1 

# Technical Support Document

EPA

- R06

- OAR

- 2016

- 0450 Revisions to the Louisiana Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program for the

PM 2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentration ( PM 2.5 SMC)

Submitted February 27, 2013 as AQ328ft
Submitted July 22

, 2016 as AQ357ft

July 28 , 2016

No material in this submittal package was designated as Confidential Business Information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, Air Permits Section ( 6MM

- AP ), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202

- 2733, (214) 665

- 2115.2 

## Contents

I. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 3

II. Background of State Submittal

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 3

III. Technical Review of State Submittal

................................ ................................ ................................ . 4

A. Part 51, Appendix V Evaluat ion of the February 27, 2013 SIP Submittal

................................ ......... 5

B. Part 51, Appendix V Evaluation of the July 22, 2016 SIP Submittal

................................ .................. 9

C. Background of Federal Actions Regarding the PSD PM 2.5 SIL and SMC

................................ .......... 13

D. Evaluation of the Revisions to the LA PSD Program for the PM 2.5 SMC

................................ .......... 15

E. Evaluation of the revisions to the Louisiana PSD Program for the PM 2.5 SMC with respect to
section 110(l) of the CAA

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 18

IV. Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 183 

## I. Executive Summary

This Technical Support Document (TSD) reviews two proposed revision s to the Louisiana Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program in the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). Specifically, this review focuses on regulations establ ishing the significant monitoring concentration (SMC) for fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 ). This review will determine if the revisions to the Louisiana PSD program submitted on February 27, 2013, and
revised on July 22, 2016 , are consistent with the requir ements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s regulations, policy and guidance for major source permitting of PM 2.5

.



## II. Background of State Submittal

• On February 27, 2013, Secretary Peggy Hatch of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), submitted revisions to the Louisiana PSD program adopted on December 20, 2012 at LAC 33:III.509. The revisions to LAC 33:III.509 had been adopted in response to the EPA’s final rule promulgated on October 20, 2010 entitled “Prevention of Significant
Deteri oration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers ( PM 2.5 )

– Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC).

o The LDEQ requested that the EPA take no action on the submitted revisions at

LAC 33:III.509.I.5.a.

, establishing the PM 2.5 SMC at 4 μ g/m 3 on a 24

- hour

average.

o On November 15, 2015, the EPA approved the revisions to LAC 33:III.509 adopted on December 20, 2012 and submitted on February 27, 2013, with the exception of LAC 33:III.509.I.5 .a. As such, this provision remains before EPA for
review and action. No other provisions from the February 27, 2013 submittal
remain before EPA.

• On July 22, 2016 , Secretary Chuck Carr Brown, Ph.D. of the LDEQ, submitted revisions to the Louisiana PSD prog ram adopted on March 20, 2016, that revise the PM 2.5 SMC to a zero
threshold level. The EPA will evaluate the revisions to the Louisiana PSD program establishing and revising the

PM 2.5 SMC in this action.4 

## III. Technical Review of State Submittal

The February 27, 2013 and July 22, 2016 SIP submittal s revising the Louisiana PSD program are evaluated for compliance with the relevant requirements of the Act and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) part 51

– Requirements for Preparation, Ad option, and Submittal of Implementation Plans. These requirements include, but are not limited to the following:

1. §110(a)(2)(C) of the Act which provides: (C) include a program to provide for the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D;

2. §110(l) of the Act which provides: (l) Plan Revisions.

– Eac h revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applic able requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the chapter.

3. 40 CFR 51.160

– Legally enforceable procedures. The regulatory text of 40 CFR 51.160
is available on line at Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text

idx?c=ecfr&sid=07e214c52bbfc82a2781e3e14c7616ca&rgn=div8&view=text&node=4
0:2.0.1.1.2.6.8.1&idno=40

4. 40 CFR 51.161

– Public availability of information. The regula tory text of 40 CFR 51.161 is available on line at Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text

idx?c=ecfr&sid=07e214c52bbfc82a2781e3e14c7616ca&rgn=div8&view=text&node=4
0:2.0.1.1.2.6.8.2&idno=40

6. 40 CFR 51.166

– Preve ntion of significant deterioration of air quality. The regulatory text of 40 CFR 51.166 is available on line at Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text

idx?c=ecfr&sid=0dbbe52d31085f8454d6cbf1412e1557&rgn=div8&view= text&node=4
0:2.0.1.1.2.6.8.7&idno=40.

Other applicable requirements of the Act, 40 CFR part 51, and applicable policy and guidance will be identified in the evaluation where appropriate.

Specifically, the February 27, 2013 and July 22, 2016 , submittal s are first reviewed for completeness as a SIP submittal under Part 51, Appendix V. This will be followed by a detailed analysis of the submitted revised rules to determine consistency with EPA regulations, guidance and whether the submitted provisions inter fere with any applicable CAA provisions. This analysis produces a written evaluation used to make a determination of whether or not the
establishment and revisions to the PM 2.5 SMC are in agreement with the CAA, other EPA policies and guidance.5 

### A. Part 51 , Appendix V Evaluation of the February 27, 2013 SIP Submittal

The criteria for completeness determination are found in Appendix V to Part 51

- Criteria for determining the completeness of plan submissions and are outlined below:

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth the minimum criteria for determining whether a State implementation plan submitted for consideration by EPA is an official submission for purposes of review under § 51.103.

1.1 The EPA shall return to the submitting o fficial any plan or revision thereof which fails to meet the criteria set forth in this appendix V, and request corrective action, identifying the component(s) absent or insufficient to perform a review of the submitted plan.

1.2 The EPA shall inform the submitting official whether or not a plan submission meets the requirements of this appendix V within 60 days of EPA's receipt of the submittal, but no later than 6 months after the date which the State was required to submit the plan or
revision. If a com pleteness determination is not made by 6 months from receipt of a submittal, the submittal shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 months from receipt. A determination of completeness under this paragraph means that
the submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103.

The attached checklist outlines the basic criteria included under 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of Appendix V.

SIP Completeness Checklist for the February 27, 2013 SIP Submittal

Administrative Materials (2.1)

1. The pac kage is sent with a formal submittal letter from the Governor or his or her designee requesting EPA's approval of the revision.

The SIP revision was submitted by a letter from Ms. Peggy Hatch, Secretary of the LDEQ, dated February 27, 2013 . The SIP submittal was received by EPA Region 6 Air Permitting Section on March 7, 2013

.

2. Evidence is included that the State has adopted the revision in the State code or body of regulations, or that the State has issued the permit, order, consent a greement (hereafter document) in final form. This evidence would include the date of adoption or final issuance and the effective date of revision, if different from adoption/issuance date.

The revisions to the Louisiana Major PSD program were adopted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality on December 20, 2012

.

3. Evidence is included that the State has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the revisi on, e.g., a citation of the appropriate State authority.

The authority to adopt and implement the revisions is the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act, R.S. 30:2001 et seq., and in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, R.S. 49:950 et seq.6 4. A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the SIP including an indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan where applicable. The submittal shall b e a copy of the official State regulation document signed, stamped, and dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in t he document itself.

The February 27, 2013 , submittal included a copy of the official State regulation document published in the Louisiana Register.

5. Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws
and/or its c onstitution in the conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.

The SIP submittal package included a certification demonstrating the SIP submittal was developed pursuant to 40 CFR 51.104.

6. Evidence is included that public notice was given of the proposed changes consistent with the procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice, (e.g., notarized or certified copies of any public notices published in newspapers). (The notice should be at least 30 days pr ior to the public hearing(s).

Notices of public hearing and comment period for rule revision AQ 328 ft were published
in the:

• Louisiana Register on March 20, 2012

.

7. A certification is included indicating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice(s) and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

The public hearing for AQ328f t was held on October 31, 2012 . The transcript of the hearing was included in the February 27, 2013 submitt al package.

8. A compilation of public comments and the State's response is included.

The SIP submittal package did include a compilation of comments and the State’s response to comments. LDEQ received one comment letter from EPA Region 6. The February 27, 2013, submittal included the comment letters and the response to comments

summary.7 Technical Support (2.2)

The State should include the following technical information in its SIP revision request package.

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision is included.

The February 27, 2013 , submittal revises the Louisiana PSD program to regulate and permit emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors under the LA PSD program in all attainment
areas statewide.

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s) is included.

The February 27, 2013 revisions to the LA PSD program apply statewide in attainment

areas.

3. Quantification of the changes in SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is included. (Examples include estimates of changes in current actual emissions from
affected sour ces and/or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated if the revisions were approved.)

Quantification of “SIP allowable emissions” is not required for the February 27, 2013

, revisions to the Louisiana PSD permit program. A determination of “allowable emissions” consistent with the PSD permitting requirements will be addressed on a permit

- by

- permit basis.

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility as applicable would be protected if the revision were approved and implemented.

The February 27, 2013 , revision to the Louisiana PSD permit program was adopted and submitted consistent with the federal PSD requirements. Adoption of these revised rules will protect the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility.

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS:

a. Is there a fully approved maintenance plan for the primary ambient air quality standards for at least 10 years as required by §175A of the Clean Air Act?

Not applicable.

b. Are contingency measures included?

Not applicable.8 6. Modeling information, if applicable, is required to support the proposed revision.

Modeling information is not necessary to support the analysis and review of the February 27, 2013

, submitted regulatory provisions. Modeling will be provided on a permit

- by

permit basis in accordance with the Louisiana PSD SIP regulations.

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology (e.g., add

- on controls, industrial/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, etc.).

Evidence that emission limitations are based on continu ous emission reduction technology is not necessary to support the analysis and review of the February 27, 2013

, submitted regulatory provisions. Emission limitations will be established on a permit

- by

permit basis in accordance with the PSD SIP regulations

.

8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP revision contains emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission
levels.

The February 27, 2013 , SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements. They will be established on a permit

- by

- permit basis according to the applicable Louisiana PSD SIP requirements.

9. Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice (including at what frequency).

The February 27, 2013 , SIP submittal does not establish compliance/enforcement strategies. Each PSD SIP permit will separately address compliance/enforcement.

10. As appropriate, special econ omic and technological justifications are included per applicable EPA policies or an explanation why such justifications are not necessary should be included. For example, requests for alternative RACT may require such justification.

These justification s are not necessary for February 27, 2013

, SIP revision.

The February 27, 2013 SIP submittal satisfies the completeness criteria established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.9 

### B

. Part 51, Appendix V Evaluation of the July 22, 2016 SIP Submittal

The criteria for completeness determination are found in Appendix V to Part 51

- Criteria for determining the completeness of plan submissions and are outlined below:

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth the minimum criteria for determining whether a State implementation plan submitted for consideration by EPA is an official submission for purposes of review under § 51.103.

1.1 The EPA shall return to the submitting official any plan or revision thereof which fails to
meet the criteria set forth in t his appendix V, and request corrective action, identifying the component(s) absent or insufficient to perform a review of the submitted plan.

1.2 The EPA shall inform the submitting official whether or not a plan submission meets the requirements of this a ppendix V within 60 days of EPA's receipt of the submittal, but no later than 6 months after the date which the State was required to submit the plan or revision. If a completeness determination is not made by 6 months from receipt of a submittal, the subm ittal shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 months from receipt. A determination of completeness under this paragraph means that the submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103.

The attached checklist outlines the basic criteria included under 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of Appendix V.

SIP Completeness Checklist for the July 22, 2016 SIP Submittal

Administrative Materials (2.1)

1. The package is sent with a formal submittal letter from the Governor or his or her designee requesting EPA's approval of the revision.

The SIP revision was submitted by a letter from Mr. Chuck Carr Brown, Ph.D. , Secretary of the LDEQ, dated July 22, 2016 . The SIP submittal was received by EPA Region 6 Air Permitting Section on July 25, 2016

.

2. Evidence is included that the State has adopted the revision in the State code or body of regulations, or that the State has issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter document) in final form. This evidence would include the date of adoptio n or final issuance and the effective date of revision, if different from adoption/issuance date.

The revisions to the Louisiana Major PSD program were adopted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality on March 20, 2016

.

3. Evidence is include d that the State has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the revision, e.g., a citation of the appropriate State authority.

The authority to adopt and implement the revisions is the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act, R.S. 30 :2001 et seq., and in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, R.S. 49:950 et seq.10 4. A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the SIP including an indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation document signed, stamped, and dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.

The July 22, 2016 , submittal included a copy of the official State regulation document published in the Louisiana Register.

5. Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws and/or its constitution in the conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.

The SIP submittal package included a certification demonstrating the SIP submittal was developed pursuant to 40 CFR 51.104.

6. Evidence is included that public notice was given of the proposed changes consistent with the procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice, (e.g., notarized or certif ied copies of any public notices published in newspapers). (The notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s).

Notices of public hearing and comment period for rule revision AQ3 57 ft were published
in the:

• Louisiana Register on December 20, 2015

.

7. A certification is included indicating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice(s) and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

The public hearing for AQ3 57 ft was held on January 27, 2016 . The transcript of the hearing was included in the July 22, 2016 submittal package.

8. A compilation of public comments and the State's response is included.

The LDEQ did not receive any public comments on the proposed AQ357ft.11 Technical Support (2.2)

The State should include the following technical information in its SIP revision request package.

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision is included.

The July 22, 2016, submittal revises the Louisiana PSD program to effectively remove the

PM 2.5 significant monitoring concentration (SMC) by setting the SMC to a zero threshold
in all attainment areas statewide

.

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA
attainm ent/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s) is included.

The July 22, 2016 submittal revises the Louisiana PSD program statewide in all

attainment areas.

3. Quantification of the changes in SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is included. (Examples include estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources and/or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions
from affected sources throu gh calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated if the revisions were approved.)

Quantification of “SIP allowable emissions” is not required for the July 22, 2016

, revisions to the Louisiana PSD permit program. A determination of “allowable emissions” consistent with the PSD permitting requirements will be addressed on a permit

- by

- permit basis.

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility as applicab le would be protected if the revision were approved and implemented.

The July 22, 2016 , revision to the Louisiana PSD permit program was adopted and submitted consistent with the federal PSD requirements. Adoption of these revised rules will protect the N AAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility.

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS:

a. Is there a fully approved maintenance plan for the primary ambient air quality standards for at least 10 years as required by §175A of the Clean Air Act?

Not applicable.

b. Are contingency measures included?

Not applicable.12 7. Modeling information, if applicable, is required to support the proposed revision.

Modeling information is not necessary to support the analysis and review of the July 22,
2016

, submitted regulatory provisions. Modeling will be provided on a permit

- by

- permit basis in accordance with the Louisiana PSD SIP regulations.

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous
emission reduction technology (e.g., add

- on controls, industrial/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, etc.).

Evidence that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology is not necessary to support the analysis and review of the Jul y 22, 2016

, submitted regulatory provisions. Emission limitations will be established on a permit

- by

permit basis in accordance with the PSD SIP regulations.

8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP revision contains emission limitations, work

prac tice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission
levels.

The July 22, 2016 , SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements. They will be establishe d on a permit

- by

- permit basis according to the applicable Louisiana PSD SIP requirements.

9. Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice (including at what frequency).

The July 22, 2016 , SIP submittal does not establish compliance/enforcement strategies. Each PSD SIP permit will separately address compliance/enforcement.

10. As appropriate, special economic and technological justifications are included per applicable EPA policies or an explanation why such justifications are not necessary should be included. For example, requests for alternative RACT may require such justification.

These justifications are not necessary for July 22, 2016

, SIP revision.

The July 22, 2016, SIP submittal satisfies the compl eteness criteria established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.13 

### C. Background of Federal Actions Regarding the PSD PM 2.5 

### SIL and SMC

Under Section 165(a) of the CAA, a major source may not commence construction unless the source has been issued a permit and has satisfied certain requirements. Among those requirements, the permit applicant must demonstrate that emissions from constructio n or operation of the facility will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of any increment, NAAQS, or any other applicable emission standard of standard of performance. This statutory requirement has been incorporated into federal regulation s at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(1). Moreover, to support this analysis, PSD permit applications must contain air quality monitoring data representing air quality in the area affected by the proposed source for the 1

- year period preceding receipt of the application. This statutory requirement has been incorporated into federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(m)(ii)

- (iv).

In 2010, the EPA promulgated regulations for SIPs concerning PSD permitting for PM 2.5 which included two voluntary screening tools: SILs and SMCs. 75 FR 64864 (Oct. 20, 2010). The SILs are screening tools that states with PSD SIPs apply in the issuance of a PSD permit to demonstrate that the proposed source’s allowable emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or increment. The SMC has been used to exempt sources from the requirement in the CAA to collect preconstruction monitoring data for up to 1 year before submitting a permit application in order to help determine existing ambient air quality. 78 FR 73699 (Dec. 9, 2013).

Si erra Club filed a petition for review of the PSD regulations containing the PM 2.5 SILs and SMC with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court). On January 22, 2013, the Court issued an opinion granting a request fro m the EPA to vacate and remand to the EPA portions of the October 20, 2010, PSD regulations establishing the PM 2.5 SIL and further vacating the portions of the PSD regulations establishing a PM 2.5 SMC. See

, Sierra
Club v. EPA , 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013)

.

In response to the Court’s decision, the EPA amended its regulations to remove the affected

PM 2.5 SIL regulations from the federal regulations and to replace the existing PM 2.5 SMC value with a “zero” threshold. 78 FR 73698 (Dec. 9, 2013). In that rulem aking, the EPA removed the regulatory text related to the affected PM 2.5 SILs at sections 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2). Although the Court vacated the PM 2.5 SMC provisions in 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), the EPA did not remove the affected regulatory text, but instead revised the
concentration for the PM 2.5 SMC listed in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero micrograms per cubic meter (0 μg/m 3 ). Because 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(iii) and 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(iii) establish an exemption from air monitoring requirements for any pollutant “not listed in paragraph (i)(5)(i),” the EPA explained that it would not be appropriate to rem ove the
reference to PM 2.5 in paragraph (i)(5)(i). Were the EPA to completely remove PM 2.5 from the list of pollutants in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) of the PSD regulations, PM 2.5 would no longer be a listed pollutant and the paragrap h (iii) provision could be interpreted as giving reviewing authorities the discretion to exempt permit applicants from the requirement to conduct monitoring for PM 2.5 , in contravention of the Court’s decision and the CAA. Instead, the
EPA revised the conce ntration listed in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to “0” micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ). This means that there is no air quality impact level below14 which a reviewing authority has the discretion to exempt a source from the PM 2.5 moni toring requirements at 40 CFR 52.21(m).15 

### D. Evaluation of the Revisions to the LA PSD Program for the PM 2.5 

### SMC

The February 27, 2013, SIP submittal included provisions adopted on December 20, 2012, to address the requirements of EPA’s
October 20, 2010 final rule on PM 2.5 Increments SILs and SMC. The LDEQ adopted and submitted new provisions at LAC

33:III.509.I.5.a

., establishing the PM 2.5 SMC at 4 μ g/m 3 on a 24

- hour average. The LDEQ did not adopt or submit provisions establishing the PM 2.5 SIL.

Because the US Court of Appeals vacated the PM 2.5 SMC on January 22, 2013, the LDEQ requested that EPA take no action o n the submitted provisions at LAC 33:III.509.I.5.a.

The LDEQ has undergone a series of rulemakings to address the Courts decision on the PM 2.5 SIL and SMC and the subsequent revisions to the federal PSD requirements.

• The LDEQ initially proposed revisions to the PSD program to address the removal of the PM 2.5 SIL and SMC on October 10, 2014 as AQ349. The EPA reviewed and provided comment on these provisions on December 2, 2014 and on January 14, 2015.

• As a result of significant comments, the LDEQ p rovided an additional opportunity for public comment on the amended proposed revisions, AQ349S. EPA provided comments on May 6, 2015. The LDEQ stopped the rulemaking process at this point

.

• The LDEQ promulgated another rulemaking to address only the PM 2.5 S MC under AQ357ft to revise the adopted PM 2.5 SMC

and set the value to a “zero” threshold

. The EPA did not submit a comment on this rulemaking. The LDEQ completed the rulemaking process and adopted the revisions to the PM 2.5 SMC on March 20, 2016. These rev isions were submitted to the

EPA as a SIP revision on July 22, 2016

.

The following evaluation will review the initial adoption and submittal of the PM 2.5 SMC at LAC 33:III.509.I.5.a as submitted on February 27, 2013 and revised through the July 22, 2016 s ubmittal.16 Table 1: Analysis of Revisions to LAC 33:III.509

Current LA SIP

- Approved on November 5,

2015. The italicized provisions were adopted at the state level on December 20, 2012, and submitted on February 27, 2013. EPA took no action on these provisions at the request of the

state. Revisions adopted on March 20, 2016
Submitted on July 22, 2016 EPA’s Analysis of Proposed Revision

LAC 33:III.509(I)(5) The administrative authority may exempt a stationary source or modification from the requirements of Subsection M of this Section, with respect to monitoring for a particular pollutant if: a) The emissions increase of the pollutant from a new stationary source or the net

emissions increa se of the pollutant
from a modification would cause, in any area, air quality impacts less than the following amounts:

Carbon

monoxide 575 μg/m 3 8

- hour

average; Nitrogen

dioxide 14 μg/m 3 annual

average;
Particulate

matter 10 μg/m 3

PM 10 4 μg/m 3

PM 2.5 24

- hour

average;

24

- hour

average;

Sulfur

dioxide 13μg/m 3 24

- hour

average;
Ozone No de minimis air quality level is provided for ozone. However, any net increase of 100 tons per year or more of volatile LAC 33:III.509(I)(5)

The administrative authority may exempt a stationary source or modification from the requirements of Subsection M of this Section, with respect to monitoring for a particular pollutant if: a) The emissions increase of the pollutant from a new stationary source or the net emissions increase of the pollutant from a modification would cause, in any area, air quality impacts less than the following amounts:

Carbon

monoxide 575 μg/m 3 8

- hour

average; Nitrogen

dioxide 14 μg/m 3 annual

average;
Particulate

matter 10 μg/m 3

PM 10 0 4 μg/m 3

PM 2.5 1 24

- hour

average;

24

- hour

average;

Sulfur

dioxide 13μg/m 3 24

- hour

average;
Ozone No de minimis air quality level is provided for ozone. However, any net increase of 100 tons per year or more of volatile The PM 2.5 SMC was adopted by the state on
December 20, 2012, and submitted in the

F ebruary 27, 2013, SIP submittal. In the cover letter the LDEQ requested that EPA not act on

the PM 2.5 SMC provision. Therefore, we have

taken no action to date on the PM 2.5 SMC.

LDEQ has adopted and submitted revisions to the state adopted Louisiana PSD program to set

the PM 2.5 SMC at LAC 33:III.509(I)(5)(a) to zero, effectively removing the PM 2.5 monit oring exemption.

Initially the LDEQ proposed complete removal

of the PM 2.5 SMC by deleting the provision. In our January 14, 2015 letter we advised the LDEQ to set the SMC to ‘ 0 ’ to be consistent with the CAA and EPA’s regulations. Setting

the SMC to ‘ 0 ’ removes the exemption whereas deleting the SMC entirely removes any requirement for monitoring

– which is not the

intent.

The substantive revision adopted on March 20, 2016 and submitted July 22, 2016, addresses the EPA’s comments on January 14, 2015. The

substantive revisions are also consistent with
EPA’s December 9, 2013 final rule to remove17 Table 1: Analysis of Revisions to LAC 33:III.509

Current LA SIP

- Approved on November 5,

2015. The italicized provisions were adopted at the state level on December 20, 2012, and submitted on February 27, 2013. EPA took no action on these provisions at the request of the

state. Revisions adopted on March 20, 2016
Submitted on July 22, 2016 EPA’s Analysis of Proposed Revision

organic compounds subject to PSD would be required to perform an ambient impact analysis, including the gathering of ambient air quality data;

Lead 0.1 μg/m 3 3

- month

average;
Fluorides 0.25 μg/m 3 24

- hour

average;
Total

reduced

sulfur 10 μg/m 3 1

- hour

average;

Hydrogen

sulfide 0.2 μg/m 3 1

- hour

average;
Reduced

sulfur compounds 10 μg/m 3 1

- hour

average; or organic compounds subject to PSD would be required to perform an ambient impact analysis, including the gathering of ambient air quali ty data;

Lead 0.1 μg/m 3 3

- month

average;
Fluorides 0.25 μg/m 3 24

- hour

average;
Total

reduced

sulfur 10 μg/m 3 1

- hour

average;

Hydrogen

sulfide 0.2 μg/m 3 1

- hour

average;
Reduced

sulfur compounds 10 μg/m 3 1

- hour

average; or

1. No exemption is available with regard to PM 2.5 the vacated PM 2.5 SMC from the federal requirements. The provisions for the PM 2.5 SMC at 0 μg/m 3 are approvable.

.18 

### E

. Evaluation of the revisions to the Louisiana PSD Program for the PM 2.5 

### SMC with respect to section 110(l) of the CAA

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states:

Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reaso nable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applic able requirement of this Act.

Our analysis indicates that the February 27, 2013 and July 22, 2016 , revisions to the Louisiana PSD program were adopted and submitted as revisions to the Louisiana SIP after reasonable notice and public hearing. The initia l adoption of the PM 2.5 SMC as revised through the July 22, 2016, submittal ensures that the Louisiana PSD program is consistent with federal PSD permitting requirements and does not authorize an exemption from the SIP

- approved pre

- and
post

- construction P M 2.5 monitoring under the Louisiana PSD SIP. Approval of these submitted revisions will therefore not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.



## IV. Conclusion

The technical analysis in the preceding sections has compared the applicable sections of the CAA and 40 CFRs Parts 51 with the February 27, 2013, and July 22, 2016, Louisiana SIP submittals to adopt and revise the PM 2.5 SMC. The EPA’s analysis found that LAC 33:III.509.I.5.a., as revised through the July 22, 2016 submittal appropriately establishes the

PM 2.5 SMC at a zero threshold, consistent with federal requirements and the Court decisions. As such the EPA should propose approval of the revis ions to LAC 33:III.509.I.5.a., as initially adopted on December 20, 2012, and submitted on February 27, 2013, and as revised by the March 20, 2016 adoption submitted on July 22, 2016

. Because the rulemakings to adopt and revise the PM 2.5 SMC are consistent with federal requirements and Court decisions it is recommended that EPA pursue a direct final approval.