Ms. Cheryl Nolan 

Assistant Secretary 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGIONS 

1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 

DALLAS, TX 75202-2733 

JAN 2 4 2008 

Office of Environmental Services 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 4313 

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313 

RE: Concerns with Louisiana's New Source Review (NSR) Reform State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal 

Dear Ms. Nolan: 

Revisions to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

regulations were submitted to us on December 20, 2005, to revise Louisiana's SIP to 

address the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations for NSR Reform, 

promulgated December 31, 2002, and revised November 7, 2003. During our review, we 

have identified areas for which we need clarification from LDEQ before we can act on 

the submittal. These areas include: (1) the use of variances to authorize emissions from 

startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when calculating the "baseline actual emissions" 

and "projected actual emissions"; (2) public participation for the major source plantwide 

applicability limits in nonattainment areas; and (3) the definitions of "malfunction." Our 

more specific concerns are discussed in the Enclosure to this letter. 

We request a response from LDEQ addressing the following: 

1. What actions LDEQ will take to expeditiously address the concerns 

identified in the Enclosure. As you are aware, for LDEQ rules (and any 

revisions thereto) to be approved by EPA into the Louisiana NSR SIP they 

must meet, or be more stringent than, the corresponding Federal 

requirements. If LDEQ chooses to adopt provisions that are different from 

the Federal requirements, we encourage you to discuss such provisions 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed wnh Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) 
2 

with us and to provide demonstrations that the LDEQ provisionsalthough written differently-still meet the Federal SIP regulatory 

requirements. 

2. A timeline by which LDEQ will provide any needed clarifications, 

make any necessary commitments, revise Louisiana regulations as 

appropriate, and submit to EPA any necessary commitments and 

revisions to the SIP. 

Please provide us a response and accompanying timeline within 60 days of the 

date of this letter detailing how and when LDEQ proposes to address the concerns we 

have raised in the Enclosure to this letter. We look forward to working with you on these 

matters. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Robinson at (214) 665-6435 or 

Stanley M. Spruiell at (214) 665-7212. 

Enclosure 

Sincere! y yours, 

~J:J~Yf 

Thomas H. Diggs 

Associate Director for Air 
COMMENTS ON LOUISIANA'S NSR REFORM SIP SUBMITTAL 

General Comment: The comments in this letter do not limit or alter the scope of our 

review of this or any other pending or future SIP submission, and our silence in this letter 

on particular provisions submitted for SIP approval may not be construed as any 

indication of whether we will approve those provisions into the SIP. 

Variances 

I. Louisiana's NSR Reform SIP submittal provides that baseline actual emissions 

include "authorized emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions" (emphasis added). See the definitions of "baseline actual 

emissions" at Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33.III.509.B (relating to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration applicability) and at LAC 33.III.504.K 

(relating to nonattainment new source review (NNSR) applicability). 

A. Louisiana's definition differs from the Federal definition by addition of the 

word "authorized." 

B. Generally, use of the term "authorized emissions" would meet Federal 

requirements because it excludes emissions that exceed legally enforceable 

emission limitations, pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

51.165(a)(l)(xxxv)(A)(2) and (B)(2)-(3) and 51.166(b)(47)(i)(b) and (ii)(b)-

(c). 

C. "Authorized emissions" in the Louisiana SIP, however, can include excess 

emissions authorized by variances that the LDEQ issues under LAC 

33.III.917. 1 

1. LAC 33.III.917 provides: 

a. Where, upon written application of the responsible person or 

persons, the administrative authority finds that by reason of 

exceptional circumstances strict conformity with any provision 

of these regulations would cause undue hardship, would be 

unreasonable, impractical or not feasible under the 

circumstances, the administrative authority may permit a 

variance from these regulations. 

1 LAC 33.III.917 is SIP-approved (dating back to approval of Louisiana's original SIP as 

published at 37 FR 10841 (May 31, 1972)). The Louisiana SIP includes additional pollutant-specific 

variance provisions, but LDEQ stated during a telephone conference on May 3, 2007, that it primarily 

utilizes section 917, a general variance provision, to authorize emissions that exceed permitted limits. This 

discussion, therefore, focuses on the section 917 variance provision; however, EPA Region 6's concerns 

regarding variances are transferable to Louisiana's other air-related variance provisions. See §§1311 

(Particulate Matter), 1505 (Sulfur Dioxide), and 2119 (Organic Compounds). 

' i 
2 

b. No variance may permit or authorize the maintenance of a 

nuisance, or a danger to public health or safety. 

2. Louisiana issues hundreds of variances per year for excess emissions 

originating from, for example, routine startup/shutdown (SU/SD) 

events and what LDEQ calls "temporary equipment emission sources" 

(e.g., a backup control device while the normal control device is being 

repaired). The LDEQ stated during a conference call that it does not 

issue variances for malfunctions, although nothing in the rule 

explicitly prevents LDEQ from doing so. 

II. EPA Region 6's concerns regarding LDEQ's issuance of variances. 

A. EPA policy and guidance on excess emissions. 

1. EPA policy and guidance on excess emissions has evolved 

through preambles of two EPA rules promulgated in 1977 

and five guidance memorandums issued in 1982, 1983, 

1993, 1999, and 2001 (collectively hereinafter, for purposes 

of this comment letter, "EPA's excess emissions 

guidance"). 2 

2 EPA's excess emissions guidance includes: Final Rule for Utah Sulfur Dioxide Control 

Strategy, 42 FR 21472 (Apri127, 1977) and Final Rule for Idaho Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy, 42 

Federal Register 58171 (November 8, 1977), which discuss EPA's position on no automatic exemptions 

for excess emissions ("1977 FRNs"); Memorandum from Kathleen M. Bennett, dated September 28, 1982, 

entitled, "Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions"; 

Memorandum from Kathleen M. Bennett, dated February 15, 1983, entitled, "Policy on Excess Emissions 

During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions," which clarifies EPA's position on excess 

emissions during certain types of SU/SD (together with the aforementioned guidance issued in 1982, "1982 

and 1983 Guidance"); Memorandum from John B. Rasnic, dated January 28, 1993, entitled, "Automatic or 

Blanket Exemptions for Excess Emissions During Startup,[sicl and Shutdowns Under PSD"; Memorandum 

from Steven A. Herman and Robert Perciasepe, dated September 20, 1999, entitled, "State Implementation 

Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown," which reaffirms 

the 1982 and 1983 guidance memoranda, supplements them by adding the "affirmative defense option," 

and-cJarifies--FRA-~s--posjtjon-on-excess emissjons-during.certain.types.of Startup-and-Shutdown for certain 

source categories (1999 Guidance); and Memorandum from Eric Schaeffer, dated December 5, 2001, 

entitled "Re-Issuance of Clarification- State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess 

Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown" (2001 Guidance). 
3 

2. The 1982 and 1983 Guidance assumed that States adequately 

addressed and provided for "routine" SU/SD/Maintenance emissions 

in its permits. Therefore, the 1982 and 1983 Guidance focused on 

EPA Regions disapproving or working with states to revise any 

deficient SIP revision that provided automatic exemptions for excess 

emissions during periods of SU/SD, maintenance, and malfunctions. 3 

3. If the existing SIP was silent on treatment of excess emissions due to 

malfunctions, the 1982 and 1983 Guidance stated that SIP permits 

could be used to address excess emissions, rather than adopting and 

submitting a rule to EPA for approval into the SIP. The 1982 and 

1983 Guidance also acknowledged that enforcement discretion could 

be another option for addressing excess emissions due to a malfunction 

and delineated the criteria a State was to consider when drafting an 

approvable SIP revision relying upon an enforcement discretion 

decision to address excess emissions due to malfunctions. 

4. The 1999 Guidance recognized that SIPs continued to be deficient 

throughout the nation by still providing for automatic exemptions for 

malfunctions. Although EPA's intent merely was to reaffirm the 1982 

and 1983 Guidance in the 1999 Guidance, as well as add the 

affirmative defense option and clarify how to address excess emissions 

during SU/SD for some certain source categories, litigation occurred 

on the issue that the 1999 Guidance in some way "invalidated" a 

State's already issued permits and its related SIP terms. As a 

consequence of settlement, EPA issued the 2001 Re-issuance of 

Clarification of the 1999 Guidance to explicitly confirm that the 1999 

Guidance "was not intended to affect existing permit terms or 

conditions regarding malfunctions, startups and shutdowns that reflect 

approved SIP provisions," nor to alter the status of any existing SIP 

provisions addressing excess emissions. The 2001 Re-issuance also 

confirms that EPA will consider the 1999 Guidance (that incorporates 

the 1977, 1982, and 1983 guidance) and the statutory principles upon 

which it is based in the context of future SIP rules and permit terms 

and conditions that reflect approved SIP provisions. 

3 EPA's excess emissions guidance defines "malfunction" as "a sudden and unavoidable 

breakdown. of process .or- control-equipment. ''-and recognizes_ that, __ although all _excess _emissions_ are viewed 

as violations of the applicable emission limitation, .. the imposition of a penalty for sudden and unavoidable 

malfunctions caused by circumstances entirely beyond the control of the owner and/or operator" may not 

be appropriate. Attachment, page 1, of the 1982, 1983, and 1999 Guidance. Therefore, SIP provisions on 

malfunctions must be carefully tailored. The Guidance is also clear that if excess emissions occur during 

routine SU/SD or scheduled maintenance due to a malfunction, then those occurrences should be treated 

the same as other malfunctions in accordance with EPA policy on malfunctions. 1999 Guidance, p.6; 1993 

Guidance, p. 2; 1983 Guidance, p. 3; 1982 Guidance, p. 2-3. 
4 

5. Although we understand that Louisiana's variance provisions have 

been SIP-approved and utilized for some time now, it is in the context 

of NSR Reform SIP rulemaking that EPA Region 6 believes 

Louisiana's variance provisions, as written, are no longer a viable 

element of Louisiana's regulatory scheme. Inclusion of these 

variance-authorized excess emissions in the baseline actual emissions 

calculation could inflate the baseline, decreasing the likelihood that a 

proposed modification would constitute a significant emissions 

increase and trigger major NSR (PSD or NNSR). In order for 

Louisiana's NSR Reform rules to comply with Federal permitting 

requirements, Louisiana's air permitting rules and policies on 

treatment of "routine" SU/SD/Maintenance emissions in NSR SIP 

permits and of excess emissions should reflect the legal positions and 

policies delineated in EPA's excess emissions guidance. We explain 

further below. 

B. General concerns about LDEQ's treatment of SU/SD emissions in air 

permitting. 4 

1. It is unclear whether permits issued by LDEQ address emissions 

associated with routine SU/SD. 

a. Louisiana has not historically required routine SU/SD emissions 

to be specifically addressed in its permits, although LDEQ stated 

in a recent conference call that emissions associated with routine 

SU/SD events are now, as a general practice, included in the 

permits. However, Louisiana has stated that if the permit is 

silent on routine SU/SD emissions, one can assume that routine 

SU/SD emissions are considered part of normal operations and 

are addressed in the permit. Therefore, due to the State's 

historical omission of permit provisions addressing routine 

SU/SD emissions and the State's current treatment of SU/SD 

emissions in its permits (i.e., possibly silent), it is unclear on the 

·face of each permit whether the permit addresses emissions 

associated with routine SU/SD events. 

b. Because it is unclear whether LDEQ-issued permits address 

emissions associated with SU/SD, it is resulting unclear whether 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) (or where 

4 Pursuant to EPA excess emissions guidance, EPA legal interpretations and policies on excess 

emissions also apply to emissions associated with maintenance. We focus here on emissions associated 

with SU/SD because those are most relevant to Louisiana's NSR Reform SIP submittal, which is pending 

for action before us. However, emissions associated with maintenance should be similarly addressed in 

Louisiana's air permitting program. 
5 

appropriate, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, or "LAER") 

limits are being appropriately applied during periods of SU/SD.5 

2. On January 18,2005, EPA provided comments to Louisiana on its 

SU/SD guidance. To date, LDEQ has not shared with EPA revised 

draft rules and/or guidance to address the deficiencies identified by 

those comments, deficiencies largely stemming from inconsistency 

with EPA's long-standing legal position and policies regarding excess 

emissions during malfunction, startup, and shutdown. Consequently, 

lack of regulatory clarity persists, which contributes to our concern 

that LDEQ's air permitting program is inconsistent with EPA's 

position on excess emissions. 

