81_FR_74958 81 FR 74750 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

81 FR 74750 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 208 (October 27, 2016)

Page Range74750-74753
FR Document2016-25803

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) on August 11, 2016 that addresses regional haze (RH) for the first planning period. This revision was submitted to address deficiencies identified in a previous action regarding requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing man-made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). This action concerns Best Available Retrofit Technology for certain sources.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74750-74753]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25803]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0520; FRL-9952-65-Region 6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) on August 11, 2016 that addresses regional 
haze (RH) for the first planning period. This revision was submitted to 
address deficiencies identified in a previous action regarding 
requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the EPA's 
rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing 
man-made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by 
emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide 
geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). 
This action concerns Best Available Retrofit Technology for certain 
sources.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 28, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2016-0520, 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 
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 Jennifer Huser, 214-665-
7347, [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: Jennifer Huser, 214-665-7347, 
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment with Jennifer Huser or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

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

I. Background

A. The Regional Haze Program

    In the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, Congress established 
a program to protect and improve visibility in the Nation's national 
parks and wilderness areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the 
visibility provisions in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the 
problem of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. The EPA promulgated 
regional haze regulations in 1999 to implement sections 169A and 169B 
of the CAA. These regulations require states to develop and implement 
plans to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ (Class I areas). See 64 FR 35714 
(July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 
(October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, the EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused 
by air pollution, principally fine particulate, produced by numerous 
sources and activities, located across a broad regional area. The 
sources include but are not limited to, major and minor stationary 
sources, mobile sources, and area sources including non-anthropogenic 
sources. These sources and activities may emit fine particles (PM 
2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 
carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases, 
ammonia and volatile organic compounds). Fine particulate can also 
cause serious health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes 
to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication. 
See 64 FR at 35715. Data from the existing visibility monitoring 
network, the ``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments'' (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility 
impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time in 
most national parks and wilderness areas. The average visual range in 
many Class I areas in the western United States is 100-150 kilometers, 
or about one-half to two-thirds the visual range that would exist 
without manmade air pollution.\2\ Visibility impairment also varies 
day-to-day and by season depending on variations in meteorology and 
emission rates. The deciview (dv) is the metric by which visibility is 
measured in the regional haze program. A change of 1 dv is generally 
considered the change in visual range that the human eye can perceive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 64 FR at 35715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources with the potential to emit greater than 250 tons per 
year (tpy) or more of any visibility impairing pollutant in order to 
address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 
169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires states to revise their SIPs to 
contain such measures as may be necessary to make

[[Page 74751]]

reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a 
requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \3\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'', as determined by the state 
or us in the case of a plan promulgated under section 110(c) of the 
CAA. Under the Regional Haze rule, states are directed to conduct BART 
determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a 
Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We promulgated regulations addressing Regional Haze in 1999, 64 FR 
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.\4\ These 
regulations require all states to submit implementation plans that, 
among other measures, contain either emission limits representing BART 
for certain sources constructed between 1962 and 1977, or alternative 
measures that provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR 
51.308(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 
2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit issued a ruling vacating and remanding the BART provisions 
of the regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART guidelines to 
address the court's ruling in that case. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA's Previous Actions on Louisiana Regional Haze

    On June 13, 2008, Louisiana submitted a SIP to address regional 
haze. EPA acted on that submittal in two separate actions. The first 
was a limited disapproval (77 FR 33641) because of deficiencies in the 
state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to the EPA of the Clean 
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The second was a partial limited approval/
partial disapproval (77 FR 39425) because the SIP revision met some but 
not all of the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations 
as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-
308, but as a whole, the SIP revision strengthened the SIP. The 
deficiencies included inadequate Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) determinations for four facilities. These four facilities are 
the only non-electric generating unit (EGU) facilities in Louisiana 
that were identified as being subject to BART and are referred to as 
the non-EGU facilities.
    On August 11 2016, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision intended to 
address the deficiencies related to BART for the four non-EGUs.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. Introduction to the Four Non-EGU Facilities: Summary

    The four non-EGU facilities are: Phillips 66 Company-Alliance 
Refinery; Mosaic Fertilizer LLC, Uncle Sam Plant; Eco-Services 
Operations Corp.; and Sid Richardson Carbon Co., Addis Plant. For three 
facilities (Phillips 66, Eco-Services, and Sid Richardson), LDEQ had 
submitted a BART analysis under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). For each of 
these facilities, we determined, in our July 3, 2012 notice, that the 
BART analysis satisfied part, but not all, of the requirements. We also 
found that LDEQ had erred in exempting Mosaic from BART by using future 
controls and visibility impacts rather than assessing controls that 
were in place at the time of the SIP submittal.
    In its August 11, 2016 SIP submittal, LDEQ provided revised BART 
analyses for the three facilities to address the deficiencies noted in 
the previous Regional Haze SIP action. LDEQ has also provided a BART 
analysis for Mosaic. A summary of our proposed findings for these 
facilities is provided below. For more details, please see our 
evaluation of the BART determination for each of these four subject-to-
BART sources in the TSD.
A. Sid Richardson Carbon Co.
    The Sid Richardson Carbon Company's Addis Plant is located in West 
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. For the BART eligible units at the 
facility, LDEQ submitted in the original Regional Haze SIP a BART 
engineering analysis; for particulate matter the LDEQ determined that 
the high efficiency fabric filters already in use at the facility are 
BART. EPA found that the LDEQ acted within its discretion in making 
this determination and that the analyses met the BART requirements. 
However, the EPA found that the BART analysis for NOX and 
SO2 were deficient. While LDEQ indicated that no controls 
were technically feasible, EPA found that the record did not provide a 
sufficient basis for this conclusion. Based on this, the NOX 
and SO2 BART determination for the Addis Plant was deemed 
deficient (77 FR 11851).
    The original modeling that was performed showed that the facility 
had an impact that was above the contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview 
level for determining which sources are subject to BART. The Addis 
plant model results were 0.756 deciviews.
    In response to the EPA action, Sid Richardson revised the BART 
analysis and updated the modeling. The facility requested permission to 
perform a new round of modeling using the same emissions parameters 
that were used in the original model but utilizing the newest EPA 
approved methods and guidance documents. EPA reviewed and concurred 
with the methodology and modeling results provided by Sid Richardson. 
Based on this analysis, LDEQ concluded that the facility is not 
subject-to-BART because its model visibility impact was less than 0.5 
deciviews. We have evaluated LDEQ's submittal and propose to approve 
the Sid Richardson BART analysis and modeling and the LDEQ's finding 
that the Addis plant is not subject-to-BART.
B. Phillips 66 Company-Alliance Refinery (Formerly ConocoPhillips)
    The Phillips 66 Company (Phillips 66) owns and operates the 
Alliance Refinery near Belle Chasse, Louisiana, which is a subject-to-
BART source.\5\ On December 5, 2005, Conoco Phillips, the United States 
of America and the State of Louisiana, entered into a Consent Decree 
(CD) \6\ as part of the National Refinery Initiative for the Belle 
Chasse (Alliance) Refinery. In our previous action, we found that the 
BART engineering analysis provided by Phillips 66 utilized emission 
reductions that are mandated per the CD for the fluidized catalytic 
cracker (FCCU), the process refinery flares and the crude unit heater. 
However, the LDEQ did not provide a complete BART evaluation for these 
units. In the August 11, 2016 SIP revision, LDEQ provided a complete 
BART determination for these units. Controls and conditions required by 
the CD include a wet gas scrubber on the FCCU, selective catalytic 
reduction (SCR) on the FCCU and crude unit heater, flare gas recovery 
for the process refinery flares, and compliance with the Standards of 
Performance for Petroleum Refineries as prescribed in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J for the low pressure and high pressure flares, CO boilers, 
and crude unit heaters. Implementation of these control projects as per 
the CD emissions reduction requirements have resulted in reducing the 
overall site visibility impacts. In the previous

[[Page 74752]]

action, we also found that the LDEQ failed to submit the emissions 
limits as part of the SIP revision as required. The emissions limits 
are now included in an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) No. AE-
AOC-14-00211A between LDEQ and Phillips 66 and were provided in the 
August 11, 2016 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ At the time of Louisiana's initial Regional Haze SIP, the 
Alliance Refinery was owned and operated by ConocoPhillips. 
Ownership of the Alliance Refinery transferred to Phillips 66 on 
April 26, 2012. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution 
Agreement between the companies, responsibility for compliance with 
the environmental permits now resides with Phillips 66 Company.
    \6\ Civil Action No. H-05-0285. A copy of this CD is available 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our initial action on Louisiana Regional Haze, we approved 
LDEQ's BART determinations for several other subject to BART units at 
the Alliance Refinery. These units include the cooling water tower, 
gas-fired heaters, loading docks, and the coke transfer and storage 
area. See 77 FR at 39432. However, at that time, LDEQ did not submit 
the BART emissions limits for approval into the SIP. The BART emissions 
limits for these units are also included in AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00211A.
    EPA proposes to find that the current controls installed and 
operating conditions at these subject to BART units constitute BART. 
The emissions limits for all of the subject to BART units at the 
Alliance Refinery are included in the AOC in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(4)(e). Upon EPA approval of this portion of the Regional Haze 
SIP submittal, the AOC becomes federally enforceable. We propose to 
approve the BART analysis and the emission limits for Phillips 66 as 
meeting the BART requirements.
C. Mosaic Fertilizer LLC
    Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, owns and operates the Uncle Sam Plant 
(Mosaic) in St. James Parish, Louisiana and produces phosphoric acid 
and sulfuric acid. In our previous action, we partially disapproved 
Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP for failure to identify Mosaic as subject 
to BART and failure to submit a BART determination for Mosaic.
    In Louisiana's initial Regional Haze SIP submittal, the LDEQ used a 
contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for determining which sources are 
subject to BART, and we approved this threshold in our previous action. 
See, 77 FR at 11849. The Regional Haze Rule states that a BART eligible 
source can only be exempted from being subject to BART if its 
visibility impacts at the time the SIP is developed are less than the 
screening value. See, 70 FR 39118; 77 FR at 11849.
    In the original Regional Haze SIP submittal, the LDEQ properly 
identified Mosaic as a BART eligible source consistent with the BART 
Guidelines. However, LDEQ's initial SIP submittal inappropriately 
allowed Mosaic to screen out based on controls that were not installed 
at the time of the submittal. LDEQ accepted Mosaic's modeling, which 
was based on future controls that were to be installed on the A-Train 
Sulfuric Acid Stack. Based on the modeling results, the LDEQ listed the 
facility as passing both the screening modeling as well as the refined 
modeling. As such, LDEQ erroneously determined that the facility was 
not subject to BART and, therefore, was not required to perform a BART 
analysis.
    In our final action (77 FR at 39429), we determined that the state 
should have identified the Mosaic facility as being subject to BART and 
submitted a BART determination for the source. Mosaic entered into a CD 
with the EPA, LDEQ and other parties on December 23, 2009.\7\ The CD 
required the installation of controls on the Sulfuric Acid Trains A, D, 
and E, including a scrubber system on the A Train and process 
improvements on the D Train. These controls resulted in a reduction in 
SO2 emissions of over 10,000 tons per year. In its SIP 
revision, LDEQ provided a complete BART analysis concluding that 
additional control beyond those required by the consent decree would 
not be necessary to meet BART. Based on a review of the BART analysis 
and LDEQ's determination, EPA agrees that Mosaic, with its current 
controls and operating conditions, has satisfied BART. The emissions 
limits for Mosaic under current controls and operating conditions are 
included in AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00274A which was included in the August 
11, 2016 SIP revision in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(4)(e). Upon EPA 
approval of this portion of the Regional Haze SIP submittal, the AOC 
becomes federally enforceable. We propose to approve the BART analysis 
and the emission limits for Mosaic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Civil Action No. 09-6662. A copy of this CD is available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Eco-Services Operations Corp (Formerly Rhodia)
    The Eco-Services Operations Corp facility (Eco-Services) is a 
sulfuric acid plant located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.\8\ The plant 
produces sulfuric acid by using two sulfuric acid production trains, 
Unit 1 and Unit 2, but only Unit 2 is subject to BART.\9\ Effective 
July 23, 2007, the EPA, LDEQ and other parties entered into a CD with 
Eco-Services due to violations associated with excess emissions of 
sulfuric acid mist and sulfur dioxide. The CD required a scrubber to be 
installed on each of the units to control SO2 emissions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ At the time of Louisiana's initial Regional Haze SIP, the 
facility was owned and operated by Rhodia. Effective October 1, 
2013, Rhodia Inc. changed its company name and the name of the 
facility from Rhodia Inc. to Solvay USA Inc. The LDEQ Office of 
Environmental Services acknowledged the name change in 
correspondence, dated November 1, 2013. On December 1, 2014, Solvay 
USA Inc. transferred ownership and operation of the facility to Eco 
Services Operations LLC. Pursuant to the agreement between the 
companies and the Department's approval of the permit transfer, 
responsibility for compliance with the terms and conditions of 
Permit No. 0840-00033-V5 now resides with Eco Services Operations 
LLC. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement between 
the companies, responsibility for compliance with the environmental 
permits now resides with Eco-Services.
    \9\ Under the CAA, BART only applies to a unit that was ``in 
existence on August 7, 1977, but which has not been in operation for 
more than fifteen years as of such date.'' 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A); 
CAA 169A(b)(2)(A). Unit 1 was constructed in 1953, which is outside 
the BART timeframe. However, Unit 2 was constructed in 1968.
    \10\ Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL. A copy of this CD is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the July 23, 2012 action (77 FR at 39426), EPA found that with 
the selected control strategy, the Eco-Services units met the BART 
requirements at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y.OV.D.1.9.\11\ However, EPA 
found that the LDEQ failed to submit the emissions limits as part of 
the SIP revision as required. The emissions limits are included in the 
AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00957 between LDEQ and Eco-Services, which was 
provided in the August 11, 2016 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We acknowledge that compliance with the BART Guidelines in 
40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y is not mandatory for Eco-Services because 
Eco-Services is a non-EGU source. However, following these 
Guidelines is one option for subject-to-BART non-EGUs to ensure BART 
determinations are adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the BART analysis, Eco-Services identified both a short term and 
long term limit control level for SO2. The long term 
emissions limits for Eco-Services under current controls and operating 
conditions are included in the AOC in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(4)(e) and are federally enforceable. The short term limit 
provided in the BART analysis is 3 lbs/ton, consistent with the limits 
established in the Consent Decree. The long term limit in the Consent 
Decree includes an exemption for emissions during startup shutdown and 
malfunction. However, the short term emissions are limited by the New 
Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR 
part 60, subpart H). This short term limit is applicable at all times 
and is adequate to meet BART during periods of startup and shutdown. 
EPA concurs with LDEQ's evaluation and findings that the current 
controls in place, along with the federally enforceable limits 
established in the AOC and through applicability to

[[Page 74753]]

the NSPS standard, constitutes BART. We propose to approve the BART 
analysis and the emission limits for Eco-Services. Upon approval the 
limits in the SIP these limits will be federally enforceable.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP revision 
submitted on August 11, 2016. Specifically, we are proposing to find 
that the following elements have satisfied the federal requirement:
     the State's identification of BART-eligible sources,
     the State's determination that Sid Richardson Addis Plant 
is not subject to BART,
     the State's BART determinations for Phillips 66, Eco-
Services, and Mosaic.

IV. 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, the 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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the 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 proposed 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze, 
Best available control technology.


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

    Dated: October 11, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-25803 Filed 10-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



                                                  74750                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                    Dated: October 18, 2016.                              discussion of all points you wish to                    (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July
                                                  Dennis J. McLerran,                                     make. The EPA will generally not                        6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13,
                                                  Regional Administrator, Region 10.                      consider comments or comment                            2006).
                                                  [FR Doc. 2016–26016 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am]            contents located outside of the primary                    Regional haze is impairment of visual
                                                  BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
                                                                                                          submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or                  range or colorization caused by air
                                                                                                          other file sharing system). For                         pollution, principally fine particulate,
                                                                                                          additional submission methods, please                   produced by numerous sources and
                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                                contact Jennifer Huser, 214–665–7347,                   activities, located across a broad
                                                  AGENCY                                                  huser.jennifer@epa.gov. For the full EPA                regional area. The sources include but
                                                                                                          public comment policy, information                      are not limited to, major and minor
                                                  40 CFR Part 52                                          about CBI or multimedia submissions,                    stationary sources, mobile sources, and
                                                                                                          and general guidance on making                          area sources including non-
                                                  [EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0520; FRL–9952–65–
                                                                                                          effective comments, please visit http://                anthropogenic sources. These sources
                                                  Region 6]
                                                                                                          www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-                        and activities may emit fine particles
                                                  Approval and Promulgation of                            epa-dockets.                                            (PM 2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic
                                                  Implementation Plans; Louisiana;                           Docket: The index to the docket for                  carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
                                                  Regional Haze State Implementation                      this action is available electronically at              and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide
                                                  Plan                                                    www.regulations.gov and in hard copy                    (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in
                                                                                                          at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,                  some cases, ammonia and volatile
                                                  AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                       Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all                     organic compounds). Fine particulate
                                                  Agency (EPA).                                           documents in the docket are listed in                   can also cause serious health effects and
                                                  ACTION: Proposed rule.                                  the index, some information may be                      mortality in humans, and contributes to
                                                                                                          publicly available only at the hard copy                environmental effects such as acid
                                                  SUMMARY:   The Environmental Protection                 location (e.g., copyrighted material), and              deposition and eutrophication. See 64
                                                  Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a                  some may not be publicly available at                   FR at 35715. Data from the existing
                                                  revision to the Louisiana State                         either location (e.g., CBI).                            visibility monitoring network, the
                                                  Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by                                                                          ‘‘Interagency Monitoring of Protected
                                                                                                          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                  the State of Louisiana through the                                                                              Visual Environments’’ (IMPROVE)
                                                                                                          Jennifer Huser, 214–665–7347,
                                                  Louisiana Department of Environmental                                                                           monitoring network, show that visibility
                                                                                                          huser.jennifer@epa.gov. To inspect the
                                                  Quality (LDEQ) on August 11, 2016 that                                                                          impairment caused by air pollution
                                                                                                          hard copy materials, please schedule an
                                                  addresses regional haze (RH) for the first                                                                      occurs virtually all the time in most
                                                                                                          appointment with Jennifer Huser or Mr.
                                                  planning period. This revision was                                                                              national parks and wilderness areas.
                                                                                                          Bill Deese at 214–665–7253.
                                                  submitted to address deficiencies                                                                               The average visual range in many Class
                                                  identified in a previous action regarding               SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                              I areas in the western United States is
                                                  requirements of the Federal Clean Air                   Throughout this document wherever                       100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to
                                                  Act (CAA or Act) and the EPA’s rules                    ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean             two-thirds the visual range that would
                                                  that require states to prevent any future               the EPA.                                                exist without manmade air pollution.2
                                                  and remedy any existing man-made                        I. Background                                           Visibility impairment also varies day-to-
                                                  impairment of visibility in mandatory                                                                           day and by season depending on
                                                  Class I areas caused by emissions of air                A. The Regional Haze Program                            variations in meteorology and emission
                                                  pollutants from numerous sources                          In the Clean Air Act (CAA)                            rates. The deciview (dv) is the metric by
                                                  located over a wide geographic area                     Amendments of 1977, Congress                            which visibility is measured in the
                                                  (also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze                established a program to protect and                    regional haze program. A change of 1 dv
                                                  program’’). This action concerns Best                   improve visibility in the Nation’s                      is generally considered the change in
                                                  Available Retrofit Technology for                       national parks and wilderness areas. See                visual range that the human eye can
                                                  certain sources.                                        CAA section 169A. Congress amended                      perceive.
                                                  DATES: Written comments must be                         the visibility provisions in the CAA in                 B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
                                                  received on or before November 28,                      1990 to focus attention on the problem
                                                                                                          of regional haze. See CAA section 169B.                   Section 169A of the CAA directs
                                                  2016.
                                                                                                          The EPA promulgated regional haze                       states to evaluate the use of retrofit
                                                  ADDRESSES:   Submit your comments,                                                                              controls at certain larger, often
                                                                                                          regulations in 1999 to implement
                                                  identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–                                                                               uncontrolled, older stationary sources
                                                                                                          sections 169A and 169B of the CAA.
                                                  OAR–2016–0520, at http://                                                                                       with the potential to emit greater than
                                                                                                          These regulations require states to
                                                  www.regulations.gov or via email to                                                                             250 tons per year (tpy) or more of any
                                                                                                          develop and implement plans to ensure
                                                  huser.jennifer@epa.gov. Follow the                                                                              visibility impairing pollutant in order to
                                                                                                          reasonable progress toward improving
                                                  online instructions for submitting                                                                              address visibility impacts from these
                                                                                                          visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
                                                  comments. Once submitted, comments                                                                              sources. Specifically, section
                                                                                                          areas 1 (Class I areas). See 64 FR 35714
                                                  cannot be edited or removed from                                                                                169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires states
                                                  Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish                      1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
                                                                                                                                                                  to revise their SIPs to contain such
                                                  any comment received to its public                      areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000         measures as may be necessary to make
                                                  docket. Do not submit electronically any                acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  information you consider to be                          exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks      as Class I additional areas which they consider to
                                                                                                          that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.     have visibility as an important value, the
                                                  Confidential Business Information (CBI)                 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the         requirements of the visibility program set forth in
                                                  or other information whose disclosure is                CAA, the EPA, in consultation with the Department       section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory
                                                  restricted by statute. Multimedia                       of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where      Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
                                                  submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be                visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR   Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
                                                                                                          69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a              Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term
                                                  accompanied by a written comment.                       mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes      ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory
                                                  The written comment is considered the                   in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.       Class I Federal area.’’
                                                  official comment and should include                     7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate          2 64 FR at 35715.




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:35 Oct 26, 2016   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00031   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM    27OCP1


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                                   74751

                                                  reasonable progress towards the natural                   address the deficiencies related to BART               In response to the EPA action, Sid
                                                  visibility goal, including a requirement                  for the four non-EGUs.                               Richardson revised the BART analysis
                                                  that certain categories of existing major                                                                      and updated the modeling. The facility
                                                                                                            II. The EPA’s Evaluation
                                                  stationary sources 3 built between 1962                                                                        requested permission to perform a new
                                                  and 1977 procure, install, and operate                    A. Introduction to the Four Non-EGU                  round of modeling using the same
                                                  the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit                             Facilities: Summary                                  emissions parameters that were used in
                                                  Technology’’, as determined by the state                                                                       the original model but utilizing the
                                                  or us in the case of a plan promulgated                      The four non-EGU facilities are:                  newest EPA approved methods and
                                                  under section 110(c) of the CAA. Under                    Phillips 66 Company-Alliance Refinery;               guidance documents. EPA reviewed and
                                                  the Regional Haze rule, states are                        Mosaic Fertilizer LLC, Uncle Sam Plant;              concurred with the methodology and
                                                  directed to conduct BART                                  Eco-Services Operations Corp.; and Sid               modeling results provided by Sid
                                                  determinations for such ‘‘BART-                           Richardson Carbon Co., Addis Plant. For              Richardson. Based on this analysis,
                                                  eligible’’ sources that may be                            three facilities (Phillips 66, Eco-                  LDEQ concluded that the facility is not
                                                  anticipated to cause or contribute to any                 Services, and Sid Richardson), LDEQ                  subject-to-BART because its model
                                                  visibility impairment in a Class I area.                  had submitted a BART analysis under                  visibility impact was less than 0.5
                                                     We promulgated regulations                             40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). For each of              deciviews. We have evaluated LDEQ’s
                                                  addressing Regional Haze in 1999, 64                      these facilities, we determined, in our              submittal and propose to approve the
                                                  FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40                   July 3, 2012 notice, that the BART                   Sid Richardson BART analysis and
                                                  CFR part 51, subpart P.4 These                            analysis satisfied part, but not all, of the         modeling and the LDEQ’s finding that
                                                  regulations require all states to submit                  requirements. We also found that LDEQ                the Addis plant is not subject-to-BART.
                                                  implementation plans that, among other                    had erred in exempting Mosaic from
                                                                                                            BART by using future controls and                    B. Phillips 66 Company-Alliance
                                                  measures, contain either emission limits
                                                                                                            visibility impacts rather than assessing             Refinery (Formerly ConocoPhillips)
                                                  representing BART for certain sources
                                                  constructed between 1962 and 1977, or                     controls that were in place at the time                 The Phillips 66 Company (Phillips 66)
                                                  alternative measures that provide for                     of the SIP submittal.                                owns and operates the Alliance Refinery
                                                  greater reasonable progress than BART.                       In its August 11, 2016 SIP submittal,             near Belle Chasse, Louisiana, which is
                                                  40 CFR 51.308(e).                                         LDEQ provided revised BART analyses                  a subject-to-BART source.5 On
                                                                                                            for the three facilities to address the              December 5, 2005, Conoco Phillips, the
                                                  C. EPA’s Previous Actions on Louisiana                    deficiencies noted in the previous                   United States of America and the State
                                                  Regional Haze                                             Regional Haze SIP action. LDEQ has                   of Louisiana, entered into a Consent
                                                    On June 13, 2008, Louisiana                             also provided a BART analysis for                    Decree (CD) 6 as part of the National
                                                  submitted a SIP to address regional                       Mosaic. A summary of our proposed                    Refinery Initiative for the Belle Chasse
                                                  haze. EPA acted on that submittal in                      findings for these facilities is provided            (Alliance) Refinery. In our previous
                                                  two separate actions. The first was a                     below. For more details, please see our              action, we found that the BART
                                                  limited disapproval (77 FR 33641)                         evaluation of the BART determination                 engineering analysis provided by
                                                  because of deficiencies in the state’s                    for each of these four subject-to-BART               Phillips 66 utilized emission reductions
                                                  regional haze SIP submittal arising from                  sources in the TSD.                                  that are mandated per the CD for the
                                                  the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals                                                                        fluidized catalytic cracker (FCCU), the
                                                                                                            A. Sid Richardson Carbon Co.
                                                  for the District of Columbia to the EPA                                                                        process refinery flares and the crude
                                                  of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).                    The Sid Richardson Carbon                          unit heater. However, the LDEQ did not
                                                  The second was a partial limited                          Company’s Addis Plant is located in                  provide a complete BART evaluation for
                                                  approval/partial disapproval (77 FR                       West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. For              these units. In the August 11, 2016 SIP
                                                  39425) because the SIP revision met                       the BART eligible units at the facility,             revision, LDEQ provided a complete
                                                  some but not all of the applicable                        LDEQ submitted in the original Regional              BART determination for these units.
                                                  requirements of the CAA and EPA’s                         Haze SIP a BART engineering analysis;                Controls and conditions required by the
                                                  regulations as set forth in sections 169A                 for particulate matter the LDEQ                      CD include a wet gas scrubber on the
                                                  and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR                         determined that the high efficiency                  FCCU, selective catalytic reduction
                                                  51.300–308, but as a whole, the SIP                       fabric filters already in use at the facility        (SCR) on the FCCU and crude unit
                                                  revision strengthened the SIP. The                        are BART. EPA found that the LDEQ                    heater, flare gas recovery for the process
                                                  deficiencies included inadequate Best                     acted within its discretion in making                refinery flares, and compliance with the
                                                  Available Retrofit Technology (BART)                      this determination and that the analyses             Standards of Performance for Petroleum
                                                  determinations for four facilities. These                 met the BART requirements. However,                  Refineries as prescribed in 40 CFR part
                                                  four facilities are the only non-electric                 the EPA found that the BART analysis                 60, subpart J for the low pressure and
                                                  generating unit (EGU) facilities in                       for NOX and SO2 were deficient. While                high pressure flares, CO boilers, and
                                                  Louisiana that were identified as being                   LDEQ indicated that no controls were                 crude unit heaters. Implementation of
                                                  subject to BART and are referred to as                    technically feasible, EPA found that the             these control projects as per the CD
                                                  the non-EGU facilities.                                   record did not provide a sufficient basis            emissions reduction requirements have
                                                    On August 11 2016, Louisiana                            for this conclusion. Based on this, the              resulted in reducing the overall site
                                                  submitted a SIP revision intended to                      NOX and SO2 BART determination for                   visibility impacts. In the previous
                                                                                                            the Addis Plant was deemed deficient
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    3 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
                                                                                                            (77 FR 11851).                                          5 At the time of Louisiana’s initial Regional Haze

                                                  subject to BART are listed in CAA section                                                                      SIP, the Alliance Refinery was owned and operated
                                                  169A(g)(7).                                                 The original modeling that was                     by ConocoPhillips. Ownership of the Alliance
                                                    4 In American Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA, 291            performed showed that the facility had               Refinery transferred to Phillips 66 on April 26,
                                                  F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals        an impact that was above the                         2012. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution
                                                  for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling      contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview               Agreement between the companies, responsibility
                                                  vacating and remanding the BART provisions of the                                                              for compliance with the environmental permits
                                                  regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART
                                                                                                            level for determining which sources are              now resides with Phillips 66 Company.
                                                  guidelines to address the court’s ruling in that case.    subject to BART. The Addis plant model                  6 Civil Action No. H–05–0285. A copy of this CD

                                                  See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).                           results were 0.756 deciviews.                        is available in the docket for this rulemaking.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014    17:35 Oct 26, 2016   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00032   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM   27OCP1


                                                  74752                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                  action, we also found that the LDEQ                     not installed at the time of the                       acid by using two sulfuric acid
                                                  failed to submit the emissions limits as                submittal. LDEQ accepted Mosaic’s                      production trains, Unit 1 and Unit 2, but
                                                  part of the SIP revision as required. The               modeling, which was based on future                    only Unit 2 is subject to BART.9
                                                  emissions limits are now included in an                 controls that were to be installed on the              Effective July 23, 2007, the EPA, LDEQ
                                                  Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)                   A-Train Sulfuric Acid Stack. Based on                  and other parties entered into a CD with
                                                  No. AE–AOC–14–00211A between                            the modeling results, the LDEQ listed                  Eco-Services due to violations
                                                  LDEQ and Phillips 66 and were                           the facility as passing both the screening             associated with excess emissions of
                                                  provided in the August 11, 2016 SIP                     modeling as well as the refined                        sulfuric acid mist and sulfur dioxide.
                                                  revision.                                               modeling. As such, LDEQ erroneously                    The CD required a scrubber to be
                                                     In our initial action on Louisiana                   determined that the facility was not                   installed on each of the units to control
                                                  Regional Haze, we approved LDEQ’s                       subject to BART and, therefore, was not                SO2 emissions.10
                                                  BART determinations for several other                   required to perform a BART analysis.                     In the July 23, 2012 action (77 FR at
                                                  subject to BART units at the Alliance                     In our final action (77 FR at 39429),                39426), EPA found that with the
                                                  Refinery. These units include the                       we determined that the state should                    selected control strategy, the Eco-
                                                  cooling water tower, gas-fired heaters,                 have identified the Mosaic facility as                 Services units met the BART
                                                  loading docks, and the coke transfer and                being subject to BART and submitted a                  requirements at 40 CFR part 51,
                                                  storage area. See 77 FR at 39432.                       BART determination for the source.                     Appendix Y.OV.D.1.9.11 However, EPA
                                                  However, at that time, LDEQ did not                     Mosaic entered into a CD with the EPA,                 found that the LDEQ failed to submit
                                                  submit the BART emissions limits for                    LDEQ and other parties on December                     the emissions limits as part of the SIP
                                                  approval into the SIP. The BART                         23, 2009.7 The CD required the                         revision as required. The emissions
                                                  emissions limits for these units are also               installation of controls on the Sulfuric               limits are included in the AOC No. AE–
                                                  included in AOC No. AE–AOC–14–                          Acid Trains A, D, and E, including a                   AOC–14–00957 between LDEQ and Eco-
                                                  00211A.                                                 scrubber system on the A Train and                     Services, which was provided in the
                                                     EPA proposes to find that the current                process improvements on the D Train.                   August 11, 2016 SIP revision.
                                                  controls installed and operating                        These controls resulted in a reduction in                In the BART analysis, Eco-Services
                                                  conditions at these subject to BART                     SO2 emissions of over 10,000 tons per                  identified both a short term and long
                                                  units constitute BART. The emissions                    year. In its SIP revision, LDEQ provided               term limit control level for SO2. The
                                                  limits for all of the subject to BART                   a complete BART analysis concluding                    long term emissions limits for Eco-
                                                  units at the Alliance Refinery are                      that additional control beyond those                   Services under current controls and
                                                  included in the AOC in accordance with                  required by the consent decree would                   operating conditions are included in the
                                                  40 CFR 51.308(4)(e). Upon EPA                           not be necessary to meet BART. Based                   AOC in accordance with 40 CFR
                                                  approval of this portion of the Regional                on a review of the BART analysis and                   51.308(4)(e) and are federally
                                                  Haze SIP submittal, the AOC becomes                     LDEQ’s determination, EPA agrees that                  enforceable. The short term limit
                                                  federally enforceable. We propose to                    Mosaic, with its current controls and                  provided in the BART analysis is 3 lbs/
                                                  approve the BART analysis and the                       operating conditions, has satisfied                    ton, consistent with the limits
                                                  emission limits for Phillips 66 as                      BART. The emissions limits for Mosaic                  established in the Consent Decree. The
                                                  meeting the BART requirements.                          under current controls and operating                   long term limit in the Consent Decree
                                                  C. Mosaic Fertilizer LLC                                conditions are included in AOC No.                     includes an exemption for emissions
                                                                                                          AE–AOC–14–00274A which was                             during startup shutdown and
                                                    Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, owns and                      included in the August 11, 2016 SIP                    malfunction. However, the short term
                                                  operates the Uncle Sam Plant (Mosaic)                   revision in accordance with 40 CFR                     emissions are limited by the New
                                                  in St. James Parish, Louisiana and                      51.308(4)(e). Upon EPA approval of this                Source Performance Standard (NSPS)
                                                  produces phosphoric acid and sulfuric                   portion of the Regional Haze SIP                       for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR part 60,
                                                  acid. In our previous action, we                        submittal, the AOC becomes federally                   subpart H). This short term limit is
                                                  partially disapproved Louisiana’s                       enforceable. We propose to approve the                 applicable at all times and is adequate
                                                  Regional Haze SIP for failure to identify               BART analysis and the emission limits                  to meet BART during periods of startup
                                                  Mosaic as subject to BART and failure                   for Mosaic.                                            and shutdown. EPA concurs with
                                                  to submit a BART determination for                                                                             LDEQ’s evaluation and findings that the
                                                  Mosaic.                                                 D. Eco-Services Operations Corp
                                                                                                          (Formerly Rhodia)                                      current controls in place, along with the
                                                    In Louisiana’s initial Regional Haze
                                                                                                                                                                 federally enforceable limits established
                                                  SIP submittal, the LDEQ used a                            The Eco-Services Operations Corp                     in the AOC and through applicability to
                                                  contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for                    facility (Eco-Services) is a sulfuric acid
                                                  determining which sources are subject                   plant located in Baton Rouge,                          Distribution Agreement between the companies,
                                                  to BART, and we approved this                           Louisiana.8 The plant produces sulfuric                responsibility for compliance with the
                                                  threshold in our previous action. See, 77                                                                      environmental permits now resides with Eco-
                                                  FR at 11849. The Regional Haze Rule                       7 Civil Action No. 09–6662. A copy of this CD is     Services.
                                                                                                                                                                    9 Under the CAA, BART only applies to a unit
                                                  states that a BART eligible source can                  available in the docket for this rulemaking.
                                                                                                            8 At the time of Louisiana’s initial Regional Haze   that was ‘‘in existence on August 7, 1977, but which
                                                  only be exempted from being subject to                                                                         has not been in operation for more than fifteen
                                                                                                          SIP, the facility was owned and operated by Rhodia.
                                                  BART if its visibility impacts at the time              Effective October 1, 2013, Rhodia Inc. changed its     years as of such date.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A); CAA
                                                  the SIP is developed are less than the                  company name and the name of the facility from         169A(b)(2)(A). Unit 1 was constructed in 1953,
                                                  screening value. See, 70 FR 39118; 77                   Rhodia Inc. to Solvay USA Inc. The LDEQ Office         which is outside the BART timeframe. However,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                          of Environmental Services acknowledged the name        Unit 2 was constructed in 1968.
                                                  FR at 11849.                                                                                                      10 Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL. A copy of this
                                                                                                          change in correspondence, dated November 1, 2013.
                                                    In the original Regional Haze SIP                     On December 1, 2014, Solvay USA Inc. transferred       CD is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
                                                  submittal, the LDEQ properly identified                 ownership and operation of the facility to Eco            11 We acknowledge that compliance with the

                                                  Mosaic as a BART eligible source                        Services Operations LLC. Pursuant to the agreement     BART Guidelines in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y
                                                  consistent with the BART Guidelines.                    between the companies and the Department’s             is not mandatory for Eco-Services because Eco-
                                                                                                          approval of the permit transfer, responsibility for    Services is a non-EGU source. However, following
                                                  However, LDEQ’s initial SIP submittal                   compliance with the terms and conditions of Permit     these Guidelines is one option for subject-to-BART
                                                  inappropriately allowed Mosaic to                       No. 0840–00033–V5 now resides with Eco Services        non-EGUs to ensure BART determinations are
                                                  screen out based on controls that were                  Operations LLC. Pursuant to the Separation and         adequate.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:35 Oct 26, 2016   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00033   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM   27OCP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                          74753

                                                  the NSPS standard, constitutes BART.                       • Is not subject to requirements of                number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0083, by
                                                  We propose to approve the BART                          section 12(d) of the National                         one of the following methods:
                                                  analysis and the emission limits for Eco-               Technology Transfer and Advancement                     • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
                                                  Services. Upon approval the limits in                   Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because              www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
                                                  the SIP these limits will be federally                  application of those requirements would               instructions for submitting comments.
                                                  enforceable.                                            be inconsistent with the CAA; and                     Do not submit electronically any
                                                                                                             • Does not provide EPA with the                    information you consider to be
                                                  III. Proposed Action                                    discretionary authority to address, as                Confidential Business Information (CBI)
                                                     We are proposing to approve                          appropriate, disproportionate human                   or other information whose disclosure is
                                                  Louisiana’s Regional Haze SIP revision                  health or environmental effects, using                restricted by statute.
                                                  submitted on August 11, 2016.                           practicable and legally permissible                     • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
                                                  Specifically, we are proposing to find                  methods, under Executive Order 12898                  Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
                                                  that the following elements have                        (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).                      DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
                                                  satisfied the federal requirement:                         In addition, the SIP is not approved               NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
                                                     • the State’s identification of BART-                to apply on any Indian reservation land                 • Hand Delivery: To make special
                                                  eligible sources,                                       or in any other area where EPA or an                  arrangements for hand delivery or
                                                     • the State’s determination that Sid                 Indian tribe has demonstrated that a                  delivery of boxed information, please
                                                  Richardson Addis Plant is not subject to                tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of             follow the instructions at http://
                                                  BART,                                                   Indian country, the proposed rule does                www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
                                                     • the State’s BART determinations for                not have tribal implications and will not               Additional instructions on
                                                  Phillips 66, Eco-Services, and Mosaic.                  impose substantial direct costs on tribal             commenting or visiting the docket,
                                                  IV. Statutory and Executive Order                       governments or preempt tribal law as                  along with more information about
                                                  Reviews                                                 specified by Executive Order 13175 (65                dockets generally, is available at http://
                                                                                                          FR 67249, November 9, 2000).                          www.epa.gov/dockets.
                                                     Under the CAA, the Administrator is                                                                        FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                  required to approve a SIP submission                    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
                                                                                                                                                                Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division
                                                  that complies with the provisions of the                  Environmental protection, Air                       (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
                                                  Act and applicable Federal regulations.                 pollution control, Incorporation by                   Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
                                                  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).                     reference, Intergovernmental relations,               Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
                                                  Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the                 Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate                  DC 20460–0001; main telephone
                                                  EPA’s role is to approve state choices,                 matter, Reporting and recordkeeping                   number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
                                                  provided that they meet the criteria of                 requirements, Sulfur dioxides,                        RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
                                                  the CAA. Accordingly, this action                       Visibility, Interstate transport of
                                                                                                                                                                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                  merely proposes to approve state law as                 pollution, Regional haze, Best available
                                                  meeting Federal requirements and does                   control technology.                                   I. General Information
                                                  not impose additional requirements
                                                  beyond those imposed by state law. For                    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.                   A. Does this action apply to me?
                                                  that reason, this action:                                 Dated: October 11, 2016.                               You may be potentially affected by
                                                     • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory                  Ron Curry,                                            this action if you are an agricultural
                                                  action’’ subject to review by the Office                Regional Administrator, Region 6.                     producer, food manufacturer, or
                                                  of Management and Budget under                          [FR Doc. 2016–25803 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am]          pesticide manufacturer. The following
                                                  Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,                    BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
                                                                                                                                                                list of North American Industrial
                                                  October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,                                                                       Classification System (NAICS) codes is
                                                  January 21, 2011);                                                                                            not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
                                                     • Does not impose an information                     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                              provides a guide to help readers
                                                  collection burden under the provisions                  AGENCY                                                determine whether this document
                                                  of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44                                                                            applies to them. Potentially affected
                                                  U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);                                   40 CFR 180                                            entities may include:
                                                     • Is certified as not having a                                                                                • Crop production (NAICS code 111).
                                                                                                          [EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0083; FRL–9954–27]
                                                  significant economic impact on a                                                                                 • Animal production (NAICS code
                                                  substantial number of small entities                    Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for             112).
                                                  under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5                 Residues of a Pesticide Chemical in or                   • Food manufacturing (NAICS code
                                                  U.S.C. 601 et seq.);                                    on a Commodity                                        311).
                                                     • Does not contain any unfunded                                                                               • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
                                                  mandate or significantly or uniquely                    AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                     code 32532).
                                                  affect small governments, as described                  Agency (EPA).
                                                                                                                                                                B. What should I consider as I prepare
                                                  in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                     ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and
                                                                                                                                                                my comments for EPA?
                                                  of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);                                request for comment.
                                                     • Does not have Federalism                                                                                    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
                                                  implications as specified in Executive                  SUMMARY:   This document announces the                information to EPA through
                                                  Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,                    Agency’s receipt of an initial filing of a            regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  1999);                                                  pesticide petition requesting the                     the part or all of the information that
                                                     • Is not an economically significant                 establishment or modification of                      you claim to be CBI. For CBI
                                                  regulatory action based on health or                    regulations for residues of pesticide                 information in a disk or CD–ROM that
                                                  safety risks subject to Executive Order                 chemicals in or on various commodities.               you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
                                                  13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);                    DATES: Comments must be received on                   disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
                                                     • Is not a significant regulatory action             or before November 28, 2016.                          identify electronically within the disk or
                                                  subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR                 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,                      CD–ROM the specific information that
                                                  28355, May 22, 2001);                                   identified by docket identification (ID)              is claimed as CBI. In addition to one


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:35 Oct 26, 2016   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00034   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM   27OCP1



Document Created: 2016-10-27 01:52:27
Document Modified: 2016-10-27 01:52:27
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionProposed rule.
DatesWritten comments must be received on or before November 28, 2016.
ContactJennifer Huser, 214-665-7347, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Jennifer Huser or Mr. Bill Deese at 214- 665-7253.
FR Citation81 FR 74750 
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Dioxides; Visibility; Interstate Transport of Pollution; Regional Haze and Best Available Control Technology

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR