[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68322-68335]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24036]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0465; FRL-9952-82-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals from Louisiana
which address the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) sections
110(a)(1) and (2) regarding the infrastructure requirements for the
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 2008 Lead (Pb), 2008
Ozone (O3), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and 2012 PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements
are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's
air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities as defined by the CAA. These infrastructure SIP (i-
SIP) submittals address how the existing SIP provides for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 3, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0465. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our June
3, 2016 proposal (81 FR 35674). In that rulemaking action, we proposed
to approve portions of Louisiana's SIP submittals pertaining to
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 O3, 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. CAA Section
110(a)(1) requires states to submit a revised i-SIP within three years
after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. The submission must
provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of the
NAAQS. We received substantive comments from the Sierra Club during the
comment period on our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). A synopsis
of the comments and our responses are provided below.

II. Response to Comments

A. Background Comments

1. The Plain Language of the CAA
    Comment 1: Sierra Club states that the plain language of section
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, legislative history of the CAA, case law, EPA
regulations, and legislative and regulatory interpretations made
previously by EPA in rulemakings require the inclusion of enforceable
emission limits in an i-SIP to prevent NAAQS exceedances in areas not
designated nonattainment. Sierra Club asserts that EPA must disapprove
Louisiana's proposed i-SIP because it is in violation of CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) in that the i-SIP fails to include enforceable emission
limitations necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. The Commenter also states that the Louisiana i-SIP revision
fails to comport with CAA requirements for SIPs to establish
enforceable emission limits that are adequate to prohibit NAAQS
exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment.
    The Commenter also states that, on its face, the CAA requires i-
SIPs ``to be adequate to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS.'' In
support, the Commenter quotes the language in section 110(a)(1) which
requires states to adopt a plan for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS and the language in section 110(a)(2)(A) which
the Commenter interprets to require i-SIPs to include enforceable
emissions limitations that are sufficient to ensure maintenance of the
NAAQS. Sierra Club notes the CAA definition of emission limit and reads
these provisions together to require ``enforceable emission limits on
source emissions sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.''
    Response 1: EPA disagrees that section 110 is clear ``on its face''
and must be read in the manner suggested by Sierra Club in the context
of i-SIP submissions. As we have previously explained in response to
Sierra Club's similar comments in our previous actions on Virginia's
2008 ozone NAAQS i-SIP (see, 79 FR 17043, 17047 March 27, 2014),
Virginia's 2010 SO2 NAAQS i-SIP (see, 80 FR 11557 March 4,
2015), West Virginia's 2010 SO2 i-SIP (see, 79 FR 62022
October 16, 2014), Pennsylvania's 2008 Ozone and 2010 SO2
NAAQS i-SIP (see, 80 FR 46494 August 5, 2015), and New Hampshire's
SO2 NAAQS i-SIP (see, 81 FR 44542 July 8, 2016), CAA Section
110 is only one provision that is part of the multi-faceted structure
governing implementation of the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended
in 1990, and it must be read in the context of not only that structure,
but also of the historical evolution of that structure.
    Infrastructure SIPs are general planning SIPs, consistent with the
CAA as understood in light of its history and structure. When Congress
enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not include provisions requiring states
and the EPA to label areas as attainment or nonattainment. Rather,
states were required to include all areas of the state in ``air quality
control regions'' (AQCRs) and section 110 set forth the core
substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that time, Congress
anticipated that states would be able to address air pollution quickly
by complying with the very general planning provisions in section 110
and bring all areas into compliance with a new NAAQS within five years.
Moreover, at that time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the
section 110 plan provide for ``attainment'' of the NAAQS and section
110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include ``emission
limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such
limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure
attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].''
    In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not
sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time,
Congress for the first time added provisions requiring that states and
EPA identify whether areas of a state were violating the NAAQS (i.e.,
were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment/
unclassifiable) and established specific planning requirements in
section 172 for areas not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still
had air quality not meeting the NAAQS and Congress again amended the
CAA and added yet another layer of more prescriptive planning
requirements for each of the NAAQS. At that same time, Congress
modified section 110 to remove references to the section 110 SIP
providing for attainment, including removing pre-existing section
110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and renumbering subparagraph (B) as
section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, Congress replaced the clause ``as
may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS]''
with ``as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements of this chapter.'' Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved
in the more than 40 years since it was originally enacted. While at one
time section 110 of the CAA did provide the only detailed SIP planning
provisions for states and specified that such plans must provide for
attainment of the NAAQS, under the structure of the current CAA,
section 110 is only the initial stepping-stone in the planning process
for a specific NAAQS. More detailed, later-enacted provisions govern
the substantive planning process, including planning for attainment of
the NAAQS. CAA section 110 is only one provision that is part of the
multi-faceted structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program
under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be read in the context
of that structure and the historical evolution of that structure. In
light of the revisions to section 110 since 1970 and the later-
promulgated and more specific planning requirements of the CAA, the
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide
for ``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' means that the
state must demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and
enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and the legal
authority for an enforcement program. It is Part D of title I of the
CAA that contains numerous requirements for the NAAQS attainment
planning process, including the requirement for enforceable emissions
limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques, as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to provide for the attainment of the NAAQS. After a
nonattainment designation is made, the Administrator establishes a plan
submission schedule with which the state must comply. The schedule may
include submission dates up to three

