36496 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, you may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding the Federal Docket 

Management System in the March 24, 

2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 

FR 15086). 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 50 U.S.C. 

191; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0241 

under the undesignated center heading 

Seventh Coast Guard District to read as 

follows: 

§ 100.T07–0241 Safety Zone; Swim Around 

Charleston, Charleston, SC. 

(a) Regulated area. The following 

regulated area is a moving safety zone: 

All waters 50 yards in front of the lead 

safety vessel preceding the first race 

participants, 50 yards behind the safety 

vessel trailing the last race participants, 

and at all times extend 100 yards on 

either side of safety vessels. The Swim 

Around Charleston swimming race 

consists of a 12 mile course that starts 

at Remley’s Point on the Wando River 

in approximate position 32°48′49′′ N., 

79°54′27′′ W., crosses the main shipping 

channel under the main span of the 

Ravenel Bridge, and finishes at the I– 

526 bridge and boat landing on the 

Ashley River in approximate position 

32°50′14′′ N., 80°01′23′′ W. All 

coordinates are North American Datum 

1983. 

(b) Definition. As used in this section, 

‘‘designated representative’’ means 

Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, 

including Coast Guard coxswains, petty 

officers, and other officers operating 

Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, 

and local officers designated by or 

assisting the Captain of the Port 

Charleston in the enforcement of the 

regulated areas. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the regulated area, 

except persons and vessels participating 

in the Swim Around Charleston, or 

serving as safety vessels. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area may 

contact the Captain of the Port 

Charleston by telephone at (843)740– 

7050, or a designated representative via 

VHF radio on channel 16, to request 

authorization. If authorization to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the regulated area is granted, all 

persons and vessels receiving such 

authorization must comply with the 

instructions of the Captain of the Port 

Charleston or a designated 

representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Marine 

Safety Information Bulletins, Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Enforcement period. This rule will 

be enforced on September 25, 2016 from 

8:45 a.m. until 3:45 p.m. 

Dated: May 31, 2016. 

G.L. Tomasulo, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2016–13325 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0464; FRL–9947–36– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air 

Pollution for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to disapprove 

the portion of a Louisiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

pertaining to interstate transport of air 

pollution which will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. Disapproval 

will establish a 2-year deadline for the 

EPA to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Louisiana 

to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

interstate transport requirements 

pertaining to significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states, unless we approve a SIP 

that meets these requirements. 

Disapproval does not start a mandatory 

sanctions clock for Louisiana. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 7, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0464, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36497 

1Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706, 75711 

(December 3, 2015). 

2NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998). 

3Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 

(May 12, 2005). 

4When we discuss the eastern United States we 

mean the contiguous U.S. states excluding the 11 

western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, 

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 

5Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). 

6CAIR found that sulfur dioxide and NOX

emission limits were needed in Louisiana to 

address interstate transport of air pollution for the 

1997 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS (70 FR 25162, 

May 12, 2005). 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact Sherry Fuerst 214–665–6454, 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. 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/commentingepa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Fuerst 214–665–6454, 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill 

Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised 

the levels of the primary and secondary 

8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436). The CAA requires states to 

submit, within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, SIPs meeting the applicable 

‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2). One of these 

applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to 

contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to 

prohibit certain adverse air quality 

effects on neighboring states due to 

interstate transport of pollution. There 

are four sub-elements within CAA 

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

reviews how the first two sub-elements 

of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed 

in an infrastructure SIP submission from 

Louisiana for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

These sub-elements require that each 

SIP for a new or revised standard 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

any emissions activity within the State 

from emitting air pollutants that will 

‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the applicable air 

quality standard in any other state. 

Ozone is not emitted directly into the 

air, but is created by chemical reactions 

between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 

the presence of sunlight. Emissions from 

electric utilities and industrial facilities, 

motor vehicles, gasoline vapors, and 

chemical solvents are some of the major 

sources of NOX and VOCs. Because 

ground-level ozone formation increases 

with temperature and sunlight, ozone 

levels are generally higher during the 

summer. Increased temperature also 

increases emissions of VOCs and can 

indirectly increase NOX emissions.1

We have addressed the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

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

in several past regulatory actions. The 

NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 1998, 

addressed the good neighbor provision 

for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.2 The 

rule required 22 states and the District 

of Columbia to amend their SIPs and 

limit NOX emissions that contribute to 

ozone nonattainment. The Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated in 

2005, addressed both the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone 

standards under the good neighbor 

provision and required SIP revisions in 

28 states and the District of Columbia to 

limit NOX and SO2 emissions that 

contribute to nonattainment of those 

standards.3 CAIR was remanded to us 

by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

modified on reh’g, 550 F.3d 1176. In 

response to the remand of CAIR, we 

promulgated the Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, 

to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

in the eastern 4 portion of the United 

States.5 With respect to ozone, CSAPR 

limited ozone season NOX emissions 

from electric generating units (EGUs). 

CSAPR addressed interstate transport as 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, but did not 

address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 

II. Louisiana SIP Revision Addressing 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

On June 4, 2013, Louisiana provided 

us with a SIP submittal addressing CAA 

section 110(a)(2) ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. This action concerns the 

portion of the SIP submittal pertaining 

to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirement to address the interstate 

transport of air pollution which will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. We proposed approval 

on other portions of the State’s 

submittal relating to CAA section 

110(a)(2) elements A, B, C, D(i)(II), D(ii), 

E, F, G, H, J, K, L, and M in a separate 

action signed on May 18, 2016. 

In its SIP submittal, Louisiana 

provided an ‘‘Infrastructure Checklist’’ 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and stated 

that the submittal substantiates that the 

State has adequate provisions to 

prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

within the State that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

another state. The checklist states that 

the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

submitted and we approved CAIR SIPs 

for both sulfur dioxide and NOX

emissions, citing 72 FR 39741 (July 20, 

2007) and 72 FR 55064 (September 28, 

2007).6 The checklist also notes that the 

controls installed to comply with CAIR 

are required by State law at Louisiana 

Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.905 to 

be ‘‘used and diligently maintained.’’ 

The checklist also provided narrative on 

the D.C. Circuit’s 2012 decision in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA 

which vacated CSAPR and the 

November 19, 2012, memorandum 

explaining the continued 

implementation of CAIR until a 

replacement rule could be implemented. 

Louisiana’s SIP submittal included a 

response to comments document which, 

among other things, summarized and 

responded to February 15, 2013, 

comments from us on what was then the 

State’s proposed SIP revision. In our 

comments on the proposed SIP revision, 

we noted that the information LDEQ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36498 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

7Louisiana’s citation to our July 20, 2007 action 

approving Louisiana’s CAIR sulfur dioxide SIP 

revision is particularly inapplicable. 72 FR 39741. 

Sulfur dioxide is not a precursor or pollutant that 

contributes to ozone formation, and therefore, the 

implementation of any control requirements to 

address sulfur dioxide emissions is irrelevant to our 

analysis of the State’s control requirements to 

address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

8This is particularly true where, as here, 

Louisiana has failed to include any analysis of the 

downwind impacts of emissions originating within 

their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v. EPA, 

608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3–4 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

provided was based upon the old 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements and 

was therefore not sufficient to support a 

conclusion that the State’s ozone 

emissions do not contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

In its response, Louisiana disagreed, and 

accordingly chose not to revise its 

proposed SIP revision or provide any 

additional support for its conclusions. 

Instead, Louisiana contended in its 

response to comments that, ‘‘the 

information based on the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS requirements is relevant 

. . . through the CAIR NOX program in 

that it demonstrates the state’s most 

recent efforts in maintaining the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and to alleviate transport 

pollutants.’’ A copy of the Louisiana SIP 

submittal, which includes our February 

15, 2013, comment letter and the State’s 

response to comments, may be accessed 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0464. 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation 

As noted above, we informed 

Louisiana in our February 15, 2013, 

comment letter that the information 

provided in the SIP submittal would not 

itself be sufficient to conclude that the 

State has adequate provisions to 

prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

within the State that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in other states. However, the 

SIP submittal provided by Louisiana 

cited the State’s approved CAIR SIP as 

support for its conclusion that the State 

satisfied its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligation with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

First, CAIR was invalidated by the 

D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896 (2008). The D.C. Circuit 

held, among other things, that the CAIR 

rule did not ‘‘achieve[] something 

measureable toward the goal of 

prohibiting sources within the State 

from contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance in any 

other State.’’ Id. at 908; see also, e.g., id. 

at 916 (EPA is not exercising its 

authority to make measureable progress 

towards the goals of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because the emission 

budgets were insufficiently related to 

the statutory mandate). In promulgating 

CSAPR, we corrected our prior 

approvals of states’ CAIR SIPs, 

including Louisiana’s approved CAIR 

SIPs, ‘‘to rescind any statements that the 

SIP submissions either satisfy or relieve 

the state of the obligation to submit a 

SIP to satisfy the requirements of 

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

the 1997 ozone and/or 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS or any statements that EPA’s 

approval of the SIP submissions either 

relieve EPA of the obligation to 

promulgate a FIP or remove EPA’s 

authority to promulgate a FIP.’’ 76 FR 

48208, 48220. In reviewing CSAPR, the 

D.C. Circuit concluded that our 

correction of the prior CAIR approvals 

was appropriate, explaining ‘‘when our 

decision in North Carolina deemed 

CAIR to be an invalid effort to 

implement the requirements of the good 

neighbor provision, that ruling meant 

that the initial approval of the CAIR 

SIPs was in error at the time it was 

done.’’ EME Homer City Generation, L.P 

v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 133 (D.C. Cir. 

2015). Therefore, the D.C. Circuit has 

clearly concluded that states cannot rely 

on CAIR or previously approved CAIR 

SIPs to satisfy the requirements of 

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

Even if Louisiana could rely on its 

CAIR SIPs, as we stated in our comment 

letter, the modeling and rulemaking 

conducted for both CAIR and CSAPR 

addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS, not 

the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS 

at issue in this action. EPA-approved 

rules implementing a prior, less 

stringent NAAQS are not adequate on 

their own to support a demonstration 

regarding the impacts of in-state 

emissions on air quality in other states 

with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.7 Additionally, although we 

approved the Louisiana abbreviated SIP 

implementing the CAIR NOX trading 

program, neither the states nor the EPA 

are currently implementing the ozoneseason NOX trading program 

promulgated in CAIR, as it has been 

replaced by CSAPR. Moreover, although 

the State cites to a State regulation 

requiring that already-installed controls 

be ‘‘used’’ and ‘‘maintained,’’ the State 

does not provide any explanation as to 

whether the sources are subject to 

specific emissions limitations or how 

the use of the controls will impact 

downwind air quality. 

Finally, it is no longer appropriate for 

Louisiana to rely on the D.C. Circuit 

decision vacating CSAPR as a basis for 

concluding that its SIP is adequate. 

Although the D.C. Circuit initially held 

that states did not have an obligation to 

make a SIP submission addressing 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until we first 

quantified a state’s emission reduction 

obligation, see EME Homer City, 696 

F.3d 7, on April 29, 2014, the Supreme 

Court reversed this decision and 

remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for 

further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 

(2014). The Supreme Court explained 

that ‘‘nothing in the statute places EPA 

under an obligation to provide specific 

metrics to States before they undertake 

to fulfill their good neighbor 

obligations.’’ Id. at 1601. 

Because the Louisiana submittal 

addressed by this action concerns states’ 

interstate transport obligations for a 

different and more stringent standard 

(the 2008 ozone NAAQS), it is not 

sufficient to merely cite as evidence of 

compliance that these older programs 

have been implemented by the states or 

the EPA.8 The submittal lacks any 

technical analysis evaluating or 

demonstrating whether emissions in 

each state impact air quality in other 

states with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. As such, the submittal does 

not provide us with a basis to agree with 

the conclusion that the State already has 

adequate provisions in the SIP to 

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

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Thus, we propose to find that 

the Louisiana submittal is not adequate 

as it did not evaluate whether emissions 

from the State significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. 

Although the Louisiana submittal 

contains no data or analysis to support 

their conclusion with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard, we recently shared new 

technical information with states to 

facilitate efforts to address interstate 

transport requirements for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Such technical 

information provides further support to 

our determination that Louisiana is 

projected to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. We developed this 

technical information following the 

same approach used to evaluate 

interstate transport in CSAPR in order to 

support the recently proposed CrossState Air Pollution Rule Update for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, (80 FR 75706, 

December 3, 2015) (‘‘CSAPR Update 

Rule’’). 

In CSAPR, we used detailed air 

quality analyses to determine whether 

an eastern state’s contribution to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36499 

9 80 FR 75706, 75727–28. 

downwind air quality problems was at 

or above specific thresholds. If a state’s 

contribution did not exceed the 

specified air quality screening 

threshold, the state was not considered 

‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors and was, therefore, not 

considered to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the standard in those 

downwind areas. If a state exceeded that 

threshold, the state’s emissions were 

further evaluated, taking into account 

both air quality and cost considerations, 

to determine what, if any, emissions 

reductions might be necessary. For the 

reasons stated below, we believe it is 

appropriate to use the same approach 

we used in CSAPR to establish an air 

quality screening threshold for the 

evaluation of interstate transport 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

standard. 

