[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36496-36501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13493]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464; FRL-9947-36-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to
disapprove the portion of a Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) in other states. Disapproval will establish a 2-year deadline
for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for
Louisiana to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport
requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment
and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other
states, unless we approve a SIP that meets these requirements.
Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for Louisiana.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2013-0464, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
[[Page 36497]]
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Sherry Fuerst 214-665-
6454, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst 214-665-6454,
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075
ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the
applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2).
One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how the first
two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission
from Louisiana for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These sub-elements require
that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions
to prohibit any emissions activity within the State from emitting air
pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or
``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable air quality standard
in any other state.
Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by
chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight.
Emissions from electric utilities and industrial facilities, motor
vehicles, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major
sources of NOX and VOCs. Because ground-level ozone
formation increases with temperature and sunlight, ozone levels are
generally higher during the summer. Increased temperature also
increases emissions of VOCs and can indirectly increase NOX
emissions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706, 75711 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to ozone in several past
regulatory actions. The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 1998,
addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ The rule required 22 states and the
District of Columbia to amend their SIPs and limit NOX
emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment. The Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated in 2005, addressed both the 1997
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone standards under
the good neighbor provision and required SIP revisions in 28 states and
the District of Columbia to limit NOX and SO2
emissions that contribute to nonattainment of those standards.\3\ CAIR
was remanded to us by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176. In
response to the remand of CAIR, we promulgated the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern \4\ portion of the United States.\5\
With respect to ozone, CSAPR limited ozone season NOX
emissions from electric generating units (EGUs). CSAPR addressed
interstate transport as to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, but
did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998).
\3\ Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12,
2005).
\4\ When we discuss the eastern United States we mean the
contiguous U.S. states excluding the 11 western states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
\5\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Louisiana SIP Revision Addressing Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
On June 4, 2013, Louisiana provided us with a SIP submittal
addressing CAA section 110(a)(2) ``infrastructure'' requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This action concerns the portion of the SIP
submittal pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
to address the interstate transport of air pollution which will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We proposed
approval on other portions of the State's submittal relating to CAA
section 110(a)(2) elements A, B, C, D(i)(II), D(ii), E, F, G, H, J, K,
L, and M in a separate action signed on May 18, 2016.
In its SIP submittal, Louisiana provided an ``Infrastructure
Checklist'' for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and stated that the submittal
substantiates that the State has adequate provisions to prohibit air
pollutant emissions from within the State that significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state. The checklist states that the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) submitted and we approved CAIR SIPs for
both sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions, citing 72 FR 39741
(July 20, 2007) and 72 FR 55064 (September 28, 2007).\6\ The checklist
also notes that the controls installed to comply with CAIR are required
by State law at Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.905 to be
``used and diligently maintained.'' The checklist also provided
narrative on the D.C. Circuit's 2012 decision in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA which vacated CSAPR and the November 19, 2012,
memorandum explaining the continued implementation of CAIR until a
replacement rule could be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CAIR found that sulfur dioxide and NOX emission
limits were needed in Louisiana to address interstate transport of
air pollution for the 1997 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS (70
FR 25162, May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana's SIP submittal included a response to comments document
which, among other things, summarized and responded to February 15,
2013, comments from us on what was then the State's proposed SIP
revision. In our comments on the proposed SIP revision, we noted that
the information LDEQ
[[Page 36498]]
provided was based upon the old 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements
and was therefore not sufficient to support a conclusion that the
State's ozone emissions do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In its response, Louisiana
disagreed, and accordingly chose not to revise its proposed SIP
revision or provide any additional support for its conclusions.
Instead, Louisiana contended in its response to comments that, ``the
information based on the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements is
relevant . . . through the CAIR NOX program in that it
demonstrates the state's most recent efforts in maintaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and to alleviate transport pollutants.'' A copy of the
Louisiana SIP submittal, which includes our February 15, 2013, comment
letter and the State's response to comments, may be accessed online at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464.
III. The EPA's Evaluation
As noted above, we informed Louisiana in our February 15, 2013,
comment letter that the information provided in the SIP submittal would
not itself be sufficient to conclude that the State has adequate
provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the State
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. However, the SIP
submittal provided by Louisiana cited the State's approved CAIR SIP as
support for its conclusion that the State satisfied its section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
First, CAIR was invalidated by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina
v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (2008). The D.C. Circuit held, among other things,
that the CAIR rule did not ``achieve[] something measureable toward the
goal of prohibiting sources within the State from contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in any other State.'' Id.
at 908; see also, e.g., id. at 916 (EPA is not exercising its authority
to make measureable progress towards the goals of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because the emission budgets were insufficiently
related to the statutory mandate). In promulgating CSAPR, we corrected
our prior approvals of states' CAIR SIPs, including Louisiana's
approved CAIR SIPs, ``to rescind any statements that the SIP
submissions either satisfy or relieve the state of the obligation to
submit a SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 1997 ozone and/or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or
any statements that EPA's approval of the SIP submissions either
relieve EPA of the obligation to promulgate a FIP or remove EPA's
authority to promulgate a FIP.'' 76 FR 48208, 48220. In reviewing
CSAPR, the D.C. Circuit concluded that our correction of the prior CAIR
approvals was appropriate, explaining ``when our decision in North
Carolina deemed CAIR to be an invalid effort to implement the
requirements of the good neighbor provision, that ruling meant that the
initial approval of the CAIR SIPs was in error at the time it was
done.'' EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 133 (D.C.
Cir. 2015). Therefore, the D.C. Circuit has clearly concluded that
states cannot rely on CAIR or previously approved CAIR SIPs to satisfy
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Even if Louisiana could rely on its CAIR SIPs, as we stated in our
comment letter, the modeling and rulemaking conducted for both CAIR and
CSAPR addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS, not the more stringent 2008 ozone
NAAQS at issue in this action. EPA-approved rules implementing a prior,
less stringent NAAQS are not adequate on their own to support a
demonstration regarding the impacts of in-state emissions on air
quality in other states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\7\
Additionally, although we approved the Louisiana abbreviated SIP
implementing the CAIR NOX trading program, neither the
states nor the EPA are currently implementing the ozone-season
NOX trading program promulgated in CAIR, as it has been
replaced by CSAPR. Moreover, although the State cites to a State
regulation requiring that already-installed controls be ``used'' and
``maintained,'' the State does not provide any explanation as to
whether the sources are subject to specific emissions limitations or
how the use of the controls will impact downwind air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Louisiana's citation to our July 20, 2007 action approving
Louisiana's CAIR sulfur dioxide SIP revision is particularly
inapplicable. 72 FR 39741. Sulfur dioxide is not a precursor or
pollutant that contributes to ozone formation, and therefore, the
implementation of any control requirements to address sulfur dioxide
emissions is irrelevant to our analysis of the State's control
requirements to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it is no longer appropriate for Louisiana to rely on the
D.C. Circuit decision vacating CSAPR as a basis for concluding that its
SIP is adequate. Although the D.C. Circuit initially held that states
did not have an obligation to make a SIP submission addressing section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until we first quantified a state's emission
reduction obligation, see EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7, on April 29,
2014, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded the case to
the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). The Supreme Court explained
that ``nothing in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide
specific metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good
neighbor obligations.'' Id. at 1601.
Because the Louisiana submittal addressed by this action concerns
states' interstate transport obligations for a different and more
stringent standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), it is not sufficient to
merely cite as evidence of compliance that these older programs have
been implemented by the states or the EPA.\8\ The submittal lacks any
technical analysis evaluating or demonstrating whether emissions in
each state impact air quality in other states with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. As such, the submittal does not provide us with a basis to
agree with the conclusion that the State already has adequate
provisions in the SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, we propose to find that
the Louisiana submittal is not adequate as it did not evaluate whether
emissions from the State significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This is particularly true where, as here, Louisiana has
failed to include any analysis of the downwind impacts of emissions
originating within their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v.
EPA, 608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Louisiana submittal contains no data or analysis to
support their conclusion with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, we recently shared new technical
information with states to facilitate efforts to address interstate
transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Such technical
information provides further support to our determination that
Louisiana is projected to significantly contribute to nonattainment and
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We
developed this technical information following the same approach used
to evaluate interstate transport in CSAPR in order to support the
recently proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS, (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015) (``CSAPR Update Rule'').
In CSAPR, we used detailed air quality analyses to determine
whether an eastern state's contribution to
[[Page 36499]]
downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a
state's contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening
threshold, the state was not considered ``linked'' to identified
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was, therefore,
not considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If
a state exceeded that threshold, the state's emissions were further
evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might
be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe it is
appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to establish an
air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of interstate
transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
In CSAPR, we proposed an air quality screening threshold of one
percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one
percent was appropriate. We evaluated the comments received and
ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small,
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a
higher or lower threshold than one percent, we compiled the
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. Our
analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states,
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting
downwind receptors would be excluded. In addition, we determined that
it was important to use a relatively lower one percent threshold
because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone
even at low levels. We also determined that a lower threshold such as
0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the overall
percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport
captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. We
determined that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission
reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have
a very small impact on those receptors--an indicator that emission
controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality
impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a
threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.''
In the final CSAPR, we determined that one percent was a reasonable
choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple upwind
states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low levels
of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the previous use of
a one percent threshold in CAIR. We used a single ``bright line'' air
quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, or 0.08 ppm. The projected contribution from each state was
averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled ozone, and then
compared to the one percent threshold. We concluded that this approach
for setting and applying the air quality threshold for ozone was
appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was consistent with
the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, and because it
took into account, and would be applicable to, any future ozone
standards below 0.08 ppm. We have subsequently proposed to use the same
threshold for purposes of evaluating interstate transport with respect
to the 2008 ozone standard in the CSAPR Update Rule.
In 2015 we (1) provided notice of data availability (NODA) for the
updated ozone transport modeling for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for public
review and comment (80 FR 46271, August 4, 2015), and (2) proposed the
CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015). The proposed CSAPR
Update Rule would further restrict ozone season NOX
emissions from EGUs in 23 states, including Louisiana, beginning in the
2017 ozone season.
The modeling data released in this NODA was also used to support
the proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The moderate area attainment date for
the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate
attainment by this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through
2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, we proposed that 2017 is an
appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We used photochemical
air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality
monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone
contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to
model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. We used nationwide state-
level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source
Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis
technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the
2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for
a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting
technical support documents have been included in the docket for this
SIP action.
The modeling data released in the NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule
are the most up-to-date information we have developed to inform our
analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. As
discussed in the CSAPR Update Rule proposal, the air quality modeling
(1) identified locations in the U.S. where we expect nonattainment or
maintenance problems in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e.,
nonattainment or maintenance receptors), and (2) quantified the
projected contributions of emissions from upwind states to downwind
ozone concentrations at those receptors in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720-30,
December 3, 2015). Consistent with CSAPR, we proposed to use a
threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per
billion) to identify linkages between upwind states and downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptors. We proposed that eastern states
with contributions to a specific receptor that meet or exceed this
screening threshold are considered ``linked'' to that receptor and were
analyzed further to quantify available emissions reductions necessary
to address interstate transport to these receptors.
Table 1 is a summary of the air quality modeling results for
Louisiana from Tables V.D-1, V.D-2 and V.D-3 of the proposed CSAPR
Update Rule.\9\ As the State's downwind contribution to proposed
nonattainment and maintenance receptors exceeded the threshold, the
analysis for the proposal concluded that Louisiana's emissions
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
[[Page 36500]]
in other states. Louisiana's emissions were linked (1) to eastern
nonattainment receptors in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and the Dallas/Fort
Worth and Houston areas of Texas, and (2) to eastern maintenance
receptors in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 80 FR 75706, 75727-28.
Table 1--Louisiana's Largest Contribution to Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
[Proposed CSAPR Update Rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest downwind Largest downwind Downwind nonattainment Downwind maintenance
2008 Ozone NAAQS Air quality threshold contribution to contribution to receptors located in receptors located in
nonattainment maintenance states states
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion or 0.75 ppb.............. 3.09 ppb............. 4.23 ppb............. Wisconsin, Texas...... Texas
ppb).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the most recent technical analysis available to us
contradicts Louisiana's conclusion that the SIP contains adequate
provisions to address interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone
standard.
We are thus proposing to disapprove the portion of the Louisiana
SIP submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states--i.e., element
(D)(i)(I). As explained above, the Louisiana submittal did not provide
an adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the SIP contains
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, our most recent modeling
indicates that emissions from Louisiana are in fact projected to
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
IV. Proposed Action
We propose to disapprove the portion of a June 4, 2013 Louisiana
SIP submittal pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the
interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in other states.
Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), disapproval will establish a 2-
year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Louisiana to address
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS unless Louisiana submits and we approve a SIP that
meets these requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory
sanctions clock for Louisiana pursuant to CAA section 179 because this
action does not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas
required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(5).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not
meeting the CAA.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This proposed action does not contain any unfunded mandate as
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable
duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that we have reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not
meeting the CAA.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
We believe the human health or environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous populations. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP
submission as not meeting the CAA.
[[Page 36501]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 26, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-13493 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P