50240 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

minutes before the hearing starts. For 

information about having your name 

placed on the building access list to 

attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

Martin V. Franks, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2015–20468 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–115452–14] 

RIN 1545–BM12 

Disguised Payments for Services; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–115452–14) that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Thursday, July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43652). 

The proposed regulations are relating to 

disguised payments for services under 

section 707(a)(2)(A) of the Internal 

Revenue Code. The proposed 

regulations provide guidance to 

partnerships and their partners 

regarding when an arrangement will be 

treated as a disguised payment for 

services. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

and requests for a public hearing for the 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

published at 80 FR 43625, July 23, 2015, 

are still being accepted and must be 

received by October 21, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaclyn Goldberg at (202) 317–6850 (not 

a toll free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(REG–115452–14) that is the subject of 

these corrections is under section 707 of 

the Internal Revenue Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the notice of proposed 

(REG–115452–14) contains errors that 

may prove to be misleading and are in 

need of clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–115452–14), that was 

the subject of FR Doc. 2015–17828, is 

corrected as follows: 

1. On page 43652, in the preamble, 

first column, under the caption 

ADDRESSES, the eleventh line of the 

paragraph, the language ‘‘Washington, 

DC, or sent electronically, ’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘Washington, DC, 20224 or sent 

electronically,’’. 

2. On page 43653, in the preamble, 

first column, the tenth line from the 

bottom of the first full paragraph, the 

language ‘‘gross income allocation in a 

nonpartner’’ is corrected to read ‘‘gross 

income allocation in a non-partner’’. 

3. On page 43655, in the preamble, 

second column, the third line from the 

bottom of the second full paragraph, the 

language ‘‘66–95 and revise Rev. Rul. 

69–180,’’ is corrected to read ‘‘66–95 

and Rev. Rul. 69–180,’’. 

4. On page 43657, in the preamble, 

third column, under the paragraph 

heading ‘‘Drafting Information’’ the 

third line of the paragraph, the language 

‘‘Goldberg of the Office Assistant Chief’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘Goldberg of the 

Office Associate Chief’’. 

§ 1.707–2 [Corrected] 

5. On page 46358, column 3, 

paragraph (c), the eighth and ninth 

lines, the language ‘‘arrangement 

constitutes in whole or in part a 

payment for services. The’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘arrangement constitutes (in 

whole or in part) a payment for services. 

The.’’. 

6. On page 43659, column 1, 

paragraph (d) Example 1, the twelfth 

line, the language ‘‘first two years of 

partnership’s operations.’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘first two years of the 

partnership’s operations.’’. 

7. On page 43660, column 1, 

paragraph (d), Example 3 (iv), the 

sixteenth line, the language ‘‘the 

presence or absence of entrepreneurial’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘the presence or 

absence of significant entrepreneurial’’. 

8. On page 43660, column 1, 

paragraph (d), Example 4 (ii), the last 

line of the column, the language 

‘‘entrepreneurial risk. The special 

allocation to’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘significant entrepreneurial risk. The 

special allocation to’’. 

9. On page 43660, column 3, 

paragraph (d), Example 6 (ii), the fourth 

line from the bottom of the column, the 

language ‘‘waiver of the partnership. 

The ABC’’ is corrected to read ‘‘waiver 

of the fee. The ABC’’. 

Martin V. Franks, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2015–20476 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2006–0131; FRL–9930–17- 

Region-6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 

Major Source Permitting State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of revisions to the Louisiana 

New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Louisiana designee. These 

revisions are updates to the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) permit 

programs. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 18, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2006–0131, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions. 

• Email: Stephanie Kordzi at 

kordzi.stephanie@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Stephanie Kordzi, 

Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2006– 

0131. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information through http://

www.regulations.gov or email, if you 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 50241 

believe that it is CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. The http://

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that the 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 the EPA without 

going through http://

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, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment along with 

any disk or CD–ROM submitted. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters and any form of 

encryption and should be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 Bill Deese at 214– 

665–7253. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Kordzi, Telephone (214) 665– 

7520, email at kordzi.stephanie@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of State SIP Submittals for 

Chapters 5 and 6 Air Permits Program 

A. July 25, 1997, Submittal 

B. June 22, 1998, Submittal 

C. February 2, 2000, Submittal 

D. January 27, 2003, Submittal 

E. June 15, 2005, Submittal 

F. December 20, 2005, Submittal 

G. May 5, 2006, Submittal 

H. July 20, 2007, Submittal 

I. November 9, 2007, Submittal 

J. August 14, 2009, Submittal 

K. May 16, 2011, Submittal 

L. February 27, 2013, Submittal 

II. Evaluation 

A. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD Air 

Permit Procedures 

B. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD 

Programs for the NSR Reform Rule 

C. LDEQ’s Clarification Letter 

D. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD 

Programs for PM2.5 Implementation 

E. Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) 

Banking Revisions 

F. Does the proposed approval of the 

Louisiana Air Permit Procedure 

Revisions or ERC Banking Revisions 

interfere with attainment, reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act? 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of State SIP Submittals for 

Chapters 5 and 6 Air Permits Program 

The Clean Air Act at section 

110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop 

and submit to the EPA for approval into 

the state SIP, preconstruction review 

programs applicable to new and 

modified stationary sources of air 

pollutants for attainment and 

nonattainment areas that cover both 

major and minor new sources and 

modifications, collectively referred to as 

the NSR SIP. The CAA NSR SIP 

program is composed of three separate 

programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. 

