UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                 NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                              2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD                            ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									          	OFFICE OF 										AIR AND RADIATION

July 21, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)

FROM:	Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on March 8, 2011 between EMA, DOT, and EPA and included the following individuals:

      EMA: Tim Blubaugh              DOT: Coralie Cooper, Maurice Hicks              EPA: Byron Bunker, Houshun Zhang, Cle Jackson and Angela Cullen

The discussion focused on child ratings and compliance margins for engine testing of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32460-32461]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13846]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1020; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-078-AD;
Amendment 39-18172; AD 2015-11-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corporation)
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (type certificate previously held by
Schweizer Aircraft Corporation) (Sikorsky) Model 269D and Model 269D
Configuration A helicopters. This AD requires reducing the life limit
of the ring gear carrier assembly. This AD was prompted by cracks in
the ring gear carrier assembly. The actions are intended to reduce the
life of the ring gear carrier assembly to prevent failure of the main
rotor transmission, loss of engine power to the main rotor, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective July 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry
Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review a copy of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Norman Perenson, Aviation Safety
Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, Propulsion & Services
Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Westbury, New York; telephone (516)
228-7337; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On December 15, 2014, at 79 FR 74037, the Federal Register
published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model
269D and Model 269D Configuration A helicopters with a certain part-
numbered ring carrier assembly installed. The NPRM proposed to require
reducing the life limit of the ring carrier assembly from 6,000 hours
time-in-service (TIS) to 5,000 hours TIS by revising the Airworthiness
Limitations Section of the applicable maintenance manual and by
removing from service any ring carrier assembly that exceeded the new
life limit. The NPRM was prompted by the discovery of a crack in the
ring gear carrier assembly, which extended around the entire
circumference of the flange and intersected some of the bolt holes but
did not propagate ``bolt hole to bolt hole.'' A metallurgical
evaluation determined that fretting caused multiple origin fatigue
cracking on the ring gear carrier assembly. The proposed requirements
were intended to reduce the life of the ring gear carrier assembly to
prevent failure of the main rotor transmission, loss of engine power to
the main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (79 FR 74037,
December 15, 2014).

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information

    Sikorsky issued 269D Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB DB-
040A, Revision A, dated December 4, 2012, to implement a reduction in
service life of the ring gear carrier assembly, part number 269A5194,
from 6,000 flight hours to 5,000 flight hours.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 16 helicopters of U.S.
Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. We estimate a minimal cost to change the life
limit of the ring gear. If required, we estimate it would take 27.5
hours to replace a ring gear carrier assembly at $85 per work hour.
Required parts would cost $7,591 for a total of $9,929 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-11-09 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Type Certificate
Previously Held By Schweizer Aircraft Corporation): Amendment 39-
18172; Docket No. FAA-2014-1020; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-078-
AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model 269D and
Model 269D Configuration A helicopters with ring gear carrier
assembly, part number (P/N) 269A5194, installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a fatigue crack in a
ring gear carrier assembly. This condition could result in failure
of the main rotor transmission, loss of engine power to the main
rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

 (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 14, 2015.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Before further flight:
    (1) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the
applicable maintenance manual by reducing the life limit of the ring
gear carrier assembly, P/N 269A5194, from 6,000 hours time-in-
service (TIS) to 5,000 hours TIS.
    (2) Remove from service any ring gear carrier assembly, P/N
269A5194, with 5,000 or more hours TIS.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Norman
Perenson, Aviation Safety Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification
Office, Propulsion & Services Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave.,
Westbury, New York; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Sikorsky 269D Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB DB-040A,
Revision A, dated December 4, 2012, which is not incorporated by
reference, contains additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review a copy of information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300 Main Rotor
Drive System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 29, 2015.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-13846 Filed 6-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		8/5/14

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Ray Saracino, EPA

SUBJECT:	7/15/14, Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      EPA participated in a panel discussion organized by the California Council on Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB) on July 15, 2014.  EPA provided a brief overview of the Clean Power Plan proposal for Existing Power Plants.         ATTENDEES

A specific list of attendees is not available.  Approximately 75 people from State government, industry and environmental organizations were present.  Deborah Jordan presented on behalf of EPA.

Attachment


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17349-17358]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08067]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558; FRL-9976-51--Region 6]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, as supplemented, for the St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Primary National Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area. EPA
is proposing approval of the following CAA SIP elements: The attainment
demonstration for the SO2 NAAQS, which includes an Agreed
Order on Consent (AOC) for the Rain CII Carbon, LLC. (Rain) facility;
the reasonable further progress (RFP) plan; the reasonably available
control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control technology
(RACT) demonstration; the emission inventories; and the contingency
measures. The State has demonstrated

that its current Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program covers
this NAAQS; therefore, no revision to the SIP is required for the NNSR
element.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0558, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
Robert Imhoff,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. For the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Imhoff,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Robert Imhoff or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

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

Table of Contents

I. Why was Louisiana Required to Submit an SO2 Plan for
St. Bernard Parish?
II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans
III. Attainment Demonstration
IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan
    A. Model Selection
    B. Meteorological Data
    C. Emissions Data
    D. Receptor Grid
    E. Emission Limits
    F. Background Concentrations
    G. Summary of Results
V. Review of Other Plan Requirements
    A. Emissions Inventory
    B. RACM/RACT
    C. New Source Review (NSR)
    D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
    E. Contingency Measures
VI. Conformity
VII. EPA's Proposed Action
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Why was Louisiana required to submit an SO2 plan for the
St. Bernard Parish?