years after the nonattainment designation has been made. The state
must, within the schedule provided by the Administrator, submit a plan
that meets Part D's requirements. The general requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(1) and the listing of elements in CAA section 110(a)(2)
require review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP
against all requirements in the CAA and the EPA regulations merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS.
The requirement for emission limitations in section 110 means that the
state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at
issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit
to meet the requirements in section 110. Finally, as EPA has stated in
the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance \1\ which specifically provides
guidance to states in addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, ``[t]he
conceptual purpose of an i-SIP submission is to assure that the air
agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new
or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains
the necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to
update the SIP, or both.'' Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 1-2.\2\
Infrastructure SIP submissions are not required to include enforceable
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance with the NAAQS, as
suggested by the Commenter. Louisiana appropriately demonstrated that
it has the ``structural requirements'' to implement the NAAQS for the
pollutants addressed in this rule in its infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \2\ Thus, EPA disagrees with Sierra Club's general assertion
that the main objective of infrastructure SIPs is to ensure all
areas of the country meet the NAAQS, as the infrastructure SIP
process is the opportunity to review the structural requirements of
a state's air program. EPA, however, does agree with Sierra Club
that the NAAQS are the foundation upon which emission limitations
are set, as explained in responses to subsequent comments, these
emission limitations are generally set in the attainment planning
process envisioned by part D of title I of the CAA, including, but
not limited to, CAA sections 172 and 191-192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Legislative History of the CAA
    Comment 2: Sierra Club cites two excerpts from the legislative
history of the 1970 CAA claiming they support an interpretation that
SIP revisions under CAA Section 110 must include emissions limitations
sufficient to show maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of Louisiana.
Sierra Club also contends that the legislative history of the CAA
supports the interpretation that i-SIPs under section 110(a)(2) must
include enforceable emission limitations, citing the Senate Committee
Report and the subsequent Senate Conference Report accompanying the
1970 CAA.
    Response 2: As noted above, the CAA, as enacted in 1970, including
its legislative history, cannot be read in isolation from the later
amendments that refined that structure and deleted relevant language
from CAA Section 110 concerning demonstrating attainment. See also, 79
FR at 17043, 80 FR 11557, 79 FR 62022, 80 FR 46494 (responding to
comments on various other i-SIPs). In any event, the two excerpts of
legislative history the Sierra Club cites merely provide that states
should include enforceable emission limits in their SIPs and they do
not mention or otherwise address whether states are required to impose
additional emission limitations or control measures as part of the i-
SIP submission, as opposed to requirements for other types of SIP
submissions such as attainment plans required under section
110(a)(2)(I). The proposed rule and the Technical Support Document
(TSD) for it explain why the Louisiana SIP includes sufficient
enforceable emissions limitations for the purposes of the
infrastructure SIP submission.
3. Case Law
    Comment 3: Sierra Club also cites to several cases which have
interpreted various parts of the CAA. Sierra Club claims these cases
support their contention that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires i-SIPs
submissions to contain enforceable emissions limits in order to prevent
exceedances of the NAAQS in areas not designated nonattainment. Sierra
Club first cites to language in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975),
addressing the requirement for ``emission limitations'' and stating
that emission limitations ``are specific rules to which operators of
pollution sources are subject, and which, if enforced, should result in
ambient air which meet the national standards.'' Sierra Club also cites
to Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d
Cir. 1991) for the proposition that the CAA directs EPA to withhold
approval of a SIP where it does not ensure maintenance of the NAAQS,
and to Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir.
1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA of 1970. The
commenter states that the 1990 Amendments do not alter how courts have
interpreted the requirements of section 110, quoting Alaska Dept. of
Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in turn
quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also stated that ``SIPs must
include certain measures Congress specified'' to ensure attainment of
the NAAQS. The Commenter also quotes several additional opinions in
this vein. Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th
Cir. 2012) (``The Clean Air Act directs states to develop
implementation plans--SIPs--that `assure' attainment and maintenance of
[NAAQS] through enforceable emissions limitations''); Hall v. EPA 273
F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (``Each State must submit a [SIP] that
specif[ies] the manner in which [NAAQS] will be achieved and maintained
within each air quality control region in the State''); Conn. Fund for
Env't, Inc. v. EPA, 696 F.2d 169, 172 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (CAA requires
SIPs to contain ``measures necessary to ensure attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS''). Finally, Sierra Club cites Mich. Dept. of
Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) for the
proposition that EPA may not approve a SIP revision that does not
demonstrate how the rules would not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response 3: None of the cases Sierra Club cites support its
contention that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires i-SIP submissions to
include detailed plans providing for attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do they shed light on the present
day requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). With the exception of Train,
none of the cases the Commenter cites specifically concerned the
interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of
the pre-1990 Act). Rather, the courts reference section 110(a)(2)(A)
(or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the background
sections of decisions in the context of a challenge to an EPA action on
revisions to a SIP that were required and approved as meeting other
provisions of the CAA or in the context of an enforcement action.
    In Train, the Court was addressing a state revision to an
attainment plan submission made pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the
sole statutory provision at that time addressing such submissions. The
issue in that case concerned whether changes to requirements that would
occur before attainment was required were variances that should be
addressed pursuant to the provision governing SIP revisions or were
``postponements'' that must be addressed under section 110(f) of the
CAA of 1970, which contained prescriptive criteria. The Court

concluded that EPA reasonably interpreted section 110(f) not to
restrict a state's choice of the mix of control measures needed to
attain the NAAQS, so long as the state met other applicable
requirements of the CAA, and that revisions to SIPs that would not
impact attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment date were not subject
to the limits of section 110(f). Thus the issue was not whether the
specific SIP at issue needs to provide for attainment or whether
emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP; rather the issue was
which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to revise the
emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also decided based on
the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was whether EPA properly
rejected a revision to an approved SIP where the inventories relied on
by the state for the updated submission had gaps. The Court quoted
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of EPA's
disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that provision.
This decision did not address the question at issue in this action,
i.e., what a state must include in an i-SIP submission for the purposes
of section 110(a)(2)(A).Yet, even if the Court had interpreted that
provision, EPA notes that it was modified by Congress in 1990; thus,
this decision has little bearing on the present issue here.
    At issue in Mision Industrial, was the definition of ``emissions
limitation'', not whether section 110 requires the State to demonstrate
how all areas of the State will attain and maintain the NAAQS as part
of the State's i-SIP submission. The language from the opinion the
Commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely describes section
110(a)(2)(A). Sierra Club does not raise any concerns about whether the
measures relied on by the State in the i-SIP submission are ``emissions
limitations'' within the definition provided by the Act and the
decision in this case has no bearing here.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While Sierra Club does contend that the State shouldn't be
allowed to rely on emission reductions that were developed for the
prior SO2 standards (which we address herein), it does
not claim that any of the measures are not ``emissions limitations''
within the definition of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, the Court was
reviewing a federal implementation plan (FIP) that EPA promulgated
after a long history of the State failing to submit an adequate SIP in
response to EPA's finding under section 110(k)(5) that the previously
approved SIP was substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the
NAAQS, which triggered the State's duty to submit a new SIP detailing
how it would remedy that deficiency and the measures that would be put
in place to attain the NAAQS. The Court cited generally to sections 107
and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs should assure
attainment and maintenance of NAAQS through emission limitations, but
this language was not part of the Court's holding in the case. The
holding in Mont. Sulphur focused on whether EPA's finding of SIP
inadequacy, disapproval of the State's responsive attainment
demonstration, and adoption of a remedial FIP were lawful.
    The Commenter suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,
540 U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990 CAA Amendments
do not alter how courts interpret section 110. This claim is
inaccurate. Rather, the Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as
noted previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that provision
and the court makes no mention of the changed language. Furthermore,
Sierra Club also quotes the Court's statement that ``SIPs must include
certain measures Congress specified,'' but that statement specifically
referenced the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires an
enforcement program and a program for the regulation of the
modification and construction of any stationary sources. Notably, at
issue in that case was the State's ``new source'' permitting program,
not what is required for an i-SIP submission for purposes of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A).
    Two of the cases Sierra Club cites, Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality,
230 F.3d 181, 183, 185 and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, 1153 interpret CAA
section 110(l), the provision governing ``revisions'' to plans, and not
the initial plan submission requirement under section 110(a)(2) for a
new or revised NAAQS, such as the i-SIP submissions at issue in this
instance. Neither case, however, addressed the question at issue here,
i.e., what states are required to address for purposes of an
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A).
    Finally, in Conn. Fund for Env't, Inc. v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit was
reviewing EPA action on a control measure SIP provision which adjusted
the percent of sulfur permissible in fuel oil. 696 F.2d 169 (D.C. Cir.
1982). The D.C. Circuit focused on whether EPA needed to evaluate
effects of the SIP revision on one pollutant or effects of changes on
all possible pollutants; therefore, the D.C. Circuit did not address
required measures for i-SIPs and nothing in the opinion addressed
whether i-SIP submissions need to contain measures to ensure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    EPA's position is that none of these court cases addressed required
measures for i-SIP submission and therefore nothing in the opinions
addressed whether the state's i-SIP submission must contain measures to
ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR 51.112(a)
    Comment 4: Sierra Club cites to 40 CFR 51.112(a), which provides
that ``[e]ach plan must demonstrate that the measures, rules and
regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely
attainment and maintenance of the [NAAQS].'' Sierra Club asserts that
this regulation requires all SIPs to include emissions limits necessary
to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. Sierra Club states that ``[a]lthough
these regulations were developed before the Clean Air Act separated i-
SIPs from nonattainment SIPs--a process that began with the 1977
amendments and was completed by the 1990 amendments--the regulations
apply to [i]-SIPs.'' Sierra Club relies on a statement in the preamble
to the 1986 action restructuring and consolidating provisions in part
51, in which EPA stated that ``[i]t is beyond the scope of th[is]
rulemaking to address the provisions of Part D of the Act . . .'' 51 FR
40656, 40656 (November 7, 1986).
    Response 4: Sierra Club's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its
argument that i-SIPs must contain emission limits ``adequate to
prohibit NAAQS exceedances'' and adequate or sufficient to ensure the
maintenance of the NAAQS is incorrect. As an initial matter, EPA notes
and the Sierra Club recognizes this regulatory provision was initially
promulgated and ``restructured and consolidated'' prior to the CAA
Amendments of 1990, in which Congress removed all references to
``attainment'' in section 110(a)(2)(A). And, it is clear that 40 CFR
51.112 directly applies to state SIP submissions that are specifically
required to attain the NAAQS in nonattainment areas. These regulatory
requirements apply when states are developing ``control strategy'' SIPs
under other provisions of the CAA, such as attainment plans required
for various NAAQS in Part D and maintenance plans required in section
175A. Sierra Club's suggestion that these provisions must apply to
section 110 i-SIPs because in the preamble to EPA's action
``restructuring

