Document ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558-0073
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: LA060.72 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Louisiana; Finding of Failure To Attain the Primary 2010 One-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area, Final rule, 20 pages.
Posted Date: 2022-10-05T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60273-60292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21249]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558; FRL-9308-02-R6]

Finding of Failure To Attain the Primary 2010 One-Hour Sulfur 
Dioxide Standard for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment 
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a 
determination that the St. Bernard Parish sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) nonattainment area (``St. Bernard area'' or ``area'') 
failed to attain the primary 2010 one-hour SO2 national 
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
the Act) by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. This 
determination is based upon consideration of and review of all relevant 
and available information for the St. Bernard area leading up to the 
area's attainment date of October 4, 2018, including emissions and 
monitoring data, compliance records for the area's primary 
SO2 source, the Rain CII Carbon, LLC (Rain) facility, and 
air quality dispersion modeling based on the allowable limits.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the internet. Publicly available docket materials are 
available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6 
Office, SO2 and Regional Haze Section (R6-ARSH), 214-665-
7346, [email protected]. Out of an abundance of caution for 
members of the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 office may be 
closed to the public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. 
Please call or email the contact listed here if you need alternative 
access to material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our 
December 7, 2021 proposal (86 FR 69210). In that document, we proposed 
to determine that the St. Bernard Parish SO2 nonattainment 
area failed to attain the primary 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS 
under the CAA by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. 
This proposed determination was based upon consideration of and review 
of all relevant and available information for the St. Bernard area 
leading up to the area's attainment date of October 4, 2018, including 
(1) emissions and monitoring data, (2) the state's air quality modeling 
demonstration, which showed the emission limits and stack parameters 
required at Rain, the primary source of SO2 emission in the 
area, that were necessary to provide for the area's attainment, and (3) 
Rain's available compliance records between the period when the Agreed 
Order on Consent (AOC) limits became effective (August 2, 2018) and the 
area's attainment date. The state's dispersion modeling is based on the 
allowable limits in the August 2, 2018 AOC between Rain and the 
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). Compliance with 
those limits showed modeled design values in attainment of the 
SO2 NAAQS, but close to the level of the NAAQS (i.e., with 
little margin of safety). Rain, however, has demonstrated a pattern of 
difficulty meeting these federally enforceable applicable 
SO2 emission limits and stack parameters (memorialized in 
its Title V permit and the AOC). Review of Rain's compliance record 
provides evidence that emissions have exceeded those prescribed limits, 
and that stack temperatures and flowrates have not met the parameters 
present in the modeling, such as (1) reported deviations during the 
period between the effective date of the limits and the attainment date 
and (2) reported underestimation of emissions from the hot stack. As a 
result of these difficulties in meeting the limits in the AOC, we 
cannot determine that the area attained the standard by the attainment 
date. EPA's final determination, described further in this action and 
explained in our response to comments, relies on the same basis and 
rationale that was used in our proposed determination.
    We received comments on the December 7, 2021 proposal from several 
commenters including the state, community members and community groups, 
and industry groups. In the following section, we are providing a 
summary of responses to certain significant comments received on the 
proposal. In subsections II.B through II.E of this action, we provide a 
response to several community comments that while not germane to our 
final decision here, serve to better aid and inform the public of 
matters raised by such commenters. The response to comments (RTC) 
document accompanying this action and found in the public docket for 
this rulemaking contains these summaries and the full text of all of 
the comments that the EPA received during the public comment period 
from December 7, 2021, to January 13, 2022, our full responses to all 
comments, and additional details on our responses that are not found in 
this notice. After careful consideration of the public comments, EPA is 
finalizing the December 7, 2021, proposed finding that the St. Bernard 
Parish SO2 nonattainment area has failed to attain the 2010 
one-hour SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of 
October 4, 2018.

[[Page 60274]]

II. Response to Comments

A. Comments Opposed to EPA's Proposed Determination That the St. 
Bernard Area Failed To Attain the SO2 NAAQS

    Several commenters opposed EPA's proposed determination that the 
St. Bernard area failed to attain the one-hour SO2 NAAQS by 
the applicable attainment date. These commenters, including LDEQ and 
Rain CII Carbon (Rain), asserted that EPA should not determine the area 
failed to attain but should instead find that St. Bernard Parish is in 
attainment with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. These commenters 
identified several categories of factors that they claim support 
finding that the area did attain by the October 2018 attainment date. 
These factors include: (1) the large reductions in emissions at Rain 
and nearby sources, (2) the two monitors in the area have monitoring 
levels below the NAAQS level, (3) the AERMOD modeling included in the 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstration was conservative and 
demonstrated attainment, and (4) the facility has achieved a high level 
of compliance with the limits in the attainment demonstration SIP.
    In the following parts of this subsection II.A, EPA summarizes each 
of these factors as a separate group of comments and provides a 
response, and then EPA summarizes and provides a response to the 
commenters' general assessment that the combination of these factors 
supports their claim that the area attained the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS.
1. Emissions Reductions at Rain and Other Sources
    Comment: The commenters state that EPA's proposed rule fails to 
consider the major improvements to air quality in St. Bernard Parish 
that have occurred since 2013, which include (1) permitted and actual 
emissions reductions from the Rain facility and (2) emissions 
reductions from other SO2 sources (e.g., industrial, mobile, 
and non-road) in and around St. Bernard Parish. For other 
SO2 industrial sources, commenters specify that both 
Chalmette Refining LLC (Chalmette Refining) and Valero Refining Meraux, 
LLC (Valero Refining) had consent decrees with both EPA and LDEQ in 
2006 and 2011, respectively, that have resulted in reducing actual 
SO2 emissions from these two facilities by over 90% in the 
last decade. Commenters also assert that EPA has promulgated 
regulations to control fuel and engine standards to reduce 
SO2 emissions from on-road and non-road engines for the last 
15 years which caused mobile source SO2 emissions to 
decrease significantly in the last decade. Commenters pointed to LDEQ's 
November 9, 2017 proposed SIP as evidence that mobile and nonpoint 
source emissions accounted for hundreds of tons of SO2 
emissions in 2011 and have significantly decreased from that level in 
the last decade. Additionally, the commenters state that the downward 
SO2 emission trends show significant SO2 
emissions reductions that have been sustained. As an example of this 
downward SO2 emission trend, the commenters state that a 
petroleum refinery (Phillips 66) in a nearby parish with past 
SO2 emissions averaging 400 tons per year (tpy) of 
SO2 in the past five years recently announced that it will 
permanently shut down, which will provide additional air quality 
improvements to the St. Bernard area. The commenters argue that EPA 
should consider the downward SO2 emissions trends and the 
significant reductions of actual SO2 emissions at these 
sources in and around St. Bernard Parish as evidence that St. Bernard 
area has attained the SO2 NAAQS, and that EPA failed to 
discuss these reductions in any meaningful way in a weight-of-evidence 
approach.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that it 
failed to consider permitted, actual, and consent decree-based 
emissions reductions. EPA recognizes that significant reductions in 
SO2 emissions have occurred and that these reductions have 
improved air quality. EPA, however, must consider all available 
information in determining whether sufficient emission reductions 
occurred to provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date of 
October 4, 2018. In this case, and as detailed more in this section, 
Rain had difficulty complying with its enforceable emissions limits and 
stack parameters for certain operating scenarios. The modeled 
attainment demonstration must be based on short term emissions limits 
or potential to emit and compliance with these limits is necessary to 
ensure attainment of the standard throughout the area.
    EPA considered all the available information during our review of 
whether the St. Bernard area attained or failed to attain the 
SO2 NAAQS by the attainment date, including information on 
emissions reductions from SO2 sources in the area. In this 
instance, the consent decrees and the LDEQ's attainment demonstration 
modeling relied upon federally enforceable reductions in short-term 
allowable emission rates. EPA acknowledges that there have been large 
reductions in actual SO2 emissions from the Rain facility 
and the two refineries in St. Bernard Parish. We note that Chalmette 
Refinery and Valero Refinery both had previously entered into consent 
decrees with the LDEQ and EPA that implemented new SO2 
emissions limits, including reduction of the facilities' allowable 
emission rates or Potential to Emit (PTE). As explained in more detail 
in the TSDs that accompany EPA's separate, prior approval of the 
attainment demonstration SIP for St. Bernard,\1\ EPA and LDEQ worked 
together to identify the current emission limits that reflect the 
reductions in short-term PTE/allowable emission rates for these two 
refineries (Chalmette Refinery and Valero Refinery) which LDEQ relied 
upon in its attainment demonstration modeling.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a May 29, 2019 final action, EPA approved the 
nonattainment area SIP for the St. Bernard area, which also included 
the area's attainment demonstration (84 FR 24712).
    \2\ EPA's Attainment Demonstration Supplemental TSD pages 14-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in more detail in response to a comment concerning the 
modeling in the attainment demonstration (subsection II.A.3 of this 
notice), EPA's 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality 
Models, requires the use of short-term PTE/allowable emissions when 
modeling the major sources in the nonattainment area. Since the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS is an hourly standard that is based on the three-
year average of the 99th percentile of the annual distribution of daily 
maximum one-hour average concentrations, the potential exists to 
violate the standard with relatively few modeled or monitored 
exceedances. For this reason, EPA's guidance is to model the short-term 
PTE/allowable limits for sources such as Rain, Chalmette Refinery and 
Valero Refinery. LDEQ included revised short-term PTE/allowable limits 
at Rain, Chalmette Refinery and Valero Refinery in its modeling for the 
attainment demonstration. These revised limits properly account for the 
allowable emission reductions by using the enforceable short-term PTE/
allowable emission rates based on the latest permit and consent decree 
data in 2018 when the modeling was conducted.
    The commenters did not identify any additional significant changes 
in enforceable short-term emission rates for the Rain, Chalmette, and 
Valero facilities that were required in 2018 that should have been 
included in the 2018 modeling. EPA acknowledges that there have been 
actual and allowable emission reductions in the last decade and since 
2016 and that the area's air quality has improved. However, these 
reductions in allowable emissions for all

[[Page 60275]]

three facilities were factored into the attainment demonstration 
modeling. Specifically, the modeling incorporated the most recent 
permit limits that existed in 2018 and included reductions that had 
already occurred from consent decrees for Chalmette and Valero 
refineries. These reductions at the refineries were already in the 
modeling that was used to analyze potential changes to Rain's February 
2018 AOC and identify the new short-term emission limits and stack 
parameters for Rain with which compliance was necessary to bring the 
area into modeled attainment. Therefore, the final modeling scenarios 
included the reductions necessary at Rain, including the emission 
limits and stack parameter limits for Rain's 11 operational scenarios. 
These emission limits and stack parameters were included in the August 
2, 2018 AOC between LDEQ and Rain. LDEQ's attainment demonstration 
modeling and SIP relied on these emissions limits as necessary for the 
area to attain the NAAQS. EPA's finding of failure to attain is based 
on all of the evidence before it, notably that the Rain facility has 
been unable to comply with those AOC limits that were necessary to 
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS.
    EPA disagrees with the commenters' claim that EPA failed to 
consider downward annual emissions trends and that these annual 
reductions are evidence that the area has attained the NAAQS. 
Reductions in longer term actual annual emissions are helpful, but 
changes in short-term PTE/allowable emission limits and short-term 
actual emissions are what is important for demonstrating and reaching 
attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. As explained earlier, 
the reductions in allowable short-term emissions for all three 
facilities were factored into the attainment demonstration modeling. 
These short-term emission limits have the most influence on the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS, as this standard is set to protect against acute 
short-term exposure of SO2; this is the reason EPA's 
modeling guidance \3\ specifies the use of short-term PTE/allowable 
SO2 emission limits in determining maximum modeled design 
values. We also note that any emission reductions that may have 
occurred after the October 4, 2018 attainment date cannot be used to 
support a determination of whether or not the area attained by October 
4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W--Guideline for Air Quality 
Models and Appendix A, Modeling Guidance for Nonattainment Areas of 
the April 23, 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment 
Area SIP Submissions, available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter mentioned that EPA had not directly factored in further 
reductions from federal measures for mobile and non-road emission 
sources as part of EPA's determination. First, EPA would like to 
clarify that the commenter misconstrued the potential degree of mobile 
(on-road and non-road) emission reductions. The commenter asserted that 
mobile and nonpoint source emissions accounted for hundreds of tons of 
SO2 emissions in 2011 (specifically, nonpoint emissions of 
702.22 tpy as provided in LDEQ's November 9, 2017 SIP); while this is 
correct, EPA notes that mobile (on-road and non-road) emissions are 
only a small portion of the emissions accounted for in nonpoint source 
emissions as part of the National Emission Inventory (NEI), and the 
nonpoint category includes other emission sources that did not have 
reductions due to the federal measures cited by the commenter. EPA 
notes that in that same SIP, the non-road and on-road SO2 
emissions for the 2011 NEI emissions for St. Bernard Parish were only 
1.31 and 2.35 tpy, respectively. Therefore, any reductions to these 
relatively small emissions from mobile sources due to federal rules 
would have a minimal impact on the overall inventory.
    Second, mobile source emissions are not explicitly modeled but are 
included as part of the background concentration which is then added to 
the modeled concentrations to result in modeled design values. The 
background concentration added to the modeling is already low \4\ and 
represents the impacts of all emission sources not explicitly modeled, 
including some mobile source emissions, and these mobile source 
emissions are only a small fraction of the SO2 sources that 
make up the total background concentration added to the modeled values. 
Therefore, any reductions of mobile source emissions due to federal 
measures from 2012-2014 up until the attainment date in 2018 that were 
represented in the background concentration would be expected to only 
potentially result in a very small change in the background 
concentration and would not be expected to significantly change the 
maximum modeled concentration. See the RTC document for more detailed 
discussion of mobile sources in the area and how the background 
concentration was estimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On average a relatively low background value of 6.27 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters argue that the Phillips 66 refinery plans to shut down 
and that EPA should consider the future potential reductions in 
emissions when determining whether the area has failed to timely attain 
the NAAQS. LDEQ included Phillips 66 refinery, located approximately 27 
km south of Rain, in the modeling provided as part of the 2018 
attainment demonstration SIP.\5\ It was operating at the time and 
Phillips' actual emissions were included in the attainment 
demonstration modeling as a background source in 2018. The EPA 
disagrees with the commenters, any emissions reductions that occurred 
after Oct. 4, 2018 at Phillips or any planned future emission 
reductions, including facility shutdowns, cannot be considered in 
determining if the area failed to attain by the October 4, 2018 
attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's Attainment Demonstration Supplemental TSD pages 7-8, 
14-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Monitoring Data
    Comment: The commenters state that the St. Bernard area monitors 
Meraux and Chalmette Vista show significant and continuous air quality 
improvements in both the monitored design value (DV) for SO2 
(which according to commenters now shows attainment) and the number of 
exceedances of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS. Commenters indicated 
that compared to data from the same monitors during the 2009-2015 
period, there has been dramatic improvement to the air quality in St. 
Bernard Parish due to the reductions in SO2 from multiple 
sources, including the Rain CII Carbon's Chalmette facility. 
Specifically, commenters indicate the Meraux monitor one-hour design 
value for 2018-2020 is about 10 percent of the SO2 NAAQS and 
the design value for the Chalmette Vista monitor for the same period is 
close to half the 75-ppb standard. Commenters included DVs for both 
monitors in St. Bernard Parish up to the 2018-2020 DVs to support their 
statements. Commenters argue that EPA should consider these 
improvements and downward trend of concentrations at the monitors, 
including the number of exceedances and the overall design values, in 
its determination as evidence that the St. Bernard area attained the 
SO2 NAAQS, as this data must be considered as probative and 
significant in any weight-of-evidence approach.
    In addition, EPA received several comments discussing the location 
of the monitors and arguing against EPA's position in its proposed 
determination that the monitors are not located in the area of maximum 
concentration for SO2.

