SIP, and therefore the LDEQ must include the BART 
emissions limits in the RH SIP through a SIP revision.\24\ We propose 
to find that the BART determination for ConocoPhillips Alliance 
Refinery is deficient at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Civil Action No. H-05-0285. A copy of this CD is available 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \23\ The EPA recently finalized action approving New Jersey's 
BART determinations for the ConocoPhillips Bayway Refinery, which is 
subject to the same CD as the ConocoPhillips Alliance Refinery. See 
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/conocophillips.html. The proposal for that action explains that the 
EPA's approval is based on New Jersey's submittal of a complete BART 
evaluation for the subject-to BART units at the facility, and the 
fact that these units will be controlled ``based on maximum feasible 
controls or a multi-factor analysis.'' 76 FR 49711, at 49721; see 
also, 77 FR 19-01. The TSD for that action describes how New 
Jersey's submittal included the BART analysis for NOX, 
SO2, and PM for the subject-to-BART units at this source 
in compliance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). TSD, pages 27-29, 
available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R02-OAR-
2011-0607.
    \24\ The CAA requires RH SIPs to ``to contain such emission 
limits * * * necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting 
the national goal. * * *'' CAA 169A(b)(2). The federal regulations 
further explain that the state must ``submit an implementation plan 
containing emission limits representing BART and schedules for 
compliance with BART for each BART-eligible source that may 
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment 
of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area.'' 40 CFR 
51.308(e). Finally, the preamble to the RHR states that ``[t]he SIP 
revision must include the emission limitations determined to be BART 
for sources subject to BART. * * *'' 64 FR 35714, at 35741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several other units subject to BART at the ConocoPhillips 
Alliance facility. These include the cooling water tower and gas-fired 
heaters. Louisiana provided a BART analysis for these as follows: 
cooling water tower for PM and PM10, and process heaters for 
NOX. For these units, ConocoPhillips determined, and the 
LDEQ agreed that there was not a cost effective control. We are 
proposing to accept the LDEQ's BART analysis that no additional 
controls are required to meet BART for these units.
    For three other units, the emissions of PM, SO2, and 
NOX are minimal; so, the potential visibility improvement 
from controls on these units is also minimal. These units are the 
Product Dock No. 1 MVR Loading, the Product Dock No. 2 MVR Loading, and 
Coke Transfer and Storage. For detailed information, see the TSD 
section IV.D.3.a.iii and TSD Appendix A. The installation of any 
additional controls would likely achieve negligible emissions 
reductions, have almost no visibility impact on Breton, and would not 
be cost-effective.\25\ We propose to find that the LDEQ's analysis for 
these units is adequate to meet BART requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ``Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, 
States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART 
determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are 
based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as 
the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount 
of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it 
is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly 
suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an 
exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting 
from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear 
that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility 
resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be 
negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits 
thousands of tons of SO2 but less than one hundred tons 
of NOX, the State could easily conclude that requiring 
expensive controls to reduce NOX would not be 
appropriate. In another situation, however, inexpensive 
NOX controls might be available and a State might 
reasonably conclude that NOX controls were justified as a 
means to improve visibility despite the fact that the source emits 
less than one hundred tons of the pollutant.'' 70 FR 39116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Rhodia
    The Rhodia Sulfuric Acid plant is located in Baton Rouge. The 
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid plant produces sulfuric acid by using two sulfuric 
acid production trains, Unit 1 and Unit 2. Unit 1 was constructed in 
1953, and at the time of the SIP submittal, had a production rate of 
700 tons of sulfuric acid per day (700 tons sulfuric acid/day). 
Although Rhodia Unit 1 was constructed outside the dates for BART-
eligibility, the LDEQ identified it as BART-eligible. Therefore, we 
treat it as BART-eligible and have included this unit in the subject-
to-BART discussion in this section.\26\ We request comments on whether 
this unit should be treated

[[Page 11851]]

