Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Louisiana: Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Ozone Maintenance Plan for St. James Parish

I. Background

The Clean Air Act as amended in 1977 required areas that were designated nonattainment based on a failure to meet the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) to develop SIPs with sufficient control measures to expeditiously attain and maintain the standard. St. James Parish was designated under section 107 of the 1977 Clean Air Act as nonattainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS on September 11, 1978 (40 CFR 81.319). As required by part D and section 110 of the 1977 Clean Air Act, the State of Louisiana submitted an ozone SIP. The EPA fully approved this ozone SIP on October 29, 1981 (46 FR 53412). Further, the EPA approved a revision to this ozone SIP on May 5, 1994 (59 FR 23164). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted (Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q). The ozone nonattainment designation for this parish continued by operation of law according to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended in 1990 (See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). Since the State had not yet collected the required three years of ambient air quality data necessary to petition for redesignation to attainment, this area was designated as unclassifiable-incomplete data for ozone. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) then collected more than 3 years of ambient monitoring data that showed no violations of the one-hour ozone NAAQS of .12 parts per million. A violation of the ozone standard occurs if data show four or more exceedances during a consecutive 3-year period. Accordingly, on May 25, 1993, Louisiana requested the redesignation of St. James Parish to attainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS. This request was accompanied by an ozone maintenance SIP. Certain approvability issues were raised, and the State submitted a revised redesignation request and maintenance plan on December 15, 1994. Region 6 evaluated the December 1994 submittal, and published its direct final approval rule in the Federal Register on September 12, 1995 (60 FR 47280). No adverse comments were received on the direct final, and the attainment designation and maintenance plan approval for St. James Parish were effective on November 13, 1995. For detailed information concerning the ozone redesignation and SIP approval process and the applicable Federal guidance, please review the September 12, 1995, direct final Federal Register rule. Our office received the Governor's submittal of the April 23, 1998, SIP revision for St. James Parish on April 30, 1998. The technical evaluation that follows includes a thorough review of the overwhelming transport demonstration, the emissions inventory revision, the revised growth projections, and the revised contingency measures. We have also reviewed LDEQ's approach to ensure that this action is consistent with actions taken elsewhere in the Nation.

II. Analysis of the Current Contingency Plan

The ozone monitor in St. James Parish recorded three exceedances of the one-hour ozone standard in 1995. The approved maintenance plan for St. James Parish included contingency measures to be adopted and implemented if future air quality conditions warranted such action. These future conditions were identified in the contingency plan as self-generated or transport ozone exceedances. To this end, the State intended to review any future ozone exceedance to determine whether the episode was due to local emissions or transport from an upwind source. If the ozone exceedance was a result of local conditions, then the contingency measure corresponding to that particular exceedance would be triggered, and the State would begin the rulemaking process to adopt the triggered measure into the State's regulations. The LDEQ discussed with us its belief that the three ozone exceedances recorded in 1995 were the result of transport from the Baton Rouge area. Given that St. James Parish did not violate the ozone standard in 1995, and that the intent of the contingency plan language was to ensure that the State had the opportunity to review the source of the ozone exceedances to determine whether a contingency measure was triggered, EPA agreed to provide LDEQ with the additional time necessary for completion of a transport demonstration. Further, it was EPA's position that, if the ozone exceedances were determined to be the result of transport and not self-generated, implementation of a local contingency measure would not contribute to local improvements. On July 31, 1996, LDEQ submitted a trajectory analysis to EPA. This analysis was intended to demonstrate overwhelming transport from the Baton Rouge area as the cause of the three 1995 exceedances in St. James Parish. A September 5, 1996, letter from EPA to LDEQ raised questions about the demonstration, and suggested three options for the State to consider to meet its SIP obligation. The LDEQ opted to use the EPA recommended Urban Airshed Model (UAM) to demonstrate overwhelming transport. In addition, the LDEQ revised its contingency plan for St. James Parish to make it consistent with contingency plans elsewhere in the State and the Nation.

III. Analysis of State Submittal

The revision to the ozone SIP for St. James Parish is comprised of the following elements: (1) A correction to the 1990 point source inventory and growth projections, (2) a change to the contingency plan triggering event from three exceedances of the one-hour ozone standard to a violation of the one-hour ozone standard (four exceedances in any consecutive three-year period), and (3) a clarification to the narrative portion of the contingency plan, which discusses the State's procedures for evaluation of whether a triggering event has occurred.

