4436 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1This proposed action does not address the two 

elements of the transport SIP provision (in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) regarding interference 

with measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in 

another state. 

(b) Tolls established by agreement 

between Canada and the United States, 

and known as the St. Lawrence Seaway 

Schedule of Tolls, shall be paid by 

pleasure crafts with prepaid tickets 

purchased in Canadian funds using 

credit card ticket dispensers located at 

pleasure craft docks or Paypal on the 

Seaway Web site. At U.S. locks, the toll 

is paid in U.S. funds or the preestablished equivalent in Canadian 

funds or through payment via Pay.gov 

on the Seaway Web site. 

* * * * * 

(d) Vessel representatives with past 

due toll accounts, unpaid after 45 days, 

may be subject to the suspension of 

preclearance for each vessel of which a 

preclearance has been given and/or the 

immediate removal of the waved 

security for the toll charges set in 

§ 401.26(c) and § 401.26(d.) 

■ 18. In § 401.79, add a new paragraph 

(b)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 401.79 Advance notice of arrival, vessels 

requiring inspection. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) A tall ship or vessel of an unusual 

design is subject to Seaway yearly 

inspection. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on January 22, 

2014. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation. 

Carrie Lavigne, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01488 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–61–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0500; FRL–9905–83– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a portion of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submittal from the State of 

Louisiana to address Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) requirements that prohibit 

air emissions which will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in any other 

state for the 2006 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). EPA proposes to 

determine that the existing SIP for 

Louisiana contains adequate provisions 

to prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) in any 

other state as required by the Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2011–0500, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: Mr. Carl Young at 

young.carl@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0500. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, (214) 665–6645, young.carl@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Interstate Transport and the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

In 2006, we established a revised 24- 

hour NAAQS for PM2.5 of 35 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 6114). Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA identifies four 

distinct elements related to the 

evaluation of impacts of interstate 

transport of air pollutants with respect 

to a new or revised NAAQS. In this 

action for the state of Louisiana, we are 

addressing the first two elements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.1 The first 

element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requires that each SIP for a new or 

revised NAAQS contain adequate 

measures to prohibit any source or other 

type of emissions activity within the 

state from emitting air pollutants that 

will ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ of the NAAQS in 

another state. The second element of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires 

that each SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS prohibit any source or other 

type of emissions activity in the state 

from emitting pollutants that will 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 

applicable NAAQS in any other state. 

B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate 

Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

EPA has addressed the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4437 

2See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 

1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 

25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011). 

3CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

4See the Technical Support Documents for the 

Transport Rule (proposal and final) found in the 

regulations.gov e-docket for this action (EPA–R06– 

OAR–2011–0500). 

5See section IV.F (Analysis of Contributions 

Captured by Various Thresholds) of the Air Quality 

Modeling TSD. 

regulatory actions.2 The final CrossState Air Pollution Rule (Transport 

Rule) addressed the first two elements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the 

eastern United States with respect to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 

FR 48208). The Transport Rule was 

intended to replace the earlier Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was 

judicially remanded.3 See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008) modified on rehearing, 550 F.3d 

1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 21, 

2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating 

the Transport Rule. See EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012). The court also ordered 

EPA to continue implementing CAIR in 

the interim. On June 24, 2013, the 

Supreme Court granted the United 

States’ petition for certiorari and agreed 

to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision in 

EME Homer City. The Supreme Court 

held oral arguments on December 10, 

2013. In the meantime, and unless the 

EME Homer City decision is reversed or 

otherwise modified by the Supreme 

Court, EPA intends to act in accordance 

with the D.C. Circuit opinion in EME 

Homer City. 

C. Louisiana’s Submittals 

On May 16, 2011, Louisiana 

submitted a SIP revision to address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The submittal stated that the 

State had adequate provisions to 

prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

within the State that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS based on Louisiana having 

EPA-approved CAIR SIPs requiring 

certain electric generating units to 

participate in sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxide trading programs (72 FR 

39741; 72 FR 55064). On May 21, 2013, 

the State submitted a letter to EPA 

serving as a technical supplement for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The letter 

stated that because the more recent and 

improved air quality modeling 

evaluating interstate transport for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS conducted by EPA 

for the Transport Rule is now available 

and supports the conclusion that 

emissions in Louisiana do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other State, it was being 

submitted as the basis for the 

conclusions in lieu of the previous 

technical information provided in the 

May 16, 2011 submission. The submittal 

and technical supplement document the 

State’s assessments that Louisiana 

emissions will not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfere with maintenance, in any other 

state for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

submittals and technical supplement are 

available electronically through the 

www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0500). 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. EPA’s Approach for Evaluating 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement is 

satisfied, EPA must determine whether 

a state’s emissions contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in any other 

state. If this factual finding is in the 

negative, then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

does not require any changes to a state’s 

SIP. EPA is proposing to determine that 

the existing SIP for Louisiana is 

adequate to satisfy the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address 

interstate transport requirements with 

regard to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

proposed conclusion is based on air 

quality modeling originally conducted 

by EPA to quantify each individual 

eastern state’s (including Louisiana’s) 

contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

during the rulemaking process for the 

Transport Rule. 

In the Transport Rule rulemaking, we 

used air quality modeling to: (1) identify 

locations projected to be nonattainment 

or have maintenance problems in 2012 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

(nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors) and (2) quantify the air 

quality contributions of emissions from 

upwind states on downwind 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentrations at the receptors for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 

2012.4 As detailed in the Air Quality 

Modeling TSDs, we used a threshold of 

1 percent of the NAAQS to identify 

linkages between upwind states and 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. With respect to 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, our 

analysis for the Transport Rule found 

that the 1 percent threshold captures a 

high percentage of the total pollution 

transport affecting downwind states 

with nonattainment/maintenance 

receptors.5 The air quality threshold 

used for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

was 0.35 mg/m3 (1 percent of 35.0 mg/

m3). If a state’s air quality contribution 

to downwind nonattainment/

maintenance receptors in all other states 

did not exceed the threshold, it was 

concluded that its emissions do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in another state for the 

NAAQS. 

B. Evaluation of the State’s Submittals 

EPA’s evaluation confirms Louisiana’s 

analysis provided in the SIP submittal 

for the State of Louisiana submitted on 

May 16, 2011, and the technical 

supplement submitted on May 21, 2013. 

The air quality modeling performed for 

the Transport Rule found that the 

impact from Louisiana emissions on 

both downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors was less than the 

1 percent threshold for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA therefore did not find 

emissions from Louisiana linked to any 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Below is a summary of the air quality 

modeling results for Louisiana from 

Table IV–9 of EPA’s Air Quality 

Modeling TSD regarding Louisiana’s 

largest contribution to both downwind 

PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance 

areas. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
4438 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted 

EPA’s petition for certiorari and agreed to review 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City. 

LOUISIANA’S LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS

NAAQS Air quality threshold 

(μg/m3) 

Largest downwind 

contribution to 

nonattainment 

(μg/m3) 

Largest downwind 

contribution to 

maintenance 

(μg/m3) 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 μg/m3) ............................................................. 0.35 0.11 0.13 

Based on this analysis, we propose to 

approve the portion of the May 16, 2011 

Louisiana SIP submittal, and the 

technical supplement submitted on May 

21, 2013, determining that the existing 

SIP for Louisiana contains adequate 

provisions to prohibit air pollutant 

emissions from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state as 

required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

We continue to believe it is 

appropriate to rely on the modeling 

conducted during the rulemaking for the 

Transport Rule even though the rule 

itself was vacated by the D.C. Circuit. 

EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012).6 Nothing in 

the EME Homer City opinion suggests 

that the air quality modeling on which 

our proposal relies is flawed or invalid 

for any reason. In addition, nothing in 

that opinion undermines or calls into 

question our proposed conclusion that, 

because emissions from Louisiana do 

not contribute more than one percent of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to any 

downwind area with nonattainment or 

maintenance problems, Louisiana does 

not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in another state for this 

NAAQS. Further, EPA is not proposing 

to rely on any requirements of the 

Transport Rule or emission reductions 

associated with that rule to support its 

conclusion that Louisiana has met its 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(l) of the Act 

Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits 

EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. The 

SIP submittal from the State of 

Louisiana contains no new regulatory 

provisions and does not affect any 

requirement in Louisiana’s applicable 

implementation plan. Therefore, the 

submission does not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. EPA has 

concluded, based on Louisiana’s and 

EPA’s technical analysis, that the 

existing Louisiana SIP is sufficient to 

meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve a portion 

of a SIP submittal for the State of 

Louisiana submitted on May 16, 2011, 

and the technical supplement submitted 

on May 21, 2013, to address interstate 

transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Based on our evaluation we propose to 

approve the portion of the SIP submittal 

determining the existing SIP for 

Louisiana contains adequate provisions 

to prohibit air emissions from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other state as required by CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

Act. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 15, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01587 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1