as BART-eligible. Unit 2 was constructed in 1968, and has a production 
rate of 1500 tons sulfuric acid/day. Therefore, Unit 2 is an ``existing 
stationary facility'' for purposes of BART eligibility, as defined in 
40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ We note it is possible for a source to have been 
constructed prior to the BART eligibility timeframe of August 7, 
1962 to August 7, 1977, but to have been reconstructed during that 
timeframe and thus still BART-eligible. 70 FR 39159-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective July 23, 2007, the EPA, LDEQ and other parties entered 
into a CD with Rhodia requiring a scrubber to be installed on each of 
the units to control SO2 emissions.\27\ The BART engineering 
analysis assumed emission reductions that have since been mandated per 
the CD for Units 1 and 2. As stated above, without controls, the BART 
screening modeling for Rhodia showed a visibility impact at Breton of 
greater than 0.5 dv. Implementing control projects per the CD emissions 
reductions will result in reducing the overall site visibility impacts, 
and based on modeling with controls the LDEQ expects the visibility 
impairment from Rhodia to be below 0.5 dv at Breton. The visibility 
improvements resulting from this CD are discussed in the TSD. However, 
the LDEQ did not submit a complete BART evaluation for these units. The 
submittal does not analyze controls for the units using the five steps 
as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e). In order to satisfy BART requirements 
for SO2, Louisiana must provide a BART analysis. The LDEQ 
may be able to find that the controls required under the CD are among 
the most stringent, and therefore, no additional controls would be 
required for these units to meet BART. 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y.IV.D.1.9. 
Also, the emissions limits for Rhodia's subject-to-BART units were not 
included in the RH SIP revision, so the LDEQ must include the BART 
emission limits in the RH SIP through a SIP revision.\28\ We propose to 
find that the BART determination for Rhodia is deficient at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL. A copy of this CD is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \28\ CAA 169A(b)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(e); and 64 FR 35714, at 
35741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The visibility impact due to NOX and PM emissions from 
Rhodia's two subject-to-BART units is minimal; so, the potential 
visibility improvement from controls on these units is also minimal. 
For detailed information, see the TSD section IV.D.3.b and TSD Appendix 
B. The installation of any additional controls would likely achieve 
negligible emissions reductions, have almost no visibility impact on 
Breton, and would not be cost-effective.\25\ We propose to find the 
LDEQ's analysis for these pollutants is adequate to meet BART 
requirements.
c. Sid Richardson Carbon Company
    The Sid Richardson Carbon Company is a subject-to-BART source 
located in West Baton Rouge Parish. For the subject-to-BART units at 
the Sid Richardson facility, Sid Richardson/LDEQ submitted a BART 
engineering analysis. For PM, the LDEQ determined that the high 
efficiency fabric filters already in use at the facility are BART. We 
propose to find that the state acted within its discretion in making 
this determination, and that the PM analyses provided by the LDEQ and 
Sid Richardson meet BART requirements.
    For NOX, the LA RH SIP Chapter 9 states that the Sid 
Richardson engineering analyses included the potential installation of 
NOX add-on controls, but it determined that all were 
infeasible (there were no demonstrated NOX scrubbing 
technologies at any carbon black plants). However, there is not 
sufficient information in the LA RH SIP submittal to support the BART 
analysis conclusion that no controls are feasible. We propose to find 
that the NOX BART determination for Sid Richardson is 
deficient at this time.
    For SO2, the LA RH SIP Chapter 9 states that the Sid 
Richardson engineering analyses included the potential installation of 
SO2 add-on controls, but it determined that all were 
infeasible (there were no demonstrated SO2 scrubbing 
technologies at any carbon black plants). However, Appendix G of the LA 
RH SIP submittal reflects that the SO2 evaluation for Sid 
Richardson considered four potential approaches and evaluated them for 
cost effectiveness: Three add-on controls--caustic scrubbing, wet 
limestone scrubbing, and Haldor Topsoe's SNOX process, which is a 
process that removes SO2, NOX and PM from flue 
gas; the fourth approach would be to limit the sulfur content of the 
feedstock oil.\29\ The SIP documentation does not reconcile the cost 
analyses provided with the corresponding conclusion of the technical 
infeasibility for these same control options. Based on the cost 
analysis provided, the installation and use of scrubbers to control 
emissions may be well within a range that is cost effective. Also, the 
LDEQ indicated that no controls were technically feasible, but the 
record does not provide a sufficient basis for this conclusion. There 
is not sufficient information in the LA RH SIP submittal to support the 
BART analysis conclusion that a scrubber, or other technology, is not 
feasible. For these reasons, we propose to find that the SO2 
BART determination for Sid Richardson is deficient at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ LA RH SIP submittal TSD Appendix G, Environ Report, pg 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Long-Term Strategy

    As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a 
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state 
for achieving its RPGs. Louisiana's LTS for the first implementation 
period addresses the emissions reductions from federal, state, and 
local controls that take effect in the state from the end of the 
baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Louisiana LTS was 
developed by the LDEQ, in coordination with the CENRAP RPO, through an 
evaluation of the following components: (1) Construction of a CENRAP 
2002 baseline emission inventory; (2) construction of a CENRAP 2018 
emission inventory, including reductions from the CENRAP member state 
controls required or expected under federal and state regulations, 
(including BART); (3) modeling to determine visibility improvement and 
apportion individual state contributions; (4) state consultation; and 
(5) application of the LTS factors.
1. Emissions Inventories
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that Louisiana document the 
technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions 
information, on which it relied upon to determine its apportionment of 
emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable 
progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. Louisiana 
must identify the baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies 
are based. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires that Louisiana identify all 
anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the state 
in developing its long-term strategy. This includes major and minor 
stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. Louisiana met 
these requirements by relying on technical analyses developed by its 
RPO, CENRAP, and approved by all state participants, as described 
below.
    The emissions inventory used in the RH technical analyses was 
developed by the CENRAP with assistance from Louisiana. The LDEQ 
provided a statewide emissions inventory for 2002, representing the 
mid-point of the 2000-2004 baseline period, and a projected emissions 
inventory for 2018, the end of the first 10-year planning period. The 
2018 inventory is based on visibility modeling conducted by the CENRAP. 
The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions 
and applying reductions expected from

[[Page 11852]]

federal and state regulations affecting the emissions of the 
visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, PM, SO2, and 
VOCs.
a. Louisiana's 2002 Emission Inventory
    The LDEQ and the CENRAP developed an emission inventory for four 
inventory source classifications: point, area, non-road and on-road 
mobile sources for the baseline year of 2002. Louisiana's 2002 
emissions inventory provides estimates of annual emissions for haze 
producing pollutants by source category as summarized in Table 3, based 
on information in Chapter 7 of Louisiana's RH SIP.

                                                       Table 3--Louisiana 2002 Emissions Inventory
                                                                       [Tons/year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                SO2             NH3             NOX            VOCs            PM10            PM2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................         286,050           9,237         312,634          89,025          73,333          60,899
Area....................................................          81,153          75,381          99,060         124,311         245,162          84,068
Non-road mobile.........................................          14,324             563         117,250         109,598          10,663           9,791
On-road mobile..........................................           4,653           3,748          15,137          64,643           3,563           2,689
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         386,180          88,929         544,081         387,577         332,721         157,447
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See the TSD for details on how the 2002 emissions inventory was 
constructed. The EPA approved the 2002 emissions inventory on September 
3, 2009 (74 FR 45561). We are proposing to find that Louisiana's 2002 
emission inventory is acceptable for the purpose of developing the LTS.
b. Louisiana's 2018 Emission Inventory
    In constructing Louisiana's 2018 emission inventory, the LDEQ used 
a combination of our Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS 6), our 
mobile emissions factor model (MOBILE 6), our off-road emissions factor 
model (NONROAD), and the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) for electric 
generating units. The CENRAP developed emissions for five inventory 
source classifications: Point, area, non-road and on-road mobile 
sources, and biogenic sources. The CENRAP used the 2002 emission 
inventory, described above, to estimate emissions in 2018. All control 
strategies expected to take effect prior to 2018 are included in the 
projected emission inventory. Louisiana's 2018 emissions inventory 
provides estimates of annual emissions for haze producing pollutants by 
source category as summarized in Table 4, based on information in 
Chapter 7 of the Louisiana RH SIP.

                                                      Table 4--Louisiana's 2018 Emissions Inventory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                SO2             NH3             NOX            VOCs            PM10            PM2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................         354,087          14,435         269,215         187,741          73,136          60,899
Area....................................................          87,538          36,896         114,374         117,600          16,936          14,536
Non-road mobile.........................................          11,584              72         106,685          64,294           8,670           7,955
On-road mobile..........................................             561           5,436          44,806          30,340           1,191           1,191
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         453,770          56,839         535,080         399,975          99,933          84,581
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See the TSD for details on how the 2018 emissions inventory was 
constructed. The CENRAP and LDEQ used this and other state's 2018 
emission inventories to construct visibility projection modeling for 
2018. We are proposing to find that Louisiana's 2018 emission inventory 
is acceptable.
2. Visibility Projection Modeling
    The CENRAP performed modeling for the RH LTS for its member states, 
including Louisiana. The modeling analysis is a complex technical 
evaluation that began with selection of the modeling system. The CENRAP 
used (1) the Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) meteorological model, 
(2) the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system 
to generate hourly gridded speciated emission inputs, (3) the Community 
Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) photochemical grid model and (4) the 
Comprehensive Air Quality model with extensions (CAMX), as a 
secondary corroborative model. The CAMX was also utilized 
with its Particulate Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool to 
provide source apportionment for both the baseline and future case 
visibility modeling.
    The photochemical modeling of RH for the CENRAP states for 2002 and 
2018 was conducted on the 36-km resolution national regional planning 
organization domain that covered the continental U.S., portions of 
Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans 
along the east and west coasts. The CENRAP states' modeling was 
developed consistent with our guidance.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze, (EPA-454/B-07-002), April 2007, 
located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf. Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of 
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, August 2005, updated November 
2005 (``our Modeling Guidance''), located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CENRAP examined the model performance of the regional modeling 
for the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model 
results were suitable for use in the RH assessment of the LTS and for 
use in the modeling assessment. The 2002 modeling efforts were used to 
evaluate air quality/visibility modeling for a historical episode--in 
this case, for calendar year 2002--to demonstrate the suitability of 
the modeling systems for subsequent planning, sensitivity, and 
emissions control strategy modeling. Model performance evaluation is 
performed by comparing output from

[[Page 11853]]

model simulations with ambient air quality data for the same time 
period to determine whether the model's performance is sufficiently 
accurate to justify using the model for simulating future conditions. 
Once the CENRAP determined the model performance to be acceptable, it 
used the model to determine the 2018 RPGs using the current and future 
year air quality modeling predictions, and compared the RPGs to the 
URP. The results of the CENRAP's visibility projection modeling are 
discussed in the section that follows. We are proposing to find that 
Louisiana's visibility projection modeling is acceptable.
3. Sources of Visibility Impairment
    Where Louisiana causes or contributes to impairment in a mandatory 
Class I Federal area, it must demonstrate that it has included in its 
SIP all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission 
reductions needed to meet the progress goal for the area. If Louisiana 
has participated in a regional planning process, it must ensure it has 
included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission 
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that, ``Where other states cause 
or contribute to impairment in a * * * Class I area, the state must 
demonstrate that it has included * * * all measures necessary to obtain 
its share of the emissions reductions needed to meet the progress goal 
for the area. If the state has participated in a regional planning 
process, the state must ensure it has included all measures needed to 
achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon 
through that process.''
    The CENRAP used CAMX with its PSAT tool to provide 
source apportionment by geographic region and major source category. 
The pollutants causing the highest levels of light extinction are 
associated with the sources causing the most visibility impairment.
a. Sources of Visibility Impairment in the Breton Class I Area
    Visibility impairment at Breton in 2002 on the worst 20% days is 
primarily (69%) due to point source emissions that contribute 77.7 
inverse megameters \31\ (Mm-1) of the total extinction of 
122.1 Mm-1. The largest contributions come from inside the 
state. In 2018, point sources continue to contribute the most to 
visibility impairment at Breton, even though this contribution has 
decreased substantially. ``The top five contributing source groups to 
2018 visibility impairment at [Breton] for the worst 20 percent days 
are: Louisiana Elevated Point Sources; Boundary Conditions; \32\ East 
Elevated Point Sources; Gulf of Mexico Area Sources; and Louisiana Area 
Sources. Gulf of Mexico Area sources include off shore shipping and oil 
and gas development emissions.'' \33\ We are proposing to find that 
Louisiana's identification of sources of visibility impairment for the 
Breton Class I area is acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ An inverse megameter is the direct measurement unit for 
visibility impairment data. It is the amount of light scattered and 
absorbed as it travels over a distance of one million meters. 
Deciviews (dv) can be calculated from extinction data as follows: dv 
= 10 x ln (bext(Mm-1)/10).
    \32\ ``Boundary Conditions'' means ``the assumed concentrations 
along the later edges of the 36 km modeling domain.'' LA RH SIP 
submittal Appendix B, Environ Report, p. 1-16.
    \33\ LA RH SIP submittal Appendix B, Environ Report, p. 5-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Louisiana's Contribution to Visibility Impairment in Class I Areas 
Outside the State
    Table 5 shows the CENRAP CAMx and PSAT modeled contributions (in 
percentage of visibility impacts) to total extinction at all Class I 
areas from Louisiana sources for 2002 and 2018, respectively. The CAMx 
PSAT results were utilized to evaluate the impact of Louisiana emission 
sources in 2002 and 2018 on visibility impairment at Class I areas 
outside of the state.

  Table 5--Percent Contribution From Louisiana Emissions to Total Visibility Impairment at Class I Areas on 20%
                                                   Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Class I area                               State                    2002              2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breton (BRET1)..............................  Louisiana.....................             15.75             24.67
Wichita Mountains (WIMO1)...................  Oklahoma......................              3.47              4.83
Caney Creek (CACR1).........................  Arkansas......................              2.86              4.23
Big Bend NP (BIBE1).........................  Texas.........................              2.79              3.32
Upper Buffalo Wilderness (UPBU1)............  Arkansas......................              1.80              2.71
Hercules Glades Wilderness (HEGL1)..........  Missouri......................              1.71              2.43
Guadalupe Mountains NP (GUMO1)..............  Texas.........................              1.32              1.57
White Mountain Wilderness (WHIT1)...........  New Mexico....................              1.28              1.44
Sipsey Wilderness (SIPS1)...................  Alabama.......................              0.96              1.78
Salt Creek (SACR1)..........................  New Mexico....................              0.93              1.07
Mammoth Cave NP (MACA1).....................  Kentucky......................              0.67              1.19
Seney (SENE1)...............................  Michigan......................              0.54              0.77
Bosque del Apache (BOAP1)...................  New Mexico....................              0.42              0.48
Great Smoky Mountains NP (GRSM1)............  Tennessee.....................              0.40              0.83
Isle Royale NP (ISLE1)......................  Michigan......................              0.39              0.49
Badlands NP (BADL1).........................  South Dakota..................              0.36              0.41
Cadiz (CADI1)...............................  Kentucky......................              0.34              0.59
Gila Wilderness (GICL1).....................  New Mexico....................              0.30              0.37
Bondville (BOND1)...........................  Illinois......................              0.27              0.41
Mingo (MING1)...............................  Missouri......................              0.22              0.33
Bandelier (BAND1)...........................  New Mexico....................              0.21              0.24
San Pedro Parks (SAPE1).....................  New Mexico....................              0.20              0.22
Wind Cave NP (WICA1)........................  South Dakota..................              0.14              0.16
Wheeler Peak Wilderness (WHPE1).............  New Mexico....................              0.14              0.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the Table above, the largest contribution from 
Louisiana sources is at the Wichita Mountains Class I area in Oklahoma 
in both 2002 and 2018. Louisiana is also projected to contribute a 
small amount of visibility

[[Page 11854]]

degradation at Class I areas in other states as listed in Table 5. This 
table summarizes the projected contribution from Louisiana's emissions 
on visibility degradation to Class I areas for the 20 percent worst 
days in 2002 and 2018, as modeled by the CENRAP.\34\ We are proposing 
to find that Louisiana's identification of sources of visibility 
impairment for Class I areas outside the state is acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Appendix A of the TSD for this proposal for the CENRAP 
Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State 
Implementation, as well as Appendix B of the LA RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Consultation for Other State's Class I Areas
    The LDEQ used the CENRAP as its main vehicle for facilitating 
collaboration with FLMs and other states in the CENRAP, and the VISTAS 
for other states outside the CENRAP to satisfy its LTS consultation 
requirement. This helped the LDEQ and other state agencies analyze 
emission apportionments at Class I areas and develop coordinated RH SIP 
strategies.
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that Louisiana consult with other 
states if its emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to 
visibility impairment at that state's Class I area(s), and that 
Louisiana consult with other states if those states' emissions are 
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at Breton 
NWA. The LDEQ's consultations with other states are described in 
section IV.C.3 of this action. The CENRAP visibility modeling 
demonstrates Louisiana sources are responsible for a visibility 
extinction of approximately 3.5 Mm-1 at Caney Creek on the 
worst 20% days for 2002.\26\ The LDEQ consulted with Arkansas as well 
as Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida whose emissions 
have a potential visibility impact at Breton. We are proposing to find 
that the LDEQ's consultations satisfy the requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(i).
5. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy Factors
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that Louisiana consider certain 
factors in developing its long-term strategy (the LTS factors). These 
include: (a) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control 
programs, including measures to address RAVI; (b) measures to mitigate 
the impacts of construction activities; (c) emissions limitations and 
schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal; (d) 
source retirement and replacement schedules; (e) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (f) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (g) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the long-term strategy. For the reasons outlined below, we are 
proposing to find that Louisiana has satisfied some, but not all of the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). Also, Louisiana will have to 
consider whether EGUs previously covered by the CAIR, whether subject 
to BART or not, should be controlled to ensure reasonable progress.
a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    In addition to its BART determinations, Louisiana's LTS 
incorporates emission reductions due to a number of ongoing air 
pollution control programs.
    The LDEQ considered the Tier 2 Vehicle Emission Standards in 
developing its LTS. Federal Tier 2 Vehicle Emission Standards for 
passenger cars and light trucks were fully implemented in 2009 and 
similar rules for heavy trucks were also implemented by 2009. These 
federal standards will result in reductions of emissions of PM, ozone 
precursors, and non-methane organic compounds. In developing its LTS, 
the LDEQ also considered the Highway Diesel and Nonroad Diesel Rules, 
which mandated the use of lower sulfur fuels in diesel engines 
beginning in 2006 for highway diesel fuel, and 2007 for non-road diesel 
fuel. These federal rules have resulted in more effective control of PM 
emissions from diesel engines by allowing the installation of control 
devices that were technically infeasible for fuels with higher sulfur 
content. In addition, the state will rely on federal consent decrees 
and implementation of the 2008 ozone standard.
    As noted in the EPA's separate notice proposing revisions to the 
RHR (76 FR 82219) a number of states, including Louisiana, fully 
consistent with the EPA's regulations at the time, relied on the 
trading programs of the CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-
adopted reasonable progress goals. In that notice, we proposed a 
limited disapproval of Louisiana's long-term strategy and, for that 
reason, we are not taking action on the long-term strategy in this 
proposal insofar as Louisiana's RH SIP relied on the CAIR. The docket 
for that rulemaking is available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. 
Louisiana's LTS is also deficient because it relied on deficient non-
EGU BART determinations as discussed in section IV.D of this action.
b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires that Louisiana consider measures 
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities in developing its 
LTS. Construction-related activities are believed to be a small 
contributor to fine and coarse particulates in Louisiana. The LDEQ 
notes that Louisiana may require visibility monitoring in any Class I 
area where preconstruction and post-construction of any new source or 
major modification may have an adverse impact on visibility in any 
Class I area (LAC 33:III.504.E.3.b). In spite of a great deal of 
construction activity from the recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita, no measurable impacts on visibility have been monitored from this 
activity. We are proposing to find that Louisiana satisfies this 
component of LTS.
c. Emissions Limitations and Schedules of Compliance
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) requires that in developing its LTS, 
Louisiana consider emissions limitations and schedules of compliance to 
achieve the RPGs. As discussed in section IV.D.3 of this proposal, the 
SIP does not yet contain emission limits and schedules of compliance 
for those sources subject to BART. The BART emission limits established 
by the LDEQ are an element of the LTS, and because we are proposing to 
find that the relevant portion of the LDEQ's BART determinations are 
deficient, we propose to find that this element of the LTS does not 
satisfy the federal requirements.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) requires that Louisiana consider source 
retirement and replacement schedules in developing its LTS. The LDEQ 
adequately addressed how it considered source retirement and 
replacement schedules in the development of its LTS. Louisiana's LTS 
includes the promulgation of new rules for retrofit technology for 
existing equipment to meet requirements for new NAAQS, which will also 
provide visibility benefits. We are proposing to find that the LDEQ 
properly addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) in the 
development of its LTS.

[[Page 11855]]

e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires that Louisiana consider smoke 
management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes 
in developing its LTS. Where smoke impacts from fire are identified as 
an important contributor to regional haze, smoke management programs 
should be a key component of regional and State regional haze planning 
efforts and long-term strategies (64 FR 35736).
    The EPA encourages the development of smoke management programs 
between air regulators and land managers as a means to manage the 
impacts of wildland and prescribed burning. The sources of information 
described above, as well as other developmental efforts currently 
underway, provide effective, flexible approaches to smoke management. 
The LDEQ considered smoke management techniques for the purposes of 
agricultural and forestry management in its LTS. Chapter 13 of Title 33 
of the LAC contains a general prohibition on ``open burning of refuse, 
garbage, trade waste, or other waste material.'' Although the LDEQ does 
not have the jurisdiction or authority to make any rule, regulation, 
recommendations, or determination with respect to agricultural burning 
or controlled burns of pastureland, marshland, or timberland, the 
Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF) does have the 
authority. The LDAF, in consultation with the LDEQ, is working to 
develop a SMP that includes measures that can be taken to reduce 
residual smoke from burning activities as well as a process to evaluate 
potential smoke impacts at sensitive receptors and guidelines for 
scheduling fires such that exposure of sensitive populations is 
minimized and visibility impacts in Class I areas are reduced. Because 
visibility impacts from smoke are significant in Louisiana, we propose 
to find that Louisiana should finalize its SMP.
f. Enforceability of Emissions Limitations and Control Measures
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) requires that Louisiana ensure the 
enforceability of emission limitations and control measures used to 
meet reasonable progress goals. The SIP does not yet contain emission 
limits and schedules of compliance for those EGU sources, if any, 
subject to SO2 BART. Also, Louisiana's LTS is deficient 
because it relied on deficient non-EGU BART determinations as discussed 
in section IV.D of this action. The emissions limits for these subject-
to-BART sources were not included in the LA RH SIP.\35\ Therefore, we 
are proposing to find that the LDEQ has not fully satisfied the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) in the development of its 
LTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ CAA 169A(b)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(e); and 64 FR 35714, at 
35741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G) requires that in developing its LTS, 
Louisiana consider the anticipated net effect on visibility due to 
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the 
period addressed by the long-term strategy. In developing its RH SIP, 
the LDEQ relied on the CENRAP's 2018 modeling projections, which show 
that net visibility is expected to improve by 3.22 dv at Breton NWA. 
The CENRAP's 2018 modeling projections account for changes in point, 
area, and on-road and non-road mobile emissions. The results of the 
CENRAP's 2018 modeling projections are discussed in sections IV.E.2 and 
IV.E.3 of this proposed rulemaking. We are proposing to find that 
Louisiana satisfies this component of LTS.

F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    Our visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI 
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for RH, as explained in 
section III of this action. Under our RAVI regulations, the RAVI 
portion of a state SIP must address any integral vistas identified by 
the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. See, 40 CFR 51.302. An integral 
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the 
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama 
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.'' 
Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral 
vista associated with that area. The FLMs for Breton have not 
identified any reasonably attributable visibility impairment (i.e., 
RAVI) from Louisiana or other U.S. sources. The FLMs for the Class I 
areas that Louisiana's emissions impact in other states have not 
identified any reasonably attributable visibility impairment caused by 
Louisiana sources. For these reasons, the Louisiana RH SIP does not 
have any measures in place or a requirement to address RAVI. We propose 
to find that this requirement is not applicable to the LA RH SIP at 
this time. This provision may be re-considered upon receipt of 
submittals from the LDEQ for subsequent implementation periods.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires the SIP contain a monitoring strategy 
for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of RH visibility 
impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal 
areas within the state. This monitoring strategy must be coordinated 
with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) notes, 
compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in 
the IMPROVE network. See the TSD for details concerning the IMPROVE 
network. We are proposing to find that the LDEQ has satisfied this 
requirement.
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires the establishment of any additional 
monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether reasonable 
progress goals to address RH for all mandatory Class I Federal areas 
within the state are being achieved. The CENRAP monitoring workgroup 
noted there was a visibility void in Southern Arkansas. An IMPROVE 
protocol monitor was located in north central Louisiana. 
PM2.5 measurements from the Louisiana monitoring network 
help the LDEQ to characterize air pollution levels in areas across the 
state and therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in 
and near the Class I areas. The LDEQ also commits in the Louisiana RH 
SIP to consider alternative approaches to evaluating visibility 
monitoring obligations if that becomes necessary. We are proposing to 
find that the LDEQ has satisfied this requirement.
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that the LDEQ establish procedures 
by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining 
the contribution of emissions from within Louisiana to RH visibility 
impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside 
the state. The monitor at Breton was owned and operated by the USFWS. 
After this monitor was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the 
monitor was replaced and relocated nearby, by the USFWS, at Lake 
Catherine in St. Bernard Parish. The IMPROVE monitoring program is 
national in scope, and other states have similar monitoring and data 
reporting procedures, ensuring a consistent and robust monitoring data 
collection system. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) indicates, participation in 
the IMPROVE program constitutes compliance with

[[Page 11856]]

this requirement. We are therefore proposing that the LDEQ has 
satisfied this requirement.
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that the SIP must provide for the 
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at 
least annually for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the state. To 
the extent possible, Louisiana should report visibility monitoring data 
electronically. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that the LDEQ 
provide for other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility. We are 
proposing that Louisiana's participation in the IMPROVE network ensures 
the monitoring data is reported at least annually, is easily 
accessible, and therefore complies with this requirement.
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that the LDEQ maintain a statewide 
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I 
Federal area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, 
emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and 
estimates of future projected emissions. The State must also include a 
commitment to update the inventory periodically. Please refer to 
section IV.E of this action, where we discuss the LDEQ's emission 
inventory. The LDEQ has stated that it intends to update the Louisiana 
statewide emissions inventories periodically. We are proposing to find 
that this satisfies the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v).

H. Coordination With Federal Land Managers

    Breton NWA is a federally protected wilderness area for which the 
USFWS is the FLM. Although the FLMs are very active in participating in 
the RPOs, the RHR grants the FLMs a special role in the review of the 
RH SIPs, summarized in section III.H. of this action. We view both the 
FLMs and the state agencies as our partners in the RH process.
    40 CFR 51.308(i)(1) requires that by November 29, 1999, Louisiana 
must have identified in writing to the FLMs the title of the official 
to which the FLM of Breton can submit any recommendations on the 
implementation of 40 CFR 51.308. We acknowledge this section has been 
satisfied by all states via communication prior to this SIP.
    Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), Louisiana was obligated to provide the 
USFWS with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 
days prior to holding a public hearing on its RH SIP. In practice, 
state agencies have usually provided all FLMs--the Forest Service, the 
Park Service, and the USFWS, copies of their proposed RH SIP, as the 
FLMs collectively have reviewed these RH SIPs. The LDEQ followed this 
practice and proposed this implementation plan revision for public 
comment on November 20, 2007 and notified the federal land manager 
staff of the public hearing held on January 24, 2008.
    40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires that the LDEQ provide in its RH SIP a 
description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The 
LDEQ has provided that information in Appendix A of its RH SIP.
    Lastly, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies the RH SIP must provide 
procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLM on the 
implementation of the visibility protection program required by 40 CFR 
51.308, including development and review of implementation plan 
revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of 
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of 
visibility in the mandatory Class I Federal areas. The LDEQ has 
stipulated in its RH SIP it will continue to coordinate and consult 
with the FLMs as required by 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4). The LDEQ states it 
intends to consult the FLMs in the development of future progress 
reports and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of 
programs having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment at 
Breton NWA. We are proposing to find that the LDEQ has satisfied 40 CFR 
51.308(i).