A. 1990 Point Source Inventory

The LDEQ compiled a comprehensive inventory of VOCs, oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO) to represent emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in St. James Parish. This inventory was included as part of the December 15,

1994, redesignation request from the State, and was approved by EPA on September 12, 1995 (60 FR 47280). The LDEQ later discovered a reporting error which resulted in a 1,052 ton per year overestimation of the VOC emissions generated in St. James Parish. A facility named LAJET had ceased operations prior to 1990, but its VOC emissions were inadvertently left on the State's emission data base. The EPA regional office has researched both the State's data base and EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System, and has confirmed that the facility did cease operations prior to 1990. Both databases have been adjusted to correct this error. The LDEQ has corrected the 1990 base year source and emissions inventory, and submitted it to EPA as a revision to the ozone SIP for St. James Parish. The revision also includes new growth projections for each category of source (point, area, mobile) and pollutant (VOCs, NOX, CO) through 2005. The EPA agrees with the contents of the revised 1990 base year inventory, and the projections through 2005 still demonstrate maintenance of the one-hour ozone standard. The State followed EPA guidance in projecting growth, and its methodology for growth factor selection is acceptable. For these reasons, EPA proposes to approve the revised 1990 base year inventory and projections for St. James Parish as listed below.

Revised Point Source Emissions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Company SIC code CO TPY NOX TPY VOC TPY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- St. James Sugar Cooperative................................. 2061 78 57 78 Colonial Sugar.............................................. 2062 12 76 6 Occidental Chemical......................................... 2812 4 96 2 Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Co............................... 2819 98 11,105 35 Chevron Chemical Co......................................... 2865 63 518 68 Laroche Chemicals........................................... 2869 0 0 27 Faustina.................................................... 2873 274 767 143 Agrico--Uncle Sam Faustina.................................. 2874 2 18 1 Star Enterprise............................................. 2911 321 1,566 1,662 Calciner Industries......................................... 2999 0 305 0 Agrico Faustina............................................. 4911 1 7 0 Transcontinental Gas Pipeline............................... 4922 18 142 6 Agrico--Uncle Sam........................................... 4961 0 20 1 --------------------------------------------------- Totals.................................................. ........... 871 14,677 2,029 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Point Source Projected Emissions Reported in Tons per Year ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Growth projections for Growth projections for Growth Projections for 1990-1995 1995 1995-2000 2000 2000-2005 2005 SIC code CO TPY NOX TPY VOC TPY growth --------------------------- growth --------------------------- growth -------------------------- factor CO NOX VOC factor CO NOX VOC factors CO NOX VOC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20................................................. 90 133 84 .96 86 128 81 .97 83 124 77 .96 80 119 74 28................................................. 441 12,504 276 .99 437 12,379 273 1.00 437 12,379 273 .99 433 12,255 270 29................................................. 321 1,871 1,662 1.00 321 1,871 1,662 1.01 324 1,890 1,679 .98 318 1,852 1,645 4919............................................... 19 169 7 1.06 20 179 7 1.06 21 190 7 1.03 22 196 7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total.......................................... 871 14,677 2,029 ......... 864 14,557 2,023 ......... 865 14,583 2,036 ......... 853 14,422 1,996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Emission Budget for St. James Parish in Tons per Year ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1990 1995 2000 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Point Source CO............................................. 871 864 865 853 Point Source NOX............................................ 14,677 14,557 14,583 14,422 Point Source VOC............................................ 2,029 2,023 2,036 1,996 Area Source CO.............................................. 93 93 95 95 Area Source NOX............................................. 36 36 37 37 Area Source VOC............................................. 435 436 444 445 Mobile Source Nonroad CO.................................... 2,386 2,393 2,438 2,442 Mobile Source Nonroad NOX................................... 1,397 1,401 1,427 1,430 Mobile Source Nonroad VOC................................... 551 552 563 564 Mobile Source CO............................................ 6,315 5,048 4,064 3,582 Mobile Source NOX........................................... 1,250 1,117 1,026 989 Mobile Source VOC........................................... 763 576 515 493 --------------------------------------------------- Total CO................................................ 9,665 8,398 7,462 6,972 =================================================== Total NOX............................................... 17,360 17,111 17,073 16,878 =================================================== Total VOC............................................... 3,778 3,587 3,558 3,498 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. St. James Parish Ozone Contingency Plan

Section 175A of the Act requires that an ozone maintenance plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the one-hour ozone standard that occurs after redesignation of the area to attainment. The existing contingency plan for St. James Parish includes measures to be adopted prior to a recorded violation of the one-hour ozone standard. This more stringent approach identified VOC offsets and applicable reasonably available control technology (RACT) regulations to be adopted, based on two and three recorded ozone exceedances, respectively. The approved contingency plan requires a review of the exceedance to determine whether the cause is due to local emissions or emissions transported from other areas. It was our interpretation that if the source of the exceedance was transport, no contingency measure would need to be implemented. If the source of the exceedances was determined to be local, then appropriate measures were identified for implementation. The LDEQ submitted UAM results as part of its April 23, 1998, SIP revision. This UAM demonstration was developed in accordance with the EPA's Guideline For Regulatory Application of The Urban Airshed Model (July 1991), and the September 1, 1994, general transport guidance document entitled Ozone Attainment Dates for Areas Affected by Overwhelming Transport. This guidance identified modeling criteria for demonstrations from downwind areas where ozone transport makes it practically impossible for the area to attain the standard by its own attainment date. The UAM demonstration submitted to EPA as part of the April 23, 1998, SIP revision indicates that ozone formed in the Baton Rouge nonattainment area in 1995 and was transported to St. James Parish, causing separate exceedances of the ozone standard. The EPA has evaluated this UAM demonstration and agrees that overwhelming transport from the Baton Rouge area was responsible for the three ozone exceedances recorded in St. James Parish in 1995. Further, a determination of transport for these 1995 ozone exceedances relieves LDEQ from any requirement to implement VOC offsets or any additional RACT in St. James Parish, since the source of the exceedances was not located within the parish. Please see the technical support document available from the EPA Regional Office listed above for a detailed evaluation of the UAM demonstration. The LDEQ has revised its existing contingency plan to base the triggering event on a localized violation of the one-hour ozone standard (four exceedances in a consecutive three-year period). Additionally, the revised contingency plan identifies a menu of one or more contingency measures to be adopted if a future violation is recorded and determined to be due to local conditions. The menu includes: 1. Limiting VOC emissions from filling of gasoline storage vessels; 2. Limiting VOC emissions from graphic arts for rotogravure and flexographic processes; 3. Limiting VOC emissions for Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry reactor processes and distillation operations; 4. Limiting VOC emissions from batch processing; 5. Limiting VOC emission from cleanup solvent processing; 6. Limiting VOC emissions from industrial wastewater; and/or, 7. Implementing a 1.1 to 1 offset ratio for permits. If it is determined, within 120 days after the recorded violation, that the recorded violation is not due to transport from an upwind area, the Secretary of LDEQ then has six months to select an appropriate measure, and an additional 20 months for implementation of that contingency measure to be completed. The selected contingency measure, therefore, will be implemented within 30 months of the recorded violation. These contingency measures and the schedule for implementation satisfy the requirements of section 175A(d) of the Act, and EPA is today proposing approval of the revised contingency plan for St. James Parish.

C. One Hour Ozone Standard Revocation

On July 18, 1997, EPA finalized a revision to the NAAQS for ozone which changed the standard from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over one hour, to 0.08 ppm, averaged over eight hours. The EPA revoked the one hour standard based on an area's attainment of the one hour ozone standard. The revocation of the one hour standard was based on quality assured air monitoring data for the years 1994-1996. On July 16, 1997, President Clinton issued a directive to Administrator Browner on implementation of the new ozone standard, as well as the current one hour ozone standard (62 FR 38421). In that directive the President laid out a plan for how the new ozone and particulate matter standards, as well as the current one hour standard, are to be implemented. A December 29, 1997, memorandum entitled ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,'' signed by Richard D. Wilson, EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, reflected that directive. The purpose of the guidance reflected in the memorandum is to ensure that the momentum gained by States to attain the one hour ozone NAAQS was not lost when moving toward implementing the eight hour ozone NAAQS. The guidance document explains that maintenance plans will remain in effect for areas where the one hour standard is revoked; however, those maintenance plans may be revised to withdraw certain contingency measure provisions that have not been triggered or implemented prior to EPA's determination of attainment and revocation. Where the contingency measure is linked to the one hour ozone standard or air quality ozone concentrations, the measures may be removed from the maintenance plan. Measures linked to non-air quality elements, such as emissions increases or vehicle miles traveled, may be removed if the State demonstrates that removing the measure will not affect an area's ability to attain the eight hour ozone standard. After the one hour standard is revoked for an area, EPA believes it is permissible to withdraw contingency measures designed to correct exceedances or violations of that standard. Since such measures were designed to address future violations of a standard that no longer exists, it is no longer necessary to retain them. Furthermore, EPA believes that future attainment and maintenance planning efforts should be directed toward attaining the eight hour ozone NAAQS. As part of the implementation of the eight hour ozone standard, the State's ozone air quality will be evaluated and eight hour attainment and nonattainment designations will be made. The final revocation action was published on June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31013). St. James Parish was included as an area whose air quality data qualified it for having the one-hour ozone standard revoked, and as such the State now has the option to withdraw any non-triggered contingency measure from the SIP. If EPA approves the UAM demonstration and the revision to the SIP, the State could withdraw any or all non- triggered contingency measures. However, the State has decided to go further than required and continue to

include contingency measures in the revised maintenance plan for St. James Parish.

D. Proposed Rulemaking Action

The EPA has reviewed the SIP submittal for consistency with the Act, applicable EPA regulations and EPA policy, and is proposing to approve this April 23, 1998, UAM demonstration and SIP submittal to revise the ozone maintenance plan for St. James Parish under sections 110(k)(3), 301(a), and part D of the Act. Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires that EPA provide to OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires that EPA develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process, permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. The rule does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal- State relationship under the Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost- effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. The EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

Dated: December 18, 1998. Jerry Clifford, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 99-664 Filed 1-13-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P