PSD is established in part C of title I of 

the CAA and applies in areas that are 

designated as meeting the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), i.e., ‘‘attainment areas,’’ as 

well as areas designated as 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ because there is 

insufficient information to determine if 

the area meets the NAAQS. The NNSR 

SIP program is established in part D of 

title I of the CAA and applies in areas 

that are designated as not being in 

attainment of the NAAQS, i.e., 

‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ The Minor NSR 

SIP program addresses construction or 

modification activities that do not emit, 

or have the potential to emit, beyond 

certain major source thresholds and 

thus do not qualify as ‘‘major’’ and 

applies regardless of the designation of 

the area in which a source is located. 

This particular SIP proposed action 

addresses only the PSD and NNSR 

major permitting programs. 

The EPA regulations, 40 CFR 51.160– 

51.166, contain the criteria that states 

must satisfy for the EPA to approve the 

NSR programs as part of the SIP. In 

addition, there are several provisions in 

40 CFR part 51 that apply generally to 

all SIP revisions. 40 CFR 51.160 

establishes the enforceable procedures 

that must be a part of a NSR program. 

Sections 51.160–51.164 require a SIP 

revision to demonstrate that the adopted 

rules will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. Based upon 

our evaluation of the submittals, the 

EPA has concluded that the regulatory 

submittals, as ultimately revised, meet 

the requirements of the CAA section 

110(a). Below are summaries of the 

individual SIP submittals from 

Secretary of the Louisiana Department 

of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 

A. July 25, 1997, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted Louisiana 

Administrative Code (LAC) rule changes 

made in 1996. It includes final revised 

regulation LAC 33:III, sections 501, 504, 

509, and 517. Section 504 is already part 

of the Louisiana SIP approved by the 

EPA on September 30, 2002, 2002 at 67 

FR 61270. The EPA will act on section 

517 in a separate action in the future. 

B. June 22, 1998, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted rule changes 

made in 1997. It includes changes to 

sections 501, 509, and 517. The EPA 

will act on sections 501 and 517 in a 

separate action in the future. 

C. February 2, 2000, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted rule changes 

made in 1998. It includes sections 509 

and 603. 

D. January 27, 2003, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted rule changes 

made from 1999–2001. It includes 

section 509.B.2., which addresses 

certain Parishes as nonattainment for 

ozone. Sections 613 and 615 were 

already approved as part of the SIP on 

September 27, 2002, at 67 FR 60877. 

E. June 15, 2005, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted rule changes 

made in 2005 for Baton Rouge in section 

504.A.6., covering the nonattainment 

NSR procedures. 

F. December 20, 2005, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted rule changes 

made in 2005 concerning the NSR 

Reform Program in sections 504 and 

509. The submitted rules include, 

among other things, provisions for 

baseline emissions calculations, an 

actual-to-projected actual methodology 

for calculating emissions changes, 

options for plantwide applicability 

limits, and recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. The changes do not 

include any portion of the Federal NSR 

Reform rule that was vacated by the US 

District Court of Appeals for the D.C. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50242 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Circuit Court on June 24, 2005, 

concerning Clean Unit applicability test 

and Pollution Control Projects. 

G. May 5, 2006, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted rule changes 

made in 2005. It includes sections 501, 

504, 505, 507, 509, and 613. The EPA 

will act on section 501, a minor NSR 

rule, and section 507, a title V rule that 

is not part of the SIP, in separate actions 

in the future. The EPA returned section 

505 to LDEQ because it addresses the 

Acid Rain Program; the Acid Rain 

Program is not a title I program and 

therefore should not be included in the 

Louisiana SIP. 

H. July 20, 2007, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted a revision to the 

SIP’s Alternative Emission Reduction 

Plan (‘‘Bubble’’) for Union Carbide 

Corporation, Taft Plant reflecting 

LDEQ’s rescission of permit no. 1836T, 

effective on March 12, 2007. The EPA is 

proposing to approve this revision that 

codifies LDEQ’s rescission of the permit 

for the alternative emission reduction 

plan (‘‘Bubble’’) for Union Carbide 

Corporation, Taft Plant. 

I. November 9, 2007, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted rule changes 

made in 2006. It includes sections 501, 

504, 509, 513, 531, and 607. The EPA 

will act on sections 501, 513 and 531 in 

a separate action in the future because 

they concern minor NSR. In addition, 

on October 15, 2014, LDEQ removed 

from our consideration section 504.M. 

J. August 14, 2009, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted rule changes 

made in 2007, that included sections 

501, 504, 505, 506, and 507. The EPA 

proposes to approve section 504 which 

contains a revision that requires all 

information submitted by air permittees 

be sent to the Office of Environmental 

Services. 

The EPA will act on section 501 in a 

separate action in the future because it 

concerns minor NSR. The EPA will 

return section 505 to LDEQ because it 

addresses the Acid Rain Program 

Permitting Requirements, which are not 

part of a SIP. The approved the 

revisions to Section 506 on April 17, 

2014 are found at 79 FR 21631. The EPA 

will act on section 507 in a separate 

action in the future because it concerns 

the title V program that is not part of a 

SIP. 

The submittal also contains a 

rulemaking petition for the repeal of 

section 510, which was never part of the 

SIP. The repeal affects sections 603, 605, 

607, 613, and 615 because those 

sections reference to LAC 33:III.510. In 

addition, to be consistent with the 

change to section 504, a change was 

made to section 613, which dictates that 

reports be submitted to the Office of 

Environmental Services. 