In CSAPR, we proposed an air quality 

screening threshold of one percent of 

the applicable NAAQS and requested 

comment on whether one percent was 

appropriate. We evaluated the 

comments received and ultimately 

determined that one percent was an 

appropriately low threshold because 

there were important, even if relatively 

small, contributions to identified 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors from multiple upwind states. 

In response to commenters who 

advocated a higher or lower threshold 

than one percent, we compiled the 

contribution modeling results for 

CSAPR to analyze the impact of 

different possible thresholds for the 

eastern United States. Our analysis 

showed that the one percent threshold 

captures a high percentage of the total 

pollution transport affecting downwind 

states, while the use of higher 

thresholds would exclude increasingly 

larger percentages of total transport. For 

example, at a five percent threshold, the 

majority of interstate pollution transport 

affecting downwind receptors would be 

excluded. In addition, we determined 

that it was important to use a relatively 

lower one percent threshold because 

there are adverse health impacts 

associated with ambient ozone even at 

low levels. We also determined that a 

lower threshold such as 0.5 percent 

would result in relatively modest 

increases in the overall percentages of 

fine particulate matter and ozone 

pollution transport captured relative to 

the amounts captured at the one-percent 

level. We determined that a ‘‘0.5 percent 

threshold could lead to emission 

reduction responsibilities in additional 

states that individually have a very 

small impact on those receptors—an 

indicator that emission controls in those 

states are likely to have a smaller air 

quality impact at the downwind 

receptor. We are not convinced that 

selecting a threshold below one percent 

is necessary or desirable.’’ 

In the final CSAPR, we determined 

that one percent was a reasonable 

choice considering the combined 

downwind impact of multiple upwind 

states in the eastern United States, the 

health effects of low levels of fine 

particulate matter and ozone pollution, 

and the previous use of a one percent 

threshold in CAIR. We used a single 

‘‘bright line’’ air quality threshold equal 

to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, or 0.08 ppm. The projected 

contribution from each state was 

averaged over multiple days with 

projected high modeled ozone, and then 

compared to the one percent threshold. 

We concluded that this approach for 

setting and applying the air quality 

threshold for ozone was appropriate 

because it provided a robust metric, was 

consistent with the approach for fine 

particulate matter used in CSAPR, and 

because it took into account, and would 

be applicable to, any future ozone 

standards below 0.08 ppm. We have 

subsequently proposed to use the same 

threshold for purposes of evaluating 

interstate transport with respect to the 

2008 ozone standard in the CSAPR 

Update Rule. 

In 2015 we (1) provided notice of data 

availability (NODA) for the updated 

ozone transport modeling for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS for public review and 

comment (80 FR 46271, August 4, 2015), 

and (2) proposed the CSAPR Update 

Rule to address interstate transport with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 

FR 75706, December 3, 2015). The 

proposed CSAPR Update Rule would 

further restrict ozone season NOX

emissions from EGUs in 23 states, 

including Louisiana, beginning in the 

2017 ozone season. 

The modeling data released in this 

NODA was also used to support the 

proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The 

moderate area attainment date for the 

2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In 

order to demonstrate attainment by this 

attainment deadline, states will use 

2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. 

Therefore, we proposed that 2017 is an 

appropriate future year to model for the 

purpose of examining interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

We used photochemical air quality 

modeling to project ozone 

concentrations at air quality monitoring 

sites to 2017 and estimated state-bystate ozone contributions to those 2017 

concentrations. This modeling used the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 

model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 

future base case emissions scenarios to 

identify projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. We used 

nationwide state-level ozone source 

apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone 

Source Apportionment Technology/

Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability 

Analysis technique) to quantify the 

contribution of 2017 base case NOX and 

VOC emissions from all sources in each 

state to the 2017 projected receptors. 

The air quality model runs were 

performed for a modeling domain that 

covers the 48 contiguous United States 

and adjacent portions of Canada and 

Mexico. The NODA and the supporting 

technical support documents have been 

included in the docket for this SIP 

action. 