    On June 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not
exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR
part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On August 5,
2013, the EPA designated a first set of 29 areas of the country as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the St.
Bernard Parish Nonattainment Area \1\ within the State of Louisiana.
See 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. These area
designations were effective October 4, 2013. Section 191 of the CAA
directs states to submit SIPs for areas designated as nonattainment for
the SO2 NAAQS to the EPA within 18 months of the effective
date of the designation, i.e., by no later than April 4, 2015, in this
case. Under CAA section 192, these SIPs are required to demonstrate
that their respective areas will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 5 years from the effective date of
designation, which is October 4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This designation was based on data from the Chalmette Vista
monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a number of areas, including the St. Bernard Parish, the EPA
published a final ``Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation
Plans Required for Attainment of the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)'' Federal Register notice
on March 18, 2016, that found that Louisiana and other pertinent states
had failed to submit the required SO2 nonattainment plan by
the required CAA submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding,
effective on April 18, 2016, initiated 18-month and 24-month deadlines
under CAA section 179(a) for the imposition of mandatory new source
review and highway funding sanctions, respectively, unless by those
deadlines the State had submitted a SIP revision deemed by the EPA to
be complete. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the finding
triggered a requirement that the EPA promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the finding unless, by
that time (a) the state has made the necessary complete submittal and
(b) EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements.
    On November 9, 2017, LDEQ submitted a 2010 SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP revision for St. Bernard Parish to EPA. The LDEQ
determined that as a part of the attainment area demonstration, it
should include permanent and enforceable restrictions for
SO2 emitted from the Rain CII Carbon, LLC. (Rain) facility.
Such limits were originally memorialized into an Administrative Order
on Consent (AOC) that was signed on November 9, 2017, and was included
in the LDEQ's November 9, 2017, SIP submittal (also included in the
docket to this action). In LDEQ's SIP submittal cover letter, dated
November 9, 2017, LDEQ committed to ``work toward a SIP revision
submittal concerning the pyroscrubber (EQT 004) at the Rain facility no
later than March 1, 2018.'' In addition, in LDEQ's responses to
comments, LDEQ committed to revise the Rain AOC to ``incorporate
limits, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements that are reflective
of the information used in the modeling demonstration in an updated
submittal.'' On February 8, 2018, LDEQ submitted a letter to the EPA,
accompanied by a new AOC, dated February 2, 2018, executed between LDEQ
and Rain, that includes new emissions limits for the Rain facility's
cold stack and hot stack/pyroscrubber, as well as monitoring, testing
and recordkeeping requirements. LDEQ submitted this as a source
specific SIP revision and supplement to the SIP (included in the docket
to this action). These emission limits include all operation regimes at
the facility, with differing emission limits depending on the stage of
operation of the Cold and Hot stacks during the Transitional regime.\2\
On February 26, 2018, EPA determined that the State's SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP revision for St. Bernard Parish was complete
under 40

CFR part 51, App. V.\3\ Consequently, the Act's section 179 sanctions
that had or would have applied as a result of the State's previously
not submitting a complete SIP no longer apply due to the determination
of completeness. See the State's AOC and letter, included in the docket
to this action, that serve as a supplement to the SIP, dated February
2, 2018 and February 8, 2018, respectively.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Operations at Rain can be divided into three scenarios: Cold
stack operation, hot stack operation, and a transitional period with
emissions through both stacks.
    \3\ February 26, 2018 Completeness Determination Letter from
Wren Stinger, EPA Region 6 to Chuck Carr Brown, LDEQ.
    \4\ As noted above, in the ``Findings of Failure to Submit State
Implementation Plans Required for Attainment of the 2010 1-Hour
Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS),'' the finding also triggered a requirement that the EPA
promulgate FIP within two years of the finding unless, by that time
(a) the state has made the necessary complete submittal and (b) EPA
has approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans

    Nonattainment area SIPs must meet the applicable requirements of
the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192. The EPA's
regulations governing nonattainment area SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR
part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy
requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after
Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, the EPA issued
comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a document entitled the ``General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990,'' published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)
(General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed
SO2 SIPs and fundamental principles for SIP control
strategies. Id., at 13545-49, 13567-68. On April 23, 2014, the EPA
issued recommended guidance for meeting the statutory requirements in
SO2 SIPs, in a document entitled, ``Guidance for 1-Hour
SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions.'' \5\ In this
guidance, the EPA described the statutory requirements for a complete
nonattainment area SIP, which includes: an accurate emissions inventory
of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the
nonattainment area, an attainment demonstration, demonstration of RFP,
implementation of RACM (including RACT), an approvable NNSR program,
enforceable emissions limitations, and adequate contingency measures
for the affected area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions'' available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 110, 172 and 191-192 and EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate
to EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements have
been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA may not approve a
SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement under the
Act. Furthermore, no requirement in effect, or required to be adopted
by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November
15, 1990, in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air
pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless it insures equivalent
or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

III. Attainment Demonstration

    The CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states with areas designated as
nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for
attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates
the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and the EPA has
long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four
fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability,
replicability, and accountability. See General Preamble, at 13567-68.
SO2 attainment plans must consist of two components: (1)
Emission limits and other control measures that assure implementation
of permanent, enforceable and necessary emission controls, and (2) a
modeling analysis which meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W (Guideline on Air Quality Models; ``the Guideline''), and
demonstrates that these emission limits and control measures provide
for timely attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the attainment date
for the affected area. In all cases, the emission limits and control
measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to
determine compliance with the respective emission limits and control
measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of emission
reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable
(specifying clear, unambiguous and measurable requirements for which
compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures
for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective
so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain
the same result), and accountable (source specific limits must be
permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP
demonstrations).
    Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are
described in Appendix A of the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models
(40 CFR part 51, Appendix W).\6\ In 2005, the EPA promulgated AERMOD as
the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range
of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example
in estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain
based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. On July
29, 2015, EPA proposed in the Federal Register ``Revisions to the
Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion
Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches To Address Ozone and
Fine Particulate Matter,'' (the Guideline), that provides for EPA's
preferred models and other recommended techniques, as well as guidance
for their use in estimating ambient concentrations of air
pollutants.\7\ The Guideline provides additional regulatory options and
updated methods or dispersion modeling with AERMOD; the final revisions
to the Guideline were promulgated in a Federal Register action on
January 17, 2017, and became effective on May 22, 2017.\8\ In addition
to the Guideline, promulgated in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, EPA has
issued supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating
attainment of the 2010 SO2 standard (see our April 23, 2014
SO2 nonattainment area SIP guidance document referenced
above). Appendix A of the 2014 guidance titled ``Modeling Guidance for
Nonattainment Areas,'' is based on and is consistent with the
Guideline. Appendix A of the SO2 guidance memo follows and
is consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W. It
also provides specific SO2 modeling guidance on the modeling
domain, the source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and
background concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in the
SO2 guidance is generally necessary for the attainment
demonstration to offer adequately

reliable assurance that the plan provides for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EPA published revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality
Models on January 17, 2017. See 82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017).
    \7\ 80 FR 45340 (July 29, 2015).
    \8\ 82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017) and 82 FR 14324 (March 20,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment
(i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality
dispersion modeling in accordance with the Guideline and SO2
guidance to show that the mix of sources and enforceable control
measures and emission rates in an identified area will not lead to a
violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For a short-term (i.e., 1-hour)
standard, the EPA has stated that dispersion modeling, using allowable
emissions and addressing stationary sources in the affected area (and
in some cases those sources located outside the nonattainment area
which may affect attainment in the area) is technically appropriate,
efficient and effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment
areas because it takes into consideration combinations of
meteorological and emission source operating conditions that may
contribute to peak ground-level concentrations of SO2.
    The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be
processed with the most recent version of AERMOD. Estimated
concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should
follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described
in section <IP_ADDRESS> of the August 23, 2010 clarification memo on
``Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Memorandum from Tyler Fox (EPA OAQPS) ``Applicability of
Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO2 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' August 23, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan

    The following discussion evaluates various features of the modeling
that Louisiana used in the attainment demonstration, as well as a
discussion of the EPA's additional modeling that was conducted as part
of the review of the State's SIP. LDEQ submitted modeling at the time
of the SIP submittal. However, the state's modeling did not include
modeling for all operating scenarios at Rain. In addition, subsequent
to the State's modeling, Rain provided updated estimates for stack
parameters for the hot stack. LDEQ submitted additional modeling, as
noted in the February 8, 2018 letter, that incorporated the updated
stack parameters for the hot stack. The 1-hour SO2 emission
limits contained in the February 2, 2018 AOC were designed to ensure
compliance with the SO2 NAAQS. The EPA undertook an
additional modeling analysis which also incorporated the amended stack
parameters, and utilized more recent allowable emission rates from
other contributing sources, an expanded receptor grid, and covered all
operating scenarios. The EPA's additional modeling used a more recent
version of AERMOD and utilized LDEQ's meteorology, modeling options,
land use characterization, building downwash inputs, background
concentrations, and source inventory. For the updated modeling, the EPA
worked in collaboration with the LDEQ to identify updated emissions
rates for the contributing sources based on current permitted limits.
The State reviewed EPA's modeling files and agrees with its
accuracy.\10\ Additional, more detailed discussion of the State's
modeling and EPA's modeling is contained in the Technical Support
Document (TSD) for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Email from [email protected] to [email protected] et
al., February 21, 2018, 1:53 p.m., included in the docket to this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Model Selection

    Louisiana's attainment demonstration modeling used the Guideline
preferred model, AERMOD (version 15181 of AERMOD) with default options
(e.g., without use of the ADJ_U* option) and rural dispersion
coefficients for this application. We note that since LDEQ originally
started their modeling, the AERMOD system has been updated to version
16216r, which is the current preferred version of AERMOD. Based on the
parameters and options chosen by LDEQ, and considering the information
in the the Model Change Bulletin,\11\ we do not expect significant
changes to modeled concentration values due to the difference in AERMOD
versions. We did not rerun the AERMET meteorological processor data
even though the version also changed from 14134 to 16216. The EPA made
changes to AERMET in the updated version (16216) to add an additional
option (ADJ_U*) to be used in certain situations but that option is not
required and was not used by LDEQ.\12\ The other changes between AERMET
version 14134 and 16216 are minimal and would not result in discernable
changes to LDEQ's SIP modeled concentrations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/aermod/aermod_mcb12_v16216.pdf.
    \12\ ADJ_U* is an option to adjust friction velocity during
light winds in the nighttime and was not an issue in this modeling
that needed to be utilized as maximum concentrations were during
other time of day and meteorological conditions.
    \13\ When the EPA updated AERMET there were model change
bulletins and other information that describe the exact changes. See
https://www.epa.gov/scram/meteorological-processors-and-accessory-programs#aermet. The EPA provided sensitivity runs to identify
results from the differences in files under the Test Cases section
at http://www.epaarchive.cc/node/164075.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LDEQ used building information (height, width, and length) to
analyze potential building downwash in their modeling, and also chose
to use rural characterization instead of urban characterization for
vertical mixing and boundary layer calculations. The EPA reviewed the
building downwash analysis and concurs with the choice of rural setting
for the dispersion. Our review indicates that the modeling options and
settings are acceptable and appropriate in the modeling submitted and
EPA's modeling (see the TSD for more detail).

B. Meteorological Data

    The modeling utilized surface meteorological data obtained from the
New Orleans International Airport and upper air data from the Slidell
National Weather Station from 2011-2015. The New Orleans International
Airport is the closest National Weather Service site, 27 km distant
from the Vista monitor, and is representative of the meteorology in the
St. Bernard Parish due to the proximity and the similarity of the
terrain. The data was processed using the meteorological processing
tools, AERMINUTE (14347) and AERMET (14134). Newer versions of the
processing programs are available, but based on the changes that the
EPA made in AERMINUTE and AERMET (discussed above) we would not expect
to see any significant changes even if the data was processed with the
latest version of AERMINUTE (v15272) and AERMET (v16216). Therefore,
the EPA finds the selection and processing of this data to be
acceptable.

C. Emissions Data

    There are three major sources of SO2 emissions located
in relative close proximity to the Chalmette-Vista monitor, which is
the monitor that recorded SO2 NAAQS violations on which the
2013 nonattainment designation of the area was based. These sources are
located in St. Bernard Parish: Valero Refining, Chalmette Refining, and
Rain. Through analysis of air permit data for facilities within 20
kilometers (km) of the violating monitor, LDEQ determined that these
three major

sources in the area were the main sources of concern accounting for
over 99% of the point source allowable SO2 emissions in the
parish. This is confirmed by review of all SO2 sources in
St. Bernard Parish provided by LDEQ in their emission inventory
analysis part of their submittal. LDEQ also evaluated major sources
(greater than 100 tpy of SO2) in the 20-50 km area
surrounding the violating monitor and determined that most are located
to the north in St. Charles Parish and to the west in Jefferson Parish
and not in the predominant wind direction that generates exceedances at
the monitor nor at the preliminary modeling maximum area to the west of
Rain. LDEQ determined that there are no other major sources within 20
km of the monitor based on the 2014 NEI inventory of actual emissions
(See TSD for additional information). Two additional facilities,
ConocoPhillips and New Orleans Sewer Treatment, were determined to have
possible impacts somewhere in St. Bernard Parish and may not have been
fully represented by the background monitoring values, so they were
modeled explicitly. Maximum allowable emissions and federally
enforceable permit limits were used for all modeled sources within St.
Bernard Parish. LDEQ included many small sources of SO2 in
the modeling, 12 sources were included with allowable emission rates of
less than 1 tpy with the smallest being 0.005 tpy. Emergency equipment
and other very small sources were omitted. Intermittent engines were
modeled with annualized emissions based on the ratio of the operating
hours to 8760 hours. The remainder of the sources are captured by the
background concentrations. The inclusion of these sources assures that
Louisiana incorporated all sources in the modeling that are considered
to possibly create concentrations and/or concentration gradients in St.
Bernard Parish that are not represented by the background monitoring
data.
    LDEQ used site specific building and stack data and modeled all
stacks at the lesser of their actual stack height, or Good Engineering
Practice (GEP) stack height as determined by the BPIP PRIME
preprocessor. Building downwash influences obtained from the BPIP PRIME
output were included in the modeling. For a more detailed analysis and
conclusions on what sources were included in the modeling, and how they
were modeled see the TSD.
    As discussed in the TSD, Rain was identified as the primary
contributor to exceedances at the Vista monitor. Louisiana and EPA
modeling support the establishment of additional emission limits for
Rain. Rain is a coke calcining operation that includes a waste heat
recovery boiler. During normal operations, the exhaust from the
calining operation is routed through the recovery boiler and then
through a scrubber and finally to the atmosphere through what is termed
the ``cold stack.'' During start up and times when the recovery boiler
is down, emissions are routed to the atmosphere through what is known
as the ``hot stack.'' The modeling covers three operation scenarios:
Cold stack operation, hot stack operation, and a transitional period
with emissions through both stacks. This third operation scenario was
further divided into four stages based on flow and temperatures through
the cold stack. Because of the wide range of emission rates and plume
buoyancy during the startup this approach enabled the determination of
emission rates for each stage that were shown through the modeling to
be consistent with attainment of the NAAQS. The modeling includes
current conditions reflecting the operation of the scrubber and the new
cold stack for estimating the impacts of emissions through the cold
stack. The 1-hour SO2 emission limits contained in the
February 2, 2018 AOC were designed to ensure compliance with the
SO2 NAAQS. This AOC also incorporated updated information
from Rain concerning the hot stack flow rates and temperatures that
required additional modeling and refinement of the AOC SO2
emission limits for the transitional modeling. The modeling also
included the two other major sources in St. Bernard Parish (Chalmette
Refinery and Valero Refinery) modeled at their short-term
SO2 emission allowables in their existing permits.\14\ See
below for further details on the emission rates in the State's and
EPA's attainment modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Permit No 2500-00001-V16 for Chalmette Refining in the
docket as 8-10-17 Valero-Meraux Refinery-permit 2500-0001-V16.pdf
(Note the Permit No 2500-0001-V9 included reductions in
SO2 from a Consent Decree); Chalmette Refining Permits
(No. 2500-0005-V5, 2933-V6, 2822-V2, 3004-V7, 3011-V3, 3015-V3,
3016-V3, 3017-V5, 3018-V5 30222-V7, 3023-V7) in the docket as
Chalmette Refining-Final Permits.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except for the emission points addressed in the February 2, 2018
AOC, the emission limits for the other relevant sources inside St.
Bernard Parish, as outlined in Louisiana's attainment demonstration and
supplement to the SIP, correspond to the sulfur limitations on a 1-hour
basis found in their permits. The emission limits for Rain are all on a
1-hour average basis; and equal the modeled emissions rates. The EPA
finds Louisiana's choice of included sources to be appropriate.
However, EPA found that the modeled emission rates utilized by LDEQ in
their modeling for several sources reflected permit limits that have
been modified. For EPA's modeling, we used the updated emission rates.
The State reviewed the emission \15\ rates used by EPA and determined
that they were either accurate or slightly conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Email from [email protected] to [email protected] et
al., February 21 2018 1:53PM, included in the docket to this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Receptor Grid

    Within AERMOD, air quality concentration results are calculated at
discrete locations identified by the user; these locations are called
receptors. LDEQ placed receptors within St. Bernard Parish with 100
meter (m) spacing extending 2 km from the fence line of the three major
facilities in St. Bernard Parish; spacing is 250 m from 2-7 km; 500 m
interval from 7-11 km; and 1,000 m interval from 11-50 km and beyond.
In addition, receptors were placed along facility fence lines for the
three major facilities, which define the ambient air boundary for a
particular source. A receptor grid extends approximately 50 km to the
east of the Valero refinery (easternmost large source of SO2
in St Bernard Parish), but does not go all the way to the eastern edge
of the Parish as there are no point sources of SO2 in that
area and the modeled design value isopleths were declining and had
declined to less than half the level of the NAAQS. EPA conducted
modeling with an expanded receptor grid to ensure that the receptor
grid is large enough to capture all areas of concern that may be near
the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in and near St. Bernard Parish. The EPA
modeling analysis also included some receptors to the south of Rain and
the Chalmette refinery area in Orleans Parish and Plaquemines Parish.
EPA also placed receptors to confirm that no violations would occur on
the properties of the three major source facilities if all emissions
were modeled except for emissions from that facility (e.g. for the
Chalmette Refinery property with all emissions except those from the
Chalmette Refinery sources). See the TSD for additional information.
The expanded modeling domain and receptor network are sufficient to
identify maximum impacts from the modeled sources, and detect
significant concentration gradients, and are adequate for demonstrating
attainment in the nonattainment area and the surrounding area.

E. Emission Limits

    An important prerequisite for approval of an attainment plan is
that the emission limits that provide for attainment be quantifiable,
fully enforceable, replicable, and accountable. See General Preamble at
13567-68.
    Louisiana entered an AOC with Rain on November 9, 2017, and a new
AOC on February 2, 2018, pursuant to the Louisiana Environmental
Quality Act (La. R.S. 30:2001, et seq.). Both AOCs were submitted to
EPA as part of the State's SIP revision submittal as a source-specific
SIP revision. Louisiana issued a permit to Rain on October 27, 2017
(Permit No. 2500-00006-V3) \16\ that included the previous November 9,
2017, AOC limits, but has not yet issued a revised permit to include
the new AOC limits that are now included in the February 2, 2018, AOC.
In its February 2, 2018 AOC, LDEQ has committed to modify the permit to
include all federally enforceable applicable limits listed in the AOC.
Louisiana issued the new AOC (February 2, 2018) to incorporate emission
limits, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements that are reflective
of the information used in the modeling demonstration. The new AOC also
incorporated updated information from Rain concerning the hot stack
flow rates and temperatures that required additional modeling and
refinement of the AOC SO2 emission limits for the
transitional modeling. We are proposing to approve the February 2,
2018, Rain AOC as a source-specific SIP revision to make it permanent
and federally enforceable. The limits in the table below are hourly
limits and compliance with the limits is determined using 1-hour
average data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See docket to this action at 10-27-17 NSR-Title V Rain v3
Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions limits relied upon in the modeling for the other two
major sources within the area that could contribute to nonattainment in
the area already are federally enforceable because they are reside in
NSR SIP permits Valero No. 1500-00001-V16 and Chalmette has 11
permits.\17\ The February 2, 2018 AOC for Rain will become federally
enforceable as a source-specific revision to the Louisiana SIP if EPA
finalizes this proposed approval. The AOC has a compliance date of May
3, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Permit No 2500-00001-V16 for Chalmette Refining in the
docket as 8-10-17 Valero-MerauxRefinery-permit 2500-0001-V16.pdf
(Note the Permit No 2500-0001-V9 included reductions in
SO2 from a Consent Decree); Chalmette Refining Permits
(No. 2500-0005-V5, 2933-V6, 2822-V2, 3004-V7, 3011- V3, 3015-V3,
3016-V3, 3017-V5, 3018-V5 30222-V7, 3023-V7) in the docket as
ChalmetteRefining-Final Permits.pdf

                        AOC Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source ID      Source description      Sulfur dioxide (SO2) limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EQT 0003........  Waste Heat Boiler/   During normal, steady-state
                   Baghouse.            operations, with no emissions
                                        through the Pyroscrubber Stack
                                        (EQT 0004), SO2 emissions shall
                                        be <=510 lb/hr when stack flow
                                        rate >=110,000 SCFM and stack
                                        temperature >=220[square]F. If
                                        stack flow rate >=70,000 SCFM
                                        and <110,000 SCFM and
                                        Temperature is >=220 [deg]F, SO2
                                        emissions shall be <=380 lb/hr.
EQT 0003........  Waste Heat Boiler/   Stage 1: when the flue gas flow
                   Baghouse.            rate <40,000 SCFM or Temperature
                                        <90 [deg]F as measured by the
                                        CEMS, SO2 emissions shall be
                                        <=10 lb/hr.
EQT 0003........  Waste Heat Boiler/   Stage 2: when the flue gas flow
                   Baghouse.            rate >=40,000 SCFM and <70,000
                                        SCFM:
                                        Temperature >=0 [deg]F
                                        and <110 [deg]F as measured by
                                        the CEMS, SO2 emissions shall be
                                        <=75 lb/hr.
                                        Temperature >=110 [deg]F
                                        and <150 [deg]F as measured by
                                        the CEMS, SO2 emissions shall be
                                        <=75 lb/hr.
                                        Temperature >=150 [deg]F
                                        and <220 [deg]F as measured by
                                        the CEMS, SO2 emissions shall be
                                        <=75 lb/hr.
EQT 0003........  Waste Heat Boiler/   Stage 3: when the flue gas flow
                   Baghouse.            rate >=70,000 SCFM and <110,000
                                        SCFM:
                                        Temperature >= 110
                                        [deg]F and <150 [deg]F as
                                        measured by the CEMS, SO2
                                        emissions shall be <=90 lb/hr.
                                        Temperature >=150 [deg]F
                                        and <=220 [deg]F as measured by
                                        the CEMS, SO2 emissions shall be
                                        <=90 lb/hr.
EQT 0003........  Waste Heat Boiler/   Stage 4: when the flue gas flow
                   Baghouse.            rate >=110,000 SCFM and
                                        Temperature >=220 [deg]F as
                                        measured by the CEMS, SO2
                                        emissions shall be <=50 lb/hr.
EQT 0004........  Pyroscrubber Stack.  Non-transition operations: No
                                        flow through EQT 0003, SO2
                                        emissions shall be <=2020 lb/hr.
EQT 0004........  Pyroscrubber Stack.  Transition Stage 1: EQT 0003 flow
                                        rate <40,000 SCFM, SO2 emissions
                                        shall be <=1,000 lb/hr.
EQT 0004........  Pyroscrubber Stack.  Transition Stage 2: 40,000 SCFM
                                        <=EQT 0003 flow rate <70,000
                                        SCFM, SO2 emissions shall be
                                        <=650 lb/hr.
EQT 0004........  Pyroscrubber Stack.  Transition Stage 3: 70,000 SCFM
                                        <=EQT 0003 flow rate 110,000
                                        SCFM, SO2 emissions shall be
                                        <=650 lb/hr.
EQT 0004........  Pyroscrubber Stack.  Transition Stage 4: EQT 0003 flow
                                        rate >=110,000 SCFM, SO2
                                        emissions shall be <=400 lb/hr
                                        and temperature >=1,000 [deg]F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCFM in Table is wet flow at standard conditions of 20C and standard
  atmospheric pressure (1,013.25 millibars).

    The two other facilities that are located outside of St. Bernard
Parish that were included in the modeling are not located in a
direction such that they can contribute to the maximum concentrations
in St. Bernard Parish (not upwind) so would have a negligable impact on
maximum modeled concentrations within St. Bernard Parish. Therefore,
LDEQ did not require new SO2 emission limits on these
facilities (ConocoPhillips, and New Orleans Sewer Treatment). EPA has
reviewed the facilities' data and notes that the ConocoPhillips
facility is 27 km away from the Vista monitor and neither
ConocoPhillips nor the New Orleans facility (less than 3 tons per year
emissions) are upwind of the maximum modeled concentrations and thus
are not critical to demonstrating attainment in the area. EPA agrees
with LDEQ's decision not to establish emission limits for these
facilities in this SIP.