K. May 16, 2011, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted rule changes to 

sections 504 and 509 to address the 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. The 

rule submittal also revises the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘regulated pollutant’’ to 

address any pollutant for which there is 

a NAAQS and precursors to the 

formation of such pollutant when 

identified for regulation by the EPA. For 

NSR Reform purposes, LDEQ also 

repealed the definition of malfunction 

in response to the EPA’s concerns 

expressed in our January 24, 2008, 

letter. The repeal of the definition 

addressed our concerns. 

L. February 27, 2013, Submittal 

The LDEQ submitted revisions to 

section 509 that update the PSD rule to 

implement the Particulate Matter Less 

Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5) 

Increments. 

Table 1 below summarizes the 

changes that are in the SIP revision 

submittals. A summary of our 

evaluation of each section and the basis 

for our proposed approval is included in 

this rulemaking. The accompanying 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

includes a detailed evaluation of the 

submittals and our rationale. The TSD 

may be accessed online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R06–OAR–2006–0131. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF EACH NSR SIP SUBMITTAL AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION

Title of SIP submittal Date submitted 

to EPA 

Date of State 

adoption Regulations affected 

Air Permit Procedure Revisions ............... 7/25/1997 1996 Sections 501, and 509. 

Section 504 was approved by EPA into the SIP on 09/30/

2002 (67 FR 61270). 

Air Permit Procedure Revisions ............... 6/22/1998 1997 Section 509. 

Air Permit Procedure and ERC Banking 

Revisions.

2/2/2000 1998 Sections 509 and 603. 

Air Permit Procedure and ERC Banking 

Revisions.

1/27/2003 1999–2001 Sections 509, 613, and 615. 

Sections 613 and 615 were approved by EPA into the SIP on 

09/27/2002 (67 FR 60877). 

Baton Rouge Severe Area Rule Update 6/15/2005 4/20/2004 Section 504. 

Air Permit Procedure Revisions and New 

Source Review Reform.

12/20/2005 12/20/2005 Sections 504 and 509. 

Air Permit Procedure and ERC Banking 

Revisions.

5/5/2006 2005 Sections 504, 509, and 613. 

Rescission of Alternative Emission Reduction Plan for Union Carbide Corporation, Taft Plant.7/20/2007 3/12/2007 EPA approved the Union Carbide permit as part of the SIP. 

See 07/18/1990, 55 FR 29205. 

On 3/12/07, LDEQ rescinded the permit. 

Air Permit Procedure and ERC Banking 

Revisions.

11/9/2007 2006 Sections 504, 509, and 607. On 10/15/2014, LDEQ requested 

that EPA not take action on LAC 33:III.504.M. Therefore, it 

is not before EPA for action. 

Air Permit Procedure Revisions ............... 8/14/2009 2007 Sections 504, 603, 605, 607, 613, and 615. 

Air Permit Procedure Revisions for PM2.5

NAAQS.

5/16/2011 2011 Sections 504 and 509. 

LA SIP Update, PM2.5 Increments ........... 2/27/2013 12/20/2012 Section 509. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 50243 

1The EPA promulgated the revised provisions on 

December 21, 2007 at 72 FR 72607. 

II. Evaluation 

A. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD 

Programs Air Permit Procedures 

We evaluated and are proposing to 

approve the Chapter 5 amendments 

contained in the July 25, 1997, June 22, 

1998, February 2, 2000, January 27, 

2003, June 15, 2005, May 5, 2006, July 

20, 2007, November 9, 2007, August 14, 

2009, submittals. These amendments, if 

approved by the EPA, would provide 

clarity to the SIP-approved rules and 

correct contradictory language. Specific 

proposed revisions address the 

assessment and validation of a facility’s 

emissions inventory values. Further, the 

amendments would revise the SIP rules 

to conform to the latest changes to 

Louisiana laws. The changes also 

define, for NNSR purposes, the parishes 

that have been designated as nonattainment for ozone. The EPA’s 

evaluation of the Louisiana SIP 

submittals include a line-by-line 

comparison, which can be found in the 

TSD, of the proposed revisions with the 

federal requirements. We find that in 

most cases, the state regulatory language 

is identical to that of the federal rule. 

Where the rules are not identical, we 

find they are consistent with the federal 

rules and definitions and meet their 

intent. The EPA is therefore proposing 

to approve the submitted rules as part 

of the Louisiana NNSR and PSD SIP. 

B. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD 

Programs for the NSR Reform Rule 

We evaluated and are proposing to 

approve the December 20, 2005, as 

revised through the May 16, 2011 

submittal that contains changes to the 

Louisiana NNSR and PSD permitting 

programs reflecting the requirements 

found in the federal NSR Reform 

Program SIP rules. 

Our evaluation of the Louisiana SIP 

submittals included a line-by-line 

comparison, which can be found in the 

TSD, of the proposed revisions with the 

federal requirements. State agencies 

may deviate from the specific 

definitions of 40 CFR part 51, and the 

2002 NSR Reform Rules, only if the 

States specifically demonstrate that the 

submitted definitions are more stringent 

or at least as stringent as the 

corresponding federal definitions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). 

The State of Louisiana elected to 

incorporate by reference (IBR) most of 

the federal rules but adopted some with 

differences. As part of its December 20, 

2005, submittal, Louisiana provided the 

EPA with an Equivalency Determination 

that addresses the differences with the 

federal rules regarding emissions 

defined that are associated with startup, 

shutdown and malfunction emissions. 

The Secretary of the LDEQ also 

submitted on June 9, 2015 a letter 

containing further clarification. In 

addition, LDEQ provided follow up SIP 

submittals that are summarized above 

and discussed in further detail in the 

Technical Support Document. We find 

that the LDEQ has adopted the 

necessary elements of NSR Reform rule 

for both the NNSR and PSD programs. 

As discussed in I. F., Louisiana’s 

submitted rules do not include the 

Clean Unit applicability test and 

Pollution Control Projects vacated by 

the Court.1 Further, ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ provisions that were 

promulgated in the EPA’s NSR Reform 

SIP rules were remanded back to EPA 

for further consideration on June 24, 

2005.1

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC 

Circuit in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 

3 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (New York) ordered 

the EPA either to provide an acceptable 

explanation for its ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ standard or to devise an 

appropriately supported alternative. The 

Court held, ‘‘[b]ecause EPA has failed to 

explain how it can ensure NSR 

compliance without the relevant data, 

we will remand for it either to provide 

an acceptable explanation for its 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ standard or to 

devise an appropriately supportive 

alternative.’’ Initially, in promulgating 

the ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ standard, 

we intended to limit recordkeeping 

requirements to those projects for which 

variability in calculating emissions 

creates an interest in obtaining 

additional information in order to 

confirm that the appropriate 

applicability outcome is reached. 

To satisfy the Court’s remand, the 

EPA has clarified what constitutes 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ and when the 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ recordkeeping 

requirements apply. We adopted a 

bright-line test at 50 percent that will 

capture projects that have a higher 

probability of variability and/or error in 

projected emissions. Projects with 

projected increases below the 50- 

percent threshold, especially when 

emissions from demand growth are 

included in projections, are, we believe, 

sufficiently small that any variability or 

error in calculations is less likely to be 

large enough for the change to have 

increased emissions to the significant 

level. This requirement is based on 

authority in circumstances such as these 

that allows agencies to establish a 

bright-line test, as opposed to making 

case-by-case determinations. See, e.g., 

Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P. v. 

F.C.C., 240 F.3d 1126, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 

2001). 

We also state ‘‘[s]ome State or local 

authorities may be able to adopt these 

changes through a change in 

interpretation of the term ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ without the need to revise 

the SIP. For any State or local authority 

that can implement the changes without 

revising its approved SIP, the changes 

will become effective when the 

reviewing authority publicly announces 

that it accepts these changes by 

interpretation. In the case of NSR SIP 

revisions that include the term 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ but that we 

have not yet approved, we will approve 

the SIP revision if the State or local 

authority commits to implementing the 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ standard in a 

manner consistent with our final rule.’’ 

The EPA Region 6 requested in a 

letter of January 24, 2008, that 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’s revised 

rules. On October 6, 2008, LDEQ 

committed to implement the provisions 

in a manner consistent with the EPA’s 

‘‘Reasonable Possibility in 

Recordkeeping’’ rule. 

In addition, on February 22, 2013, the 

EPA identified seven Louisiana SIPapproved citations that could allow 

emissions that were either automatically 

or through director’s discretion, 

exempted from compliance with 

otherwise applicable emission 

limitations. State Implementation Plans: 

Response to Petition for Rulemaking; 

Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and 

SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying 

to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; 

Proposed Rule, (78 FR 12522, February 

22, 2013). On May 22, 2015, the EPA 

issued a final action requiring Louisiana 

to ensure it has a plan in place that is 

fully consistent with the CAA and 

recent court decisions regarding startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) for 

the named Louisiana rule citations. 

In this proposal action, we are 

addressing the eight rule changes for 

baseline actual emissions and projected 

actual emissions definitions. These 

submitted definitions include the 

phrase ‘‘authorized emissions associated 

with startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM).’’ Because the term 

‘‘authorized emissions’’ as used could 

encompass the exempted emissions 

subject to the SSM SIP Call if Louisiana 

fails to appropriately respond to the 

SSM SIP Call within 18 months from 

the issuance of the final action, the EPA 

will have to revisit its approval of these 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50244 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

revisions. In the interim, the LDEQ sent 

us a letter on June 9, 2015, that clarifies 

the definition of authorized emissions 

and also clarifies LDEQ’s use of 

variances and emergency orders for 

permitted sources which temporarily 

allow emissions greater than those 

provided under a specific permit 

condition or temporarily replace an 

emissions unit that cannot operate 

without being in violation of an 

underlying permit condition or would 

be a danger to operate. See discussion 

in the following Section II.C. below. 

We are proposing to approve the 

December 20, 2005, submittal, as 

revised by the May 16, 2011, submittal 

as part of the Louisiana SIP for Major 

NSR reform. 

C. LDEQ’s Clarification Letter 

LDEQ provided a clarification letter 

(Clarification) on June 9, 2015, which 

was requested by the EPA to clarify 

perceived inconsistencies in certain 

provisions in the SIP submission. The 

full text of the letter can be found in the 

Docket for this action. This letter 

clarifies the following aspects of the 

Major NSR Air Permit Program. 

The EPA asked for clarification on 

how the state provisions utilize the term 

‘‘authorized’’ in the context of emissions 

associated with start-ups, shutdowns, 

and malfunctions, a term not found in 

the federal rules. We also asked for 

clarification on how variances and 

emergency orders affect permit actions. 

LDEQ explained in its clarification 

letter that the term ‘‘authorized’’ does 

not expand the meaning of ‘‘baseline 

actual emissions’’ or ‘‘projected actual 

emissions’’ in a manner to render the 

submitted revisions to LAC 33:III.504 

and 509 less stringent than their 

corresponding federal provisions. 

Accordingly, a permittee cannot 

circumvent what would otherwise be 

applicable NSR requirements when 

issuing either a new or modified (i.e., a 

physical change or change in the 

method of operation) permit that is 

subject to PSD review or improperly 

establishes a plantwide applicability 

limit by means of an LDEQ-issued 

variance or Emergency Order. In the 

context of LAC 33:III.504 and 509, the 

term ‘‘authorized emissions’’ refers to 

emissions authorized through only a 

valid air permit issued pursuant to LAC 

33:III.Chapter 5. LDEQ emphasized that 

should it calculate baseline actual 

emissions using its definition in LAC 

33:III.504.K or 509.B, the result would 

be no different than if the federal 

definition at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) 

or 51.166(b)(47) was utilized. 

Next, LDEQ responded that a variance 

is not a permit, but rather a waiver 

issued prospectively by LDEQ to allow 

emissions from an emissions unit to 

temporarily exceed permitted 

limitations or to authorize the use of a 

temporary emissions unit not addressed 

by an air permit. Baseline actual 

emissions cannot exceed permitted 

limits, even if additional emissions have 

been approved by means of a variance 

or Declaration of Emergency and 

Administrative Order. 

In addition, LDEQ expanded on its 

use of the term ‘‘authorized’’ in relation 

to its context of LAC 33:III.919 

(Emissions Inventory) and the reporting 

of actual emissions to LDEQ’s Emissions 

Reporting and Inventory Center. LDEQ 

stated it would amend its ‘‘Louisiana 

Guidance for Air Permitting Actions’’ to 

clarify that, for purposes of baseline 

actual emissions and projected actual 

emissions, ‘‘authorized’’ emissions 

cannot exceed the limitations imposed 

by an air permit issued pursuant to LAC 

33:III.Chapter 5. 

D. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD 

Programs for PM2.5 Implementation 

We evaluated and are proposing to 

approve the revisions to the Louisiana 

PSD and NNSR programs submitted on 

May 16, 2011, and to the PSD program 

submitted on February 27, 2013, finding 

that the Louisiana NNSR and PSD 

permitting programs comply with the 

federal regulatory requirements for 

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS as 

required through the May 16, 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 

October 20, 2010 PM2.5 PSD SILs—SMC 

and Increments Rule. See 73 FR 28321 

and 75 FR 64864. 

E. Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) 

Banking Revisions 

We evaluated and are proposing to 

approve revisions to the existing SIPapproved Louisiana Regulations on 

Control of Emissions through the Use of 

ERC Banking. The submittals containing 

Chapter 6 rules that are a part of this 

action are dated February 2, 2000, 

January 27, 2003, May 5, 2006, 

November 9, 2007, and August 14, 2009, 

found that the Louisiana ERC banking 

revisions comply with the federal 

regulatory requirements for 

implementation of the control of 

emissions through the use of ERC 

Banking. The changes include: (1) 

Establishing emission banking for all 

parishes designated as ozone 

nonattainment areas in the state; (2) 

revising submittal dates for banking 

credits; (3) revising references after 

department reorganization to reflect 

new organization structure; and (4) 

replacing the 1-hour ozone standard 

with the 8-hour standard. Our 

evaluation of the Louisiana SIP 

submittal included a line-by-line 

comparison, which is provided in the 

TSD, of the proposed revisions with the 

federal requirements. Most of the 

changes contained in the Chapter 6 

submittals were not substantial. Our 

analysis shows that in most cases, the 

state regulatory language is identical to 

the federal rule. Where the rules are not 

identical, they are consistent with and 

support the intent of the federal rules 

and definitions. The EPA is therefore 

proposing to approve these submittals. 

Note that the revisions we are 

addressing update the existing SIPapproved requirements to address 

current nonattainment areas. These 

revisions do not change the underlying 

purpose of the emissions bank, which is 

to provide nonattainment offsets. 

F. Does the proposed approval of the 

Louisiana Air Permit Procedure 

Revisions or ERC Banking Revisions 

interfere with attainment, reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act? 

We have determined that the 

regulations submitted to EPA for 

approval as SIP revisions meet the 

requirements of section 110(l). We have 

determined that their implementation 

will not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. The 

EPA’s evaluation of the Louisiana SIP 

submittals included a line-by-line 

comparison, which can be found in 

section VI of the TSD, of the proposed 

revisions with the federal requirements. 

If the rules are new, including the NSR 

Reform rules contained in the December 

20, 2005 submittal, then they were 

determined to be consistent with the 

federal SIP rules. Therefore, as 

discussed above and in the TSD, the 

revisions to the Louisiana NNSR and 

PSD programs are substantively the 

same as the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, 

without including any vacated 

provisions, we conclude that these rules 

do not interfere with attainment, 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. See 

67 FR 80186 and 68 FR 63021 for EPA’s 

detailed explanation of the legal basis 

for the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The 

EPA has concluded that the regulatory 

submittals, as ultimately revised, meet 

the requirements of the CAA section 

110(l). 

Additionally, the rescission of the 

Bubble for Union Carbide Corporation 

Taft Plant also meets CAA section 

110(l). On July 18, 1990, the EPA 

approved the Bubble, as a revision to 

the Louisiana SIP (55 FR 29203). The 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 50245 

original SIP revision was based on an 

Alternative Emission Reduction Plan as 

requested by the Governor of Louisiana 

on October 19, 1983, for St. Charles 

Parish due to the area being located in 

a nonattainment area for ozone. The 

permit was incorporated by reference 

into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.970(d). The 

submittal incorrectly identified the 

regulation citation as 40 CFR 

52.970(c)(55)(i)(a). The rescission was a 

result of changed circumstances 

regarding the two tanks (Tanks 2635 and 

2102) originally regulated by the Bubble 

permit 1836T. Tank 2635 is no longer in 

service and the regulation of Tank 2102 

was moved to Logistics Title Permit No. 

2656–V0 which is subject to Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

emission control requirements, resulting 

in significantly lower VOC emission. 

The annual emission limit of 0.51 tons 

per year of VOC, is roughly a 95% 

decrease in the VOC emission limit from 

the 1983 permit of 9.5 tpy. The emission 

reductions gained through the use of 

RACT and requiring compliance with an 

annual emission limit for Tank 2102 

negate the need for use of emission 

reductions identified in 55 FR 29203, 

from the shutdown of Glyoxal Reactor 

Column vent and the storage of 

compounds with a lower vapor pressure 

in 5 tanks (2201 (removed from service), 

and the other four tanks, 2202, 2212, 

2206, and 2315) as identified, which 

provided credits to allow Tanks 2102 

and 2635 to obtain exemptions. All of 

the tanks in service are now regulated 

under Logistics Title Permit No. 2656– 

V0). Therefore, less emissions vented to 

the atmosphere ensure attainment and 

reasonable progress. 

III. Proposed Action 

In this action, the EPA proposes to 

approve severable revisions to the major 

air permitting procedures in sections 

501, 504, 509, 523, 603, 605, 607, 613, 

and 615 as submitted to the EPA to 

revise the Louisiana Major NSR SIP 

Permit program on July 25, 1997, June 

22, 1998, February 2, 2000, January 27, 

2003, June 15, 2005, December 20, 2005, 

May 5, 2006, July 20, 2007, November 

9, 2007, August 14, 2009, May 16, 2011, 

and February 27, 2013. In addition, the 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

alternative emission reduction plan 

(‘‘Bubble’’) for Union Carbide 

Corporation, Taft Plant to reflect LDEQ’s 

rescission of the permit, from the SIP. 

Table 2 in Section III summarizes each 

regulatory citation that is affected by 

this action. Note, Table 2 does not 

include the rescission of the Union 

Carbide bubble, submitted on July 20, 

2007, which is also being proposed for 

approval. We have made the 

preliminary determination that the 

revisions were developed and submitted 

in accordance with the requirements of 

the CAA and the EPA’s regulations 

regarding SIP development at 40 CFR 

part 51. Additionally, we have 

determined that the submitted revisions 

to the Louisiana PSD and NNSR 

programs, as clarified by LDEQ, are 

consistent with our major source 

permitting regulations at 40 CFR 

51.160–51.166 and the associated policy 

and guidance. Therefore, under section 

110 and parts C and D of the Act, and 

for the reasons presented above and in 

our accompanying TSD, the EPA 

proposes to fully approve the specific 

revisions to the Louisiana SIP identified 

in Table 2 below: 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF EACH REGULATION THAT IS AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION

Section 

Date submitted 

to EPA as 

SIP amendment 

Affected regulation 

Section 501—Scope and Applicability 

Section 501 ............... 7/25/1997 Section 501—Authority. 

Section 504—Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Procedures and Offset Requirements in Specified Parishes 

Section 504.A ............ 6/15/2005 Section 504.A.6. 

12/20/2005 Sections 504.A., 504.A.1., 504.A.3., 504.A.3.a.–d., 504.A.4, 504.A.5., 504.A.5.a.–b., 504.A.6., 

504.A.6.a.–f., 504.A.7., 504.A.7.a.–c., 504.A.8. 

11/9/2007 Sections 504.A.1., 504.A.2., 504.A.3., 504.A.4, 504.A.8. 

Section 504.C ............ 5/5/2006 Section 504.C., Section 504.F.7., Section 504.F.7.a—Table 1, PM10. 

8/14/2009 Section 504.C. 

Section 504.D ............ 6/15/2005 Section 504.D.3. 

12/20/2005 Sections 504.D.4., 504.D.9, 504.D.9.a.–e., 504.D.10., 504D.11., 504.D.11.a–b. 

11/9/2007 Sections 504.D.5 

Section 504.F ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 504.F.11., and 504.F.12. 

5/5/2006 Section 504.F.7, 504.F.7.a.—Table 1, Footnote PM10.

11/09/2007 Sections 504.F.1., 504.F.8.a.–c., 504.F.9.L Table 1. 

8/14/2009 Section 504.F.7. 

5/16/2011 Section 504.F.1. 

Section 504.G ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 504.G., 504.G.1., 504.G.2., 504.G.2.a.–e., 504.G.3., 504.G.3.a.–c., 504.G.4., 

504.G.4.a.–b., 504.G.5., 504.G.5.a.–b., 504.G.6., 504.G.6.a.–f., 504.G.7., 504.G.7.a.–c., 

504.G.8., 504.G.9. 

Section 504.H ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 504.H.1., 504.H.2., 504.H.2.a.–d., 504.H.3., 504.H.3.a.–d., 504.H.4., 504.H.4.a.–c., 

504.H.5., 504.H.6., 504.H.7., 504.H.8., 504.H.8.a.–f., 504.H.9., 504.H.9.a.–e., 504.H.10., 

504.H.11. 

Section 504.I ............. 12/20/2005 Sections 504.I.1., 504.I.2., 504.I.2.a.–b., 504.I.3., 504.I.3.a.–e., 504.I.4., 504.I.5., 504.I.6., 

504.I.6.a.–d. 

Section 504.J ............. 12/20/2005 Sections 504.J.1., 504.J.1.a.–d., 504.J.2., 504.J.2.a.–k., 504.J.3., 504.J.3.a.–c., 504.J.4., 

504.J.4.a.–b., 504.J.5., 504.J.6., 504.J.6.a.–b., 504.J.7., 504.J.7.a.–j., 504.J.8., 504.J.8.a.–b., 

504.J.9., 504.J.9.a.–e., 504.J.10., 504.J.10.a.–e., 504.J.11., 504.J.11.a.–c., 504.J.12., 

504.J.12.a.–i., 504.J.13., 504.J.13.a.–b., 504.J.14., 504.J.14.a.–c., 504.J.15., 504.J.15.a.–b. 

5/16/2011 Section 504.J.5. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50246 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF EACH REGULATION THAT IS AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION—Continued 

Section 

Date submitted 

to EPA as 

SIP amendment 

Affected regulation 

Section 504.K ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 504.K. Definitions. Beginning with Act—repealed, Administrator, Adverse Impact on Visibility, Allowable Emissions, Baseline Actual Emissions, Begin Actual Construction, Best Available Control Technology, Clean Air Act, Clean Coal Technology, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project, Clean Unit, Commence, Construction, Continuous Emissions Monitoring System, Continuous Emissions Rate Monitoring System, Continuous Parameter Monitoring System, 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit, Emissions Unit, Federal Class I Area, Federal Land Manager, Federally Enforceable, Fugitive Emissions, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, Major 

Modification, Major Stationary Source, Mandatory Federal Class I Area, Natural Conditions, 

Necessary Preconstruction Approvals, or Permits, and Net Emissions Increase. 

5/16/2011 Section 504.K. Definition. Malfunction—repealed, Regulated Pollutant, Significant. 

Section 504.L ............ 11/09/2007 Section 504.L Table 1 and footnotes. 

5/16/2011 Section 504 L Table 1 and footnotes for Major Stationary Source. 

Section 504.M ........... 11/09/2007 Sections 504.M. and 504.M.1.–3. EPA is not taking action on this section based on LDEQ 10/15/

2014, request for EPA to ‘‘not take action’’. 

Section 509—Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Section 509.A ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.A.1., 509.A.2., 509.A.3., 509.A.4., 509.A.4.a–f., 509.A.5., 509.A.6. 

5/5/2006 Section 509.A.3. 

11/09/2007 Section 509.A.4.f. 

5/16/2011 Reference to previously SIP approved submittal PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Section 509.B ............ 7/25/1997 Section 509.B. Definitions. Baseline Area.2. 

6/22/1998 Section 509.B. Definitions. Reconstruction. 

1/27/2003 Section 509.B.2. 

12/20/2005 Sections 509.B. Definitions. Actual Emissions, Adverse Impact on Visibility, Allowable Emissions, 

Baseline Area, Baseline Concentration, Baseline Date, Begin Actual Construction, Best Available Control Technology, Building, Structure, Facility or Installation, Clean Air Act, Clean Coal 

Technology, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project, Clean Unit, Commence, Complete, 

Construction, Continuous Emissions Monitoring System, Continuous Emissions Rate Monitoring 

System, Continuous Parameter Monitoring System, Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit, 

Emissions Unit, Federal Land Manager, Federally Enforceable, Fugitive Emissions High Terrain, 

Indian Governing Body, Indian Reservation Innovative Control Technology, Low Terrain, Lowest 

Achievable Emission Rate, Major Modification, Major Stationary Source, Necessary 

Preconstruction Approvals, Pollution Control Project, Pollution Prevention, Potential to Emit, 

Predictive Emissions Monitoring System, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Project, Reactivation of a Very Clean Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit, Reasonably Available 

Control Technology, Regulated NSR Pollutant, Replacement Unit, Repowering, Reviewing Authority, Significant, Significant Emissions Increase Stationary Source, and Temporary Clean 

Coal Technology Demonstration Project. 

11/9/2007 Sections 509.B. definitions Major Modification, Major Stationary Source, Regulated NSR Pollutant, 

and Significant. 

5/16/2011 Section 509.B. Definitions—Malfunctions—repeal, Regulated New Source Review (NSR) Pollutant, Significant a. 

2/27/2013 Section 509.B. Definitions. Baseline Area, Baseline Date, Minor Source Baseline Date. 

Section 509.C ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.C. 

2/27/2013 Sections 509.C. Ambient Air Increments. 

Section 509.D ............ 6/22/1998 Section 509.D.17. 

12/20/2005 Sections 509.D., 509.D.1.–2. 

Section 509.E ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.E., 509.E.1.–4. 

Section 509.G ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.G., 509.G.1.–4. 

Section 509.H ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.H., 509.H.1.–2. 

Section 509.I. ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.I., 509.I.1.–9. 

11/9/2007 Sections 509.I.5.a., approving renumbering only because substantively it has already been addressed. 

2/27/2013 Sections 509.I.5., 509.I.5.a., 509.I.8., 509.I.9., 509.I.9.b. 

Section 509.J ............. 12/20/2005 Sections 509.J., 509.J.1.–4. 

2/27/2013 Sections 509.J., 509.J.5., 509.J.5.a., 

Section 509.K ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.K., 509.K.1.–2. 

2/27/2013 Sections 509.K., 509.K.1., 509.K.1.a.–b. 

Section 509.L ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.L., 509.L.1.–2. 

Section 509.M ........... 12/20/2005 Sections 509.M., 509.M.1–3. 

Section 509.N ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.N., 509.N.1.–2. 

Section 509.O ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.O.1.–3. 

5/5/2006 Section 509.O.3. 

Section 509.P ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.P, 509.P. 1.–8. 

2/27/2013 Section 509.P.5. 

Section 509.Q ............ 2/2/2000 Sections 509.Q.7., 509.Q.8.b. 

12/20/2005 Sections 509.Q., 509.Q.1.–2. 

Section 509.R ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.R., 509.R.1.–7. 

Section 509.V ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.V., 509.V.1.–4. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 50247 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF EACH REGULATION THAT IS AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION—Continued 

Section 

Date submitted 

to EPA as 

SIP amendment 

Affected regulation 

Section 509.W ........... 12/20/2005 Sections 509.W., 509.W.1.–4. 

Section 509.X ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.X., 509.X.1.–9. 

Section 509.Y ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.Y., 509.Y.1.–11. 

Section 509.Z ............ 12/20/2005 Sections 509.Z., 509.Z.1.–6. 

Section 509.AA .......... 12/20/2005 Sections 509.AA., 509.AA.1.–15. 

Section 603—Applicability 

Section 603 ............... 2/2/2000 Section 603, no longer in front of EPA—superseded. 

Section 603.A ............ 8/14/2009 Section 603.A. 

Section 605 

Section 605.A ............ 8/14/2009 Section 605.A. Definitions Offset. 

Section 607—Determination of Creditable Emission Reductions 

Section 607.C ............ 11/9/2007 Sections 607.C.1, 607.C.4.a.i, and 607.C.4.a.ii. 

8/14/2009 Section 607.C.4.b 

Section 613—ERC Balance Sheet 

Section 613.B ............ 5/5/2006 Section 613.B. 

Section 613.B ............ 5/5/2006 Section 613.B. (repealed). 

Section 613.D ............ 1/27/2003 Section 613.D. 

Section 615—Schedule for Submitting Applications 

Section 615.B ............ 1/27/2003 Section 615.B. 

Section 615.C ............ 8/14/2009 Sections 615.C., and 615.D. 

We also are proposing to approve the 

December 25, 2005, submittal, as 

revised by the May 16, 2011, submittal. 

as part of the Louisiana NSR SIP 

because they meet the Major NSR 

reform requirements. The LDEQ also 

provided an October 6, 2008, letter, and 

a June 9, 2015, providing further 

clarification. 

The EPA is proposing to find that the 

May 16, 2011, revisions to the Louisiana 

NNSR program at LAC 33:III.504 

address all required NNSR elements for 

the implementation of the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that the 

Louisiana NNSR program does not 

include regulation of VOCs and 

ammonia as PM2.5 precursors. However, 

as section 189(e) of the Act requires 

regulation of PM2.5 precursors that 

significantly contribute to PM2.5 levels 

‘‘which exceed the standard in the area’’ 

and Louisiana does not have a 

designated PM2.5 nonattainment area; 

the revisions addressing only SO2 and 

NOX are not inconsistent with the 

requirements of the CAA. In the event 

that an area is designated nonattainment 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS or any other 

future PM2.5 NAAQS, Louisiana will 

have a deadline under section 189(a)(2) 

of the CAA to make a submission 

addressing the statutory requirements as 

to that area, including the requirements 

in section 189(e) that apply to the 

regulation of PM2.5 precursors. 

The EPA invites the public to make 

comments on all aspects of our 

proposed full approval of the Louisiana 

Air Permit Procedure Program, and to 

submit them by the Date listed above. 

We are accepting comments on this 

proposed action for 30 days. After 

reviewing the comments received, we 

will make a final determination of the 

approvability of the specified revisions 

to the Louisiana Major Air Permit 

Procedures and Regulations and Control 

of Emissions through the Use of 

Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) 

Banking Revisions in the Federal 

Register. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, we are proposing to 

include in a final rule regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revisions to the Louisiana regulations as 

described in the Proposed Action 

section above. We have made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews. 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50248 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 5, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20504 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0205; FRL–9931–37– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso 

Particulate Matter Contingency 

Measures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Texas. These revisions pertain to 

contingency measures for particulate 

matter in the City of El Paso. The 

affected contingency measures are the 

paving of alleys and sweeping of streets. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 18, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0205, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: Jeffrey Riley at riley.jeffrey@

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 ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012– 

0205. The 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 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit electronically any 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that the 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 the 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, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment along with any disk or CD– 

ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read 

your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files 

should avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. 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 information on submitting 

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: 

Jeffrey Riley, 214–665–8542, 

riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Mr. Riley or Mr. Bill 

Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

I. Background 

A. El Paso PM10 History 

Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, 

the City of El Paso, Texas was 

designated by operation of law as 

nonattainment of the 1987 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for particulate matter (PM) with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal ten micrometers (PM10) 

and classified as a moderate 

nonattainment area. The EPA approved 

on January 18, 1994 at 59 FR 02532, the 

El Paso PM10 Attainment Demonstration 

SIP revision. The SIP included, among 

other things, PM control measures and 

a Memorandum of Understanding 

between the City of El Paso and the 

State of Texas (MOU). The EPA 

approved three types of PM control 

measures as contingency measures 

because they went beyond reasonably 

available control measures and were not 

relied upon to show attainment or 

reasonable further progress (RFP). The 

three types of PM control measures 

approved as contingency measures were 

prescribed burning, residential burning, 

and fugitive dust control measures. The 

fugitive dust measures include not only 

controls for roads, streets, alleys, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS