[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36496-36501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13493]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464; FRL-9947-36-Region 6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to 
disapprove the portion of a Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which 
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) in other states. Disapproval will establish a 2-year deadline 
for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 
Louisiana to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport 
requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment 
and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other 
states, unless we approve a SIP that meets these requirements. 
Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for Louisiana.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2013-0464, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public

[[Page 36497]]

docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact Sherry Fuerst 214-665-
6454, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the 
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst 214-665-6454, 
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and 
secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 
ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three 
years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the 
applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). 
One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions 
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states 
due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements 
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how the first 
two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission 
from Louisiana for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These sub-elements require 
that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions 
to prohibit any emissions activity within the State from emitting air 
pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or 
``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable air quality standard 
in any other state.
    Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by 
chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. 
Emissions from electric utilities and industrial facilities, motor 
vehicles, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major 
sources of NOX and VOCs. Because ground-level ozone 
formation increases with temperature and sunlight, ozone levels are 
generally higher during the summer. Increased temperature also 
increases emissions of VOCs and can indirectly increase NOX 
emissions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 
Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706, 75711 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to ozone in several past 
regulatory actions. The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 1998, 
addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ The rule required 22 states and the 
District of Columbia to amend their SIPs and limit NOX 
emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment. The Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated in 2005, addressed both the 1997 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone standards under 
the good neighbor provision and required SIP revisions in 28 states and 
the District of Columbia to limit NOX and SO2 
emissions that contribute to nonattainment of those standards.\3\ CAIR 
was remanded to us by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 
F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176. In 
response to the remand of CAIR, we promulgated the Cross State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, to address CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern \4\ portion of the United States.\5\ 
With respect to ozone, CSAPR limited ozone season NOX 
emissions from electric generating units (EGUs). CSAPR addressed 
interstate transport as to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, but 
did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998).
    \3\ Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 
2005).
    \4\ When we discuss the eastern United States we mean the 
contiguous U.S. states excluding the 11 western states of Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, 
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
    \5\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 
8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Louisiana SIP Revision Addressing Interstate Transport of Air 
Pollution for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    On June 4, 2013, Louisiana provided us with a SIP submittal 
addressing CAA section 110(a)(2) ``infrastructure'' requirements for 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This action concerns the portion of the SIP 
submittal pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement 
to address the interstate transport of air pollution which will 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interference with 
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We proposed 
approval on other portions of the State's submittal relating to CAA 
section 110(a)(2) elements A, B, C, D(i)(II), D(ii), E, F, G, H, J, K, 
L, and M in a separate action signed on May 18, 2016.
    In its SIP submittal, Louisiana provided an ``Infrastructure 
Checklist'' for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and stated that the submittal 
substantiates that the State has adequate provisions to prohibit air 
pollutant emissions from within the State that significantly contribute 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another 
state. The checklist states that the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) submitted and we approved CAIR SIPs for 
both sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions, citing 72 FR 39741 
(July 20, 2007) and 72 FR 55064 (September 28, 2007).\6\ The checklist 
also notes that the controls installed to comply with CAIR are required 
by State law at Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.905 to be 
``used and diligently maintained.'' The checklist also provided 
narrative on the D.C. Circuit's 2012 decision in EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P. v. EPA which vacated CSAPR and the November 19, 2012, 
memorandum explaining the continued implementation of CAIR until a 
replacement rule could be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAIR found that sulfur dioxide and NOX emission 
limits were needed in Louisiana to address interstate transport of 
air pollution for the 1997 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS (70 
FR 25162, May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Louisiana's SIP submittal included a response to comments document 
which, among other things, summarized and responded to February 15, 
2013, comments from us on what was then the State's proposed SIP 
revision. In our comments on the proposed SIP revision, we noted that 
the information LDEQ

[[Page 36498]]

provided was based upon the old 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements 
and was therefore not sufficient to support a conclusion that the 
State's ozone emissions do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In its response, Louisiana 
disagreed, and accordingly chose not to revise its proposed SIP 
revision or provide any additional support for its conclusions. 
Instead, Louisiana contended in its response to comments that, ``the 
information based on the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements is 
relevant . . . through the CAIR NOX program in that it 
demonstrates the state's most recent efforts in maintaining the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS and to alleviate transport pollutants.'' A copy of the 
Louisiana SIP submittal, which includes our February 15, 2013, comment 
letter and the State's response to comments, may be accessed online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464.

III. The EPA's Evaluation

    As noted above, we informed Louisiana in our February 15, 2013, 
comment letter that the information provided in the SIP submittal would 
not itself be sufficient to conclude that the State has adequate 
provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the State 
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. However, the SIP 
submittal provided by Louisiana cited the State's approved CAIR SIP as 
support for its conclusion that the State satisfied its section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    First, CAIR was invalidated by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina 
v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (2008). The D.C. Circuit held, among other things, 
that the CAIR rule did not ``achieve[] something measureable toward the 
goal of prohibiting sources within the State from contributing to 
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in any other State.'' Id. 
at 908; see also, e.g., id. at 916 (EPA is not exercising its authority 
to make measureable progress towards the goals of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because the emission budgets were insufficiently 
related to the statutory mandate). In promulgating CSAPR, we corrected 
our prior approvals of states' CAIR SIPs, including Louisiana's 
approved CAIR SIPs, ``to rescind any statements that the SIP 
submissions either satisfy or relieve the state of the obligation to 
submit a SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
with respect to the 1997 ozone and/or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or 
any statements that EPA's approval of the SIP submissions either 
relieve EPA of the obligation to promulgate a FIP or remove EPA's 
authority to promulgate a FIP.'' 76 FR 48208, 48220. In reviewing 
CSAPR, the D.C. Circuit concluded that our correction of the prior CAIR 
approvals was appropriate, explaining ``when our decision in North 
Carolina deemed CAIR to be an invalid effort to implement the 
requirements of the good neighbor provision, that ruling meant that the 
initial approval of the CAIR SIPs was in error at the time it was 
done.'' EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 133 (D.C. 
Cir. 2015). Therefore, the D.C. Circuit has clearly concluded that 
states cannot rely on CAIR or previously approved CAIR SIPs to satisfy 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Even if Louisiana could rely on its CAIR SIPs, as we stated in our 
comment letter, the modeling and rulemaking conducted for both CAIR and 
CSAPR addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS, not the more stringent 2008 ozone 
NAAQS at issue in this action. EPA-approved rules implementing a prior, 
less stringent NAAQS are not adequate on their own to support a 
demonstration regarding the impacts of in-state emissions on air 
quality in other states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\7\ 
Additionally, although we approved the Louisiana abbreviated SIP 
implementing the CAIR NOX trading program, neither the 
states nor the EPA are currently implementing the ozone-season 
NOX trading program promulgated in CAIR, as it has been 
replaced by CSAPR. Moreover, although the State cites to a State 
regulation requiring that already-installed controls be ``used'' and 
``maintained,'' the State does not provide any explanation as to 
whether the sources are subject to specific emissions limitations or 
how the use of the controls will impact downwind air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Louisiana's citation to our July 20, 2007 action approving 
Louisiana's CAIR sulfur dioxide SIP revision is particularly 
inapplicable. 72 FR 39741. Sulfur dioxide is not a precursor or 
pollutant that contributes to ozone formation, and therefore, the 
implementation of any control requirements to address sulfur dioxide 
emissions is irrelevant to our analysis of the State's control 
requirements to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, it is no longer appropriate for Louisiana to rely on the 
D.C. Circuit decision vacating CSAPR as a basis for concluding that its 
SIP is adequate. Although the D.C. Circuit initially held that states 
did not have an obligation to make a SIP submission addressing section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until we first quantified a state's emission 
reduction obligation, see EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7, on April 29, 
2014, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded the case to 
the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). The Supreme Court explained 
that ``nothing in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide 
specific metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good 
neighbor obligations.'' Id. at 1601.
    Because the Louisiana submittal addressed by this action concerns 
states' interstate transport obligations for a different and more 
stringent standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), it is not sufficient to 
merely cite as evidence of compliance that these older programs have 
been implemented by the states or the EPA.\8\ The submittal lacks any 
technical analysis evaluating or demonstrating whether emissions in 
each state impact air quality in other states with respect to the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. As such, the submittal does not provide us with a basis to 
agree with the conclusion that the State already has adequate 
provisions in the SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, we propose to find that 
the Louisiana submittal is not adequate as it did not evaluate whether 
emissions from the State significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This is particularly true where, as here, Louisiana has 
failed to include any analysis of the downwind impacts of emissions 
originating within their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v. 
EPA, 608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Louisiana submittal contains no data or analysis to 
support their conclusion with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, we recently shared new technical 
information with states to facilitate efforts to address interstate 
transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Such technical 
information provides further support to our determination that 
Louisiana is projected to significantly contribute to nonattainment and 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We 
developed this technical information following the same approach used 
to evaluate interstate transport in CSAPR in order to support the 
recently proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 
Ozone NAAQS, (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015) (``CSAPR Update Rule'').
    In CSAPR, we used detailed air quality analyses to determine 
whether an eastern state's contribution to

[[Page 36499]]

downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a 
state's contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening 
threshold, the state was not considered ``linked'' to identified 
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was, therefore, 
not considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If 
a state exceeded that threshold, the state's emissions were further 
evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost 
considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might 
be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe it is 
appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to establish an 
air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of interstate 
transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
    In CSAPR, we proposed an air quality screening threshold of one 
percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one 
percent was appropriate. We evaluated the comments received and 
ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low 
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small, 
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors 
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a 
higher or lower threshold than one percent, we compiled the 
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of 
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. Our 
analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high 
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states, 
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger 
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent 
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting 
downwind receptors would be excluded. In addition, we determined that 
it was important to use a relatively lower one percent threshold 
because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone 
even at low levels. We also determined that a lower threshold such as 
0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the overall 
percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport 
captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. We 
determined that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission 
reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have 
a very small impact on those receptors--an indicator that emission 
controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality 
impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a 
threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.''
    In the final CSAPR, we determined that one percent was a reasonable 
choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple upwind 
states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low levels 
of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the previous use of 
a one percent threshold in CAIR. We used a single ``bright line'' air 
quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard, or 0.08 ppm. The projected contribution from each state was 
averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled ozone, and then 
compared to the one percent threshold. We concluded that this approach 
for setting and applying the air quality threshold for ozone was 
appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was consistent with 
the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, and because it 
took into account, and would be applicable to, any future ozone 
standards below 0.08 ppm. We have subsequently proposed to use the same 
threshold for purposes of evaluating interstate transport with respect 
to the 2008 ozone standard in the CSAPR Update Rule.
    In 2015 we (1) provided notice of data availability (NODA) for the 
updated ozone transport modeling for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for public 
review and comment (80 FR 46271, August 4, 2015), and (2) proposed the 
CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport with respect to the 
2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015). The proposed CSAPR 
Update Rule would further restrict ozone season NOX 
emissions from EGUs in 23 states, including Louisiana, beginning in the 
2017 ozone season.
    The modeling data released in this NODA was also used to support 
the proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The moderate area attainment date for 
the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate 
attainment by this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 
2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, we proposed that 2017 is an 
appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining 
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We used photochemical 
air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality 
monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone 
contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the 
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 
model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions 
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites 
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. We used nationwide state-
level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source 
Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis 
technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case 
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the 
2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for 
a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and 
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting 
technical support documents have been included in the docket for this 
SIP action.
    The modeling data released in the NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule 
are the most up-to-date information we have developed to inform our 
analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. As 
discussed in the CSAPR Update Rule proposal, the air quality modeling 
(1) identified locations in the U.S. where we expect nonattainment or 
maintenance problems in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors), and (2) quantified the 
projected contributions of emissions from upwind states to downwind 
ozone concentrations at those receptors in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720-30, 
December 3, 2015). Consistent with CSAPR, we proposed to use a 
threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per 
billion) to identify linkages between upwind states and downwind 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors. We proposed that eastern states 
with contributions to a specific receptor that meet or exceed this 
screening threshold are considered ``linked'' to that receptor and were 
analyzed further to quantify available emissions reductions necessary 
to address interstate transport to these receptors.
    Table 1 is a summary of the air quality modeling results for 
Louisiana from Tables V.D-1, V.D-2 and V.D-3 of the proposed CSAPR 
Update Rule.\9\ As the State's downwind contribution to proposed 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors exceeded the threshold, the 
analysis for the proposal concluded that Louisiana's emissions 
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS

[[Page 36500]]

in other states. Louisiana's emissions were linked (1) to eastern 
nonattainment receptors in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and the Dallas/Fort 
Worth and Houston areas of Texas, and (2) to eastern maintenance 
receptors in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 80 FR 75706, 75727-28.

                                Table 1--Louisiana's Largest Contribution to Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
                                                              [Proposed CSAPR Update Rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Largest downwind       Largest downwind    Downwind nonattainment   Downwind maintenance
          2008 Ozone NAAQS            Air quality threshold     contribution to        contribution to      receptors located in    receptors located in
                                                                 nonattainment           maintenance               states                  states
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion or   0.75 ppb..............  3.09 ppb.............  4.23 ppb.............  Wisconsin, Texas......  Texas
 ppb).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the most recent technical analysis available to us 
contradicts Louisiana's conclusion that the SIP contains adequate 
provisions to address interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone 
standard.
    We are thus proposing to disapprove the portion of the Louisiana 
SIP submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which 
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states--i.e., element 
(D)(i)(I). As explained above, the Louisiana submittal did not provide 
an adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the SIP contains 
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 
ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, our most recent modeling 
indicates that emissions from Louisiana are in fact projected to 
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.

IV. Proposed Action

    We propose to disapprove the portion of a June 4, 2013 Louisiana 
SIP submittal pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the 
interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 
ozone NAAQS in other states.
    Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), disapproval will establish a 2-
year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Louisiana to address 
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 
2008 ozone NAAQS unless Louisiana submits and we approve a SIP that 
meets these requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory 
sanctions clock for Louisiana pursuant to CAA section 179 because this 
action does not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas 
required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA 
section 110(k)(5).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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 and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information 
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the 
RFA. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not 
meeting the CAA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed action does not contain any unfunded mandate as 
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable 
duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified 
in Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian 
reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of 
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.

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

    We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that we have reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, 
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of 
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 because it merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not 
meeting the CAA.

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

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    We believe the human health or environmental risk addressed by this 
action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or 
indigenous populations. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP 
submission as not meeting the CAA.

[[Page 36501]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 26, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-13493 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P