[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11839-11858]
[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_ADDRESS>     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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be

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<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-6762; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.''