and consolidating'' provisions in part 51, we stated that the new
attainment demonstration provisions in the 1977 Amendments to the CAA
were ``beyond the scope'' of the rulemaking.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ It is important to note, however, that EPA's action in 1986
was not to establish new substantive planning requirements, but
rather was meant merely to consolidate and restructure provisions
that had previously been promulgated. EPA noted that it had already
issued guidance addressing the new ``Part D'' nonattainment planning
obligations. Also, as to maintenance regulations, EPA expressly
stated that it was not making any revisions other than to re-number
those provisions. 51 FR at 40657.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements
interpreting the provisions of new ``Part D'' of the CAA, it is clear
that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended
to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated
that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy:
SOX and PM (portion)''), 51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC,
OX and NO2 (portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration
of attainment: Pb (portion)''), and 51.82 (``Air quality data
(portion)''). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112
contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy
SIPs, and the i-SIP is not such a plan.
5. EPA Interpretations in Other Rulemakings
    Comment 5: Sierra Club also references two prior EPA rulemaking
actions where EPA disapproved or proposed to disapprove SIPs and
claimed these were actions in which EPA relied on section 110(a)(2)(A)
and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject i-SIPs. The Sierra Club first points to a
2006 partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to
Missouri's existing plan addressing the SO2 NAAQS. In that
action, EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as the basis disapproving a
revision to the state plan on the basis that the State failed to
demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to ensure maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS after revision of an emission limit. EPA also
cited to 40 CFR 51.112, stating it requires that a plan demonstrates
the rules in a SIP are adequate to attain the NAAQS. Second, Sierra
Club cites a 2013 disapproval of a revision to the SO2 SIP
for Indiana, where the revision removed an emission limit that applied
to a specific emissions source at a facility in the State. See, 78 FR
17157, 17158 (March 20, 2013) (proposed rule on Indiana SO2
SIP) and 78 FR 78720, 78721 (December 27, 2013) (final rule on Indiana
SO2 SIP). In its proposed disapproval, EPA relied on 40 CFR
51.112(a) in proposing to reject the revision, stating that the State
had not demonstrated that the emission limit was ``redundant,
unnecessary, or that its removal would not result in or allow an
increase in actual SO2 emissions.'' EPA further stated in
that proposed disapproval that the State had not demonstrated that
removal of the limit would not ``affect the validity of the emission
rates used in the existing attainment demonstration.''
    Response 5: EPA does not agree that the two prior actions
referenced by Sierra Club establish how EPA reviews i-SIP submissions.
It is clear from both the final Missouri rule and the proposed and
final Indiana rule that EPA was not reviewing initial i-SIP submissions
under section 110 of the CAA, but rather reviewing revisions that would
make an already approved SIP designed to demonstrate attainment of the
NAAQS less stringent. EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of
revisions to restrictions on emissions of sulfur compounds for the
Missouri SIP in 71 FR 12623 addressed a control strategy SIP
submission, and not an i-SIP submission. The Indiana action provides
even less support for the Sierra Club's position since the EPA was
reviewing a completely different requirement than that listed in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A). Rather, in that case, the State had an approved
SO2 attainment plan which already included a specific
emissions limitation for sources and was seeking to remove provisions
from the SIP that it relied on as part of the modeled attainment
demonstration. See, 78 FR 78720. EPA proposed that the State had failed
to demonstrate under section 110(l) of the CAA that the SIP revision
would not result in increased SO2 emissions and thus would
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. See, 78 FR 17157. Nothing in
that proposed or final rulemaking addresses the necessary content of
the initial i-SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS. Rather, it is
simply applying the clear statutory requirement that a state must
demonstrate why a revision to an approved attainment plan will not
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS.
    As discussed in detail in the TSD and proposed rule, EPA finds the
Louisiana SIP meets the appropriate and relevant structural
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, that it will aid in
attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS, and that the State demonstrated
that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce the NAAQS.
Comments on Louisiana SIP Emission Limits
    Comment 6: Citing section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Sierra Club
contends that EPA may not approve Louisiana's proposed i-SIP because it
does not include enforceable NAAQS, including a 1-hour SO2
emission limit, for sources that they claim are currently allowed to
cause ``NAAQS exceedances.'' Sierra Club also asserts the proposed i-
SIP fails to include other required measures to ensure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in areas not designated nonattainment as
Sierra Club claims is required by section 110(a)(2)(A). Sierra Club
argues that an i-SIP must ensure, through state-wide regulations or
source specific requirements, proper mass limitations and short term
averaging on specific large sources of pollutants such as power plants.
Sierra Club states that emission limits are especially important for
meeting the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS because SO2 impacts
are strongly source-oriented. Sierra Club states coal-fired electric
generating units (EGUs) are large contributors to SO2
emissions, but contends Louisiana did not demonstrate that emissions
allowed by the proposed i-SIP from such large sources of SO2
will ensure compliance with the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. They
stated that the proposed i-SIP would allow major sources to continue
operating with present emission limits. Sierra Club then refers to air
dispersion modeling it conducted for two coal-fired EGUs in Louisiana,
Cleco Power's Dolet Hills Power Station and Entergy's Big Cajun II
Generating Station. Further, Sierra Club claims that the results of the
air dispersion modeling it conducted employing EPA's AERMOD program for
modeling used the plants' allowable and maximum emissions and showed
the plants could cause exceedances of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
with either allowable or maximum emissions.\5\ Based on the modeling,
Sierra Club claims the Louisiana's SO2 i-SIP submittal
authorizes the two EGUs to cause exceedances of the NAAQS with
allowable and maximum emission rates and therefore the i-SIP fails to
include adequate enforceable emission limitations or other required
measures for sources of SO2 sufficient to ensure attainment
and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Sierra Club therefore
asserts EPA must disapprove Louisiana's proposed SIP revision. In
addition, Sierra Club asserts ``EPA must impose additional emission
limits on the plants that ensure attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS at all times.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Sierra Club asserts its modeling followed protocols pursuant
to 40 CFR part 50, Appendix W and EPA's 2011 Guideline on
implementing the one-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 6: As explained in previous responses above, section
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to submit i-SIPs that reflect
the first step in their planning for attainment and maintenance of a
new or revised NAAQS. These i-SIP revisions should contain a
demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to
develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS and show
that the SIP has enforceable control measures. In light of the
structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding i-SIPs is
that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has
adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general
throughout the state. These i-SIP submissions are not detailed
attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.
States may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant
at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to
submit.
    As stated in response to a previous comment, EPA asserts that
section 110 of the CAA is only one provision that is part of the multi-
faceted structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program under
the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be read in the context of not
only that structure, but also of the historical evolution of that
structure. In light of the revisions to CAA section 110 since 1970 and
the later-promulgated and more specific planning requirements of the
CAA, section 110(a)(2)(A) does not require that an i-SIP contain
enforceable emissions limits that will aid in attaining and/or
maintaining the NAAQS. The i-SIPs required by CAA section 110(a) are
not the appropriate place to require emission limits demonstrating
future attainment with a NAAQS. Part D of title I of the CAA contains
numerous requirements for the NAAQS attainment planning process. These
requirements include enforceable emissions limitations, and such other
control measures, means or techniques, as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to
provide for the attainment of the NAAQS. States have up to three years
from the date of a nonattainment designation to submit a SIP meeting
Part D's requirements. Louisiana's submittal was submitted to comply
with the requirements outlined in CAA section 110(a), not Part D. As
discussed above, the state may rely on measures already in place to
address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the
state may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA stated in the
Infrastructure SIP Guidance, which specifically provides guidance to
states in addressing the NAAQS, ``[t]he conceptual purpose of an i-SIP
submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP contains the
necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether
by establishing that the SIP already contains the necessary provisions,
by making a substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both.'' 2013
Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 2.
    On April 12, 2012, EPA explained its expectations regarding the
2010 SO2 NAAQS via letters to each of the states. EPA
communicated in the April 2012 letters that all states were expected to
submit SIPs meeting the ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements under
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA by June 2013. At the time, EPA was
undertaking a stakeholder outreach process to continue to develop
possible approaches for determining attainment status under the
SO2 NAAQS and implementing this NAAQS. EPA was abundantly
clear in the April 2012 letters that EPA did not expect states to
submit substantive attainment demonstrations or modeling demonstrations
showing attainment for areas not designated nonattainment in i-SIP
submission due in June 2013. Although EPA had previously suggested in
its 2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble and in prior draft
implementation guidance in 2011 that states should, in the unique
SO2 context, use the section 110(a) SIP process as the
vehicle for demonstrating attainment of the NAAQS, this approach was
never adopted as a binding requirement and was subsequently discarded
in the April 2012 letters to states. The April 2012 letters recommended
states focus i-SIPs due in June 2013, such as Louisiana's
SO2 i-SIP submission, on traditional ``infrastructure
elements'' in section 110(a)(1) and (2), rather than on modeling
demonstrations for future attainment for areas not designated as
nonattainment. In February of 2016, EPA issued non-binding guidance for
states to use in conducting, if they choose, additional analysis to
support designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. SO2
NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document, EPA Office
of Air and Radiation and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
February 2016, available at https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/technical-assistance-documents-implementing-2010-sulfur-dioxide-standard.
    Therefore, EPA asserts that SIP revisions for SO2
nonattainment areas including measures and modeling demonstrating
attainment are due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 5
under part D of Title I of CAA. Those submissions are due no later than
18 months after an area is designed nonattainment for SO2,
under CAA section 191(a). Thus, the CAA directs states to submit these
SIP requirements for nonattainment areas on a separate schedule from
the ``structural requirements'' of 110(a)(2) which are due within three
years of adoption or revision of a NAAQS. The i-SIP submission
requirement does not move up the date for any required submission of a
CAA Title I part D plan for areas designated nonattainment for the new
NAAQS. Thus, elements relating to demonstrating attainment for areas
not attaining the NAAQS are not required for i-SIP submissions, and the
CAA does not provide explicit requirements for demonstrating attainment
for areas that have not yet been designated regarding attainment with a
particular NAAQS.
    The proper inquiry at this juncture is whether Louisiana has met
the basic structural SIP requirements applicable at the point in time
that the SIP was submitted. Emissions limitations and other control
measures needed to attain the NAAQS in areas designated nonattainment
for that NAAQS are due on a different schedule from the section 110
infrastructure elements. A state, like Louisiana, may choose to
reference pre-existing SIP emission limits approved by EPA as meeting
CAA Title I of part D plans for previous NAAQS in an i-SIP submission
for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
    The requirements for emission reduction measures for an area
designated nonattainment for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS are
in sections 172 and 191-192 of the CAA, and therefore, the appropriate
avenue for implementing requirements for necessary emission limitations
for demonstrating attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS is
through the attainment planning process contemplated by those sections
of the CAA. LDEQ is required to bring St. Bernard Parish into
compliance with the 1-hour standard as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than, October 4, 2018. The appropriate time for examining
necessity of emission limits on specific sources is within the
attainment planning process. When the St. Bernard Parish SO2
attainment demonstration is submitted by the State, EPA will take
action on it in a separate rulemaking. In separate future actions, EPA
intends to address the designations for all other areas for which EPA
has yet to issue designations. See, e.g., 79 FR 27446

(May 13, 2014) (proposing process and timetables by which state air
agencies would characterize air quality around SO2 sources
through ambient monitoring and/or air quality modeling techniques and
submit such data to the EPA). As previously stated, EPA's position is
that the submitted i-SIPs should be evaluated on whether Louisiana has
met the basic structural SIP requirements applicable at the point in
time that the SIP was submitted. Utilizing the i-SIP process to require
the substantive elements contained elsewhere in the CAA, as detailed
above, would be disruptive and premature absent exceptional
circumstances and would interfere with a state's planning process. See,
In the Matter of EME Homer City Generation LP and First Energy
Generation Corp., Order on Petitions Numbers III-2012-06, III-2012-07,
and III-2013-01 (July 30, 2014) (hereafter, Homer City/Mansfield Order)
at 10-19 (finding Pennsylvania SIP did not require imposition of
SO2 emission limits on sources independent of the part D
nonattainment planning process contemplated by the CAA). The history of
the CAA, and intent of Congress for the CAA as described above,
demonstrate clearly that it is within the section 172 and general part
D nonattainment planning process that Louisiana must include additional
SO2 emission limits on sources in order to demonstrate
future attainment, where needed, for any areas in Louisiana or other
states that may be designated nonattainment now or in the future, in
order to attain the 2010 1-hour SO2 or other NAAQS.
    Sierra Club's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its argument
that i-SIPs must contain emission limits adequate to provide for timely
attainment and maintenance of the standard is also unsupported. As
explained above, EPA notes this regulatory provision clearly applies to
plans specifically designed to attain the NAAQS and not to i-SIPs which
show the states have in place structural requirements necessary to
implement the NAAQS. Therefore, EPA finds 40 CFR 51.112 inapplicable to
its analysis of Louisiana's i-SIP submission.
    Regarding the air dispersion modeling conducted by Sierra Club
pursuant to AERMOD for the coal-fired EGUs, including Cleco Power's
Dolet Hills Power Station and Entergy's Big Cajun II Generating
Station, EPA is not in this action making a determination regarding the
air quality status in the area where these EGUs are located, and is not
evaluating whether emissions applicable to these EGUs are adequate to
attain and maintain the NAAQS. Consequently, EPA does not find the
modeling information relevant for review of an infrastructure SIP for
purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). When additional areas in Louisiana
are designated under the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and if any
additional areas in Louisiana are designated nonattainment in the
future, any potential future modeling submitted by the State with
designations or attainment demonstrations would need to account for any
new emissions limitations Louisiana develops to support such
designation or demonstration. While EPA has extensively discussed the
use of modeling for attainment demonstration purposes and for
designations, EPA has recommended that such modeling was not needed for
the SO2 infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A), which are
not actions in which EPA makes determinations regarding current air
quality status.\6\ See April 12, 2012, letters to states and 2012 Draft
White Paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, for example, EPA recently discussed modeling for
characterizing air quality in the Agency's August 21, 2015, final
rule at 80 FR 51052 and for nonattainment planning in the April 23,
2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,
Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors Regions 1-10, April
23, 2014, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, EPA disagrees with Sierra Club's assertions that EPA
must disapprove Louisiana's i-SIP submission because it does not
establish specific enforceable NAAQS emission limits, and specifically
enforceable emission limits for SO2, either on coal-fired
EGUs or other large SO2 sources, in order to demonstrate
attainment and maintenance with the NAAQS.
    Comment 7: Sierra Club asserts that modeling is the appropriate
tool for evaluating adequacy of i-SIPs and ensuring attainment and
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Commenter refers to
EPA's historic use of air dispersion modeling for attainment
designations as well as ``SIP revisions.'' The Commenter states that in
prior EPA statements the Agency has said it used modeling for
designations and attainment demonstrations, including statements in the
2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble, EPA's 2012 Draft White Paper for
Discussion on Implementing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and a 1994
SO2 Guideline Document, as modeling could better address the
source-specific impacts of SO2 emissions and historic
challenges from monitoring SO2 emissions.
    The Commenter discusses statements made by EPA staff regarding (1)
the use of modeling and monitoring in setting emission limitations, (2)
determining ambient concentrations as a result of a source's emissions,
(3) discussing performance of AERMOD as a model, including if AERMOD is
capable of predicting whether the NAAQS is attained, and (4) whether
individual sources contribute to SO2 NAAQS violations.
Sierra Club cites to EPA's history of employing air dispersion modeling
for increment compliance verifications in the permitting process for
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program which is
required in part C of title I of the CAA.
    Sierra Club asserts EPA's use of air dispersion modeling was upheld
in GenOn REMA, LLC v. EPA, 722 F.3d 513 (3rd Cir. 2013) where an EGU
challenged EPA's use of CAA section 126 to impose SO2
emission limits on a source due to cross-state impacts. The Commenter
claims the Third Circuit in GenOn REMA upheld EPA's actions after
examining the record which included EPA's air dispersion modeling of
the one source as well as other data.
    The Commenter cites to Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto
Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) and NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1254
(D.C. Cir. 2009) for the general proposition that it would be arbitrary
and capricious for an agency to ignore an aspect of an issue placed
before it and that an agency must consider information presented during
notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    Finally, Sierra Club claims that Louisiana's proposed i-SIP lacks
emission limitations informed by air dispersion modeling and therefore
fails to ensure Louisiana will achieve and maintain the SO2
NAAQS. Sierra Club claims EPA must require adequate, 1-hour
SO2 emission limits in the i-SIP that show no exceedances of
NAAQS when modeled.
    Response 7: EPA agrees with Sierra Club that air dispersion
modeling, including the use of AERMOD, can be an important tool for
SO2 designations under CAA section 107, and also as part of
attainment planning under CAA sections 172 and 191-192. EPA agrees that
prior EPA statements, EPA guidance, and case law support the use of air
dispersion modeling in the SO2 designations process and
attainment demonstration SIP process, as well as in analyses of whether
existing approved SIPs remain adequate to show attainment and
maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. However, EPA disagrees with
the Commenter that EPA must

disapprove the Louisiana i-SIP for its alleged failure to include
source-specific SO2 emission limits that show no exceedances
of the NAAQS when modeled.
    As discussed above and in the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the
conceptual purpose of an i-SIP submission is to assure that the air
agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new
or revised NAAQS and that the i-SIP submission process provides an
opportunity to review the basic structural requirements of the Agency's
air quality management program in light of the new or revised NAAQS.
See, Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 2. The attainment planning
process detailed in part D of the CAA, including sections 172 and 191-
192, is the appropriate place for the state to evaluate measures needed
to bring SO2 nonattainment areas into attainment with the
2010 SO2 NAAQS and to impose additional emission limitations
such as SO2 emission limits on specific sources.
    EPA had initially recommended that states submit substantive
attainment demonstration SIPs based on air quality modeling in the
final 2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble (75 FR 35520) and in
subsequent draft guidance issued in September 2011 for the section
110(a) SIPs due in June 2013 in order to show how areas expected to be
designated as unclassifiable would attain and maintain the NAAQS. These
initial statements in the preamble and 2011 draft guidance were based
on EPA's expectation at the time; that by June 2012, most areas would
initially be designated as unclassifiable due to limitations in the
scope of the ambient monitoring network and the short time available
before which states could conduct modeling to support designations
recommendations in 2011. However, after conducting extensive
stakeholder outreach and receiving comments from the states regarding
these initial statements and the timeline for implementing the NAAQS,
EPA subsequently stated in the April 12, 2012 letters and in the 2012
Draft White Paper that EPA was clarifying its implementation position
and was no longer requiring such attainment demonstrations supported by
air dispersion modeling for unclassifiable areas (which had not yet
been designated) to be included in the June 2013 i-SIPs. EPA then
reaffirmed this position in the February 6, 2013 memorandum, ``Next
Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' As previously mentioned, EPA
had stated in the preamble to the NAAQS and in the prior 2011 draft
guidance that EPA intended to develop and seek public comment on
guidance for modeling and development of SO2 SIPs for
sections 110, 172 and 191-192 of the CAA. After receiving such further
comment, EPA has now issued guidance for the SO2
nonattainment area SIPs due pursuant to sections 172 and 191-192 and
proposed a process for further characterization of areas with larger
SO2 sources, which could include use of air dispersion
modeling. See, April 23, 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment
Area SIP Submissions and 79 FR 27446 (proposing process and timetables
for gathering additional information on impacts from larger
SO2 sources informed through ambient monitoring and/or air
quality modeling). EPA issued non-binding guidance for states to use in
conducting, if they choose, additional analysis to support designations
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. SO2 NAAQS Designations
Modeling Technical Assistance Document, EPA Office of Air and Radiation
and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, February 2016,
available at https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/technical-assistance-documents-implementing-2010-sulfur-dioxide-standard.
    While EPA guidance for SO2 attainment SIPs and the
proposed process for further characterizing SO2 emissions
from larger sources both discuss the use of air dispersion modeling,
EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance did not suggest that states use
air dispersion modeling to inform emission limitations for section
110(a)(2)(A) to ensure no exceedances of the NAAQS when sources are
modeled, nor does the CAA or Code of Federal Regulations require that
they do. Therefore, as discussed previously, the Louisiana i-SIP
submittal contains the structural requirements to address elements in
section 110(a)(2) as discussed in detail in the TSD accompanying the
proposed approval. I-SIPs are general planning SIPs that ensure that a
state has adequate resources and authority to implement a new or
revised NAAQS. I-SIP submissions are not intended to act or fulfill the
obligations of a detailed attainment and/or maintenance plan for each
individual area of the state that is not attaining the NAAQS. While i-
SIPs must address modeling authorities in general for section
110(a)(2)(K), this section requires i-SIPs to provide the state's
authority for air quality modeling and for submission of modeling data
to EPA, not specific air dispersion modeling. In the TSD for this
rulemaking action, EPA provided a detailed explanation of Louisiana's
ability and authority to conduct air quality modeling when required and
its authority to submit modeling data to EPA.
    EPA finds Sierra Club's discussion of case law, guidance, and EPA
staff statements regarding advantages of AERMOD as an air dispersion
model to be irrelevant to the analysis of Louisiana's i-SIP as this is
not an attainment SIP required to demonstrate attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS pursuant to sections 172 or 192. In addition,
Sierra Club's comments relating to EPA's use of AERMOD or modeling in
general in SO2 designations pursuant to section 107 are
likewise irrelevant as EPA's present approval of Louisiana's i-SIP is
unrelated to the section 107 designations process nor is EPA's action
on this i-SIP related to any nonattainment new source review (NNSR) or
PSD permit program issue. As outlined in the August 23, 2010
clarification memo, ``Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for
the 1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (U.S.
EPA, 2010a), AERMOD is the preferred model for single source modeling
to address the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as part of the NNSR/PSD
permit programs. Therefore, as attainment SIPs, designations, and NNSR/
PSD actions are outside the scope of a required i-SIP submission for
SO2 NAAQS for section 110(a), EPA provides no further
response to the Commenter's discussion of air dispersion modeling for
these applications. If Sierra Club resubmits its SO2 air
dispersion modeling for the Louisiana's EGUs, or updated modeling
information in the appropriate context, e.g., for designations,
attainment SIPs, major source permitting, EPA will address the
resubmitted modeling or updated modeling in the appropriate future
context.
    The Commenter correctly noted that the Third Circuit upheld EPA's
Section 126 Order imposing SO2 emissions limitations on an
EGU pursuant to CAA section 126. GenOn REMA, LLC v. EPA, 722 F.3d 513.
Pursuant to CAA section 126, any state or political subdivision may
petition EPA for a finding that any major source or group of stationary
sources emits, or would emit, any air pollutant in violation of the
prohibition of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which relates to significant
contributions to nonattainment or maintenance in another state. The
Third Circuit upheld EPA's authority under CAA section 126 and found
EPA's actions neither arbitrary nor capricious after reviewing

EPA's supporting docket which included air dispersion modeling as well
as ambient air monitoring data showing violations of the NAAQS. The
Sierra Club appears to have cited to this matter to demonstrate EPA's
use of modeling for certain aspects of the CAA. EPA agrees with the
Commenter regarding the appropriate role air dispersion modeling has
for SO2 NAAQS designations, attainment SIPs, and
demonstrating significant contributions to interstate transport.
However, EPA's approval of Louisiana's i-SIP submission is based on our
determination that Louisiana has the required structural requirements
pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2) in accordance with our explanation of
the intent for i-SIP submissions as discussed in the 2013
Infrastructure SIP Guidance. Therefore, while air dispersion modeling
may be appropriate for consideration in certain circumstances, EPA does
not find air dispersion modeling of the NAAQS to be a required element
before approval of i-SIP submission for CAA section 110(a) or
specifically for 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Thus, EPA disagrees with the
Commenter that EPA must require additional emission limitations in this
Louisiana or other i-SIPs informed by air dispersion modeling and
demonstrating attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    In its comments, Sierra Club relies on Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n
and NRDC v. EPA to support its comments that EPA must consider the
Sierra Club's modeling data on the Dolet Hills Power Station and Big
Cajun II Generating Station based on administrative law principles
regarding consideration of comments provided during a rulemaking
process. EPA asserts that it has considered the modeling as well as all
the submitted comments of Sierra Club. However, as discussed in detail
in the responses above, the i-SIPs required by CAA section 110(a) are
not the appropriate place to require emission limits demonstrating
future attainment with a NAAQS, and as such EPA is not explicitly
considering the modeling results provided by the Sierra Club insofar as
they support the contention that enforceable emissions limitations are
a required part of an i-SIP submission.
    While i-SIP submissions are not required to contain emission
limits, as suggested by the Commenter, EPA does recognize that in the
past, states have used i-SIP submittals as a `vehicle' for
incorporating regulatory revisions or source-specific emission limits
into the state's plan. See, 78 FR 73442 (December 6, 2013) (approving
regulations Maryland submitted for incorporation into the SIP along
with the 2008 Ozone i-SIP to address ethics requirements for State
Boards in sections 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)). While these SIP revisions
are intended to help the state meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2), these ``ride-along'' SIP revisions are not intended to
signify that all i-SIP submittals should have similar regulatory
revisions or source-specific emission limits. Rather, the regulatory
provisions and source-specific emission limits the state relies on when
showing compliance with CAA section 110(a)(2) have likely already been
incorporated into the state's SIP prior to each new i-SIP submission;
in some cases this was done for entirely separate CAA requirements,
such as attainment plans required under section 172, or for previous
NAAQS.
    Comment 8: Sierra Club asserts that EPA may not approve the
Louisiana proposed i-SIP submission because it fails to include
enforceable emission limitations with a 1-hour averaging time that
applies at all times. The Sierra Club cite to CAA section 302(k) which
requires emission limits to apply on a continuous basis. The Commenter
claims EPA has stated that 1-hour averaging times are necessary for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS citing to a February 3, 2011, EPA Region 7
letter to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment regarding the
need for 1-hour SO2 emission limits in a PSD permit, an EPA
Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) decision rejecting use of a 3-hour
averaging time for a SO2 limit in a PSD permit, and EPA's
disapproval of a Missouri SIP which relied on annual averaging for
SO2 emission rates.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sierra Club cited to In re: Mississippi Lime Co., PSDAPLPEAL
11-01, 2011 WL 3557194, at *26-27 (EPA Aug. 9, 2011) and 71 FR
12623, 12624 (March 13, 2006) (EPA disapproval of a control strategy
SO2 SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sierra Club also contends that i-SIPs approved by EPA must include
monitoring of SO2 emission limits on a continuous basis
using a continuous emission monitor system or systems (CEMS) and cites
to section 110(a)(2)(F) which requires a SIP to establish a system to
monitor emissions from stationary sources and to require submission of
periodic emission reports. Sierra Club contends i-SIPs must require
such SO2 CEMS to monitor SO2 sources regardless
of whether sources have control technology installed to ensure limits
are protective of the NAAQS. Thus, Sierra Club contends EPA must
require enforceable emission limits, applicable at all times, with 1-
hour averaging periods, monitored continuously with CEMS of large
sources of SO2 emissions, and therefore must disapprove
Louisiana's i-SIP which Sierra Club claims fails to require emission
limits with adequate averaging times.
    Response 8: St. Bernard Parish was designated nonattainment
effective October 4, 2013. LDEQ is required to bring St. Bernard Parish
into compliance with the 1-hour standard as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018. When the attainment
demonstration SIP is submitted by the State, we will take action on it
in a separate rulemaking action. The appropriate time for examining
necessity of 1-hour SO2 emission limits on specific sources
is within the attainment planning SIP rulemaking process. As such, EPA
disagrees that we must disapprove the proposed Louisiana i-SIP because
the submittal does not contain enforceable SO2 emission
limitations with 1-hour averaging periods that apply at all times,
along with requiring CEMS, as the State has addressed its
SO2 nonattainment designation in another more appropriate
document pursuant to section 107 of the CAA.\8\ As explained in detail
in previous responses, the purpose of the i-SIP is to ensure that a
state has the structural capability to attain and maintain the NAAQS
and thus, additional SO2 emission limitations demonstrating
future attainment and maintenance of the 2010 NAAQS are not required
for such i-SIPs.\9\ Likewise, EPA need not address, for the purpose of
approving Louisiana's i-SIP, whether CEMS or some other appropriate
monitoring of SO2 emissions is necessary to demonstrate
compliance with emission limits in order to show future attainment of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as such SO2 emission limits
and an attainment demonstration are not a prerequisite to EPA's
approval of

this or most other i-SIP submissions.\10\ Therefore, because EPA finds
Louisiana's i-SIP submission approvable without the additional
SO2 emission limitations showing future attainment of the
NAAQS, EPA finds the issues of appropriate averaging periods and
monitoring requirements for such future limitations not relevant at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/Portals/0/AirQualityAssessment/Planning/SIP/SO2%20SIP%20with%20Appendices%20-%20Final.pdf.
    \9\ For a discussion on emission averaging times for emissions
limitations for SO2 attainment SIPs, see the April 23,
2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. EPA
explained that it is possible, in specific cases, for states to
develop control strategies that account for variability in 1-hour
emissions rates through emission limits with averaging times that
are longer than 1-hour, using averaging times as long as 30-days,
but still provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as
long as the limits are of at least comparable stringency to a 1-hour
limit at the critical emission value. EPA has not yet evaluated any
specific submission of such a limit, and so is not at this time
prepared to take final action to implement this concept. If and when
a state submits an attainment demonstration that relies upon a limit
with such a longer averaging time, EPA will evaluate it then.
    \10\ The appropriate time for application of monitoring
requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance by specific
sources is when such 1-hour emission limits are set for specific
sources whether in permits issued by Louisiana pursuant to the SIP
or in attainment SIPs submitted in the part D planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sierra Club has cited to prior EPA discussion on emission
limitations required in PSD permits (from an EAB decision and EPA's
letter to Kansas' permitting authority) pursuant to part C of the CAA,
which is neither relevant nor applicable to section 110 i-SIPs. In
addition, as previously discussed, EPA disapproval of the 2006 Missouri
SIP was a disapproval relating to a control strategy SIP required
pursuant to part D attainment planning and is likewise not relevant to
the analysis of i-SIP requirements.
    EPA has explained in the TSD supporting this rulemaking action how
the Louisiana SIP meets requirements in section 110(a)(2)(F) related to
monitoring. Thus, EPA finds Louisiana has the authority and
responsibility to monitor air quality for the relevant NAAQS pollutants
at appropriate locations and to submit data to EPA in a timely manner
in accordance with 110(a)(2)(F) and the Infrastructure SIP
Guidance.\11\ See, Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 45-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ While monitoring pursuant to NSPS requirements in 40 CFR
part 60 may not be sufficient for 1-hour SO2 emission
limits, Sierra Club's comment regarding NSPS monitoring provisions
is not relevant at this time because EPA finds 1-hour SO2
emission limits and associated monitoring and averaging periods are
not required for our approval of Louisiana's i-SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 9: The Commenter alleges the Louisiana SIP contains
exemption provisions for periods of startup and ``operating
adjustments'' as well as variance provisions for ``exceptional
circumstances'' which would cause undue hardship. See LAC 33:III.1507,
917, and 1505 (2012), respectively. The Commenter notes that NAAQS must
be enforced at all times and sources cannot be granted variances under
any circumstances, even startup, shutdown and malfunction, and cites
EPA's recent SIP Call to 39 states. See State Implementation Plans:
Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess
Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions; Final
Rule, 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). The Commenter claims that LDEQ must
remove such provisions from the existing Louisiana SIP rules in order
to properly comply with the infrastructure requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
    Response 9: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that EPA is required
to address all potential deficiencies that may exist in the Louisiana
SIP in the context of evaluating an infrastructure SIP submission. In
particular, an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not
necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible
deficiencies in a state's existing SIP rules related to excess
emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. It is not reasonable to read the general requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(1) and the listing of elements in CAA section
110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's
existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and the EPA
regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question
has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or
revised NAAQS. In addition, EPA notes that the CAA provides other
avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in
existing SIPs. For example, CAA section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to
issue a SIP call whenever EPA determines a state's SIP is substantially
inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate
transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA. As noted by the
Commenter, EPA has recently issued a SIP call to Louisiana requiring
the removal of the exemption provision in LAC 33:III.1507. EPA is
working closely with LDEQ to addressing the substantial inadequacies
EPA identified in specific Louisiana SIP rules. See 80 FR 33967 (June
12, 2015). LDEQ is required to submit a revised SIP addressing the
substantial inadequacies by November 22, 2016. EPA emphasizes that by
approving Louisiana's i-SIP submission, EPA is not approving or
reapproving any potentially deficient provisions that exist in the
current SIP that relate to excess emissions. Furthermore, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time.
    Comment 10: The Sierra Club claims EPA must disapprove the proposed
i-SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for its failure to include enforceable
measures on sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) to ensure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS in areas not designated nonattainment and to ensure compliance
with section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 and future ozone NAAQS. The
commenter specifically mentions EGUs as well as the oil and gas
production industry as sources needing additional controls as they are
major sources of ozone precursors. The Sierra Club claims stringent
emission limits must apply at all times to ensure all areas in
Louisiana attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS. The Commenter claims the
ozone precursors can be reduced cost-effectively through installation
of selective catalytic reductions (``SCR'') technology at EGUs. The
commenter claims that Louisiana's EGUs do not use SCRs adequately to
prevent ozone exceedances.
    In addition, the Commenter asserts that the Louisiana i-SIP must
contain emission limits that include mass limitations and short term
averaging periods on certain large sources of NOX such as
power plants. These emission limits must apply at all times, to ensure
that all areas of Louisiana attain and maintain the 2008 t8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The Commenter also contends that adding control devices and
emission limits on EGUs are a ``cost effective option to reduce
NOX pollution and attain and maintain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.''
    Finally, the Commenter states``[d]espite knowing that Louisiana is
on the precipice of exceeding the ozone NAAQS, LDEQ is taking
insufficient action to limit ozone concentrations and fails to
demonstrate how it plans to address these significant ozone and ozone
precursors. Consequently, EPA must disapprove the state's i-SIP.''
    Response 10: EPA has addressed in detail in prior responses above
the Commenter's general arguments that the statutory language,
legislative history, case law, EPA regulations, and prior rulemaking
actions by EPA mandate the interpretation it advocates--i.e., that i-
SIPs must ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA's
position is that the i-SIP submissions required by CAA section 110(a)
are not the appropriate place to require emission limits demonstrating
future attainment with a NAAQS as is explained more thoroughly in an
above response. Moreover, the CAA recognizes and has provisions to
address changes in air quality over time. These include provisions
providing for redesignation in CAA section 107(d) and provisions in

CAA section 110(k)(5) allowing EPA to call on the state to revise its
SIP, as appropriate. Finally, EPA appreciates the Commenter's
information regarding EGU NOX control measures and reduction
efficiencies as well as emissions limitations applicable to new or
modified EGUs which were set during the PSD or NSR permit process.
Additional NOX regulations on emissions from the EGUs would
likely reduce ozone levels further in one or more areas in Louisiana.
Congress established the CAA such that each state has primary
responsibility for assuring air quality within the state and each state
is first given the opportunity to determine an emission reduction
program for its areas subject to EPA approval, with such approval
dependent upon whether the SIP as a whole meets the applicable
requirements of the CAA. See Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d at 1410. The
State could choose to consider additional control measures for
NOX at EGUs to ensure attainment and maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS as Louisiana moves forward to meet the more prescriptive
planning requirements of the CAA in the future. However, as we have
explained, the State is not required to regulate such sources for the
purposes of meeting the i-SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2).
    In addition, emission limits with the shorter-term averaging rates
suggested by the Commenter could be considered within the CAA Title I
part D planning process to ensure attainment and maintenance of the
2008 NAAQS. As EPA finds Louisiana's NOX and VOC provisions
presently in the SIP sufficient for infrastructure SIP purposes and
specifically for CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), further consideration of the
averaging times is not appropriate or relevant at this time. Thus, EPA
disagrees with the Commenter that Louisiana's i-SIP must be disapproved
for failure to contain sufficient measures to ensure attainment and
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 11: The Sierra Club alleges that the proposed i-SIP does
not address sources significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states as required
by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, and states EPA must therefore
disapprove the i-SIP. Sierra Club claims its modeling shows that
emissions from Dolet Hills and Big Cajun II are contributing to
exceedances in other states. Sierra Club states that the CAA requires
i-SIPs to address cross-state air pollution. The Commenter argues that
Louisiana has not done so and that EPA must disapprove the proposed
infrastructure. The Commenter references the recent Supreme Court
decision, EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. et al, 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014), which supports the states' mandatory duty to address cross-
state pollution under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Response 11: The Sierra Club commented that Louisiana's i-SIP fails
to address any cross-state impacts that are due to sources within the
State. However in the proposed rulemaking for this final rule, EPA did
address and propose to approve the good neighbor provisions in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS,\12\
and we are finalizing those provisions in this rulemaking. The portion
of the State's SIP addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2006
PM2.5 was approved on April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21142) and the
2008 ozone was disapproved August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53308). EPA will be
addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 2010 SO2 and the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in future actions. Thus, the comments relating
to the substance and approvability of Louisiana's good neighbor
provision in its 2010 SO2 and the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS i-SIP submission are not relevant to this rulemaking action. As
stated herein and in the NPR, EPA will take later, separate action on
Louisiana's 2010 SO2 and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS i-
SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 81 FR 35674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statutory language in the CAA supports our ability to approve
Louisiana's NAAQS i-SIP submissions while taking later, separate action
on the portion of the SIP submittals which address Louisiana's
obligation to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Section 110(k)(3) of
the CAA authorizes EPA to approve a plan in full, disapprove it in
full, or approve it in part and disapprove it in part, depending on the
extent to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This
authority to approve the states' SIP revisions in separable parts was
included in the 1990 Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not
approve individual measures in a plan submission without either
approving or disapproving the plan as a whole. See, S. Rep. No. 101-
228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the express
overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).
    As such, EPA has the authority under section 110(k)(3), to use our
discretion to approve or conditionally approve individual elements of
Louisiana's infrastructure submission for NAAQS, separate and apart
from any action with respect to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA views discrete i-SIP requirements, such as the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the other
infrastructure elements and section 110(k)(3) allows us to act on
individual severable measures in a plan submission. The commenter
raises no compelling legal or environmental rationale for an alternate
interpretation. Nothing in the Supreme Court's April 2014 decision in
EME Homer City alters our interpretation that we may act on individual
severable measures including the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a SIP submission. See, EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P.,134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014) (affirming a state's obligation
to submit a SIP revision addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
independent of EPA's action finding significant contribution or
interference with maintenance).
    EPA's proposed approval of the Louisiana's i-SIP submission for
NAAQS for the portions described in the NPR was therefore appropriate.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving i-SIP submissions from Louisiana submitted on May
16, 2011, October 10, 2011, June 4, 2013, and December 17, 2015,
certifying that the State's current i-SIP is sufficient to meet the
required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 with
exception of certain aspects relating to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 and
disapproval for the visibility protection portion of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for all pollutants except the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The
elements in which no action is taken, or for which disapproval was
given will be or have been addressed in other actions. Please see the
Table 1 below.

                Table 1--Final Action on Louisiana Infrastructure SIP Submittal for Various NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Element             2006 PM2.5      2008 Pb     2008 Ozone     2010 NO2      2010 SO2     2012 PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and                A             A             A             A             A             A
 other control measures.....
(B): Ambient air quality                A             A             A             A             A             A
 monitoring and data system.
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP              A             A             A             A             A             A
 measures...................
(C)(ii): PSD program for                A             A             A             A             A             A
 major sources and major
 modifications..............
(C)(iii): Permitting program            A             A             A             A             A             A
 for minor sources and minor
 modifications..............
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to               A*             A     No action             A     No action     No action
 nonattainment/interfere
 with maintenance of NAAQS
 (requirements 1 and 2).....
(D)(i)(II): PSD (requirement            A             A             A             A             A             A
 3).........................
(D)(i)(II): Visibility                  D             A             D             D             D             D
 Protection (requirement 4).
(D)(ii): Interstate and                 A             A             A             A             A             A
 International Pollution
 Abatement..................
(E)(i): Adequate resources..            A             A             A             A             A             A
(E)(ii): State boards.......            A             A             A             A             A             A
(E)(iii): Necessary                     A             A             A             A             A             A
 assurances with respect to
 local agencies.............
(F): Stationary source                  A             A             A             A             A             A
 monitoring system..........
(G): Emergency power........            A             A             A             A             A             A
(H): Future SIP revisions...            A             A             A             A             A             A
(I): Nonattainment area plan            +             +             +             +             +             +
 or plan revisions under
 part D.....................
(J)(i): Consultation with               A             A             A             A             A             A
 government officials.......
(J)(ii): Public notification            A             A             A             A             A             A
(J)(iii): PSD...............            A             A             A             A             A             A
(J)(iv): Visibility                     +             +             +             +             +             +
 protection.................
(K): Air quality modeling               A             A             A             A             A             A
 and data...................
(L): Permitting fees........            A             A             A             A             A             A
(M): Consultation and                   A             A             A             A             A             A
 participation by affected
 local entities.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to Table 1: Proposed action on LA infrastructure SIP submittals for various NAAQS.
A--Approve.
A*--Approved at an earlier date.
+--Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
No action--EPA is taking no action on this infrastructure requirements.
D--Disapprove.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This final action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by
this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous populations. This action merely approves or disapproves a
SIP submission as not meeting the CAA requirements.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 5, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Interstate transport of
pollution, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 29, 2016.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. Section 52.970(e) is amended by adding six entries at the end of the
second table titled ``EPA Approved Louisiana Provisions and Quasi-
Regulatory Measures'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                  EPA Approved Louisiana Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or       submittal/     EPA approval date       Explanation
                                    nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Infrastructure for the 2006 PM2.5  Statewide..........         5/16/11  10/4/16 [Insert      Approval for
 NAAQS.                                                                  Federal Register     110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                         citation].           (C), (D)(i)
                                                                                (portion
                                                                                pertaining to
                                                                                PSD), D(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L) and
                                                                                (M).
Infrastructure for the 2008 Pb     Statewide..........        10/10/11  10/4/16 [Insert      Approval for
 NAAQS.                                                                  Federal Register     110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                         citation].           (C), (D), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L) and
                                                                                (M).
Infrastructure for the 2008 O3     Statewide..........          6/4/13  10/4/16 [Insert      Approval for
 NAAQS.                                                                  Federal Register     110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                         citation].           (C), (D)(i)
                                                                                (portion
                                                                                pertaining to
                                                                                PSD), D(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L) and
                                                                                (M).
Infrastructure for the 2010 NO2    Statewide..........          6/4/13  10/4/16 [Insert      Approval for
 NAAQS.                                                                  Federal Register     110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                         citation].           (C), (D)(i)
                                                                                (portions
                                                                                pertaining to
                                                                                nonattainment,
                                                                                interference with
                                                                                maintenance and
                                                                                PSD), D(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L) and
                                                                                (M).
Infrastructure for the 2010 SO2    Statewide..........          6/4/13  10/4/16 [Insert      Approval for
 NAAQS.                                                                  Federal Register     110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                         citation].           (C), (D)(i)
                                                                                (portion
                                                                                pertaining PSD),
                                                                                D(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L) and (M).
Infrastructure for the 2012 PM2.5  Statewide..........        12/17/15  10/4/16 [Insert      Approval for
 NAAQS.                                                                  Federal Register     110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                         citation].           (C), (D)(i)
                                                                                (portion
                                                                                pertaining to
                                                                                PSD), D(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L) and
                                                                                (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.996 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.996  Disapprovals.

* * * * *
    (b) The portions of the SIP submitted on May 16, 2011, June 4,
2013, and

December 17, 2015 addressing noninterference with measures required to
protect visibility in any other state (Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) are disapproved for the following National Ambient
Air Quality Standards: 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5.

[FR Doc. 2016-24036 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48227]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22165]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9035-6]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa/ nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed 10/02/2017 through 10/06/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20170198, Final, USAF, MD, Presidential Aircraft
Recapitalization Program, Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility, Review
Period Ends: 11/15/2017, Contact: Ms Jean Renolds<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170200, Draft, FTA, PA, King of Prussia Rail Project, Comment
Period Ends: 12/4/2017, Contact: Daniel Koenig<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170201, Draft, USN, CA, Hawaii-Southern Californian Training
and Testing, Comment Period Ends: 12/12/2017, Contact: Nora Macariola-
See<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170202, Draft, USFS, CO, CP District-wide Salvage, Comment
Period Ends: 11/30/2017, Contact: Mike Tooley<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 9, 2017.
Kelly Knight,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-22165 Filed 10-13-17; 12:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P