F. Background Concentrations

    To develop background concentrations for the nonattainment area,
Louisiana relied on 2012-2014 SO2 data from the Meraux
monitor and

meteorological data from the Vista monitor (no meteorological data are
collected at Meraux). The Meraux and Chalmette Vista (Vista) sites are
located only 5 km apart and in similar topography; therefore,
meteorological conditions at the Vista monitor are representative of
those at Meraux.\18\ In determining the monitored background
concentration, LDEQ excluded monitored data when the major sources
(Rain, Chalmette Refinery and Valero Refinery) were impacting the
monitor. A 68-degree sector containing all three sources was identified
and hourly SO2 values corresponding to hours when the wind
direction was from within that 68-degree arc and wind speeds were
greater than 2 miles per hour were excluded. The 2nd highest value for
each season and hour of day was determined for each of the three years
2012-2014. These values were averaged and the resulting set of values
were utilized as background. LDEQ also examined more recent monitoring
data and determined that subsequent years had lower design values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ We note that the meteorological data collected at the Vista
monitor do not meet all the requirements for use as input for air
quality modeling. See Section IV. B. for a discussion of the
meteorological data used for modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These background values are representative of the contribution due
to other sources within the St. Bernard Parish and surrounding areas
that were not explicitly modeled. See the TSD for additional
information. Using this approach, the EPA finds the State's treatment
of SO2 background levels to be suitable for the modeled
attainment demonstration.

G. Summary of Results

    The modeling analysis including the February 2, 2018 AOC emission
limits for the Rain facility resulted in concentrations below the level
of the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS. The EPA has reviewed
Louisiana's attainment demonstration, conducted additional modeling
runs and agrees that Louisiana's submittal and supplemental materials,
along with the new AOC limits (February 2, 2018), result in
demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS before the
attainment deadline of October 4, 2018. LDEQ reviewed EPA's modeling
files and has affirmed that they are accurate and representative.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Email from [email protected] to [email protected] et
al. March 27, 2018 1:28PM included in docket to this action.

Table 1--Summary of EPA Model Results With Number of Operating Scenarios
                      Modeled, if Greater Than One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Design value
                   Operational status                        [mu]g/m3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold Stack Normal Operations (Two Scenarios)............           192.4
Hot Stack Normal Operations.............................           171.3
Transition (Seven Scenarios)............................           190.0
Rain Property...........................................           146.4
Valero Property.........................................           125.5
Chalmette Refinery Property.............................           148.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We therefore propose to determine that Louisiana's plan provides
for attainment of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in the St.
Bernard Parish nonattainment area prior to October 4, 2018.

V. Review of Other Plan Requirements

A. Emissions Inventory

    The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area
serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses
that enable states to: (1) Estimate the degree to which different
sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the
affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality
within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of
control measures. As noted above, the state must develop and submit to
the EPA a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of SO2 emissions in each
nonattainment area, as well as any sources located outside the
nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area. See CAA
section 172(c)(3).
    In its submittal, Louisiana included a current emissions inventory
for the St. Bernard Parish nonattainment area based on the 2011-2015
period. Two other sources outside St. Bernard Parish were also included
in the modeling, but were not critical to the modeling and thus further
emission reductions (or including existing limits in this SIP) were not
necessary for these two sources (ConocoPhillips and New Orleans Sewer
Treatment).
    The State principally relied on 2011 as the most complete and
representative record of annual SO2 emissions because it
coincided with the EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which
includes a comprehensive inventory of all source types (point, nonpoint
and onroad and off-road mobile sources). Changes to the methodology for
the NEI for off-road sources made the 2014 NEI values incomparable to
the previous years, but additional emissions information was provided
to supplement the 2011 NEI data.
    The state of Louisiana compiles a statewide EI in accordance with
the CAA Amendments of 1990, LAC 33:III.918 and 919 (Recordkeeping and
Annual Reporting and Emissions Inventory). Louisiana supplemented the
2011 NEI data with their 2013 point source EI in the SIP submittal as
shown in the following table: \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The EPA reviewed more recent inventories (2014-2016) and
confirmed that emissions were similar with Rain emissions being
slightly higher on average and the two refineries (Valero and
Chalmette) were lower in more recent years. See St. Bernard EI 2014-
2016.xlsx in the docket.

        2013 St. Bernard Parish Point Source Emissions Inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Tons per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rain Chalmette Coke Plant...............................         3061.88
Chalmette Refinery......................................          255.46
Valero Refinery.........................................          200.74
TOCA Gas Processing Plant...............................            3.27
Chalmette Cane Sugar Refinery...........................            0.76
ELOI Bay Platform No. 1.................................            0.41
Southern Natural Gas Co.--Toca Compressor Station.......            0.17
2013 Point Source Totals................................         3522.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the State further supplemented the emissions inventory
information and SIP submittal with newer, more specific emissions
information for Rain in the February 2, 2018 AOC, which included
revised emission limits and operating parameters utilized in the
attainment demonstration modeling.
    Louisiana also developed SO2 emissions projections for
the 2018 attainment year. Nonpoint and mobile emissions data was taken
from the NEI database. Emissions projections for nonpoint and mobile
sources are based on the reductions established in 2005, 2008, and
2011. The emissions estimate for 2018 point sources is based on FY 2013
emissions.
    Because St. Bernard Parish is currently an SO2
nonattainment area, nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requires
SO2 increases from new major sources and major modifications
to be offset at > 1 to 1, therefore, the emissions estimate for 2018
point sources is based on FY 2013 emissions at 3,523 tons per year
(tpy). Nonpoint and mobile emissions data was taken from the NEI
database. The combined emissions estimate for 2018 nonpoint and mobile
sources is approximately 625 tpy, approximately the same as current
emissions, almost all of which are from nonpoint sources.

    The EPA agrees that the State's emissions inventories for point,
nonpoint and mobile sources are appropriate because they rely on well-
established and vetted estimates of emissions for the current period
and attainment year, respectively.

B. RACM/RACT

    To be approved by the EPA, the SIP must provide for attainment of
the standard based on SO2 emission reductions from control
measures that are permanent and enforceable. At a minimum, states must
consider all RACM and RACT measures that can be implemented in light of
the attainment needs for the affected area, and include all necessary
measures in order to attain the NAAQS. The definition for RACT is that
control technology which is necessary to achieve the NAAQS (see 40 CFR
51. 100(o)). Since SO2 RACT is already defined as the
technology necessary to achieve NAAQS, control technology which failed
to achieve the SO2 NAAQS would, by definition, fail to be
SO2 RACT. See General Preamble at 57 FR 13498, 13547.\21\
Louisiana's submittal and supplement meets this requirement for the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in the St. Bernard Parish nonattainment area
as the control measures implemented in the plan have been shown to
achieve attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and CAA 172(c)(1) that
provides that ``[s]uch plan shall provide for the implementation of
all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as
practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing
sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall
provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality
standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The plan relies on ambient SO2 concentration reductions
achieved by implementation of an AOCand permitted limits at Rain and
permitted limits at Valero and Chalmette Refining. Rain achieved
reductions by replacing the existing stack for the Waste Heat Boiler/
Baghouse (EQT003) with a new stack with a height of approximately 199
feet; \22\ and replacing the lime injection system with an
SO2 scrubber and baghouse.\23\ The Waste Heat Boiler/
Baghouse began venting through the new stack on October 10, 2013. The
SO2 scrubbing system was operational before February 29,
2016. The impact of these measures had an apparent positive impact on
the measured SO2 concentrations at the relevant (Chalmette
Vista) SO2 monitor based on the recent reduction in observed
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Pursuant to an AOC, entered into by LDEQ and Rain, Rain was
to replace the stack with a new stack of approximately 199 feet. The
new stack was in operation prior to December 31, 2013. Enforcement
Tracking No. AE-AOA-13-00490, effective June 20, 2013.
    \23\ Rain CII Chalmette NSR Title V Permit October 27 2017, in
docket as 10-27-17 NSR-Title V Rain v3 Final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further improvements will be achieved through the implementation of
the February 2, 2018 AOC that sets operating parameters and emission
limits for all three operating states: 1) Emit through Hot Stack; 2)
Emit through Cold Stack; and 3) Transition between the two states
during which emissions are through both stacks. It also further reduced
the emission limits for the cold stack providing for an additional 57-
78% reduction in cold stack emissions.
    The final emission limitations as included in the February 2, 2018
AOC are provided in Section IV.E. Emission Limitations above.
    Valero Refining completed SO2 reductions and revised
their permit to incorporate the lowering of flare emissions due to the
installation of a flare gas recovery system in Permit No. 2500-00001-
V12 issued March 9, 2016. The Chalmette Refinery made all the consent
decree SO2 reductions with the last requirements met by
December 31, 2016, with a flare management plan (Permit No. 3016-V4).
Rain has installed controls to help reduce its impacts, e.g., the
installation and venting through a taller stack by October 10, 2013,
and the installation and operation of a SO2 scrubber by
February 29, 2016.
    Motor Vehicles in the general area have reduced SO2
emissions through the implementation of federal programs, such as Tier
3 vehicle emission and fuel standards that have begun in 2017. Tier 3
sets new vehicle emissions standards and lowers the sulfur content of
gasoline, considering the vehicle and its fuel as an integrated system.
Specifically, Federal gasoline will not contain more than 10 parts per
million (ppm) of sulfur on an annual average basis by January 1, 2017.
    Louisiana has determined that these measures for Rain in addition
to the permitted limits at Valero Refining, and Chalmette Refining,
provide for timely attainment and meet the RACT requirements.\24\ The
EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that the state has satisfied the
requirement in section 172(c)(1) to adopt and submit all RACM,
including RACT, as needed to attain the standards as expeditiously as
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Permit No 2500-00001-V16 for Chalmette Refining in the
docket as 8-10-17 Valero-MerauxRefinery-permit 2500-0001-V16.pdf
(Note the Permit No 2500-0001-V9 included reductions in
SO2 from a Consent Decree); Chalmette Refining Permits
(No. 2500-0005-V5, 2933-V6, 2822-V2, 3004-V7, 3011- V3, 3015-V3,
3016-V3, 3017-V5, 3018-V5 30222-V7, 3023-V7) in the docket as
ChalmetteRefining-Final Permits.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. New Source Review (NSR)

    The EPA has approved both Louisiana's NNSR and Emission Reduction
Credits (ERC) banking programs. (LAC 33:111.504 was approved on
September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61270); LAC 33:III.Chapter 6 was approved on
September 27, 2002 (67 FR 60877)). Note that per a rule revision
promulgated November 20, 2012 (AQ 327), (See App. D to SIP), revisions
to LDEQ's ERC banking program (LAC 33:III.Chapter 6) were made such
that creditable SO2 reductions could be banked and traded as
ERC. No further revisions to LAC 33:III.504 or Chapter 6 are required
to implement the NNSR program in St. Bernard Parish. These rules
provide for appropriate new source review for SO2 major
sources undergoing construction or major modification in St. Bernard
Parish without need for modification of the approved rules. Therefore,
the EPA concludes that this requirement has already been met for this
area.

D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

    Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required
by part D or may reasonably be required by EPA for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.'' This definition is most appropriate for pollutants
that are emitted by numerous and diverse sources, where the
relationship between any individual source and the overall air quality
is not explicitly quantified, and where the emission reductions
necessary to attain the NAAQS are inventory-wide. See April 2014
SO2 Guidance memo, page 40.\25\ EPA has also previously
explained that the definition is generally less pertinent to pollutants
like SO2 that usually have a limited number of sources
affecting areas of air quality that are relatively well defined, and
emissions control measures for such sources result in swift and
dramatic improvement in air quality.\26\ For SO2, there is
usually a single ``step'' between

pre-control nonattainment and post-control attainment. Therefore, for
SO2, with its discernible relationship between emissions and
air quality, and significant and immediate air quality improvements,
RFP is best construed as ``adherence to an ambitious compliance
schedule.'' See General Preamble at 74 FR 13547 (April l6, 1992). This
means that the State must ensure that affected sources implement
appropriate control measures as expeditiously as practicable in order
to ensure attainment of the standard by the applicable attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ April 23, 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
Nonattinment Area SIP Submissions which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
    \26\ See SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, EPA-452/R-94[middot]008,
February 1994. (See https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/2000H22J.PDF?Dockey=2000H22J.PDF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its submittal and supplement, the LDEQ provided its rationale
for concluding that the plan met the requirement for RFP in accordance
with EPA guidance. Specifically, LDEQ's rationale is based on the
General Preamble and EPA 2014 SO2 guidance interpreting the
RFP requirement being satisfied for SO2 if the plan requires
``adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule'' that ``implement[s]
appropriate control measures as expeditiously as practicable.'' The
submittal and supplement provide for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable, i.e., by the attainment date of October 4, 2018, and
thereby satisfy the requirement for RFP. As noted previously, there are
three major sources in the area that are the main sources of concern:
Valero Refining, Chalmette Refining, and Rain. The two point sources
(Valero and Chalmette) are subject to emissions reductions from consent
decrees that have been included in NSR SIP permits. Valero Refining
completed all the consent decree's SO2 reductions and
revised their permit to incorporate the lowering of flare emissions due
to the flare gas recovery system in Permit No. 2500-00001-V12 issued
March 9, 2016. The Chalmette Refinery made all the consent decree's
SO2 reductions with the last requirements met by December
31, 2016, with a flare management plan (Permit No. 3016-V4). Rain
entered into a February 2. 2018, AOC that requires compliance by May 3,
2018, and if finalized as a SIP revision, will become federally
enforceable. Therefore, Louisiana concluded that its SIP submittal and
supplement provide for RFP in accordance with the approach to RFP
described in the EPA's SO2 guidance and the Preamble. The
EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that the SIP submittal and
supplement provides for RFP.

E. Contingency Measures

    As discussed in our 2014 SO2 guidance, Section 172(c)(9)
of the CAA defines contingency measures as such measures in a SIP that
are to be implemented in the event that an area fails to make RFP, or
fails to attain the NAAQS, by the applicable attainment date.
Contingency measures are to become effective without further action by
the state or the EPA, where the area has failed to (1) achieve RFP or
(2) attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date for the affected
area. These control measures are to consist of other available control
measures that are not included in the control strategy for the
nonattainment area SIP. EPA guidance describes special features of
SO2 planning that influence the suitability of alternative
means of addressing the requirement in section 172(c)(9) for
contingency measures for SO2. Because SO2 control
measures are by definition based on what is directly and quantifiably
necessary emissions controls, any violations of the NAAQS are likely
related to source violations of a source's permit or agreed order
terms. Therefore, an appropriate means of satisfying this requirement
for SO2 is for the state to have a comprehensive enforcement
program that identifies sources of violations of the SO2
NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for compliance and
enforcement.
    For its contingency program, Louisiana proposed to operate a
comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the
SO2 NAAQS and undertake aggressive compliance and
enforcement actions. Louisiana has regulatory authority to implement
emergency rules for cause which may include violations of the NAAQS.
More specifically, Louisiana proposed an analysis to determine the
cause of any violation of the SO2 NAAQS, followed by
identification and implementation of appropriate control measures at
major SO2 sources through the use of emergency rules and/or
administrative orders. Because the LDEQ has the ability to issue
administrative orders and/or emergency rules that do not require public
notice or comment and would use that process, as needed, to quickly
implement measures to protect public health, the EPA believes that this
approach continues to be a valid approach for the implementation of
contingency measures to address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    As noted above, EPA guidance describes special features of
SO2 planning that influence the suitability of alternative
means of addressing the requirement in section 172(c)(9) for
contingency measures for SO2, such that in particular an
appropriate means of satisfying this requirement is for the state to
have a comprehensive enforcement program that identifies sources of
violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive
follow-up for compliance and enforcement. Louisiana's plan provides for
satisfying the contingency measure requirement in this manner. The EPA
concurs and proposes to approve Louisiana's plan for meeting the
contingency measure requirement in this manner.

VI. Conformity

    Generally, as set forth in section 176(c) of the CAA, conformity
requires that actions by federal agencies do not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the relevant NAAQS. General conformity applies to federal actions,
other than certain highway and transportation projects, if the action
takes place in a nonattainment area or maintenance area (i.e., an area
which submitted a maintenance plan that meets the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA and has been redesignated to attainment) for
ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, or
SO2. EPA's General Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93.150 to 93.165)
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining if a federal
action conforms to the SIP. With respect to the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, federal agencies are expected to continue to estimate emissions
for conformity analyses in the same manner as they estimated emissions
for conformity analyses under the previous NAAQS for SO2.
EPA's General Conformity Rule includes the basic requirement that a
federal agency's general conformity analysis be based on the latest and
most accurate emission estimation techniques available (40 CFR
93.159(b)). When updated and improved emissions estimation techniques
become available, EPA expects the federal agency to use these
techniques.
    Transportation conformity determinations are not required in
SO2 nonattainment and maintenance areas. EPA concluded in
its 1993 transportation conformity rule that highway and transit
vehicles are not significant sources of SO2. Therefore,
transportation plans, transportation improvement programs and projects
are presumed to conform to applicable implementation plans for
SO2. (See 58 FR 3776, January 11, 1993.)

VII. EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve Louisiana's SIP submission, which
the State submitted to EPA on November 9, 2017, and supplemented on
February 8, 2018, as meeting the requirements for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than October 4,

2018, and other nonattainment area planning requirements for the St.
Bernard Parish Nonattainment Area. This 2010 1-hour SO2 SIP
submittal includes Louisiana's attainment demonstration for the St.
Bernard Parish Nonattainment Area, including a new February 2, 2018 AOC
for Rain that serves as a source-specific SIP revision, and the other
CAA required elements including RFP, a RACT/RACM demonstration, base-
year and projection-year emission inventories, and contingency
measures. We are proposing to approve the February 2, 2018, Rain AOC as
a source-specific revision to the SIP. Louisiana also demonstrated it
met the requirements regarding NNSR for SO2 and the EPA
approved this program.
    The EPA has determined that Louisiana's SO2 attainment
plan meets applicable requirements of the sections 110, 172, 173, 191,
and 192 of the CAA. EPA's analysis is discussed in this proposed
rulemaking and in our TSD that is available on-line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558. The TSD provides
additional explanation of the EPA's analysis supporting this proposal.

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to the Louisiana source-specific requirements as
described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office
(please contact Robert Imhoff,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected] for
more information).

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 12, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-08067 Filed 4-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P