The modeling data released in the 

NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule are 

the most up-to-date information we 

have developed to inform our analysis 

of upwind state linkages to downwind 

air quality problems. As discussed in 

the CSAPR Update Rule proposal, the 

air quality modeling (1) identified 

locations in the U.S. where we expect 

nonattainment or maintenance problems 

in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors), and (2) quantified the 

projected contributions of emissions 

from upwind states to downwind ozone 

concentrations at those receptors in 

2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720–30, December 

3, 2015). Consistent with CSAPR, we 

proposed to use a threshold of one 

percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 

parts per billion) to identify linkages 

between upwind states and downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors. We proposed that eastern 

states with contributions to a specific 

receptor that meet or exceed this 

screening threshold are considered 

‘‘linked’’ to that receptor and were 

analyzed further to quantify available 

emissions reductions necessary to 

address interstate transport to these 

receptors. 

Table 1 is a summary of the air quality 

modeling results for Louisiana from 

Tables V.D–1, V.D–2 and V.D–3 of the 

proposed CSAPR Update Rule.9 As the 

State’s downwind contribution to 

proposed nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors exceeded the 

threshold, the analysis for the proposal 

concluded that Louisiana’s emissions 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36500 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

in other states. Louisiana’s emissions 

were linked (1) to eastern nonattainment 

receptors in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and 

the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston 

areas of Texas, and (2) to eastern 

maintenance receptors in the Dallas/

Fort Worth and Houston areas. 

TABLE 1—LOUISIANA’S LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS

[Proposed CSAPR Update Rule] 

2008 Ozone NAAQS Air quality 

threshold 

Largest downwind contribution 

to nonattainment 

Largest downwind contribution 

to maintenance 

Downwind nonattainment 

receptors located in states 

Downwind 

maintenance 

receptors 

located in states 

0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion or 

ppb).

0.75 ppb ............ 3.09 ppb ............ 4.23 ppb ............ Wisconsin, Texas ............... Texas 

Accordingly, the most recent 

technical analysis available to us 

contradicts Louisiana’s conclusion that 

the SIP contains adequate provisions to 

address interstate transport as to the 

2008 ozone standard. 

We are thus proposing to disapprove 

the portion of the Louisiana SIP 

submittal pertaining to interstate 

transport of air pollution which will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states—i.e., element (D)(i)(I). As 

explained above, the Louisiana 

submittal did not provide an adequate 

technical analysis demonstrating that 

the SIP contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. Moreover, our most 

recent modeling indicates that 

emissions from Louisiana are in fact 

projected to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. 

IV. Proposed Action 

We propose to disapprove the portion 

of a June 4, 2013 Louisiana SIP 

submittal pertaining to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the interstate transport 

of air pollution which will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in other states. 

Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), 

disapproval will establish a 2-year 

deadline for the EPA to promulgate a 

FIP for Louisiana to address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS unless Louisiana submits 

and we approve a SIP that meets these 

requirements. Disapproval does not start 

a mandatory sanctions clock for 

Louisiana pursuant to CAA section 179 

because this action does not pertain to 

a part D plan for nonattainment areas 

required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) 

or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(5). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

significant regulatory action and was 

therefore not submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the PRA because it does not contain any 

information collection activities. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this proposed action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action merely 

proposes to disapprove a SIP 

submission as not meeting the CAA. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This proposed action does not contain 

any unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. This action does 

not apply on any Indian reservation 

land, any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation 

areas of Indian country. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

We interpret Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that we have 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it merely proposes to 

disapprove a SIP submission as not 

meeting the CAA. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, because it is not 

a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

We believe the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action merely 

proposes to disapprove a SIP 

submission as not meeting the CAA. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36501 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 26, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2016–13493 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket No. 13–49; FCC 16–68] 

Unlicensed National Information 

Infrastructure (U–NII) Devices in the 5 

GHz Band 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document invites 

interested parties to update and refresh 

the record on the status of potential 

sharing solutions between proposed 

Unlicensed National Information 

Infrastructure (U–NII) devices and 

Dedicated Short Range Communications 

(DSRC) operations in the 5.850–5.925 

GHz (U–NII–4) band. The Commission 

also solicits the submittal of prototype 

unlicensed interference-avoiding 

devices for testing, and seeks comment 

on a proposed FCC test plan to evaluate 

electromagnetic compatibility of 

unlicensed devices and DSRC. The 

collection of relevant empirical data 

will assist the FCC, the Department of 

Transportation, and the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration in their ongoing 

collaboration to analyze and quantify 

the interference potential introduced to 

DSRC receivers from unlicensed 

transmitters operating simultaneously in 

the 5.850–5.925 GHz band. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

July 7, 2016, and reply comments are 

due on or before July 22, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Griboff, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, (202) 418–0657, email: 

Howard.Griboff@fcc.gov, or Aole 

Wilkins, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–2406, email: 

Aole.Wilkins@fcc.gov; TTY (202) 418– 

2989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of a document in, ET Docket 

No. 13–49, FCC 16–68, adopted May 25, 

2016, and released June 1, 2016. The 

full text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

full text may also be downloaded at: 

www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (tty). 

Synopsis 

The non-Federal Mobile Service 

operating on a primary basis in the 

5.850–5.925 GHz band is limited to 

DSRC systems, a component of the 

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) 

radio service. 

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

in February 2013, the Commission 

explored the potential for future 

unlicensed operations in the 5.850– 

5.925 GHz band, and sought comment 

on technical requirements and sharing 

technologies and techniques that could 

be used by unlicensed users to protect 

incumbent operations, and specifically 

DSRC. See Revision of Part 15 of the 

Commission’s Rules to Permit 

Unlicensed National Information 

Infrastructure (U–NII) Devices in the 5 

GHz Band, ET Docket No. 13–49, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 

1769 (2013) (NPRM); 78 FR 21320, April 

10, 2013. 

In comments on the Commission’s 

proposal, the automobile industry and 

the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) on 

behalf the Department of Transportation 

(DoT) raised potential interference 

concerns with respect to protecting 

DSRC from unlicensed users. 

Subsequently, in August 2013, the 

Regulatory Standing Committee of IEEE 

802.11 formed ‘‘the DSRC Coexistence 

Tiger Team’’ to investigate potential 

mitigation techniques that might enable 

sharing between the proposed 

unlicensed devices and DSRC 

equipment. The IEEE Tiger Team 

completed its work in March 2015, 

stating that it was unable to reach a 

consensus, but instead submitted that 

further analyses and testing could 

follow. 

The IEEE Tiger Team examined two 

proposed sharing techniques. The 

‘‘detect and avoid’’ approach involves 

detecting the presence of DSRC signals, 

and avoiding using the spectrum in this 

band when DSRC signals are present. 

Under this sharing proposal, unlicensed 

devices would monitor the existing 10 

megahertz-wide DSRC channels. If an 

unlicensed device detects any 

transmitted DSRC signal, it would avoid 

using the entire DSRC band to assure no 

interference occurs to DSRC 

communications. After waiting a certain 

amount of time the unlicensed device 

would again sense the DSRC spectrum 

to determine if any DSRC channels are 

in use or whether it could safely 

transmit. 

The ‘‘re-channelization’’ approach 

involves splitting the DSRC spectrum 

into two contiguous blocks: The upper 

part of the band exclusively for safetyrelated communications, and permitting 

unlicensed devices to share the lower 

part of the band with non-safety DSRC 

communications. This would be 

accomplished by moving the control 

channel and the two public safety 

channels to the top portion of the band, 

and reconfiguring the remaining four 

DSRC service channels in the lower end 

of the band as two 20 megahertz 

channels rather than maintaining four 

10 megahertz channels. Under this 

approach, sharing between unlicensed 

devices and non-safety DSRC would 

occur according to the sharing protocols 

used by standard 802.11 devices, i.e., 

the device would listen for an ‘‘open’’ 

channel in the 5.850–5.895 GHz band 

and transmit if available. Otherwise the 

device would wait a very short period 

of time, and then try again. 

The Commission now seeks comment 

on the merits of these two approaches. 

What are the benefits and drawbacks of 

each approach? Would one approach be 

better than the other (e.g., minimize the 

risks of interference to DSRC more 

effectively while providing a 

comparable degree of meaningful access 

to spectrum for unlicensed devices)? For 

either approach, is it necessary for the 

Commission to specify all the details of 

the interference avoidance mechanism 

in the FCC rules or can this be 

addressed by relying primarily on 

industry standards bodies to develop 

the specific sharing methods? If the 

former, what specific technical details 

need to be specified in the FCC rules 

(e.g., out of bound emissions, noise 

tolerance, detection threshold, channel 

vacate time, etc.)? Has industry agreed 

upon performance indicators for DSRC, 

and if so, what are these metrics and is 

there a process to hold products to these 

performance levels? 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on how the choice of avoidance protocol 

affects the deployment and performance 

of DSRC. Would ‘‘re-channelization’’ 

require any change in the design of the 

DSRC electronic components contained 

in DSRC prototypes or just require a 

change in the processing of the data? 

The Commission seeks comment on 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS