[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24712-24719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10918]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558; FRL-9993-79-Region 6]


Air Plan Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan, 
Louisiana; Attainment Demonstration for the St. Bernard Parish 2010 SO2 
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that the State of Louisiana 
submitted to EPA on November 9, 2017 with supplements provided on 
February 8, 2018, August 24, 2018 and October 9, 2018. The purpose of 
this revision is to provide for attainment of the 1-hour sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 
in the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area. This plan 
(herein called a ``nonattainment plan'') includes Louisiana's 
attainment demonstration and other elements required under the Clean 
Air Act (CAA). In addition to an attainment demonstration, the 
nonattainment plan addresses the requirements for meeting reasonable 
further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, implementation 
of reasonably available control measures and reasonably available 
control technology (RACM/RACT), base-year and projection-year emission 
inventories, enforceable emissions limitations and control measures, 
and contingency measures. EPA concludes that Louisiana has 
appropriately demonstrated that the nonattainment plan provisions 
provide for attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS 
in the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area by the 
applicable attainment date and that the nonattainment plan meets the 
other applicable requirements under the CAA. This action is being taken 
in accordance with the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available at www.regulations.gov or at 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 6 Office, Air and 
Radiation Division, Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, TX. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact 
the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Imhoff, EPA Region 6 Office, 
Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 1445 Ross Avenue, (Mail code 
ARSI), Dallas, TX 75202-2750, (214) 665-7262, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Major Issues Raised by Commenters and Our Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary 
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an 
ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the 
annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations 
does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 
40 CFR part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On 
August 5, 2013, EPA designated a first set of 29 areas of the country 
as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the St. 
Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area within the State of 
Louisiana. See 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. 
These ``round one'' area designations were effective October 4, 2013. 
Section 191(a) of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs for areas 
designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS to EPA within 
18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., by no later 
than April 4, 2015 in this case. These SIPs are

[[Page 24713]]

required to demonstrate that their respective areas will attain the 
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from 
the effective date of designation, which is October 4, 2018, in 
accordance with CAA sections 191-192.
    Section 172(c) of the CAA lists the required components of a 
nonattainment plan submittal. The base year emissions inventory 
(section 172(c)(3)) is required to show a comprehensive, accurate, 
current inventory of all relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. 
The nonattainment plan must identify and quantify any expected 
emissions from the construction of new sources to account for emissions 
in the area that might affect reasonable further progress (RFP) toward 
attainment, or that might interfere with attainment and maintenance of 
the NAAQS, and it must provide for a nonattainment new source review 
(NNSR) program (section 172(c)(5)). The attainment demonstration must 
include a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions 
limitations and other control measures taken by the state will provide 
for RFP and expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (section 172(c)(2), 
(4), (6), and (7)). The nonattainment plan must include an analysis and 
provide for implementation of RACM, including RACT (section 172(c)(1)). 
Finally, the nonattainment plan must provide for contingency measures 
(section 172(c)(9)) to be implemented either in the case that RFP 
toward attainment is not made, or in the case that the area fails to 
attain the NAAQS by the attainment date.
    On April 23, 2014, EPA issued a guidance document entitled, 
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP 
Submissions'' (2014 guidance). This 2014 guidance provides 
recommendations for the development of SO2 nonattainment 
SIPs to satisfy CAA requirements (see, e.g., sections 172, 191, and 
192). An attainment demonstration must also meet the requirements of 40 
CFR part 51, subparts F and G, and 40 CFR part 51, appendix W (the 
Guideline on Air Quality Models; ``the Guideline''), and include 
inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on 
which the state has based its projected attainment.
    For a number of areas, including the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana 
SO2 Nonattainment Area, EPA published a document on March 
18, 2016, that pertinent states had failed to submit the required 
SO2 nonattainment plan by the submittal deadline. See 81 FR 
14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for 
the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding 
sanctions, and for EPA to promulgate a Federal implementation plan 
(FIP) under section 110(c) of the CAA. Louisiana submitted a 
nonattainment plan for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment 
Area on November 9, 2017 and supplemented it on February 8, 2018. On 
February 26, 2018, EPA determined that the State's SO2 
Nonattainment Area SIP revision for St. Bernard Parish was complete 
under 40 CFR part 51, app. V. As a result of EPA's February 26, 2018 
completeness determination, and pursuant to the Clean Air Act 179(a), 
sanctions that would have applied, no longer apply upon such a 
determination of completeness. Furthermore, upon issuance of this final 
approval of Louisiana's SIP submittal, EPA's FIP obligation will cease 
to apply.
    On April 19, 2018, we published a proposed rulemaking action to 
approve the 2010 SO2 Primary NAAQS Nonattainment Area SIP 
revision for St. Bernard Parish, submitted by the State of Louisiana on 
November 9, 2017 and first supplemented on February 8, 2018. See 83 FR 
17349. The April 19, 2018 action proposed approval of the following CAA 
SIP elements: The attainment demonstration for the SO2 NAAQS 
and enforceable emissions limits, which included an Agreed Order on 
Consent (AOC) dated February 2, 2018 for the Rain CII Carbon, LLC. 
(Rain) facility; the reasonable further progress (RFP) plan; the 
reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) demonstration; the emission inventories; and 
the contingency measures. We also proposed to find that the State had 
demonstrated that its current Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) 
program covered the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; therefore, no revision 
to the SIP was required for the NNSR element. Comments on the original 
proposal were required to be received by May 21, 2018. We received 
timely comments on the proposal.
    After the close of the public comment period to the April 19, 2018 
proposal, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 
submitted additional information to EPA on August 24, 2018. The 
additional information was submitted to us partly in response to a 
public comment received on the April 19, 2018 proposal from United 
States Senator from Louisiana, Bill Cassidy. Senator Cassidy's comment 
letter expressed concern that Rain would need to modify the February 
2018 AOC entered between Rain and LDEQ as Rain did not believe that it 
could meet the limits set forth in the AOC without an additional 
extension to the compliance dates. In response to the comment, and to 
determine feasible emission limits for operations during transitions 
from exhaust flow through the hot stack to flow through the heat 
recovery boiler (referred to as the cold stack), LDEQ granted an 
extension of the deadline of the February 2018 AOC on April 27, 2018. 
LDEQ then issued a revised AOC on August 2, 2018. An air quality 
modeling analysis was submitted to EPA on August 24, 2018 to 
specifically demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS with the revised 
limits in the August 2018 AOC. EPA reviewed the new modeling analysis 
and found some errors and omissions. In response, LDEQ submitted an 
updated modeling analysis on October 9, 2018. The AOC (signed by LDEQ 
and Rain August 2, 2018 and submitted to EPA on August 24, 2018), and 
the October 9, 2018 modeling files (also submitted by LDEQ) serve as a 
supplement to the November 9, 2017 and February 8, 2018 SIP submittals 
and are intended to address the public comment by incorporating certain 
additional AOC revisions (dated August 2, 2018) and supporting modeling 
into the 2010 SO2 Primary NAAQS Nonattainment Area SIP 
revision for St. Bernard Parish. All correspondence related to the 
supplemental August 24, 2018 and updated October 9, 2018 modeling 
analyses and the revised August 2, 2018 AOC are included in the public 
docket to this action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the related correspondence, please see the public docket 
at EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on February 8, 2019 
(84 FR 2801), EPA proposed to approve Louisiana's August 24, 2018 and 
October 9, 2018 updated modeling files as a supplement to the November 
9, 2017 SIP and February 8, 2018 submittals. The State's submittal and 
attainment demonstration included all the specific attainment elements 
mentioned above, including new SO2 emission limits and 
associated control technology efficiency requirements for the calcining 
plant, currently owned and operated by Rain CII Carbon. Rain's new 
SO2 emission limits were developed in accordance with EPA's 
2014 guidance as referenced above. Comments on EPA's supplemental 
proposed rulemaking were due on or before March 11, 2019. EPA received 
timely comments on the supplemental proposed approval for Louisiana's 
nonattainment area plan for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana 
Nonattainment Area. The comment

[[Page 24714]]

letters received in response to the supplemental February 8, 2019 
proposal and our earlier April 19, 2018 proposal are available in the 
docket for this final rulemaking action. EPA's summary of the more 
significant comments and EPA's responses are provided below. We respond 
to all comments received on both the original and supplemental 
proposals in a separate response to comment document available in the 
public docket for this action. For a comprehensive discussion of 
Louisiana's SIP submittal and EPA's analysis and rationale for approval 
of the State's submittal and attainment demonstration for this area, 
please refer to EPA's April 19, 2018 proposed approval and February 8, 
2019 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

II. Summary of Major Issues Raised by Commenters and Our Responses

    We received five written comment letters in response to our 
original and supplemental proposals for approval of the SIP revisions 
for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area relevant to 
both actions.\2\ We received comments from Sierra Club on both the 
April 19, 2018 proposal and the February 8, 2019 supplemental proposal; 
one comment letter from Congressman Cassidy on the April 19, 2018 
proposal, and comment letters from the Louisiana Chemical Association 
(LCA) on both the April 19, 2018 proposal and the February 8, 2019 
supplemental proposal. To review the complete set and text of the 
comments received, please refer to the publicly posted docket for this 
rulemaking as identified above. A document titled ``Response to 
Significant Comments on the Attainment Demonstration for the 2010 
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in St. 
Bernard Parish, Louisiana,'' also is included in the docket to this 
action and contains a complete list of comments and our detailed 
responses to all comments. Below, we provide a summary of some of the 
more significant comments received and a summary of EPA's responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We also received five anonymous public comments on the April 
19, 2018 proposed rulemaking action that were not relevant to the 
proposal. Please see the separate Responses to Significant Comments 
document for more detailed information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments in Support

    Comment: EPA received supportive comments from LCA on the April 19, 
2018 initial proposed approval and on the February 8, 2019 supplemental 
proposal. The commenter expressed support for LDEQ's approach to the 
SIP and EPA's proposed approval.

EPA Response

    EPA acknowledges the commenter's support.

Attainment Demonstration Comments

    Comment: We received comments from Sierra Club stating that the 
2016 monitored design value (DV) is just below the standard and that 
the attainment demonstration does not provide adequate assurance that 
air quality impacts will remain below the NAAQS.

EPA's Response

    We disagree that the attainment demonstration does not provide 
adequate assurance that air quality impacts will remain below the 
NAAQS. The SO2 demonstration SIP and the modeling, which is 
part of the SIP, indicate that the SO2 health-based standard 
will be attained in and around St. Bernard Parish, thus protecting the 
health of the inhabitants.
    The SO2 emissions in St. Bernard Parish have continued 
to decline, the total emission rate with updated permits declining 21% 
from 2017 to 2018--from 9117 tpy to 7170 tpy. This decline in emissions 
along with the emission limits specified in the revised Rain AOC will 
maintain the reduced measured SO2 concentrations at the 
monitors in St. Bernard Parish. Through the 4th quarter of 2018 (the 
most recent data available at this time), the SO2 
concentration data submitted to the AQS shows the 1st and 4th highest 
SO2 2018 concentrations at the Vista monitor were 66.9 and 
40.3 ppb respectively. The design value for 2018 certified by the State 
and subject to EPA review and concurrence is 59 ppb (154.6 [mu]g/m\3\), 
a significant decline from the 2016 design value of 73 ppb (191.2 
[mu]g/m\3\).

Modeling Comments

    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club) asserted that in reviewing a 
state plan, EPA can approve, disapprove, partially approve, partially 
disapprove and issue its own plan. EPA may not fill the gaps in a 
facially deficient SIP without first concluding that the plan is 
deficient in some respect. Here, EPA has performed its own modeling as 
part of the proposed SIP approval, and in doing so, has blurred the 
lines between appropriate review and action on the State submittal, and 
its obligation to take Federal action in the absence of a complete and 
lawful SIP.
    In addition, the commenter argues that neither the State's nor 
EPA's modeling provide adequate assurance that air quality impacts in 
St. Bernard Parish will remain below the NAAQS. EPA's modeling and the 
State's modeling appear to be fundamentally inconsistent as in Table 2 
of the proposed rule the agency indicates that the maximum 
SO2 impacts in St. Bernard Parish will be 190.8 [mu]g/m3 
while the State's own submittal concludes that the maximum impacts are 
191.4 [mu]g/m3.

EPA Response

    Nothing in the Clean Air Act forecloses EPA from conducting an 
analysis to assist in its review and evaluation of the State's SIP 
submittal. EPA's modeling was an integral part of our review and 
evaluation of the State's SIP submittal to verify that the NAAQS was 
fully protected at all relevant locations when accounting for all 
measures in the SIP. In this case, EPA's modeling confirmed the State's 
analysis; our modeling was provided to show our process and to assess 
our reasons for approving the SIP submittal. We also consider the 
comment moot based on the State's August 24, 2018 and October 9, 2018 
supplements to the SIP in which the State conducted its own additional 
modeling analysis to support the August 2, 2018 revised AOC.
    EPA contacted LDEQ to confirm why the maximum SO2 
concentration in LDEQ Secretary Brown's letter \3\ was slightly 
different (by 0.6 [mu]g/m\3\) from the value in the State's modeling 
files. LDEQ indicated that Secretary Brown's letter was based on 
preliminary modeling conducted in July 2018 to determine limits for the 
proposed AOC revision.\4\ After that modeling was conducted, additional 
updates were made to emissions for other St. Bernard Parish sources to 
make sure that the modeling inventory was accurate, and LDEQ remodeled 
and provided the October 9, 2018 supplement. The modeled impacts are 
below the level of the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS (196 [mu]g/
m\3\) and demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour SO2 primary 
NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See August 24, 2018 Letter from Chuck Carr Brown, Louisiana 
Department of Environmental Quality to Anne Idsal, (former) Regional 
Administrator submitting Supplemental Information and the August 2, 
2018 Executed Administrative Order on Consent available in the 
docket for this action. See docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558-
0032.
    \4\ See Email from Vennetta Hayes to Robert Imhoff on March 18, 
2019 included in docket to this action 
email_Hayes_to_Imhoff_03182019.pdf.
    \5\ For all related correspondence, please see the public docket 
at EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club) took issue with the State's 
exclusion from modeling of several major SO2 sources to the 
west because

[[Page 24715]]

they did not cause modeled gradients >3.5 [mu]g/m\3\ at any receptors 
in St. Bernard Parish and to characterize their contribution through 
the background concentrations. The commenter states that the use of 3.5 
[mu]g/m\3\ as a threshold is arbitrary to define significant 
contribution to the nonattainment area.

EPA Response

    EPA used several factors in evaluating and concurring with the 
State's decision to exclude the sources to the west from the modeling. 
In the State's judgment, the distance to these western sources (>25km 
to the Parish boundary), and the low maximum concentrations and the 
small impact gradients modeled for these sources in the western edge of 
St. Bernard Parish support the determination that their impacts not be 
included in the modeling or characterized in the modeling through the 
use of the background monitor value added to the modeling 
concentration.
    EPA's guidance \6\ is that distant sources (beyond a 10-20 km range 
from St. Bernard) need not be included in the modeling unless they are 
very large (on the order of 5,000 to 10,000 tpy or more for ranges 
beyond 20 km). In our 1-hour NO2 and SO2 modeling 
guidance, we specifically indicate that in many situations sources 
beyond 10 km would not need to be included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ June 29, 2010 memo from Steve Page, Guidance Concerning the 
Implementation of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS for the Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For St. Bernard there were limited options for the background 
monitor data because the existing monitors are directly impacted by 
nearby sources under certain wind directions. The option chosen was to 
use a monitor, Meraux, located in St. Bernard Parish, to best 
characterize background concentrations because of its proximity. Since 
the Meraux monitor was impacted by Valero refinery emissions which were 
directly included in the model, LDEQ excluded the data when winds were 
from directions that could transport Valero's emissions to this 
monitor. Valero is located to the west of the Meraux monitor. EPA 
acknowledges that the exclusion of wind directions from the Valero 
refinery to the Meraux background monitor also means that the 
background does not include all potential contributions from the remote 
(>20km) sources to the west. As discussed above, none of these sources 
would normally be included in the modeling directly due to their size 
and distance. However, because of the exclusion of certain wind 
directions coupled with relatively few point sources in the included 
wind directions that made up the Meraux monitor's background data, out 
of an abundance of caution, EPA requested that the State model the 
remote western sources to ensure that their exclusion was reasonable 
and would not impact the attainment demonstration if they were 
included.
    EPA's concern was whether the attainment demonstration modeling 
would show a projected value to the east of Rain very near the standard 
during Rain's normal operations. In that case, if the excluded sources 
to the west had the potential for an appreciable impact there would be 
a concern that the modeled DV could exceed the standard if the impact 
from those sources were included. In order to make sure that there was 
no appreciable potential impact from these sources to the west, LDEQ 
agreed to look at sources individually and also ensure that they were 
not omitting a cluster of sources that could have potential impacts 
much higher than 3.5 [mu]g/m\3\. LDEQ chose the value of 3.5 [mu]g/
m\3\, which is less than 50% of the 3 ppb (7.86 [mu]g/m\3\) Significant 
Impact Level that LDEQ has used in their permitting program for the 1-
Hour SO2 NAAQS. LDEQ's analysis was conservative as it 
assessed the potential of the sources to add 3.5 [mu]g/m3 to a receptor 
anywhere in St. Bernard Parish. For these sources to the west to play a 
role in the attainment demonstration, their impact would have to occur 
at a time and at a receptor that was very near the standard in St. 
Bernard Parish. The use of the <3.5 [mu]g/m\3\ was not as a 
significance threshold but as a conservative factor assessing the 
potential impacts anywhere in St. Bernard Parish from these sources. As 
long as the modeled maximum design value to the east of Rain in the 
absence of these sources to the west was more than 3.5 [mu]g/m3 below 
the NAAQS, then even if all the western sources were included in the 
modeling they could not have caused a violation of the NAAQS.
    The result of the modeling for the attainment demonstration was 
that the highest design values were projected to the west of Rain 
during periods with winds out of the east. The excluded western sources 
cannot add to this design value as they are downwind of the area of 
highest modeled concentration during this period. The highest values to 
the east of Rain under any scenario were projected to be more than 10 
[mu]g/m\3\ below the standard. Given that there were only two potential 
remote sources that were over 1,000 tpy to the west and they both had 
modeled impacts below 3.5 [mu]g/m\3\ and were not above the clustering 
threshold, we know that the sources could not endanger the attainment 
demonstration if they were included in the modeling. EPA noted that the 
low concentrations modeled for these sources comports with the guidance 
from appendix W 8.3.3 (b) i-iii. Further, these maximum modeled impacts 
occurred at the extreme western boundary of St. Bernard Parish and 
declined to the east where the maximum design value was located.
    The table below gives the distance from the excluded sources from 
the west to the modeled maximum design value to the east of Rain that 
occurs during one stage of Rain's operation and their 2014 NEI 
emissions. Based on the 2014 NEI emissions and distance to the maximum 
modeled design value east of Rain it was appropriate to not include 
these sources to the west in the model. LDEQ's analysis to consider 
these sources to the west for inclusion in the modeling was 
conservative and provided additional support to the conclusion that 
inclusion of these sources would not impact the attainment 
demonstration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Distance to
                                            modeled max   2014 Emissions
             Excluded source               east of rain        (tpy)
                                               (km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Chemical--Fortier...........              29            1154
Valero Refining--St. Charles............              41             212
Rain CII Carbon--Norco..................              42            2710
Motiva Refinery--Norco..................            42.5             226
Shell Chemical--Norco...................            42.8             177
Union Carbide--St Charles...............            46.5             413
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 24716]]

    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club) noted that as part of its 
attainment demonstration, the State modeled a transition from hot to 
cold stack operations from January 8 through January 9, 2017. The 
analysis found the highest modeled design value was for the cold stack 
alone with an emission rate of 510 lb/hr. The modeled DV of 192.4 [mu]/
m3 is within 2% of the standard. Yet the actual emissions for the cold 
stack shown in Figure 1 indicate that there are several hours with 
emissions above this limit of 510 lb/hr. The commenter states that 
neither LDEQ nor EPA explain how the 510 lb/hr limit will be enforced, 
which further gives rise to the representativeness of such a small 
sample size that was chosen to exemplify the transition. There is no 
comparison to other transition periods and no justification of why the 
single 33-hour period modeled from January 2017 is representative of a 
worst case and an assurance that 510 lb/hr is not exceeded more 
frequently. The fact that even this one period chosen for the analysis 
has hourly emissions exceeding the limit suggests that a historical 
examination of all transition periods and their associated hot and cold 
stack emissions is warranted.

EPA Response

    The purpose of the use of the transition was to use the stack 
parameters (e.g. stack temperature and flow velocity) for an actual 
transition to give realistic parameters (that is those that the plant 
can reliably maintain) to model the allowable emission rates throughout 
the transition period. As stated in the TSD, reduced SO2 
emission rates were derived from modeling and Rain must achieve them to 
attain the standard. The few hours with rates above the new emission 
rate limit are not pertinent to compliance since the 510 lb/hr limit 
was not in place at the time in January 2017. The August 2, 2018 AOC 
specifies both the stack parameters and the emission rate to be 
maintained during normal operation through the cold stack and at the 
different stages of transition and the model indicates that the 
standard will be met under all these conditions. While the use of data 
from an actual transition gives confidence that the plant can 
successfully meet the conditions of the AOC, examination of past 
additional transitions would not add value.
    Compliance with the 510 lb/hr limit on the cold stack is achieved 
through the automated control and monitored by the installed CEM system 
which measures both concentration and mass flow rate. The emission rate 
required is programmed into the system and it governs the operational 
parameters of the scrubber to achieve the desired rate. The emission 
rate attained is recorded directly and reported for compliance.
    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club) questioned the choice to use 
rural dispersion coefficients in an area they believe to be urban. The 
commenter asserts that modeling should have been run with both rural 
and urban coefficients.

EPA Response

    LDEQ stated that rural coefficients were appropriate since the 
surrounding rivers, lakes, and wetlands would tend to minimize the 
urban heat island effect. In particular, the wind direction for the 
highest design values is from the east which contains an extensive 
wetland. See our full Response to Significant Comments document for a 
detailed analysis of the land use around the facility and in the 
region. EPA agrees with LDEQ that this choice was appropriate for this 
analysis and running the model with urban coefficients was not 
appropriate or necessary.
    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club), argues that Louisiana's SIP 
revision, the AOC, or EPA's approval does not provide understandable 
conditions and emission limits for the Rain CII Carbon, LLC facility. 
The commenter argues that the AOC contains numerous overlapping, and in 
some cases, inconsistent standards that govern the same pollutant. 
Moreover, the AOC includes many alternatives for compliance, none of 
which involve actually measuring or monitoring the pollution emitted by 
the facility. Because the SIP fails to include any meaningful way for 
LDEQ or EPA to monitor compliance, the emission limits and compliance 
obligations must be revised so that the conditions are clear, specific, 
and unambiguous.

EPA Response

    We disagree with the comment. As to the first part of the comment 
over inconsistent standards for the same pollutant, the AOC provides 
clear requirements at all stages of operation of the plant to ensure 
attainment of the NAAQS. At every operational stage, the operational 
conditions (temperature, flow and emission rate) needed are unequivocal 
and distinct. As illustrated in Figure 5 from the supplemental TSD and 
repeated in the detailed Response to Comment document included in the 
docket to this action, the requirements do not overlap as stated by the 
commenter--each block is distinct (they do not overlap) and the 
required conditions are specific.
    As to the comment regarding alternatives for compliance, as stated 
above and illustrated in Figure 5 from the supplemental TSD, the 
requirements for compliance are specific and distinct for each 
operational phase. The cold stack requirements are directly measured 
and reported. Compliance with the hot stack requirements is monitored 
by measurements of temperature and flow rates and a verified emission 
rate equation. The equation is based on a mass balance of the sulfur 
contained in the input green coke and output calcined coke determined 
through composite samples taken throughout the operational day. It 
should be noted that the hours of operation of the hot stack either by 
stand-alone operation or during transitions are limited. The stand-
alone hours of operation are limited by the permit to less than 500 
hours per year. According to Rain's 2017 Title V Specific Requirements 
Report \7\ the plant operated the hot stack-alone 435 hours (5% of the 
time) and transition operations 394 hours (4.5% of the time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Title_V_Specific_Requirements_Report_2017.pdf included in 
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedural and Other Comments

    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club) stated that EPA's original 
proposal and supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking fail to meet 
the Clean Air Act's statutory deadline for issuing a FIP, and the 
agency must impose sanctions for failing to submit a lawful SIP. Under 
Section 192, these SIPs are required to demonstrate that their 
respective areas will attain the NAAQS no later than 5 years from the 
date of the nonattainment designation--here, no later than August 5, 
2018. However, Louisiana failed to timely submit a nonattainment SIP 
for St. Bernard Parish; on March 18, 2016, EPA published a final rule 
for failure to submit a nonattainment SIP. This started an 18-month 
sanction clock ending on September 18, 2017. EPA's February 26, 2018 
determination of completeness letter to LDEQ is not a substitute for a 
finding of the Administrator that the State has come into compliance, 
and therefore the agency must impose sanctions. Lastly, the State's 
supplemental modeling was not submitted until October 9, 2018--two 
months after the deadline.

EPA Response

    We disagree with the Commenter. With regard to the Commenter's 
statements on sanctions, we find the comments are outside the scope of 
the proposal and supplemental proposal

[[Page 24717]]

actions and not germane to our original or supplemental proposed action 
to approve the SIP, since the determination of completeness and 
correction of deficiency that stopped the above-referenced sanctions 
clock occurred before we proposed this SIP approval, and therefore we 
are not required to respond to the comment. Further, under EPA's rules 
implementing mandatory sanctions, it is clear that sanctions clocks 
started by a finding of failure to submit per 40 CFR 52.31(c)(1) are 
terminated by the finding that the state has corrected the deficiency 
via a letter from the Administrator to the Governor, under 40 CFR 
52.31(d)(5). Moreover, under Delegation 7-67, the authority to make 
this finding is delegated to Regional Administrators, who may re-
delegate this authority to Division Directors.\8\ In this case, the 
completeness finding under 40 CFR part 51, app. V, was made by the 
delegated Division Director and communicated to the State by a letter 
signed by EPA on February 26, 2018.\9\ Under the CAA, once such finding 
is made and a SIP submittal is deemed complete, the imposition of New 
Source Review and highway funding sanctions ceases to apply. With 
regard to the October modeling files, as stated previously, these 
served as an update to the November 9, 2017 and February 8, 2018 SIP 
submittals and were intended to address a specific public comment by 
incorporating certain additional AOC revisions (dated August 2, 2018) 
and supporting modeling into the 2010 SO2 Primary NAAQS 
Nonattainment Area SIP revision for St. Bernard Parish. Specifically, 
the October modeling files were submitted by LDEQ to correct some 
errors and omissions in the August 24, 2018 modeling. The October 2018 
modeling analysis, including the revised August 2, 2018 AOC emission 
limits for the Rain facility (emission limits effective August 2, 
2018), resulted in concentrations below the level of the 1-hour primary 
SO2 NAAQS and demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour 
SO2 primary NAAQS before the attainment deadline of October 
4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See docket for a copy of the 7-67 Delegation.
    \9\ See docket for a copy of this letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the commenter is incorrect with regards to the 
attainment date. As detailed in the background section above, the 
``round one'' area designations were effective October 4, 2013. SIPs 
are required to demonstrate that their respective areas will attain the 
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from 
the effective date of designation, which is October 4, 2018. With 
regard to a FIP obligation mentioned by the commenter, as we noted 
above, any duties EPA has to promulgate a FIP are outside the scope of 
this SIP approval action, and therefore we are not required to respond 
to the comment, however, such alleged duties will terminate upon 
issuance of this final rulemaking approval action, thus EPA's FIP 
obligation will cease to apply.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's finding of failure to 
submit triggered a requirement that the EPA promulgate a FIP within two 
years of the finding--i.e., by and March 18, 2018--unless, by that time 
(a) the state has made the necessary complete submittal and (b) EPA has 
approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. Since 
Louisiana missed the deadline for a complete submittal EPA must impose 
a nonattainment FIP for St. Bernard Parish.

EPA Response

    With regard to the Commenter's statements on the FIP, we find that 
any duties EPA has to promulgate a FIP are outside the scope of this 
SIP approval action, and therefore we are not required to respond to 
the comment. However, we note that in any case such alleged duties will 
terminate upon EPA's final approval of the SIP.

III. Final Action

    EPA has determined that Louisiana's SO2 nonattainment 
plan meets the applicable requirements of sections 110, 172, 191, and 
192 of the CAA. EPA is approving Louisiana's November 9, 2017 SIP 
submission, as supplemented by the State on February 8, 2018, August 
24, 2018 and October 9, 2018, for attaining the 2010 primary 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana 
Nonattainment Area and for meeting other nonattainment area planning 
requirements. This SO2 nonattainment plan includes 
Louisiana's attainment demonstration for the SO2 
nonattainment area. The nonattainment area plan also addresses 
requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM, enforceable emission limits and 
control measures, base-year and projection-year emission inventories, 
and contingency measures. Louisiana has also demonstrated it met the 
requirements regarding NNSR for SO2 and this NNSR program 
already is part of the SIP.
    EPA is approving into the Louisiana SIP the provisions of Rain 
Carbon CII's Administrative Order, issued August 2, 2018, that 
constitute the SO2 operating and emission limits and their 
associated monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements. EPA is approving these provisions as a source-specific 
SIP revision.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 
CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of revisions 
to the Louisiana source-specific requirements as described in the Final 
Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these 
documents generally available electronically through 
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office (please 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these 
materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been 
incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally 
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective 
date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be 
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP 
compilation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described

[[Page 24718]]

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 29, 2019. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: May 21, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. Section 52.970 is amended by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (d), adding an entry for ``Rain CII Carbon 
in St. Bernard Parish'' at the end of the table; and
0
b. In the second table in paragraph (e) titled ``EPA Approved Louisiana 
NonRegulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures'', adding the 
entry ``St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area Plan for the 
2010 Primary 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS'' at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.970   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                                   EPA-Approved Louisiana Source-Specific Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State approval/
          Name of source               Permit or order        effective               EPA approval date                           Comments
                                            number              date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Rain CII Carbon in St. Bernard      In the Matter of Rain        8/2/2018  5/29/2019 [Insert Federal Register      Amended Administrative order on
 Parish.                             CII Carbon LLC, St.                    citation].                              Consent dated 8/2/18. Pyroscrubber
                                     Bernard Parish.                                                                (EQT 004) and Waste Heat Boiler/
                                                                                                                    Baghouse (EQT 0003).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                                      EPA Approved Louisiana NonRegulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
       Name of SIP provision        Applicable geographic  submittal date/            EPA approved date                         Explanation
                                    or nonattainment area  effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana       St. Bernard Parish,    11/9/2017, 2/8/ 5/29/2019 [Insert Federal Register      Revised AOC dated 8/2/2018 submitted
 Nonattainment Area Plan for the     Louisiana SO2            2018, 8/24/   citation].                              8/24/2018. Revised modeling
 2010 Primary 1-Hour Sulfur          Nonattainment Area.      2018, 10/9/                                           submitted 10/9/2018.
 Dioxide NAAQS.                                                      2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 24719]]

[FR Doc. 2019-10918 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P