I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    The LDEQ affirmed its commitment to complete items required in the 
future under our RHR. The LDEQ acknowledged its requirement under 40 
CFR 51.308(f), to submit periodic progress reports and RH SIP 
revisions, with the first report due by July 31, 2018 and every ten 
years thereafter.
    The LDEQ also acknowledged its requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(g), 
to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision to us every 
five years following this initial submittal of the Louisiana RH SIP. 
The report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for each 
mandatory Class I area located within Louisiana and in each mandatory 
Class I area located outside Louisiana which may be affected by 
emissions from within Louisiana. We are proposing to find that the LDEQ 
has satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(f) and (g).

J. Determination of the Adequacy of Existing Implementation Plan

    40 CFR 51.308(h) requires that Louisiana take one of the listed 
actions, as appropriate, at the same time the State is required to 
submit any 5-year progress report to the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(g). The LDEQ has committed in its SIP to take one of the actions 
listed under 40 CFR 51.308(h), depending on the findings of the 5-year 
progress report. We are proposing to find that the LDEQ has satisfied 
40 CFR 51.308(h).

V. Proposed Action

    We are proposing a partial disapproval and a partial limited 
approval of Louisiana's RH SIP revision submitted on June 13, 2008.
    Specifically, we are proposing to find that the following portions 
of the LA RH SIP have satisfied the federal requirement and are 
addressed in our proposed partial limited approval, insofar as the 
elements do not rely on the SO2 reductions from the CAIR: 
The State's
     Identification of affected Class I areas;
     Establishment of baseline, natural, and current visibility 
conditions, including the URP;
     Coordination of RAVI and RH Requirements;
     RH monitoring strategy and other SIP requirements under 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(4);
     Commitment to submit periodic RH SIP revisions and 
periodic progress reports describing progress towards the RPGs;
     Commitment to make a determination of the adequacy of the 
existing SIP at the time a progress report is submitted; and
     Coordination with Federal Land Managers.
    We are proposing to find that Louisiana's RPGs meet some federal 
requirements, but also contain some deficiencies. We are proposing to 
find that the State's RPGs are deficient given our proposed finding 
that certain of Louisiana's BART determinations are not fully 
approvable. In general, the State followed the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1), but these goals do not reflect appropriate emissions 
reductions from BART. For LTS, we are proposing to find that the 
State's LTS satisfies many of the requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3); however, we are proposing to find that the submitted LTS 
is deficient because a portion of it relies on BART determinations that 
we are proposing to disapprove (see section IV.E for detailed 
information regarding

[[Page 11857]]

our proposed findings concerning LTS). Also, because visibility impacts 
from smoke are significant in Louisiana, we propose to find that that 
Louisiana should finalize its SMP. In addition, we are proposing to 
find that the following elements do not satisfy the federal 
requirements for the reasons discussed in section IV of this proposal: 
the State's
     Determination that the Mosaic Fertilizer Uncle Sam Plant 
is exempt from BART analysis; and
     BART analyses for ConocoPhillips, Rhodia, and Sid 
Richardson Carbon Black Plant. As discussed in section I of this 
proposal, the State must address BART for SO2 for EGUs and 
the related element of LTS because it can no longer rely on the CAIR to 
address these requirements. In a separate action, the EPA proposed a 
limited disapproval of the Louisiana RH SIP because of deficiencies in 
the state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to the 
EPA of the CAIR. 76 FR 82219. We are not taking action in this proposal 
to address the state's reliance on the CAIR to meet certain regional 
haze requirements related to NOX and SO2 
emissions from EGUs.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 act on state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq, because this proposed action under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any 
new information collection burdens but simply approves or disapproves 
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is 
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's 
proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 
small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule 
does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. 
This proposed rule under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply 
approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into 
the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion 
for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements 
or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that 
the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset 
requirements) may or will flow from this proposed rule does not mean 
that the EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility 
analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed 
rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The EPA has determined that the proposed action does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to approve or 
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves or 
disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and 
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the action the EPA is proposing neither imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempts tribal law. 
Therefore, the requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive 
Order do not apply to this rule. Consistent with the EPA policy, the 
EPA nonetheless is offering consultation to Tribes regarding this 
rulemaking action. The EPA will respond to relevant comments in the 
final rulemaking action.

[[Page 11858]]

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health 
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or 
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This proposed action under section 110 and subchapter I, part D 
of the CAA will not in and of itself create any new regulations but 
simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion 
into the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to 
requirements of Section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those 
requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, the 
EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the 
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to 
approve or disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the 
SIP under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will not 
in and of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not 
provide the 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
 Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-4676 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P