[[Page 60276]]

These comments are summarized in the following three paragraphs.
    One commenter argues that it is unlikely that air quality is 
significantly different within St. Bernard Parish at other locations 
due to the proximity of the monitors to the major industrial sources--
for example, the Chalmette Vista monitor is located close to Rain CII 
Carbon and Chalmette Refining. Commenters state that if EPA cannot 
consider monitoring on its own to determine that the St. Bernard Parish 
area attained by the attainment date, it can use monitors in close 
proximity to major sources as strong evidence that the area is in 
attainment.
    EPA received comments that used the basis for the original siting 
of the monitors in St. Bernard as a reason for why these monitors are 
representative of air quality in the area and therefore indicative of 
the area's attainment. These comments indicated that EPA did not 
explain why the Chalmette Vista or Meraux monitors are not located in 
the area of maximum concentration as EPA considered close proximity to 
sources as a major factor when the agency approved the locations of 
five new SO2 monitors in other parishes in Louisiana in 
2016. In addition, based on prior SIP documents, commenters argue EPA 
used the Chalmette Vista and Meraux monitors to designate St. Bernard 
Parish as nonattainment with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    Another commenter criticized EPA's basis for its proposed 
determination, stating that EPA ``relies heavily'' upon the argument 
that the Chalmette Vista monitor is not located in the area of maximum 
concentration. The commenter countered EPA's position by indicating 
that the area of maximum concentration is located in the Jean Lafitte 
National Historical Park and Preserve, Chalmette Battlefield, which is 
a wide expanse of uninhabited land. Commenter continued that LDEQ has 
argued in discussions with EPA that the Chalmette Vista monitor is 
located in a neighborhood directly across from the Rain CII facility, 
making it better suited toward the protection of the residents.
    Response: EPA considered and reviewed the Chalmette Vista and 
Meraux monitoring data as part of our determination. While we take note 
of the downward trends raised in the comments, we disagree with the 
commenters' statements that the monitoring data is sufficient evidence 
the area attained by the attainment date. As we stated in our proposed 
action, although the one-hour SO2 design values at the 
Chalmette Vista monitoring site located within the St. Bernard area 
show a downward trend of SO2 concentrations less than 75 ppb 
for the one-hour standard beginning with the 2015-2017 design value, 
this monitor is not located in the area of maximum predicted 
concentration, and therefore cannot be used, on its own, to determine 
that the St. Bernard Parish area attained by the attainment date. 
Monitors can only provide a measurement of the air quality at a 
specific location and do not necessarily indicate whether the 
SO2 standard has been attained throughout the area. The 
commenters did not provide sufficient details but rather provided an 
unsupported claim that monitoring or monitoring along with other 
pertinent information should be enough to base a decision that the area 
reached attainment.
    As included in our TSDs for approval of the attainment 
demonstration SIP, we did note that monitored DVs had decreased at the 
Chalmette Vista and Meraux monitors.\6\ We also note, however, in 
Figure 6 of EPA's Supplemental TSD that the maximum modeled DV was to 
the west of Rain with a value of 190.8 [micro]g/m\3\ (97% of the 
NAAQS); Figure 6 also includes concentration isopleths in the area of 
the Chalmette Vista monitor, indicating the modeled DV near the monitor 
location was approximately 110 [micro]g/m\3\ which shows that the 
Chalmette Vista monitor is not sited to pick up the maximum DV in the 
area and is instead located in an area modeled to be approximately 58% 
of the maximum modeled DV.\7\ From the modeling, it is clear that the 
Chalmette Vista monitor and the Meraux monitor are not in the 
anticipated areas of maximum modeled design concentrations, and that 
contrary to the commenter's assertion, there are significant 
concentration gradients near the Rain facility. This is a logical 
result; when winds are blowing from the east, the emissions of the 
Valero refinery and Chalmette refinery are in line with Rain, and 
therefore, the emissions from all three sources combine to result in 
the maximum concentrations being located to the West, downwind of Rain 
(the largest emitter of the three sources). When the wind is blowing 
Rain's emissions to the North towards the Chalmette Vista monitor, 
emissions from Chalmette refinery or Valero refinery are not in 
alignment such that emissions from these two facilities could combine 
with Rain's emissions to result in a maximum monitored or modeled value 
in the area around the monitor. For situations where winds are blowing 
from the West and emissions from the three facilities overlap to the 
east of the facilities, the emissions from the largest SO2 
source (Rain) have already been transported several miles and will have 
experienced dispersion; this causes (1) the concentrations to the east 
of Valero refinery near the Meraux monitor location to not be as large 
as when winds are blowing from the east and (2) the maximum area 
concentrations modeled to be located to the west of Rain. Therefore, 
the Chalmette Vista and Meraux monitors are not located in the area of 
the expected maximum DV in the modeling domain and EPA cannot rely upon 
the monitoring data alone to determine the area has attained; this is 
the case even considering the proximity of the monitors to major 
stationary sources of SO2 and other relevant information in 
the St. Bernard area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA's Attainment Demonstration Supplemental TSD pages 5-6.
    \7\ EPA's Attainment Demonstration Supplemental TSD pages 24-25; 
EPA's Attainment Demonstration TSD including pages 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to comments concerning LDEQ's siting of new 
SO2 monitors in other parishes in Louisiana in 2016 based on 
close proximity to sources, these monitors were sited for the purpose 
of characterizing 1-hr SO2 air quality for designation 
purposes under the Data Requirements Rule (DRR) \8\ and EPA provided 
guidance \9\ to use modeling to identify the location or locations of 
ambient SO2 concentration maxima to inform monitor siting. 
LDEQ did site SO2 monitors in 2016 based on proximity and 
modeling to try and identify the area where maximum DVs might be 
monitored. However, monitor siting can be complicated, and siting of 
monitors can be restricted by availability or accessibility of a 
suitable location, including obtaining permissions from landowners and 
finding necessary support services, such as power. These real-world 
logistical constraints can sometimes make it impossible to site 
monitors at specific locations that may be predicted by modeling to be 
locations of expected maximum concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ August 21, 2015, Final Rule, ``Data Requirements Rule for 
the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),'' 80 FR 51051.
    \9\ SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented Monitoring 
Technical Assistance Document, February 2016. Available in the 
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter specifically referred to LDEQ locating 5 monitors in 
2016 around other facilities in Louisiana outside of St. Bernard Parish 
as part of the DRR monitoring. The commenter believes that because 
these monitors were located near the sources in those areas, and 4 of 
these 5 monitors had

[[Page 60277]]

measured 2017-2019 DVs less than half of the NAAQS such that they were 
eventually removed, that this information provides support that the 
Chalmette Vista and Meraux monitors DVs are representative of the 
maximum DV in the St. Bernard area since they were also located near 
the source. As discussed elsewhere, the Chalmette Vista and Meraux 
monitors were installed prior to the promulgation of the 1-hr 
SO2 NAAQS, and no modeling was done at the time to confirm 
if these monitors were near the location of the expected modeled 
maximum design values whereas, as discussed, the goal of the DRR was to 
locate monitors close to the point of maximum expected concentration. 
The fact that DRR monitors in other areas were sited near a source(s) 
based on modeling and other considerations and had low 2017-2019 
monitored DVs does not support the comment that the Chalmette Vista 
monitor and Meraux monitor are representative of the maximum DV in the 
St. Bernard Parish and does not provide sufficient evidence that all 
portions of the area meet the standard. Instead, available modeling 
shows that the Chalmette Vista monitor and Meraux monitor are not in 
the area of maximum projected concentrations and thus cannot provide 
sufficient evidence that the entire area attained. We also note that 
for all of these DRR monitored areas, there are differences that exist 
between modeling of a historical period (2012-2014 in this case) and 
the monitor data that was gathered from 2017-2019 including differences 
in meteorology and emissions of the primary and nearby sources that can 
result in large differences between modeled values \10\ and monitored 
values, including the magnitude and location of the maximum 
concentration in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ With the exception of the monitor sited in Calcasieu 
Parish, the modeling performed in 2016 to site these monitors was 
done in a normalized mode, such that absolute values were not 
generated so it is unclear from the modeling results, whether the 
absolute values were modeled above, near, or significantly below the 
1-hr SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned by the commenter, the Chalmette monitor was sited 
prior to issuance of the DRR based on consideration towards 
characterizing air quality in the Chalmette neighborhood near the 
source, providing relevant data on population exposures, but was not 
based on an evaluation of the location of the maximum ambient 
concentrations in the area.\11\ Furthermore, the additional controls 
installed, lower emission limits, and stack parameter conditions 
(temperature and flow rate) captured in the August 2018 AOC for Rain 
sources combined with the other enforceable reductions at other 
facilities resulted in significant changes that impacted the dispersion 
of emissions from Rain and the modeling results and where the maximum 
modeled concentrations occur in the area. We also note that while the 
Chalmette monitor data was the basis of the nonattainment designation 
in 2013,\12\ that data showed that there were measured hourly 
concentrations above the level of the standard at the monitor during 
that time period (2009-2011) but did not provide any information as to 
the location or magnitude of the maximum concentration in the Parish 
and whether the monitor was located in the Parish's area of maximum 
concentration. Even though a monitor may measure hourly concentrations 
above the standard, it does not demonstrate that the monitor is sited 
in an area of maximum concentration. In other words, it only 
demonstrates that the concentration it measures is above the level of 
the standard, and, absent other information, leaves open the 
possibility that other locations in the area may be experiencing even 
higher concentrations. Furthermore, since the area was designated 
nonattainment in 2013, there have been changes such as (1) changed 
stack parameters, (2) installation of controls, and (3) reductions in 
emissions limits at Rain and other facilities which have resulted in 
changes to the air shed and where maximum concentrations will occur as 
of the October 4, 2018 attainment, thus further highlighting the need 
to rely on modeling to identify the location of the maximum design 
value in the St. Bernard Parish area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Chalmette Vista and Meraux monitors began operations in 
2006 and 2007 respectively and were not sited based on modeling for 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, so neither monitor would be 
expected to be representative of maximum 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS.
    \12\ See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter argues that the maximum modeled DV is located in the Jean 
Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Chalmette Battlefield, 
that it is an uninhabited area, and that the Chalmette Vista monitor is 
located in a neighborhood directly across from the Rain CII facility, 
making it better suited toward the protection of the residents. 
Depending on the model run for the different Rain operating scenarios, 
the location of the modeled maximum concentration is in slightly 
different locations, and in the Supplemental TSD, the maximum modeled 
value was not located within the Chalmette Battlefield but further to 
the West.\13\ Regardless of the exact location of the maximum modeled 
DV, EPA's ambient air standards apply to the entire nonattainment area, 
in all areas that are considered ambient air. Ambient air is defined in 
40 CFR 50.1(e) as ``that portion of the atmosphere, external to 
buildings, to which the general public has access.'' Presence of 
permanent residences is not a condition of whether the NAAQS applies in 
an area, and EPA's attainment demonstration and determination of 
attainment is based on the NAAQS being met at all potential ambient air 
locations in the nonattainment area regardless of population level. 
While EPA acknowledges that the Chalmette Vista monitor may be better 
suited towards determining exposure of some nearby residents, it is not 
representative of concentrations of other neighborhoods in other nearby 
areas, as we found modeled concentrations located at other populated 
areas that were higher than values modeled at the Chalmette Vista 
monitor. In conclusion, the Chalmette Vista monitor data is not 
representative or determinative of whether the entire nonattainment 
area has attained the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Supplemental TSD page 25 including Figure 6. Figure 6 
provides modeled results for the Rain Cold Stack standalone high 
operations scenario, and the maximum DV was located across the river 
in Jefferson Parish near a neighborhood with permanent residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Attainment Demonstration Model Performance
    Comment: EPA received a number of comments on the attainment 
demonstration's modeling for the St. Bernard area. Commenters argued 
that the conservative nature of the modeling submitted by LDEQ is 
evidence that EPA should consider as a factor when determining whether 
the St. Bernard area attained the SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, 
commenters indicated AERMOD modeling is conservative by nature because 
it was based on conservative inputs, representative of reasonable 
worst-case conditions. Commenters also stated AERMOD modeling typically 
predicts impacts higher than air quality monitoring, often 
significantly higher than nearby monitoring sites, and that prior 
comments to LDEQ's proposed SIP reference studies that illustrate that 
AERMOD overpredicts SO2 concentrations (see LDEQ EDMS DocID 
10860978, pp. 47-171). Commenter summarized that AERMOD includes use of 
allowable peak emissions instead of actual emissions and worst-case 
meteorological data and is conservative

[[Page 60278]]

because of these factors, and EPA should weigh this conservativeness 
with other factors in making its determination. Multiple commenters 
indicated that despite the use of an overly conservative model, LDEQ's 
modeling demonstrated that the proposed controls resulted in attainment 
of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. A commenter also indicated that the 
modeling used the maximum PTE and the likelihood that all three major 
contributing sources would emit at their PTE at the same time is 
minimal. Commenter also indicated that facilities' actual emissions 
have consistently been below their PTE.
    Commenter indicated that other evidence instead supports, rather 
than contradicts, the modeling results. Commenter referred to Table 2 
in the Proposed Finding of Nonattainment, which shows the modeling 
results that modeled the maximum potential to emit (PTE) of all the 
major sources contributing to the ambient design values, including 
three different operating scenarios for Rain, the largest 
SO2 source in St. Bernard Parish.
    Commenter indicated the modeling essentially ``double-counted'' 
emissions from the out-of-parish, distant, Phillips 66 source at 
Alliance, Plaquemines Parish. Citing the Supplemental TSD for our 
approval of LDEQ's attainment demonstration, commenters argue the 
actual 2017 emissions from Phillips 66 were included in the model as a 
conservative measure even though accepted EPA protocols did not require 
Phillips 66 emissions to be included. Commenters then argue that these 
emissions were double counted when they were also accounted for in the 
``background'' values from the Meraux monitoring data.
    A commenter claims that EPA's required modeling protocols result in 
very conservative predictions of ambient SO2 levels (i.e., 
overpredicted levels), stating that under the EPA's SO2 
NAAQS Data Requirements Rule (DRR), LDEQ placed ambient SO2 
monitors in five locations outside the St. Bernard area that began 
monitoring by January 1, 2017, and the modeling for these other areas 
indicated that levels would be well above the 1-hour SO2 
standard. However, as evidence that the modeling is very conservative, 
commenter indicated that at four of these locations, more than three 
years of monitoring data collected showed ambient levels at less than 
50% of the standard, and pursuant to EPA's monitoring requirements EPA 
subsequently approved discontinuation of monitoring at those locations, 
referring to the LDEQ 2020 Louisiana Annual Network Monitoring Plan 
submitted to EPA on April 5, 2020.
    Commenter argues that based on these other monitors not in St. 
Bernard Parish, the modeled predictions of high ambient SO2 
levels shown in the modeling done by LDEQ and EPA for St. Bernard 
Parish is likewise very conservative. Commenter concluded that where 
such modeling predicts attainment and such predictions are supported by 
actual monitored design values at nearby monitors showing levels below 
the model predictions, the modeled predictions should be accepted as 
prima facie evidence of attainment.
    Commenter argues that although EPA characterizes the modeled values 
in the SIP attainment demonstration as being ``close'' to the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS, even the worst operational scenario had a design 
value at least 2 ppb below the standard (3% below). Furthermore, some 
other operational scenarios yielded worst case predictions that were 
11% and 5% below the standard, respectively. The commenters seemed to 
be indicating that there is some head room in the modeling results such 
that any non-compliance with emission limits or stack parameters may 
not lead to actual concentrations that would result in exceedances or 
violations of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    Response: We disagree with the comments that the AERMOD model and 
EPA's modeling protocols result in ``very conservative'' 
overpredictions of ambient SO2 concentrations. As discussed 
in the proposed rule, LDEQ used the most recent version of AERMOD and 
followed EPA's guidance for SIP modeling for SO2.\14\ The 
attainment demonstration modeling is based on PTE/allowable emissions 
(i.e., the maximum permitted amount) and stack parameters for different 
operational stages at the Rain facility, including stand-alone 
operations for the waste heat boiler and the pyroscrubber and 
transition stages between the two modes of operation.\15\ Consequently, 
the attainment demonstration modeling reflects the maximum level of 
emissions and ambient concentrations that could occur while sources 
meet the SIP emission limits and required stack parameters, as required 
by the CAA and our regulations. When EPA approved this modeling 
demonstration for this purpose, such demonstration was not the subject 
of a challenge, and EPA is not reopening the fundamental conclusions 
about the modeling that it previously reached in this action. Again, 
the issue is Rain's inability to comply with the emission limits and 
stack parameters in the attainment demonstration SIP which the 
attainment modeling indicated were necessary for the area to attain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Appendix A, Modeling Guidance for Nonattainment Areas 
of the April 23, 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP 
Submissions, available in the docket for this action.
    \15\ 86 FR 69213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AERMOD is the regulatory air dispersion model \16\ for use in 
assessing near field (within 50 kilometers) criteria pollutant ambient 
air concentrations for air quality analyses for regulatory purposes. 
AERMOD has been subjected to an extensive, independent peer review. 
Analysis of AERMOD's performance with field study data sets indicates 
that AERMOD performs best for elevated point sources such as Rain and 
the other larger SO2 emission sources in the modeling and 
provides maximum modeled design values with an acceptable degree of 
accuracy. The result is a slightly conservative and protective 
estimation of maximum modeled DVs for these types of sources, not, as 
commenter characterizes it, an overestimation which always results in 
monitoring showing attainment. While AERMOD might be slightly 
conservative in model predictions, modeling for attainment 
demonstrations cannot have tendencies to underestimate concentrations 
as that would result in violations of air quality standards going 
undetected and would not be protective of public health. EPA 
promulgated AERMOD as the preferred model to characterize impacts from 
emission sources for 1-hour SO2 maximum DV concentrations 
(and several other NAAQS pollutants) in 2005 and it has been used in 
numerous designations for SO2 and Lead, numerous attainment 
demonstration SIPs for criteria pollutants such as SO2, 
PM2.5, and Lead, as well as in numerous permit application 
analyses. See the RTC document for full analysis of specific comments 
on AERMOD modeling performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W--Guideline for Air Quality 
Models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality Models, 
requires the use of short-term maximum PTE/allowable emissions when 
modeling the primary source(s) in the nonattainment area (see Section 8 
including Table 8-1) including the source(s) that are being evaluated 
for an emission limit. Since the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is an 
hourly standard that is based on the three-year average of the 99th 
percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum one-hour average 
concentrations, it does not take many modeled or monitored

[[Page 60279]]

exceedances to result in violations of the standard. For these reasons, 
it is necessary to model the short-term (hourly) maximum PTE/allowable 
emission rate limits for sources such as Rain, Chalmette Refinery and 
Valero Refinery. LDEQ's attainment demonstration SIP included revised 
short-term PTE/allowable emission limits and stack parameters for Rain, 
along with the short-term PTE allowable emission limits for Chalmette 
Refinery, and Valero Refinery. It was these limits that Rain did not 
comply with during certain periods making it not possible to find the 
area had attained by its attainment date.
    Several commenters compared actual annual emissions to annual PTE/
allowable emissions and indicated that actual emissions have been lower 
than PTE/allowable emissions at Rain, Chalmette Refinery, and Valero 
Refinery. Regardless of annual actual emissions, the sources likely 
operated at higher hourly emission rates much of the time and had the 
legal authority to operate up to the maximum hourly PTE/allowable 
emission rates. Moreover, at issue is that Rain, in fact, did not 
comply at all times with its required allowable short-term emissions 
limits and stack parameters in the AOC which the attainment modeling 
showed was necessary for the area to attain the NAAQS.
    Contrary to the commenters' claims, we did consider how actual 
emissions may have differed from what was modeled in our evaluation of 
the evidence, including the modeling results. When relying on a 
modeling demonstration based on allowable emissions for purposes of 
determining attainment by the attainment date, EPA looks to the 
emission limit(s) and any other limits (stack parameters in this case) 
that were adopted and whether the relevant source or sources were 
complying with those modeled limits prior to the attainment date. In 
other words, EPA looks to whether the state has demonstrated that the 
control strategy in the SIP has been fully implemented. One of the ways 
to determine if the plan was fully implemented is to review compliance 
records to determine if the control measures have been implemented as 
required by the approved SIP. This is necessary because a modeling 
demonstration based on allowable emissions alone is not sufficient to 
verify factual air quality status without the supporting information on 
compliance with those emission limits and associated stack parameter 
limits. We discuss facility compliance in more detail in the following 
section (subsection II.A.4). As explained in subsection II.A.4, because 
emissions at times exceeded the allowable limits and/or stack 
parameters failed to meet the minimum requirements that were modeled, 
LDEQ's modeling is not conservative and actual concentrations would be 
expected to be higher than LDEQ's modeling results. We note that Rain 
also underestimated pyroscrubber emissions (discussed further in this 
response and the next response) which would further contribute to 
underestimation of actual concentrations when pyroscrubber emissions 
occurred.
    In sum, from the available information, EPA cannot determine with 
certainty that the area attained the NAAQS as the emissions and stack 
parameters at times fall outside the limits and conditions that were 
modeled in the approved attainment demonstration. The noted violations 
of the permit limits or underestimated emissions would be expected to 
result in higher concentrations than were modeled and may have resulted 
in exceedances and violations of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
areas other than the monitored location.
    In our evaluation, we focused on the time period between adoption 
of the AOC on August 2, 2018, and the attainment date of October 4, 
2018. For that approximately 2-month period, Rain identified 7 days 
where they were not in compliance with either emission limits and/or 
stack parameter limits in the AOC.\17\ Modeling analyses, including 
many exploratory model runs performed by EPA and/or LDEQ, were 
conducted to help establish the 11 operational scenarios with 
associated emission limits and stack parameter limits in the AOC. The 
modeled concentrations were sensitive to changes in the stack 
parameters of stack air flow and minimum temperature. Changes to these 
factors impact the ground-level concentrations by changing how high the 
plume lofts and how quickly it reaches ground levels. Decreases to 
stack flow rate and/or stack temperature would be expected to result in 
decreased dispersion and increases in ground-level ambient air 
concentrations and potentially move where the maximum modeled 
concentrations occur. Therefore, if actual air flow and/or stack 
temperature is below the minimum values in the AOC that were modeled, 
the maximum modeled design value in the attainment demonstration 
modeling results is no longer conservative and is likely an 
underestimation of the actual maximum DV due to the reduced dispersion 
as a result of less than minimum stack flow or temperature. For the 
different modeling scenarios in the attainment demonstration, Rain's 
emissions were the largest contributor to the maximum modeled design 
values in the modeling domain. Therefore, the described changes to 
Rain's dispersion characteristics coupled with an underestimation of 
actual pyroscrubber emissions (for scenarios with pyroscrubber 
emissions) would be expected to increase the maximum modeled DVs and 
could result in modeled DVs that are above the 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS. On 6 of these 7 days, Rain reported emitting below the required 
minimum stack flow rate for the pyroscrubber stack for transitional 
scenarios.\18\ Emitting at flow rates below the minimum airflow 
requirements would result in higher ambient air impacts from 
pyroscrubber stack emissions and the maximum design value would be 
expected to increase. A number of scenarios were established to model 
the air quality impacts when Rain transitioned its operations from full 
operation through the pyroscrubber stack to operation though the heat 
recovery stack.\19\ Since in all of these transitional scenarios of 
emissions, the emissions from Rains' pyroscrubber stack had a large 
impact on the maximum modeled design values, the periods when Rain was 
not meeting minimum stack parameters raise a real concern that the 
attainment demonstration modeling results do not reflect the situation 
that actually occurred and do not reflect a conservative assessment of 
the actual maximum modeled design value at the attainment date. If 
these non-compliance periods with lower flowrates and/or temperatures 
were modeled, they would have a higher maximum modeled concentration 
value than the AOC required stack parameters would allow for during the 
same modeled period and would likely show a violation of the NAAQS. 
Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere, pyroscrubber emissions were 
underestimated and actual emissions, if modeled, would also result in a 
higher maximum modeled concentration than the AOC emission limits would 
allow for during the same modeled period and would likely show a 
violation of the NAAQS.

[[Page 60280]]

Without knowing the exact parameters and pyroscrubber emissions we 
cannot model these actual stack parameters and emissions and confirm 
with certainty that the value would model a violation, but we do know 
the modeling for the attainment demonstration was very sensitive to 
stack parameters and pyroscrubber emissions such that it is likely that 
these excursion periods would have resulted in some exceedances and 
potentially violations of the NAAQS. Because of this, the EPA cannot 
determine with certainty that the area attained the NAAQS. As discussed 
further in our responses in other parts of this notice, the form of the 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS is very sensitive to a small number of 
exceedance or near exceedance hours within days each year (on the order 
of 4 days a year, on average), so having 7 days of non-compliance in a 
two-month period is concerning and threatens the ability to attain the 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See deviations listed in the semiannual monitoring report 
for July 1-December 31, 2018 included in the docket for this action.
    \18\ Transitional scenarios are operational scenarios identified 
in the AOC that have emissions from both pyroscrubber and waste heat 
boiler stacks.
    \19\ See EPA's Attainment Demonstration Supplemental TSD pages 
20-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the commenter noted, some of the attainment demonstration 
modeling for these transition scenarios resulted in DVs that were 11% 
below the NAAQS (range of all transition stages was 5% to 15% below the 
NAAQS) implying the modeling had some margin of safety. As discussed in 
the next response (subsection II.A.4), the 2019 stack test results 
indicate that pyroscrubber emissions have been underestimated by at 
least 10% and up to approximately 60% at times,\20\ which would remove 
much, if not all, of the head room even without factoring in dispersion 
worse than what was modeled due to not complying with minimum stack 
flow and temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Table 5 of the 2019 Stack Test Report, available in the 
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, when the facility is in its transition stages, the 
current equation to determine air flow volume through the hot stack 
underestimates the amount of flow, resulting in further underestimation 
of pyroscrubber stack emissions. We note that Rain has recently 
proposed changes to the emissions equation and stack flow equation are 
based on Rain's analyses of the existing equations to stack tests in 
2019-2021. This change in the emissions equation and stack flow 
equation proposed by Rain is not before EPA or LDEQ for official 
review. We note that it does support EPA's concerns that the emissions 
and stack parameter limits in the August 2, 2018 AOC were not 
implemented at all times and actual emissions may have exceeded the 
allowable emission rates at a higher frequency than reported in the 
compliance reports. If these different operating parameters and/or 
higher emission rates were modeled, the maximum modeled design values 
would be higher, and, therefore, the existing approved modeling results 
are not conservative. Without knowing the exact parameters and amount 
of higher pyroscrubber emissions we cannot model these actual stack 
parameters and emissions, but we do know the modeling for the 
attainment demonstration was very sensitive to stack parameters and 
pyroscrubber emissions such that it is likely that these excursion 
periods would have resulted in some exceedances and potentially 
violations of the NAAQS. Because of this, EPA cannot determine with 
certainty that the area attained the NAAQS.
    The Phillips 66 refinery (Phillips) south of Rain was included in 
the modeling that LDEQ provided as part of the attainment demonstration 
SIP and is located approximately 27 km south of Rain.\21\ Phillips was 
operating at the time, and Phillips' actual emissions were included in 
the modeling as a background source at the time the attainment 
demonstration was submitted in 2018. Since the maximum modeled 
concentrations were to the West of Rain, even if the background monitor 
value included any impacts from Phillips 66, the modeled impacts from 
Phillips emissions would not be transported to add to the maximum 
modeled concentration; this is due to Phillips not being located upwind 
(East or West) of Rain, which means there is no double-counting of 
Phillips emissions impacts to the maximum modeled DVs in the modeling 
for the different operational scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA's Attainment Demonstration Supplemental TSD pages 7-8, 
14-16, found in the docket for this rulemaking. Modeling results in 
modeling files for other operating scenarios are included in the 
Supplemental TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See the RTC and our response to the previous comment in subsection 
II.A.2 about monitors in other areas and how the information provided 
is not sufficient to understand how modeled concentrations for the 
2012-2014 period and monitored values from 2017-2019 compare.
4. Facility Compliance
    Comment: The commenters state that EPA should consider the overall 
level of compliance by the Rain facility with its Title V permit and 
the AOC agreement in its determination of whether the St. Bernard area 
has attained the SO2 NAAQS. The commenter disagrees that the 
Rain facility has not achieved a high degree of compliance with the 
SO2 emissions limits set forth in its current Title V 
Operating Permit and the AOC agreement. Commenter continues that Rain 
has operated below their sitewide permitted SO2 emission 
limit most of the time for the past four years in addition to operating 
below permitted limits of individual sources most of the time. The 
commenter also claims that the compliance history of the waste heat 
boiler/baghouse and the pyroscrubber stack with the permit and AOC 
limits in 2020 and 2021, coupled with the relatively few excursions of 
operating parameters that occurred for the period August 2, 2018, 
through October 4, 2018, show that EPA's justification for its proposed 
determination is inadequate.
    In reference to annual emissions, the commenter indicated the 
facility's permitted SO2 emissions for the entire site 
(i.e., all sources of SO2 emissions at the facility) are 
currently 2,626 tpy and that Rain has operated well below this sitewide 
annual total over the past four years in addition to annual 
SO2 limits for individual sources. Commenter continued that 
the current Title V permit also includes short-term SO2 
emissions limits for the waste heat boiler/baghouse (EQT 0003) and the 
pyroscrubber stack (EQT 0004). The waste heat boiler/baghouse (EQT 
0003) has a maximum 510.00 lb/hr SO2 limit and the 
pyroscrubber stack (EQT 0004) has a maximum 2,022.70 lb/hr 
SO2 limit.
    Commenter indicates that the AOC Agreement, entered between LDEQ 
and Rain CII Carbon and effective on August 2, 2018, includes 11 
distinct emissions limits for SO2 associated with the waste 
heat boiler/baghouse (EQT 0003) and/or the pyroscrubber (EQT 0004). 
Commenter stated that these emissions limits vary depending on 
operating conditions of the rotary kiln and associated process 
equipment and was established based on flow and temperature parameters. 
Additionally, the AOC Agreement also includes various monitoring, 
reporting, recordkeeping, and testing requirements for the waste heat 
boiler/baghouse and the pyroscrubber to ensure compliance with the 
underlying emission limits. Commenter asserted that an excursion of 
stack parameter limits such as flowrate or temperature parameter (for 
one of the 11 distinct emission limits) does not necessarily equate to 
an exceedance of an SO2 emissions limit and therefore EPA 
does not know for sure that an exceedance of the NAAQS level would have 
resulted.
    Commenter also provided information about the waste heat boiler/
baghouse (EQT 0003) operations for 2020 and first half of 2021, 
indicating it was only out

[[Page 60281]]

of compliance for 30 hours in 2020 and 15 hours in the first half of 
2021 and that it was in in compliance more than 99.6% of the time it 
operated. Commenter noted that the Title V permit limits the 
pyroscrubber stack (EQT 0004) to a maximum of 500 hours/year on a 12-
month rolling average and that the facility has not exceeded that 
limit. Regarding pyroscrubber stack operations for 2020 and the first 
half of 2021, commenter indicated Rain was only out of compliance for 
72 of 7,234 hours in 2020 and 78 out of 4,018 hours for the first half 
of 2021 resulting in compliance 99.0 percent of the time in 2020 and 
98.1 percent of the time in the first half of 2021.
    Commenter summarized that except for very limited periods, the Rain 
facility has not exceeded the short-term SO2 emissions 
limits over the past four years, indicated by the facility's Title V 
semiannual deviation reports and annual compliance certifications. 
Commenter noted that the Title V permit requires Rain to operate and 
maintain a SO2 continuous emissions monitor (``CEMS'') for 
the waste heat boiler/baghouse (EQT 0003) to ensure compliance with 
these limits (See, Specific Requirement Nos. 55-58 and 80 in Title V 
Permit No. 2500-00006-V4).
    Commenter (Rain) also indicated EPA should consider the pending 
amendment to the currently effective AOC Agreement entered on August 2, 
2018. Commenter indicated that Rain has conducted performance tests on 
the pyroscrubber stack on March 8-9, 2018, and July 7-8, 2018, and 
after implementation of the AOC Agreement. Rain CII Carbon conducted 
additional performance tests on March 13-14, 2019, July 22-23, 2020, 
and September 15-19, 2021. Based on these performance tests, Rain has 
proposed an amendment to the AOC Agreement that would revise certain 
flow and temperature operating parameters. Commenter continued that 
Rain's proposed amendment, currently under review by LDEQ and 
preliminary review by EPA, will further reduce the self-reported flow 
and temperature excursions for the waste heat boiler/baghouse and 
pyroscrubber emissions points. Commenters assert that EPA should take 
these pending proposed changes to the AOC Agreement into account as a 
part of its determination whether the area attained the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS.
    Commenter LDEQ indicated it would concede that Rain has not 
adequately met the emission limits in the AOC. However, LDEQ then 
claims that all equations used to establish those limits were based 
upon theoretical modeling scenarios contrived from the facility's 
operations and, therefore, it is difficult to predict every possible 
operating combination for this facility. LDEQ argues that modeling the 
periods when the facility did not meet the established limits would 
present a better picture of whether the area was attaining, rather than 
assuming that the limited number of modeled combinations are the only 
possible combinations which would pass modeling. LDEQ stated that it 
continues to model new combinations of emission limits and stack 
parameters for Rain's proposed amendment to the AOC Agreement entered 
on August 2, 2018, and LDEQ and EPA \22\ are currently providing 
feedback on those elements. LDEQ indicated that there are numerous 
variations of operating parameters that result in passing models with 
new stack operating parameter ranges and revised emission limits that 
are under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The EPA wishes to clarify that this language summarizes 
what the commenter stated. The EPA has not received a formal 
submittal from LDEQ of a revised AOC. The EPA is only providing 
preliminary, early engagement support here as it does with all 
technical matters when requested by the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: With respect to comments that EPA should consider the 
compliance period as a whole from 2017 through 2021, EPA disagrees. EPA 
is required to determine if the area's air quality attained or did not 
attain by the October 4, 2018, attainment date. As part of that 
determination, EPA considers whether control measures approved in the 
attainment SIP were fully implemented by that date. In our proposal, we 
provided evidence that Rain has struggled to meet the SIP-approved AOC 
limits in the period up to the October 4, 2018 attainment date to 
support our proposed finding of failure to attain. We note that the 
commenters have provided additional information that indicates the Rain 
facility has continued to have non-compliance periods past the October 
4, 2018 attainment date and that Rain is working with LDEQ and EPA to 
revise the emission rate limits and stack parameters limits for 
different operating scenarios, modify the emission calculation formula 
for the pyroscrubber stack, and complete revised modeling incorporating 
these proposed changes.\23\ (We note that when referring to the waste 
heat boiler/baghouse (EQT 0003) we will shorten to ``waste heat 
boiler'' and for the pyroscrubber (EQT 0004) we will shorten to 
``pyroscrubber.'') While the period following the October 4, 2018 
attainment date is not the basis for EPA's final determination, this 
additional information is illustrative that Rain did not demonstrate 
full compliance with the August 4, 2018 AOC limits both in the period 
up to October 4, 2018, and after October 4, 2018, which further 
supports EPA's final determination that the attainment demonstration 
SIP for St. Bernard Parish that EPA approved had not been fully 
implemented. This EPA approved attainment demonstration SIP included 
necessary requirements for the Rain facility that formed the basis of 
the modeling demonstration in the SIP and EPA's approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See deviations in 2021 first half Compliance report, 2021 
Stack Test report, and Email (with attachments) from LDEQ to EPA on 
December 8, 2021, that provided updated analysis of pyroscrubber 
emission formula compared with stack test data, proposed new 
emission and stack parameter limits or to be included in a future 
AOC revision, and updated modeling. These are included in the docket 
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the comment that Rain had complied and been below 
the annual emission limits for the last four years (facility total and 
unit limits) we note that this is not of central importance in 
determining if the area has attained the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 
As discussed in Section II.A.2, determination of attainment could be 
based on as few as 12 hours that have modeled/monitored exceedances or 
near exceedances at a receptor/monitor in a 3-year period.\24\ 
Compliance with annual total emissions does not take into account short 
term emission rates variation and whether emission limits (defined by 
certain stack parameter regimes) are being complied with for all 
operating hours. Therefore, compliance with annual tpy emissions is not 
germane to determining if the area has attained. Again, the form of the 
standard is such that as few as 12 hours or less of modeled exceedances 
or near exceedances could result in a modeled DV that does not attain 
the standard; therefore, even a small number of short periods of non-
compliance with an emission limit or the required stack parameters can 
result in a violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The 1-hour SO2 Design Value is an average of the 
yearly 4th High maximum daily 1-hour SO2 value of each 
year, thus the DV is based on 12 values at a receptor/monitor that 
are either exceedances or near the standard that when the average of 
3 consecutive years results in a DV that violates the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to LDEQ's attainment demonstration SIP proposal in 2017 and 
leading up to the revised limits in the August 2, 2018 AOC; EPA, LDEQ, 
and Rain continued to conduct modeling to refine the operational 
scenarios and identify emission limits for each scenario that were 
specific to stack volume flow ranges and temperature ranges because the 
modeling was very

[[Page 60282]]

sensitive to the combination of emissions and the stack parameter 
ranges; outside of the specific stack parameters for these operational 
scenarios, the emission rates would often model nonattainment.\25\ The 
revised August 2, 2018 AOC established revised emission limits with 
specific temperature ranges and stack flow ranges that Rain believed 
they could comply with. These limits are not theoretical ranges as they 
were based on the combination of previous stack tests and input from 
Rain, which led to established ranges that cover the combinations of 
emissions and stack parameters that could realistically occur. The 
stack parameter ranges were modeled to establish what emission limits 
would not result in modeled violations (DVs above the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS), and the stack parameters define what is the 
applicable emission limit. These updated AOC limits in the August 2, 
2018 AOC and attainment demonstration modeling results, highlight the 
need for Rain to fully implement and achieve strict compliance with the 
emissions limits and associated stack parameter ranges in order for St. 
Bernard Parish to attain the NAAQS. We also note that prior to August 
2, 2018, Rain was not operating in compliance with the limits in the 
previous AOC, and this was a principal reason for the establishment of 
new limits in the revised August 2, 2018 AOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See TSDs and other materials in EPA's approval of LDEQ's 1-
hour SO2 attainment demonstration SIP for St. Bernard 
Parish in the docket for this action (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-
0558).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters did not contest that Rain was not in compliance with AOC 
limits for 7 days in the period from August 2, 2018, through October 4, 
2018; commenters only argued that the period of noncompliance was a 
short amount of the time, and that the facility was in compliance most 
of the time. However, EPA would again like to emphasize that given the 
form of the 1-hour SO2 standard discussed earlier, a very 
small number of periods of non-compliance with the established AOC 
limits (as few as 1 hour per day for 4 days in a year, on average) can 
result in modeled and/or monitored violations, and, therefore, having 7 
days of non-compliance in less than 2 months can result in several 
modeled exceedances of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The model 
demonstrating attainment did not assume compliance with the modeling 
parameters 90% of the time or the majority of the time but all of the 
time. Modeling results were sensitive to stack parameters and emission 
rates such that any time the facility was out of compliance there is a 
high likelihood that an exceedance could occur. Furthermore, as 
discussed in more detail later in this response, there were likely more 
times that the facility was not in compliance in the period from August 
2, 2018 through October 4, 2018 that were not identified due to 
underestimation of emissions and/or uncertainty in estimated flow 
rates. We also note that prior to August 2, 2018, Rain was not 
operating in compliance with the limits in the previous February 2018 
AOC that were also based on different emission rate limits for 
different stack parameters operational ranges.
    Commenter included details about the number of hours of non-
compliance for 2020 and first half of 2021 and summarized that Rain was 
only noncompliant a relatively small percentage of the time during that 
period. EPA included Rain's 2018 through 2020 semi-annual monitoring 
reports, where Rain reported non-compliance periods, in the docket for 
this rulemaking's proposal action. Since the commenter referred to the 
2021 semi-annual monitoring report for the first half of 2021, we are 
also including that report in the docket for this action. While the 
compliance record with AOC limits since October 4, 2018 is not the 
basis for our determination of whether the area has attained, it is 
informative to note that the facility continues to have a number of 
hours and days where it fails to comply with the August 2, 2018 AOC 
limits.\26\ In 2019, either emissions and/or stack parameters from the 
waste heat boiler stack were not in compliance with the AOC for 21 
hours over 10 days, and either emissions and/or stack parameters from 
the pyroscrubber stack were not in compliance for 63 hours over 12 
days. In 2020, the waste heat boiler limits were not in compliance for 
30 hours over 12 days, and the pyroscrubber limits were not in 
compliance for 72 hours over 14 days. For the first half of 2021, the 
waste heat boiler limits were not in compliance for 16 hours over 7 
days, and the pyroscrubber limits were not in compliance for 78 hours 
over 12 days. We note that the pyroscrubber is limited to operating 500 
hrs/year, so 72 hours in 2020 reflects that it operated at least 14% of 
the time not in compliance (14.4% based on assumption that it operated 
up to the allowed 500 hours in 2020). These periods of non-compliance 
with emission limits and/or stack parameter limits in the August 2, 
2018 AOC occur at a frequency that can result in nonattainment and 
shows the area has failed to fully implement the necessary measures 
prescribed in the EPA approved nonattainment area SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See deviations listed in semiannual monitoring reports for 
2018. We also note as that the source continued to experience 
deviations in 2019, 2020, and 2021. The semiannual monitoring 
reports for 2018, 2019, 2020, and first half of 2021 as well as the 
2019, 2020, and 2021 stack test reports are available in the docket 
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While commenters de-emphasize the hours of non-compliance and non-
compliance with stack parameter limits, these stack parameter limits 
were based on modeling conducted with these values and associated 
emission limits for each specific scenario, and non-compliance with 
stack parameters does result in non-compliance with the AOC limits that 
were approved in the attainment demonstration SIP. Non-compliance with 
stack parameter limits creates a situation where the facility's 
emissions are occurring with dispersion parameters outside what was 
modeled and that are necessary to demonstrate attainment. For example, 
for a number of the non-compliant periods, the calculated flow rates 
for the pyroscrubber stack did not meet the AOC requirements in the 
August 2, 2018 to October 4, 2018 period, indicating that pyroscrubber 
stack emissions were released at lower velocities than modeling 
indicated was acceptable when the flow rates limits were established. 
Periods of non-compliance with stack parameters is consequential, as 
lower flow velocities and/or lower stack temperatures result in less 
dispersion which can result in higher ground-level concentrations than 
modeled. When this is coupled with pyroscrubber emissions that are more 
than the allowed limit this also can result in higher ground-level 
concentrations than what was modeled.
    When relying on a modeling demonstration based on allowable 
emissions for the purposes of determining attainment, the EPA looks to 
whether the emission limit and other limits were adopted and whether 
the relevant source or sources were complying with those modeled limits 
prior to the attainment date. That is, when determining attainment by 
the attainment date using air quality modeling of allowable emissions, 
EPA looks to whether the state has demonstrated that the control 
strategy in the SIP has been fully implemented (in other words, 
ensuring that compliance records demonstrate that the control measures 
have been implemented as required by the approved SIP). This is 
necessary because a modeling demonstration based on allowable emissions 
is not itself sufficient to show factual timely attainment without

[[Page 60283]]

supporting information demonstrating compliance with emission limits 
and associated stack parameter limits.
    We note that in our proposal we referred to Rain's 2019 stack test 
report regarding pyroscrubber stack emissions (Rain referred to this as 
the ``hot stack'') which indicated that Rain found that ``the AOC hot 
stack equation underestimates hot stack emissions during most of the 
transition from hot stack to cold stack'' and ``[d]uring no hour did 
the combined flue gas flow and temperature meet the description of any 
transition stage.'' The report then states ``the AOC limits and 
conditions do not reflect actual emissions conditions and it is 
difficult to identify the appropriate transition stage,'' before 
recommending that the August 2018 AOC's flue gas flow rates, 
temperatures, and emissions limits for transitions stages 1, 2, and 3 
be replaced with new conditions.\27\ This 2019 stack test was the first 
annual stack test as required by the August 2, 2018 AOC and provides a 
comparison of calculated emissions and flowrates for the pyroscrubber 
stack to actual measured values. Comparison of the calculated 
SO2 hot stack emissions to the measured hot stack emissions, 
shows that actual emissions are underestimated during the transition 
and were approximately 50% to 60% higher than calculated values for 
most hours of the transition.\28\ The stack test also shows that the 
calculated hot stack flow rate is at times higher than what was 
measured during hot stack alone operations and during transition 
stages. Rain found that the flow rate equation ``both overestimates and 
underestimates hot stack gas flow rate.'' This stack test demonstrates 
that not only have emissions been underestimated during the transition 
periods, but the stack parameters fell outside of the modeled 
transition stage requirements in the AOC. From the available 
information, EPA cannot determine with certainty that the area attained 
the NAAQS as the emissions and stack parameters at times fall outside 
the limits and conditions modeled in the approved attainment 
demonstration. The noted violations of the AOC limits and 
underestimated emissions have likely resulted in exceedances and 
potentially violations of the SO2 NAAQS in areas other than 
the monitored location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See the 2019 Stack Test Report, available in the docket for 
this action.
    \28\ See Table 5 of the 2019 Stack Test Report, available in the 
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter indicated that EPA should take proposed changes to the 
AOC being developed by Rain into account as a part of its final rule. 
EPA is currently involved in the preliminary review of Rain's potential 
revisions to the AOC, including revisions to the emission formula that 
Rain uses to calculate emissions from the pyroscrubber stack and 
potential changes in how flow rate is determined for the pyroscrubber 
stack and revised modeling using these proposed changes. However, we 
cannot base a final decision of attainment based on such proposed 
revisions not officially before us for review as well as there 
continues to be uncertainty over the effectiveness of such changes and 
compliance therewith. While our decision is based on whether St. 
Bernard Parish attained by October 4, 2018, we do note in our proposal 
that based on the 2019 stack test, Rain had indicated that their 
pyroscrubber emission formula underestimates emissions. The 2019 stack 
test also showed that stack flow equations were overestimating and 
underestimating pyroscrubber stack flow. We also note that the 
additional stack tests in 2020 and 2021 coupled with pending potential 
AOC revisions proposed by Rain that EPA and LDEQ are preliminarily 
reviewing, while not the basis or rationale for our decision making, 
includes additional deviations indicating that Rain continued to have 
difficulty complying with the limits in the August 2, 2018 AOC after 
the attainment date had passed. The proposed revisions to the emissions 
formula for the pyroscrubber indicate that estimated emissions should 
have been higher than those calculated with the formula used for 
determining compliance since August 2, 2018. This indicates there may 
have been more times that pyroscrubber emissions did not comply with 
the AOC limits.\29\ The stack tests indicate that pyroscrubber stack 
flows were being overestimated by the equations some of the time, which 
creates a concern that the attainment modeling is not conservative and 
underestimates actual maximum concentrations. Overestimation of 
pyroscrubber flow means actual conditions had lower stack velocities 
and less dispersion, resulting in actual concentrations higher than the 
maximum modeled values. Stack tests also indicate some periods when the 
stack parameter equation underestimates flow, and because the flow rate 
is used to identify the transition stage and applicable emission rate, 
this could result in a different transitional stage being identified 
with different emission limits than the actual transitional scenario 
the pyroscrubber stack is operating within. Misidentification of the 
operating stage and applicable limits could result in additional 
periods of noncompliance that were not identified and higher 
concentrations than were modeled for that stage. These issues highlight 
the implications of the underestimation of maximum concentrations 
created by the underestimation of pyroscrubber emissions and 
overestimation or underestimation of pyroscrubber stack parameter 
equations used in determining compliance during the period prior to 
October 4, 2018. Underestimating emissions and mischaracterizing the 
actual pyroscrubber stack flow would likely also result in more periods 
of non-compliance than was reported, further indicating that the limits 
in the attainment demonstration SIP had not been fully implemented by 
October 4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Email (with attachments) from LDEQ to EPA on December 8, 
2021, that provided updated analysis of pyroscrubber emission 
formula compared with stack test data, proposed new emission and 
stack parameter limits or to be included in a future AOC revision, 
and updated modeling, available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter asserted that an exceedance of stack parameter limits or 
emission limits does not automatically lead to exceedances or design 
values above the SO2 NAAQS and actual emissions and stack 
parameters of non-compliance periods should be modeled explicitly to 
determine if the specific non-compliance periods would result in 
exceedances or design values above the SO2 NAAQS in 
determining if the area failed to attain. As discussed earlier in this 
action and in previous actions, the modeling was very sensitive to the 
combination of stack air flow, temperature and emission rates, and 
required 11 different operational scenarios to be able to model the 
full range of operations of the Rain facility. The stack parameter 
ranges for each operational scenario were developed based on stack test 
data and exploratory modeling and where it showed potential modeled 
violations, emission limits were further reduced. The 11 operating 
scenarios were developed and refined with several iterations leading up 
to the August 2, 2018 AOC because initial modeling of worst case 
emissions and stack parameters for all flow ranges of the pyroscrubber 
and/or waste heat boiler stack resulted in modeled violations. The 11 
operating scenarios were developed to try and give operational 
flexibility to Rain and still have modeling that demonstrated 
attainment. The facility has struggled to comply with these 11 
operational scenarios and identified 7 days in the period of August 2, 
2018, through

[[Page 60284]]

October 4, 2018, where the facility was not in compliance with the 
August 2, 2018 AOC limits.\30\ As indicated in the proposal, part of a 
determination of whether the area has reached attainment is whether 
there are limits (emission limits and stack parameter limits) in place 
that have been fully implemented that demonstrate modeled attainment. 
In this case there was an AOC in place for this roughly 2-month period, 
but the limits were not being complied with to indicate that the 
control strategy in the SIP had been fully implemented and, therefore, 
that the area reached attainment. In addition to the identified periods 
of non-compliance in the 2018 report, we also identified that the 
pyroscrubber emissions were underestimated, and pyroscrubber stack 
flows were over- and under-estimated, which could lead to mis-
identifying the appropriate transition stage and emission limits, and 
these factors indicate that additional periods of non-compliance were 
possible during that 2-month period than what was reported. As 
discussed elsewhere in our responses, Rain has continued to have more 
than a dozen days per year (2019 and 2020) that they identified that 
did not comply with the August 2, 2018 AOC limits, and Rain has 
requested to revise the emission formula for the hot stack and also 
change the equation for determining stack parameters and emission 
limits for the operational scenarios and further revise the limits in 
the August 2, 2018 AOC. This information continues to support our 
position that the August 2, 2018 AOC limits were not fully implemented 
and complied with prior to the October 4, 2018 attainment date and 
periods of non-compliance have continued to occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See deviations listed in semiannual monitoring reports for 
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees that modeling of the 7 days (when Rain did not comply 
with the August 2, 2018 AOC limits) is appropriate or possible based on 
several factors. Given the observed sensitivities of the modeling, it 
is likely that modeling actual emissions or parameters would result in 
modeled exceedances. The exact stack parameters and emission rates for 
the Rain sources are not available to be modeled. Nor are exact 
emission rates for many sources at Chalmette and Valero refineries. As 
discussed elsewhere in responses, Rain is requesting changes to the AOC 
including changes to the formula for calculating emissions from the 
pyroscrubber stack that would result in higher emissions being 
calculated and also potentially changing how pyroscrubber flow rates 
and temperatures are derived, and the combination of these proposed 
changes could increase estimated emissions from the pyroscrubber when 
in transitional stages by 27%. These changes indicate that pyroscrubber 
emissions were underestimated in the past due to the emission equation 
and due to underestimated pyroscrubber stack flow, including during the 
period from August 2, 2018, through October 4, 2018, and as a result 
periods of non-compliance may have been underestimated. The revised 
emission formula is under review by LDEQ \31\ and the formula could 
change further, so there is not an accurate way to estimate 
pyroscrubber emissions for the 7 days of non-compliance periods (from 
August 2, 2018, through October 4, 2018). Similarly, there is 
uncertainty in the estimated pyroscrubber flowrates with a potential to 
overestimate and underestimate the actual flowrates which also results 
in changes to how much the pyroscrubber stack is emitting. A revised 
estimation methodology for pyroscrubber stack parameters is also 
currently under review by LDEQ \32\ as part of the proposed AOC 
revisions. With uncertainty about what the actual emissions were during 
these non-compliance periods and uncertainty as to actual stack 
parameters, it is not feasible to try and model the periods of non-
compliance. Moreover, since emissions were being underestimated some of 
the time with the pyroscrubber formula, and the pyroscrubber flowrates 
were overestimated/underestimated, there could also be more periods 
that the facility was not in compliance in the period from August 2, 
2018, through October 4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ EPA is so far only doing preliminary, early engagement 
support here per the state's request, as any revised AOC is not 
officially before EPA for review.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Overall Assessment
    Comment: EPA received a number of comments opposed to EPA's 
proposed determination that the St. Bernard area failed to attain the 
one-hour SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. 
Commenters indicated that EPA should find that St. Bernard Parish did 
attain based on all the available information. Some of these commenters 
listed their assessment of several categories of factors that they 
indicated when taking all of them into account provided overall support 
that they thought that the area had reached attainment by the October 
2018 attainment date and EPA should weigh all these categories of 
factors and conclude the area did reach attainment. We have described 
these factors in more detail elsewhere and provide an additional 
summary here. These factor categories that the commenters raised 
include (1) the large reductions in emissions at Rain and reductions in 
emissions at other nearby sources, (2) the two monitors in the area 
both have monitoring levels below the NAAQS level, (3) the AERMOD 
modeling that was included in the SIP demonstration was conservative 
for several reasons and demonstrated attainment, (4) the facility has 
achieved a high level of compliance with the limits in the attainment 
demonstration SIP with only a small amount of hours not in compliance, 
and (5) EPA should consider compliance information since October 4, 
2018 and also proposed revisions to the AOC and revised modeling. See 
the comments in subsections II.A.1 through II.A.4 for a summary of the 
major subjects that commenters are asking EPA to weigh in making EPA's 
determination of whether or not the area attained by the attainment 
date. Overall, several commenters indicated that these factors should 
be considered in an overall weight-of-evidence that supports their 
comments that EPA should determine the area did attain.
    In addition, commenters alleged that in EPA's proposed 
determination, EPA rejected or ignored actual data from the monitors in 
St. Bernard Parish when it factored in modeling and compliance data. 
Commenters argued that EPA's position in its proposed determination is 
based on ``conjecture'' and not rationally connected to any evidence. 
Commenters also stated that while EPA cited potential issues with 
Rain's compliance with the values used in the modeling, it did not 
attempt to quantify those impacts, nor correlate any issues of 
compliance problems with any actual impact at the ambient monitoring 
locations. Commenters continued that EPA's failure to do so results in 
an arbitrary, unsupported determination that the air quality in the 
parish did not meet the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters statements that EPA did 
not consider and weigh all the available information in an appropriate 
weight-of-evidence approach when making our determination for the area. 
In our proposal, we proposed to find that the St. Bernard area did not 
attain the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 
attainment date. That proposal and our final action are based on our 
review and weighing of all of the relevant, available information, 
including

[[Page 60285]]

monitoring, emissions, modeling, stack testing information, and 
compliance data in determining if the area attained or failed to attain 
by the October 4, 2018 attainment date.
    As discussed in more detail in preceding responses (Responses in 
sections II.A.1 through II.A.4), EPA has evaluated comments and 
available information and assessed if overall each comment group 
provides relevant information that the area attained or did not attain 
the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by October 4, 2018.
    Comments summarized in subsection II.A.1 relate to decreases in 
emissions and modeled emissions in St. Bernard from Rain and other 
SO2 sources. See our responses to the comments and 
information in subsection II.A.1. Overall EPA found the comments did 
not provide sufficient information that clearly shows the area attained 
by October 4, 2018, only that emissions have decreased. As explained in 
subsection II.A.1, LDEQ's modeling accounted for all emission 
reductions at the time the modeling was performed in 2018 by 
incorporating the most recent short term allowable emissions for the 
modeled sources in St. Bernard Parish.
    Comments summarized in subsection II.A.2 relate to decreases in 
monitored values, recent monitored values that are not violating the 
standard, and location of modeled maximum values versus values at the 
monitor locations. See our responses to the comments and information in 
subsection II.A.2. Overall, EPA found the comments did not provide 
sufficient information that clearly shows the entire area attained or 
did not attain by October 4, 2018, and we conclude commenters did not 
provide any substantial evidence that the area did or did not attain, 
simply that monitoring levels have dropped. We provide additional 
explanation in subsection II.A.2 that the monitors are not located such 
that they are representative of the maximum SO2 
concentrations in the area and thus do not provide sufficient evidence 
that the area has attained.
    Comments summarized in subsection II.A.3 relate to whether the 
modeling as conducted is overly conservative and overestimates 
concentrations. See our responses to the comments and information in 
subsection II.A.3. Overall, EPA found the comments did not provide 
sufficient, additional information that clearly shows the area attained 
and instead, some of the information provides evidence that non-
compliance periods may have been more numerous than reported, thus 
having a higher potential for exceedances in the period of August 2, 
2018 through October 4, 2018. Such information substantiates our 
findings that the area did not attain by October 4, 2018. We conclude 
that consideration of the comments and additional information presents 
therein did not provide sufficient evidence that the area attained by 
October 4, 2018, but in contrast provides further evidence that due to 
identified periods of non-compliance coupled with likely additional 
non-compliance periods that were not identified due to underestimation 
of emissions and/or uncertainty in estimated flow rates, the necessary 
emission limitations and stack parameters in the AOC were not fully 
implemented. Because the emissions and stack parameters at times fall 
outside the limits and conditions modeled in the approved attainment 
demonstration, the LDEQ's attainment modeling, contrary to the 
commenter's assertions, is not conservative all the time. Moreover, the 
non-compliance periods may have resulted in exceedances and potentially 
violations of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS in areas other than the 
monitored location and thus, EPA cannot find that the area attained.
    Comments summarized in subsection II.A.4 relate to facility 
compliance including periods of non-compliance from August 2, 2018 
through October 4, 2018 and from October 5, 2018 through June 30, 2021, 
and whether periods of non-compliance could result in exceedances/
violations. See our responses to the comments and information in 
subsection II.A.4. Overall, EPA found the comments did not provide 
additional information that clearly shows the area attained by the 
attainment date, in contrast the information further corroborated that 
the pyroscrubber emissions were underestimated and calculations for 
stack parameters were also inaccurate and would result in further 
underestimating emissions for the period August 2, 2018, through 
October 4, 2018, thus providing evidence that Rain may have been not in 
compliance for periods in addition to those identified for the 2-month 
period in 2018. The additional compliance records, stack test reports, 
and the information provided in association with the proposed AOC 
changes provide further weight of evidence that the Rain facility has 
not been able to comply with emission limits and stack parameters in 
the August 2, 2018 AOC and that Rain needs new emission limits, new 
pyroscrubber emission equation, new formulas for calculating stack 
flows, and new modeling. Overall, we conclude that consideration of the 
comments and additional information provided therein did not provide 
any substantial weight of evidence that the area did attain by October 
4, 2018, but does provide further evidence that the limits in the 
attainment demonstration SIP had not been fully implemented and that 
periods of non-compliance have occurred prior to the attainment date 
and continued to occur in St. Bernard Parish. Based on this additional 
information, it is evident that the facility was not in compliance with 
AOC limits during the period August 2, 2018, through October 4, 2018.
    We disagree with the commenters' statements that we rejected or 
ignored data from the monitors in St. Bernard Parish in our proposed 
determination. We also disagree that our proposed determination was 
based on conjecture and not rationally connected to any evidence. As 
EPA stated in its responses stated earlier in this document, EPA 
acknowledges that the area's air quality has improved due to emissions 
reductions in the area, and that the monitors reflect this improvement 
(see sections II.A.1 and II.A.2). EPA considered the data from the 
Chalmette Vista and Meraux monitors along with all other relevant 
information in its determination. We discussed the degree of potential 
impacts from Rain's noncompliance and how that could affect the design 
values and attainment in the St. Bernard area as well as its impact to 
the attainment demonstration modeling (see sections II.A.3 and II.A.4). 
In addition, we explain that with uncertainty about what the actual 
emissions and stack flowrates were during these non-compliance periods, 
it is not feasible to try to model the periods of non-compliance. We 
continue to affirm that (1) the Rain facility's control measures had 
not been fully implemented by the attainment date, (2) because the 
limits and stack parameters upon which the attainment modeling relied 
on have not been met, the attainment modeling with evident compliance 
issues tied to it, cannot be supportive of a finding of attainment, and 
(3) monitoring data alone is insufficient to determine the area's 
attainment. Therefore, contrary to the commenters' assertion, to 
determine the area had attained in the face of evidence that the 
requirements of the attainment demonstration SIP had not been met, 
would have required conjecture. EPA cannot determine with certainty 
that the area attained the NAAQS. This forms our basis for 
determination that the St. Bernard area failed to attain the 
SO2

[[Page 60286]]

NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date.
    In summary, we did weigh all relevant, available information 
initially in our proposal to find the area did not attain by October 4, 
2018. We have reviewed all comments and information provided therein 
and determined that this information provided further corroborative 
evidence that Rain was not able to comply with AOC limits on multiple 
occasions during the roughly 2-month period up through October 4, 2018. 
The EPA also notes that the company is working with LDEQ to develop new 
emission limits, a revised emission formula for pyroscrubber emissions, 
new formula for calculating air flows through the stacks, revised stack 
parameter limits for some of the operating scenarios, and revised 
modeling. However, any such revised AOC is not officially before us for 
review or action. Again, the combination of the changes to these above-
referenced items and revisions to the AOC is evidence that Rain cannot 
comply with the existing AOC and that the EPA approved SIP for St. 
Bernard Parish has not been fully implemented. Under CAA section 
179(d)(2), if the EPA determines that an area did not attain the NAAQS 
by the applicable deadline, LDEQ has up to 12 months from the date of 
the determination to submit a revised SIP for the area demonstrating 
attainment. The revised SIP will need to address the current air 
quality and SO2 emissions in St. Bernard and include new 
modeling and a new attainment demonstration package.

B. Comments on Redesignation of the St. Bernard Area

    Comment: Commenters disagreed with EPA's proposed determination 
that the St. Bernard area failed to attain the SO2 NAAQS and 
requested EPA redesignate the area to unclassifiable or attainment 
using the available information, including monitoring data and modeling 
results.
    Response: EPA would like to clarify that in this action, EPA is 
only making a determination that the St. Bernard area failed to attain 
the SO2 NAAQS by the area's attainment date of October 4, 
2018. The EPA designated St. Bernard Parish nonattainment for the 2010 
one-hour SO2 NAAQS on August 5, 2013, which became effective 
on October 4, 2013; St. Bernard Parish has remained designated 
nonattainment since its initial designation and that designation status 
will not be affected by this action.
    EPA notes that the CAA section 107(d)(3)(F) explicitly prohibits 
redesignating areas from nonattainment to unclassifiable. Furthermore, 
this action is not an action that redesignates the St. Bernard area 
from nonattainment to attainment in accordance with the requirements 
prescribed in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). We also note that in a May 29, 
2019 final action, we approved the St. Bernard area's SO2 
nonattainment SIP planning requirements, including the attainment 
demonstration (84 FR 24712); however, that action also did not change 
the nonattainment designation of St. Bernard Parish.
    Once an area is designated as ``nonattainment'' for a standard, 
that area retains that nonattainment designation until it meets the 
CAA's redesignation requirements. For an area to be redesignated to 
attainment, in addition to a determination that the area attained the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS, the air agency must also submit, and receive 
full approval of a request that satisfies all of the criteria for 
redesignation to attainment, including:
    (1) obtain a determination that the area has attained the NAAQS;
    (2) have a fully approved attainment SIP that meets all of the 
applicable requirements;
    (3) demonstrate that the improvement in the area's air quality is 
due to permanent and enforceable reductions;
    (4) have a fully approved maintenance plan that provides for 
continued attainment; and
    (5) satisfy all of the applicable requirements in CAA section 110 
and CAA Subpart D.
    However, the EPA again emphasizes that this action is limited to 
the EPA's determination that the St. Bernard Parish Area has failed to 
attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Any redesignation request would 
have to be developed and submitted by the state to EPA and would be 
subject to a separate agency action with opportunity for public 
participation.

C. Comments on Air Quality Concerns

    Comment: EPA received a number of comments from community members 
and community groups raising general environmental and air quality 
concerns within and around the St. Bernard area. Commenters stated 
their concerns over air pollution from various sources and how that 
pollution would affect or has affected their health. Commenters 
expressed air quality concerns due to improper enforcement 
historically. Some commenters additionally raised environmental justice 
concerns due to the proximity of the industrial facilities and the 
effect of their emissions on surrounding communities. Commenters 
requested that EPA examine the air quality and emissions in the area 
and work with LDEQ to ensure all SIP provisions are compliant with the 
CAA and that air quality standards and SIP requirements are implemented 
and enforced. Commenters also requested that EPA perform cumulative 
impact analyses and health risk assessments for the area.
    Response: EPA appreciates these comments, which raise additional 
environmental and public health issues of concern in this region of 
Louisiana. We wish to first recognize the importance of the issues 
raised in comments and have provided responses to those where possible. 
However, many of these comments raised are not directly relevant to the 
basis for our final decision in this rulemaking, (in other words, the 
issues and points raised in the comments, which if adopted, would have 
required us to change our proposed determination of whether ambient 
SO2 levels in the St. Bernard Parish area met the NAAQS by 
the attainment date.) It is important to note that only comments 
addressing whether SO2 levels in the area met the 
SO2 air quality standard can be considered as a part of our 
decision-making process for this final action.
    As a general matter, we wish to recognize commenters' concerns that 
certain communities are disproportionately impacted by environmental 
harms and risks. Nationwide, EPA is working to address disproportionate 
impacts in many aspects of our programs to the greatest extent allowed 
by federal law. While we did not base our final finding of the failure 
to attain on specific environmental justice factors, we do wish to 
share for informational purposes only that this final rule is not 
anticipated to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or 
environmental effects on communities with environmental justice 
concerns because it is not anticipated to result in or contribute to 
emissions increases in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. CAA section 
179(d) requires that the State must conduct additional air quality 
analysis and evaluation of further SO2 reductions in the 
area to provide for attainment of the NAAQS and must submit to EPA a 
new SIP for this purpose within one year of the publication of this 
final action.
    With regards to concerns about LDEQ's surveillance and enforcement 
program in the region, EPA is committed to our mission to protect human 
health and the environment by ensuring that federal laws protecting 
human health and the environment are administered and enforced fairly, 
effectively, and as Congress intended, including through EPA's 
oversight role

[[Page 60287]]

in the implementation of the CAA. EPA works closely with LDEQ to ensure 
that LDEQ is properly implementing its program. We accomplish this 
through close coordination on specific investigations and enforcement 
actions, monthly calls, and regular program reviews through the State 
Review Framework.\33\ Additionally, EPA maintains authority to conduct 
inspections and initiate enforcement actions within the state of 
Louisiana. In April 2021, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance issued a memo entitled, ``Strengthening Enforcement in 
Communities with Environmental Justice Concerns,'' which directs the 
EPA Regional Offices to increase our facility inspections in 
overburdened communities. Since the memo was issued, EPA Region 6 has 
increased our air inspections in Louisiana's overburdened communities 
and those areas with environmental justice concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See https://www.epa.gov/compliance/state-review-framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA announced several key actions on January 26, 2022, 
aimed at finding solutions to the environmental burdens that EPA 
Administrator Michael S. Regan encountered on his November 2021 Journey 
to Justice Tour through Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The Tour 
spotlighted longstanding environmental justice concerns in historically 
marginalized communities and allowed Administrator Regan to hear 
firsthand from residents dealing with the impacts of pollution. 
Specifically, EPA committed to address environmental justice concerns 
by conducting a Multi-Scale Monitoring Project. This project includes 
unannounced inspections, sampling, and air monitoring in priority 
areas. More about the Multi-Scale Monitoring Project can be found at 
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-regan-announces-bold-actions-protect-communities-following-journey.
    Commenters requested that EPA should perform cumulative impact 
analyses and health risk assessments for the area and region. EPA is 
working to develop tools, metrics, and guidance to assess cumulative 
impacts and human health risk assessments and incorporate these into 
our programs. As provided in the EPA's FY 2022-FY 2026 Strategic 
Plan,\34\ one of the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Agency Priority Goals 
includes delivering ``tools and metrics for EPA and its Tribal, state, 
local, and community partners to advance environmental justice and 
external civil rights compliance.'' Specifically, by September 30, 
2023, EPA will ``develop and implement a cumulative impacts framework, 
issue guidance on external civil rights compliance, establish a set of 
at least 10 indicators to assess EPA's performance in reducing 
disparities in environmental and public health conditions, and train 
staff and partners on how to use these resources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We encourage citizens and communities to continue to engage with 
EPA and LDEQ to raise specific concerns regarding permitting and 
enforcement actions within the Parish.
    Comment: A number of commenters specifically mentioned the proposed 
mega international port, terminal, and container yard in Violet, St. 
Bernard Parish LA (Port of New Orleans's Louisiana International 
Terminal) and asked that this project not be built, citing concerns 
that it would deteriorate the air quality in St. Bernard Parish and 
cause harm to its residents.
    Response: We note that this comment is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking and involves separate regulatory actions, but in an effort 
to aid and inform the public and identify opportunities for public 
comment on the proposed project, the following response is provided.
    The Port of New Orleans (PONO) is seeking permits from the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to build its proposed terminal project 
in Violet, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. In response to PONO's permit 
application, USACE deemed the application complete and issued a public 
notice on January 24, 2022, and again on March 28, 2022, under USACE 
reference permit number MVN-2021-00270-EG requesting comments from 
interested parties on the application to consider and evaluate the 
impacts of the proposed activity. USACE is currently reviewing comments 
received during the public comment period to determine the next steps 
on the permits for the project, prepare an environmental analysis 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and 
determine public interest in the project.
    Under NEPA, USACE, as the lead federal agency, must study the 
potential impacts of the LIT project on the physical, cultural, human, 
and natural environments before permitting construction. The study must 
also identify actions to minimize negative impacts and evaluate 
alternatives to the proposed project that could serve the same purpose.
    USACE will ask the public what potential impacts should be studied 
through a public process of scoping meetings and comment periods 
tentatively scheduled to begin in October 2022. The resulting NEPA 
environmental analysis prepared by USACE will be public noticed for 
review and comment by any interested parties. The EPA NEPA program 
plans to participate in the scoping and public comment phases of 
USACE's NEPA environmental analysis. The USACE public notices for the 
PONO's terminal project will be available at https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Public-Notices/.
    Comment: The commenters stated that LDEQ should be required to 
submit a revised SIP to EPA, provide expeditious attainment of the 
SO2 NAAQS, and provide for additional measures to protect 
public health. The commenters also stated that EPA should consider 
updated air dispersion modeling for all sources in the St. Bernard 
Parish.
    Response: We appreciate and acknowledge the commenter's statements. 
In this action, EPA is finalizing our finding that the St. Bernard 
Parish SO2 nonattainment area failed to attain the 2010 
SO2 standard by the attainment date of October 4, 2018. This 
action triggers under CAA section 179(d) a requirement from the State 
of Louisiana to submit, within one year of its publication, revisions 
to the Louisiana SIP that, among other elements, provide for 
expeditious attainment of the 2010 SO2 standard. This 
revised SIP to meet nonattainment area requirements to provide for 
attainment is typically called an attainment demonstration SIP or 
attainment SIP or plan.
    We agree with the commenters that it is important to consider all 
emission sources of SO2 in developing a plan that is 
protective of the NAAQS and note that this type of analysis is a 
necessary component of the attainment SIP for the area. The required 
revised SO2 attainment plan must address two main 
components: (1) Emission limits and other control measures that assure 
implementation of permanent, enforceable, and necessary emission 
controls, and (2) a modeling analysis which demonstrates that these 
emission limits and control measures provide for timely attainment of 
the NAAQS. The required modeling includes modeling the cumulative 
impact of all SO2 emission sources in the area on ambient 
air quality and must demonstrate that the entire nonattainment area 
(all of St. Bernard Parish) will attain the standard with the 
implementation of the necessary emission limits. The modeling 
demonstration in the 2018

[[Page 60288]]

attainment SIP analyzed emissions from the three major SO2 
sources in the parish (Valero Refining, Chalmette Refining, and Rain, 
which contributed 99% of the point source emissions in the area) using 
maximum allowable emissions and federally enforceable permit 
limits.\35\ The revised SIP must include an updated modeling 
demonstration reflecting the current permitted and other federally 
enforceable allowable emissions for sources in the area. In addition, 
the attainment SIP requirements include a requirement for an emission 
inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 in the 
nonattainment area. That information would enable the EPA to identify 
any new large sources of SO2 when determining which sources 
should be modeled and addressed in a new attainment demonstration SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Section IV.C. of the April 19, 2018 proposal, 
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 
Attainment Demonstration for the St. Bernard Parish 2010 
SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
Nonattainment Area'' (83 FR 17349).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Comments on State Programs

    Comment: The commenter requested that EPA withdraw its approval of 
the State of Louisiana's authority to implement the CAA within St. 
Bernard Parish and that, instead, EPA Region 6 assume the authority and 
responsibility for designing, approving, implementing, and enforcing 
air quality implementation plans for St. Bernard Parish.
    Response: We note that this comment is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking, but to better aid and inform the public, the following 
response is provided on the topic of state delegated authorities under 
the CAA.
    States, local governments, territories, and tribes are not provided 
a blanket approval of authorities to implement the federal Clean Air 
Act within their respective jurisdictions. Air quality programs and 
plans are individually submitted to the EPA for review and approval, 
and if the programs and plans meet CAA requirements, then EPA is 
obligated to approve them. We note that the CAA requires EPA to approve 
any and all SIPs that satisfy the applicable CAA requirements. The CAA 
prescribes a regulatory scheme that envisions a collaborative process 
between the states and federal government. The EPA reviews and approves 
state-wide regulatory programs for each state, such as the new source 
review (NSR) and Title V permitting program, as well as NAAQS-specific 
infrastructure SIPs; EPA also reviews and approves area-specific plans 
within the state to implement and enforce control measures providing 
for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA's review of such programs and plans 
ensures that implementation mechanisms and enforcement authority are 
adequate to meet CAA requirements, but actual enforcement is generally 
undertaken by states with EPA and citizens also having enforcement 
authority.
    Comment: Commenters made recommendations for LDEQ's permitting 
process. Commenters recommended that an oversight board be established 
for the LDEQ, that a conflict of interest policy be established for 
LDEQ staff members that issue permits, and that the LDEQ be required to 
establish a written policy that guides when public hearings are 
required. Commenter stated that EPA should consider delaying the 
issuance of all Title V permits until health risks and cumulative 
impacts are reviewed and improvements incorporated in Title V permits.
    Response: We note that this comment is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking, but to better aid and inform the public, the following 
response is provided on the topic of state permitting programs.
    EPA ensures that mechanisms are in place and that a state has 
adopted the appropriate statutory and regulatory authority. For 
example, the State has included the required opportunities for public 
participation (as approved in the State's Title V program), but more 
specific decisions such as written guidance dictating when public 
hearings are required is left to the State's expertise.
    As required under Title V of the CAA, EPA has promulgated rules 
which define the minimum elements of an approvable State operating 
permits program and the corresponding standards and procedures by which 
EPA will approve, oversee, and withdraw approval of a State operating 
permits program (57 FR 32250, July 21, 1992). These rules are codified 
at 40 CFR part 70. Title V requires states to develop and submit to EPA 
programs for issuing these operating permits to all major stationary 
sources and to certain other sources. EPA's Operating Permits Program 
review occurs pursuant to section 502 of the CAA and the part 70 
regulations, which together outline criteria for approval and 
disapproval. Title V operating permits must address applicable federal 
CAA requirements, including requirements for public participation (see 
40 CFR 70.7(h)). EPA promulgated final full approval of the State of 
Louisiana's Title V Operating Permits Program on September 12, 1995 (60 
FR 47296).
    On December 28, 2016, EPA approved revisions to the Louisiana SIP 
that addressed requirements in CAA section 128 regarding state board 
composition and conflict of interest and disclosure requirements (81 FR 
95477). LDEQ is an executive agency that acts through its Secretary and 
approves all CAA permits and enforcement orders in Louisiana. LDEQ 
stated in its submittal that for public disclosure of any potential 
conflict in the SIP, as required by CAA section 128, that if a person 
derives anything of economic value that such person should be aware, 
he/she must disclose specified elements under the Louisiana Revised 
Statutes (LA RS) Title 42; Chapter 15: Code of Governmental Ethics; 
Section 1114(A)(1)-(4) and (C) ``Financial disclosure.'' These relevant 
revised statutes approved into the SIP demonstrates that Louisiana 
complies with the requirements of CAA section 128.
    Comment: Commenters stated that LDEQ's permitting program 
prioritizes facility permit approvals without consideration of public 
comments and limits public participation. Commenters cited the approval 
of the PBF Chalmette Refinery, LLC's application for a Part 70 permit 
to construct and operate a Renewable Diesel Unit and the associated 
variance application as a recent example of the commenters' claimed 
permitting program inadequacies. Commenters recommended auditing LDEQ's 
public participation process for its permitting program by identifying 
projects that have received more than a specified number of comments, 
and if any resulted in a change of the project description.
    Response: We note that this comment is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking, but to better aid and inform the public, the following 
response is provided.
    EPA notes that in the LDEQ's permit application process for the 
Chalmette Renewable Diesel Unit issued on December 21, 2021, LDEQ found 
that the application satisfied the permit application requirements. As 
provided earlier in this notice, LDEQ's permitting program satisfies 
the CAA requirements and has received EPA's approval. We additionally 
note that LDEQ stated in its final approval that it amended the permit 
as a result of public comments. As a result of the public participation 
process that citizens engaged in with the LDEQ, the permit was amended 
as follows: N-hexane emissions from the hotwells were required to be 
controlled to 98 percent rather than 95 percent and limited to 17.90 
tons per year (tpy); Particulate Matter emissions from the cooling 
tower are now controlled to

[[Page 60289]]

0.005 percent rather than 0.02 percent with resulting annual emissions 
limits of 4.47 tpy PM2.5 and 4.05 tpy PM10. In 
addition, the control efficiency on the vacuum systems and dust 
collectors which control emissions from bleached earth loading and 
filter aid loading will be increased from 95 to 99 percent. The process 
heaters will be fired exclusively with natural gas rather than refinery 
gas, resulting in lower SO2 emissions due to the lower 
sulfur content of the fuel. Heater 23a will be fitted with low nitrous 
oxide (NOX) burners and constrain its firing rate to 55 
MMBTU/hr, thus reducing NOX emissions and all other products 
of incomplete combustion. Taken together, these permit changes will 
result in lower emissions.
    EPA also notes that it is within LDEQ's authority to issue 
variances. The Louisiana regulations generally prohibit commencement of 
construction unless a permit is issued, and fees paid (LAC 
33:III.501(C)(2) and (3)). However, the variance provisions, approved 
as part of Louisiana's Title V Operating Permits Program on September 
12, 1995 (60 FR 47296) and incorporated at LAC 33:III.525, provide that 
minor permit modifications or variances under a Title V permit program 
are not required to undergo public participation requirements (see 40 
CFR 70.7(e)(2) and (3), and 40 CFR 70.4(d)(3)(iv)).
    EPA notes that for the permit application process for the Chalmette 
Renewable Diesel Unit issued on December 21, 2021, LDEQ responded to 
over 100 distinct comments, and as a result of citizen engagement in 
the public participation process, the permit was amended, and the 
resulting changes are anticipated to lower emissions at the site as 
described earlier in this notice.
    In general, a Title V petition allows anyone to raise concerns to 
EPA and to ask the Agency to object to the issuance of a new, modified, 
or renewed operating permit for a specific facility if the concerns 
with the permit were raised to the permitting authority during the 
notice and comment period for the permit action. If a member of the 
public believes that a Title V permit issued by a state, local, or 
tribal permitting authority does not comply with the CAA or the EPA's 
Title V permit implementing regulations (40 CFR part 70), they may 
petition EPA to object to the permit pursuant to certain Title V 
petition requirements. If EPA grants a petition and objects to the 
issuance of a permit, the permitting authority must correct or rectify 
issues with the permit. EPA has 45 days to review a Title V permit 
proposed by a permitting authority. If the Administrator does not 
object to a permit during that time, the public has 60 days to petition 
the Administrator to object to the permit.
    For more information on the Title V program, opportunity to 
petition a state-issued Title V permit, and EPA's authority and 
oversight role on a state's EPA-approved Title V permit program, visit 
https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits.
    Comment: Commenters requested EPA to allow the use of low-cost, 
reliable sensors as part of the Louisiana Annual Monitoring Network 
Plan and install additional monitors in the area in order to better 
inform the public about the air quality in the area and to protect the 
health and well-being of those impacted by pollution. Commenters stated 
that the current State of Louisiana monitoring network is inadequate.
    Response: We note that this comment is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking, but to better aid and inform the public, the following 
response is provided.
    EPA acknowledges that an increasing number of low-cost air quality 
sensors are now available on the commercial market, but the amount of 
research-based evaluation of these sensors remains very limited. EPA is 
engaged in the discovery, evaluation, and application of these emerging 
technologies and is sharing information gained with its partners and 
stakeholders. EPA scientists are involved in the evaluation of some air 
sensors for use by the public and provide the information in reports, 
but do not make any endorsements or recommendations for their use. Data 
from new air sensor instruments (such as low-cost air quality sensors) 
should not be used in a regulatory context at this time unless those 
instruments meet all applicable regulatory requirements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ EPA Memorandum, ``Air Sensors,'' from Anne L. Idsal, Office 
of Air and Radiation. June 22, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to systematically characterize air sensor measurements, 
EPA is supporting research on sensor performance including the 
development of non-regulatory performance targets and testing protocols 
for supplemental and informational monitoring applications that 
complement--but do not replace--existing regulatory programs and 
requirements. These efforts are intended to provide regulators, outside 
parties, and the public alike with streamlined, unbiased assessments of 
sensor performance in the near-term and into the future.
    For more information on EPA's position on the use of air sensor 
data for NAAQS compliance and the steps the Agency is taking to better 
understand the data quality, interpretation, and management of sensor 
data in the ambient environment, see the June 2020 EPA memorandum from 
the EPA Office of Air and Radiation.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the adequacy of Louisiana's monitoring network, the 
monitoring network outlined in a state's Annual Air Monitoring Network 
Plan (AAMNP) must meet federal statutory and regulatory requirements, 
including technical requirements for siting. Ambient SO2 
monitoring data are collected by state, local, and tribal monitoring 
agencies in accordance with the monitoring requirements contained in 40 
CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. A monitoring network is generally designed to 
measure, report, and provide related information on air quality data as 
described in 40 CFR part 58. To ensure that the data from the network 
are accurate and reliable, the monitors in the network must meet a 
number of requirements including the use of monitoring methods that EPA 
has approved as Federal Reference Methods (FRM) or Federal Equivalent 
Methods (FEM). The FRM/FEM instruments must meet rigorous standards for 
accuracy and reliability (see 40 CFR part 53 for details).
    Louisiana's Statewide Air Quality Surveillance Network was approved 
by EPA on August 6, 1981 (46 FR 40005). EPA also approved into the 
Louisiana SIP provisions that require air quality monitoring be 
conducted consistent with EPA guidelines (54 FR 9783, March 8, 1989). 
In July 2021, LDEQ submitted its 2021 AAMNP that included the plan for 
the SO2 NAAQS; EPA approved the LDEQ's 2021 AAMNP in October 
2021.
    The LDEQ's AAMNP goes through public notice and comment each year. 
Information on LDEQ public notices is provided at https://deq.louisiana.gov/public-notices. The 2022 LDEQ AAMNP comment period 
was open from April 22, 2022, to May 26, 2022. The EPA notes that in 
LDEQ's response to one of the comments received regarding front-line 
communities and environmental justice concerns, LDEQ stated the 
following: ``To help foster relationships with under-served 
communities, LDEQ has been placing the Temporary Located Community 
(TLC) Air Monitoring Program air monitors in ``front-line community'' 
neighborhoods to collect ambient air quality data. This real-time data 
is relayed to LDEQ's website . . . LDEQ has plans to place a TLC Air 
Monitor in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans later this year. For 
more information, see the Environmental Justice Consideration section 
of the

[[Page 60290]]

2022 Louisiana Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan.'' EPA acknowledges 
and encourages the use of the TLC program as part of LDEQ's efforts to 
address EJ concerns in the States' communities.

E. Other Comments on the NAAQS and Designations

    Comment: Commenters recommended the EPA consider using the World 
Health Organization's updated standard of 40 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour mean, 
stating that a greater degree of protection than the EPA's 2010 
SO2 standard of 75 ppb is needed.
    Response: We note that this comment is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking, but to better aid and inform the public, the following 
response is provided.
    Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review, 
and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS for each criteria air 
pollutant to provide protection for the nation's public health and the 
environment. The CAA requires periodic review of the science upon which 
the standards are based and the standards themselves. Reviewing the 
NAAQS is a lengthy undertaking and includes the following major phases: 
(1) planning, (2) integrated science assessment (ISA), (3) risk/
exposure assessment (REA), (4) policy assessment (PA), and (5) 
rulemaking. More information on the NAAQS review process can be found 
at this link: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-reviewing-national-ambient-air-quality-standards.
    Additionally, the 75 ppb standard for the primary one-hour 
SO2 NAAQS is based on the 99th percentile of daily maximum 
one hour average concentrations, averaged over 3 years, and is 
calculated differently from a 24-hour mean. See 40 CFR 50.17. The 75 
ppb standard is not calculated by averaging the daily concentration of 
SO2, it is calculated by determining the highest 
concentration within a one-hour period in a given day and is aimed 
towards preventing acute short-term exposure to SO2 in order 
to better protect public health. As provided in the final rule 
promulgating the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the rationale for the 
establishment of the 75 ppb standard focused primarily on respiratory 
morbidity following short-term (5-minutes to 24-hours) exposure to 
SO2, for which the ISA (Integrated Science Assessment for 
Oxides of Sulfur-Health Criteria) found a causal relationship.\38\ The 
maximum daily one-hour SO2 values from four days each year 
from 3 consecutive years determines whether the area will attain; as a 
result, a very small number of monitored exceedances can result in a 
violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Section II of the final rule ``Primary National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide'', for more details (June 
22, 2010, 75 FR 35519).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    Under CAA section 179(c)(1)-(2), the EPA is making a determination 
that the St. Bernard Parish SO2 nonattainment area has 
failed to attain the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb by 
the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. This determination 
is based upon consideration of and review of all available information 
for the St. Bernard area leading up to the area's attainment date of 
October 4, 2018, including (1) emissions and monitoring data, (2) the 
state's air quality modeling demonstration, which showed the emission 
limits and stack parameters required at Rain, the primary source of 
SO2 emission in the area, compliance with which were 
necessary to provide for the area's attainment, and (3) Rain's 
available compliance records between the period when the AOC limits 
became effective (August 2, 2018) and the area's attainment date. After 
publication of this final rule, the State of Louisiana is required 
under CAA section 179(d) to submit revisions to the SIP for the St. 
Bernard area. The required SIP revision for the area must, among other 
elements, demonstrate expeditious attainment of the SO2 
standard within the time period prescribed by CAA section 179(d) and 
such additional measures as the Administrator may reasonably prescribe 
that can be feasibly implemented in the area in light of technological 
achievability, costs, and any non-air quality and other air quality-
related health and environmental impacts. The SIP revisions required 
under CAA section 179(d) would be due for submittal to the EPA no later 
than one year after the publication date of this final action. At this 
time, we are not prescribing additional measures for the SO2 
SIP revisions under CAA section 179(d)(2). This final action also 
triggers the implementation of contingency measures adopted in this 
area under CAA section 172(c)(9).

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean 
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' \39\ EPA is providing 
additional analysis of environmental justice associated with this 
action. We are doing so for the purpose of providing information to the 
public, not as a basis of our final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA conducted a screening analysis using EJSCREEN, an environmental 
justice mapping and screening tool that provides EPA with a nationally 
consistent dataset and approach for combining various environmental and 
demographic indicators.\40\ The EJSCREEN tool presents these indicators 
at a Census block group (CBG) level or a larger user-specified 
``buffer'' area that covers multiple CBGs.\41\ An individual CBG is a 
cluster of contiguous blocks within the same census tract and generally 
contains between 600 and 3,000 people. EJSCREEN is not a tool for 
performing in-depth risk analysis, but is instead a screening tool that 
provides an initial representation of indicators related to 
environmental justice and is subject to uncertainty in some underlying 
data (e.g., some environmental indicators are based on monitoring data 
which are not uniformly available; others are based on self-reported 
data).\42\ To help mitigate this uncertainty, we have summarized 
EJSCREEN data within St. Bernard Parish, which covers multiple block 
groups and represents the average resident within the Parish. We 
present EJSCREEN environmental indicators to

[[Page 60291]]

help screen for locations where residents may experience a higher 
overall pollution burden than would be expected for a block group with 
the same total population. These indicators of overall pollution burden 
include estimates of ambient particulate matter (PM2.5) and 
ozone concentration, a score for traffic proximity and volume, 
percentage of pre-1960 housing units (lead paint indicator), and scores 
for proximity to Superfund sites, risk management plan (RMP) sites, and 
hazardous waste facilities.\43\ EJSCREEN also provides information on 
demographic indicators, including percent low-income, communities of 
color, linguistic isolation, and less than high school education. The 
EPA prepared an EJSCREEN report covering the St. Bernard Parish 
SO2 nonattainment area, which covers the entire Parish. 
Table 1 presents a summary of results from the EPA's screening-level 
analysis for the St. Bernard area compared to the U.S. as a whole (the 
detailed EJSCREEN reports are provided in the docket for this 
rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
    \41\ See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html.
    \42\ In addition, EJSCREEN relies on the five-year block group 
estimates from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. The 
advantage of using five-year over single-year estimates is increased 
statistical reliability of the data (i.e., lower sampling error), 
particularly for small geographic areas and population groups. For 
more information, see https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_general_handbook_2020.pdf.
    \43\ For additional information on environmental indicators and 
proximity scores in EJSCREEN, see ``EJSCREEN Environmental Justice 
Mapping and Screening Tool: EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,'' 
Chapter 3 and Appendix C (September 2019) at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/ejscreen_technical_document.pdf.

          Table 1--St. Bernard Parish EJSCREEN Analysis Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 St. Bernard
          Variables                 Parish                U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollution Burden Indicators:
    Particulate matter         8.35 [mu]g/m\3\  8.74 [mu]g/m\3\ (--)
     (PM2.5), annual average.   (43rd %ile).
    Ozone, summer seasonal     38.6 ppb (24th   42.6 ppb (--)
     average of daily 8-hour    %ile).
     max.
    Traffic proximity and      400 (63rd %ile)  710 (--)
     volume score *.
    Lead paint (percentage     0.16% (48th      0.28% (--)
     pre-1960 housing).         %ile).
    Superfund proximity score  0.1 (66th %ile)  0.13 (--)
     *.
    RMP proximity score *....  2.5 (93rd %ile)  0.75 (--)
    Hazardous waste proximity  2.6 (76th %ile)  2.2 (--)
     score *.
Demographic Indicators:
    People of color            38% (55th %ile)  40% (--)
     population.
    Low-income population....  45% (75th %ile)  31% (--)
    Linguistically isolated    2% (53rd %ile).  5% (--)
     population.
    Population with less than  20% (79th %ile)  12% (--)
     high school education.
    Population under 5 years   7% (67th %ile).  6% (--)
     of age.
    Population over 64 years   11% (34th %ile)  16% (--)
     of age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The traffic proximity and volume indicator is a score calculated by
  daily traffic count divided by distance in meters to the road. The
  Superfund proximity, RMP proximity, and hazardous waste proximity
  indicators are all scores calculated by site or facility counts
  divided by distance in kilometers.

    This final rule formalizes EPA's determination that the St. Bernard 
Parish SO2 nonattainment area has failed to attain the 2010 
one-hour SO2 standard of 75 ppb by the applicable attainment 
date of October 4, 2018, in accordance with section 179(c)(1)-(2) of 
the CAA. This action provides notice to the public that the area has 
failed to attain the NAAQS and informs the State of Louisiana of CAA 
requirements the State needs to meet so that air quality in the area 
will undergo further improvements. After publishing this final rule, 
the State of Louisiana is required under CAA section 179(d) to submit 
revisions to the SIP for the St. Bernard area within one year. The 
required SIP revision for the area must, among other elements, 
demonstrate expeditious attainment of the SO2 standard 
within the time period prescribed by CAA section 179(d) and such 
additional measures as the Administrator may reasonably prescribe that 
can be feasibly implemented in the area in light of technological 
achievability, costs, and any non-air quality and other air quality-
related health and environmental impacts. At this time, we are not 
prescribing additional measures for the SO2 SIP revisions 
under CAA section 179(d)(2). This final rule is not anticipated to have 
disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental 
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns because it 
is not anticipated to result in or contribute to emissions increases in 
Louisiana.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore 
was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the PRA because it does not contain any information 
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This 
proposed action, if finalized, would require the state to adopt and 
submit SIP revisions to satisfy CAA requirements and would not itself 
directly regulate any small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million 
or more, as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action itself 
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, 
or the private sector. This action proposes to determine that the St. 
Bernard Parish SO2 nonattainment area failed to attain the 
SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates. If finalized, 
this determination would trigger existing statutory timeframes for the 
State to submit SIP revisions. Such a determination in and of itself 
does not

[[Page 60292]]

impose any federal intergovernmental mandate.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. The proposed finding of failure to attain the 
SO2 NAAQS does not apply to tribal areas, and the proposed 
rule would not impose a burden on Indian reservation lands or other 
areas where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe 
has jurisdiction within the St. Bernard Parish SO2 
nonattainment area. Thus, this 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.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This proposed action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because the effect of this proposed 
action, if finalized, would be to trigger additional planning 
requirements under the CAA. This proposed action does not establish an 
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because 
it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
effect of this proposed action, if finalized, would be to trigger 
additional planning requirements under the CAA.

K. The Congressional Review Act

    5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule 
may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 
report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the 
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will 
submit a report containing this action and other required information 
to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the 
Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the 
rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not 
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 5, 2022. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Pollution, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: September 26, 2022.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I, 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. Subpart T is amended by adding Sec.  52.978 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.978  Control strategy and regulations: Sulfur dioxide.

    (a) Determination of failure to attain. Effective November 4, 2022, 
the EPA has determined that the St. Bernard Parish nonattainment area 
failed to attain the 2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the 
applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. This determination 
triggers the requirements of CAA section 179(d) for the State of 
Louisiana to submit a revision to the Louisiana SIP for the St. Bernard 
Parish nonattainment area to the EPA by October 5, 2023. The SIP 
revision must, among other elements, provide for attainment of the 1-
hour primary SO2 NAAQS in the St. Bernard Parish 
SO2 nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable but 
no later than October 5, 2027.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2022-21249 Filed 10-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P