C. Specific concerns about LDEQ' s issuance of variances. 

1. Inappropriate use of variances as an "automatic exemption" from 

enforcement. 

a. Because careful and prudent planning and design are expected to 

eliminate violations of emission limitations, including during 

periods of SU/SD and scheduled maintenance, all excess 

emissions are considered violations. However, enforcement of 

excess emissions violations can be discretionary where the 

source demonstrates the excess emissions were caused by a 

malfunction, including a malfunction during periods of routine 

SU/SD and/or scheduled maintenance. 

b. In contrast to an enforcement discretion approach, LDEQ's 

variances appear to operate more like automatic exemptions, 

which EPA considers inconsistent with the Act because of their 

potential to aggravate air quality and interfere with 

attainment/maintenance of ambient air quality standards. In fact, 

EPA's excess emissions guidance explicitly forbids the use of 

automatic exemptions for excess emissions. 

c. Variances, which are not subject to EPA or public review, also 

limit EPA and citizen enforcement action for excess emissions. 

All excess emissions should be considered violations, and any 

decision by LDEQ not to pursue enforcement should not bar 

5 BACT (and, where appropriate, LAER) limits are applicable at all times and may not be waived 

during SU/SD periods. If compliance with existing BACT (or LAER) limits is infeasible, then an 

alternative limit should be justified during SU/SD periods and included in the permit. See, e.g., 

Environmental Appeals Board Orders, In re: Prairies State Generating Company, PSD Appeal No. 05-05, 

113-120 (August 24, 2006) and In re: Tallmadge Generating Station, PSD Appeal No. 02-12 (May 21, 

2003). Because LDEQ permits do not explicitly address emissions during SU/SD periods, it is unclear how 

BACT (or LAER) limits are being applied during SU/SD periods. 
6 

EPA and citizen enforcement of the applicable requirements. 

However, LDEQ's issuance of variances effectively acts as such 

a bar to enforcement of emissions that exceed permitted limits. 

2. No EPA or public review. 

a. LDEQ issues variances without public participation. 

b. By its terms, this variance SIP rule does not require a variance to 

be submitted to EPA for approval as a revision to the SIP, and 

Louisiana does not submit variances to EPA for SIP approval. 

c. In contrast, see 40 CPR 51.102(a)(3) and 51.104(d), which 

respectively require public participation for variances and 

submittal of variances as revisions to the SIP. 

3. Minimal substantive review of variances prior to issuance by LDEQ. 

a. This variance SIP rule does not explicitly require that the 

Secretary make a finding that the issuance of the variance will 

not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

b. This variance SIP rule does not require that the Secretary make a 

finding that the issuance of the variance is consistent with SIPapproved control strategies. 

4. Additionally, LDEQ's issuance of variances appears to be an improper 

implementation of the variance SIP rule. A review by EPA Region 6 

staff of selected variances issued by LDEQ appears to indicate that 

LDEQ performed limited analysis to verify that the variances meet the 

section 917 variance requirements. In several instances, LDEQ 

indicated that a requirement of section 917 was met by using a check 

mark and did not include any data, technical analysis, or 

documentation to demonstrate how the relevant requirements (e.g., 

exceptional circumstances exist) were met. 

5. Further, in the context of NSR Reform, EPA Region 6 is concerned 

that inclusion of these variance-authorized excess emissions in the 

baseline actual emissions calculation could inflate, or at the very least 

skev,:, the baseline, malcing it less likely that a proposed moe!ificatioo 

would constitute a significant emissions increase and trigger major 

NSR (PSD or Nonattainment NSR). 

REQUESTED ACTION: EPA Region 6 believes that LDEQ should address the 

following aspects of its air permitting program: 
7 

A. Transparently and explicitly address routine SU/SD6 emissions in air 

permitting. In addition, submit to EPA a plan on how the State will 

implement a formal process for updating its permits to explicitly address 

"routine" SU/SD emissions. 

B. In accordance with EPA's excess emissions guidance, appropriately address 

excess emissions through enforcement, enforcement discretion, and/or 

(under certain circumstances) an affirmative defense, and revise LDEQ's 

rules and Louisiana's SIP to reflect this approach, rather than addressing 

excess emissions through variances. 

C. Revise LAC 33.III.917 and other variance provisions to be consistent with 

40 CFR 51.104 and 51.102(a)(3). 

D. Include a schedule for expeditiously adopting the above changes and 

submitting them to EPA for SIP approval. 

NNSR Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) Public Participation Rule 

I. We understand that LDEQ intends for§ 504.J.5. to mimic the Federal NNSR PAL 

Public Participation rule, 40 CFR 51.165(f)(5), thereby requiring the same 

elements for public participation as those required under 40 CFR 51.165(f)(5), 

and, therefore, those required under 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161. 

II. LDEQ e-mailed the following language, proposing to revise§ 504.J.5, to reflect 

this intent: 

A. Public participation Requirement for PALs. Procedures to establish, renew, 

or increase PALs for existing major stationary sources shall be consistent 

with 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161. These include the requirement that the 

administrative authority provide the public with notice of the proposed 

approval of a PAL permit and at least a 30-day period for submittal of 

public comments. The administrative authority shall address all material 

comments before taking final action on the permit. 

B. We believe this revised language addresses our previous concerns and 

would be approvable into the SIP. 

C. LDEQ staff confirmed during a conference call on May 3, 2007, that they 

still pi !Ill to !'@¥is!! § 5()4 .L5 aGe€lt:ding!y md will initiate mlemak:ing once 

the remaining issues with the NSR Reform submittal are resolved. 

6 Again, we focus here on emissions associated with SU/SD because of their relevance to NSR 

Reform, but we encourage LDEQ to also examine its treatment of emissions associated with maintenance, 

and appropriately address those emissions in accordance with EPA's long-standing position on excess 

emissions. 
8 

REQUESTED ACTION: EPA Region 6 requests that LDEQ include a schedule for 

expeditiously adopting the above changes and submitting them to EPA for approval. 

New Definition of the term "malfunctions" 

I. In its NSR Reform SIP revisions, LDEQ adopted a new definition of 

"malfunctions" in LAC 33:III.504.K and LAC 33:III.509.B. (together hereinafter 

referred to as the "NSR malfunction definition"). The LDEQ adopted the NSR 

malfunction definition in conjunction with its rule amendment to include only 

"authorized" emissions resulting from startup, shutdown, and malfunction in 

baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions calculations. The NSR 

malfunction definition defines "malfunctions" as: 

Malfunctions-for purposes of this Section, malfunctions 

shall include any such emissions authorized by permit, 

variance, or the on-line operating adjustment provisions of 

LAC 33:III.1507.B and 2307.C.2, but exclude any 

emissions that are not compliant with Federal or State 

standards. 

II. The NSR malfunction definition differs from the SIP-approved (and SIP-wide 

applicable) definition of "malfunction" in LAC 33:Ill.lll (hereinafter "SIP-wide 

malfunction definition"). Furthermore, whereas the SIP-wide malfunction 

definition closely tracks the use of "malfunction" in EPA's excess emissions 

guidance (and therefore is consistent with EPA policy), the NSR malfunction 

definition does not appear to be consistent with EPA policy nor meet EPA's 

long-standing legal interpretation of the Act. 

A. Because the LDEQ NSR malfunction definition fails to reference the 

SIP-wide malfunction definition, it appears on its face to replace the SIPwide malfunction definition for purposes of NSR (NNSR under 504 and 

PSD under 509) with a definition inconsistent with both the SIP-wide 

malfunction definition and with EPA policy. It also appears to condone 

certain types of malfunction events, contrary to how malfunctions are 

typically conceptualized (i.e., automatic emission limitation exemptions 

during periods of excess emissions due to SU/SD, maintenance, and 

malfunction are not allowed). 

B. The NSR malfunction definition adopted with the Louisiana NSR Reform is 

less st:liltgeflttll!i!~tlle geRent!SWwlde oofiRitief!··afldwould be a·relllll\atiO!I 

of the existing SIP. And, as you are aware, any SIP relaxation request must 

meet section 110(1) of the Act. Section 110(1) requires the State to 

demonstrate that such a relaxation will not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act (e.g., PSD increments). Because 
9 

EPA's excess emissions guidance has been based on the Act's requirements 

to protect attainment of the NAAQS and PSD increments, and not aggravate 

air quality, it is difficult to conceptualize an approvable Section 110(1) 

demonstration due to the nature of malfunctions. 

C. In addition to a lack of other conditions tbat should characterize which 

malfunctions are eligible for enforcement discretion or the affirmative 

defense option offered in the 1999 Guidance, EPA Region 6 has two major 

concerns about the LDEQ NSR malfunction definition: 

l. The NSR malfunction definition is not limited to sudden unavoidable 

breakdowns that are beyond the control of the owner or operator; and 

2. The NSR malfunction definition could include an activity or event that 

was foreseeable and could have been avoided by better operation and 

maintenance, which are the types of activities or events that EPA does 

not consider to be malfunctions. 

III. In reading LDEQ's responses to comments and preamble to the LDEQ NSR 

malfunction definition rule, it appears that LDEQ' s intent was not to substitute the 

NSR malfunction definition for the SIP-wide malfunction definition for purposes 

of NSR, but rather to clarify the types of emissions associated with malfunctions 

that should be included in the calculation of baseline actual emissions and 

projected actual emissions. If substitution was not LDEQ' s intent, then EPA 

Region 6 suggests clarifying the NSR malfunction definition by referencing the 

SIP-wide malfunction definition. For example: 

Malfunctions-shall mean "malfunction" as defined in LAC 

33.111.111 and, for purposes of calculating baseline actual 

emissions and projected actual emissions under this section, shall 

include any such emissions authorized by permit, variance, or the 

on-line operating adjustment provisions of LAC 33.III.1507.B arid 

2307.C.2, but exclude anY emissions that are not compliant with 

Federal or State standards. 7 

REQUESTED ACTION: Please further explain LDEQ's intent regarding the NSR 

malfunction definition and propose actions (including a timeline for such action) to 

correct the current inconsistencies between the proposed NSR definition of malfunctions, 

the current SIP-approved definition of malfunction, and EPA policy. 

7 EPA Region 6 recognizes that if LDEQ revises its variance provisions as recommended, LDEQ's 

NSR definition of malfunction would require further consideration (and revision). This revised definition 

of malfunction is provided only as an example in the context ofLDEQ's current NSR Reform SIP 

submittal. 
10 

Reasonable Possibility Provision 

I. The submitted regulations include the "reasonable possibility" provisions that 

were promulgated in the NSR Reform rules dated December 31, 2002. Louisiana 

adopted these provisions in Sections 504.D.9 and 509.R.6. On June 24, 2005, the 

Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded the reasonable 

possibility provisions to EPA for further consideration. On December 21, 2007, 

EPA promulgated its final rule clarifying the "reasonable possibility" 

recordkeeping and reporting standard of the 2002 NSR Reform rules. See 

72FR 72607. 

II. The preamble to the December 21, 2007 rulemaking states: 

In the case of NSR SIP revisions that include the term "reasonable 

possibility" but EPA has not yet approved, we will approve the SIP 

revision if the State or local agency commits to implementing the 

"reasonable possibility" standard in a manner consistent with our final 

rule. 

See 72 FR 72613. 

REQUESTED ACTION: EPA Region 6 requests LDEQ submit a commitment to 

implement the "reasonable possibility" provisions in Sections 504.D.9 and 509.R.6 in a 

manner consistent with EPA final rule promulgated December 21, 2007. Although a 

revision to your "reasonable possibility" provisions may not immediately be necessary 

for us to approve LDEQ's NSR Reform SIP revision submittal currently before us, we 

encourage LDEQ-for purposes of regulatory clarity-to adopt revisions (and submit 

those revisions to EPA for SIP approval) reflecting EPA's clarification of the "reasonable 

possibility" recordkeeping and reporting standard of the 2002 NSR Reform rules. Should 

LDEQ choose to adopt such revisions, those revisions must be submitted to EPA for SIP 

approval by December 21, 2010.