Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Louisiana; Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area: Redesignation to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 53853-53872 [2011-21728]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
of the Act, HUD’s primary single-family
mortgage insurance program.
Accordingly, for the above reasons,
the undersigned certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Notwithstanding HUD’s
determination that this rule will not
have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities, HUD
specifically invites comments regarding
any less burdensome alternatives to this
rule that will meet HUD’s objectives as
described in the preamble to this rule.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled
‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits an agency from
publishing any rule that has federalism
implications if the rule either imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments and is not
required by statute, or the rule preempts
state law, unless the agency meets the
consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This
rule will not have federalism
implications and would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments or preempt
state law within the meaning of the
Executive Order.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements
for federal agencies to assess the effects
of their regulatory actions on state,
local, and tribal governments, and on
the private sector. This proposed rule
does not impose any federal mandates
on any state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector,
within the meaning of UMRA.
Environmental Impact
This proposed rule does not direct,
provide for assistance or loan and
mortgage insurance for, or otherwise
govern or regulate, real property
acquisition, disposition, leasing,
rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or
new construction, or establish, revise, or
provide for standards for construction or
construction materials, manufactured
housing, or occupancy. Accordingly,
under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is
categorically excluded from
environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance Number for the principal
FHA single-family mortgage insurance
program is 14.117.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 203
53853
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1709, 1710, 1715b,
1715z–16, and 1715u; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
standard requirements, and to approve a
state rule establishing a maintenance
plan contingency measure. In prior,
separate rulemaking actions, EPA
finalized its action to terminate the 1hour ozone anti-backsliding section 185
penalty fee requirement. EPA has
proposed to approve the Control
Technique Guideline Rules (CTG Rules
Update) that are necessary for
redesignation. We are proposing that if
the CTG Rules Update is finalized, the
area will have a fully approved SIP that
meets all of its applicable 1997 8-hour
requirements and 1-hour antibacksliding requirements under section
110 and Part D of the Federal Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) for purposes of
redesignation.
§ 203.43e
DATES:
Hawaiian Natives, Home
improvement, Indians—lands, Loan
programs—housing and community
development, Mortgage insurance,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Solar energy.
Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed in the preamble, HUD
proposes to amend 24 CFR part 203 to
read as follows:
PART 203—SINGLE FAMILY
MORTGAGE INSURANCE
1. The authority citation for part 203
continues to read as follows:
[Removed]
2. Remove § 203.43e.
Dated: August 24, 2011.
Carol J. Galante,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing—
Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2011–22189 Filed 8–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0776; FRL–9456–7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Louisiana; Baton Rouge
Ozone Nonattainment Area:
Redesignation to Attainment for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a request from the State of Louisiana to
redesignate the Baton Rouge, Louisiana
moderate 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. In
proposing to approve this request, EPA
also proposes to approve as a revision
to the Louisiana State Implementation
Plan (SIP), a 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan with a 2022 Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) for
the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area
(BRNA or BR). EPA is also proposing to
approve revisions to the Louisiana SIP
that meets the Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT)
requirements (for nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs))
for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments must be received on
or before September 29, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2010–0776, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’
Web site: https://epa.gov/region6/
r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’
(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before
submitting comments.
• E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at
donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also
send a copy by e-mail to the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section below.
• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax
number 214–665–7263.
• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief,
Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733.
• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy
Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such
deliveries are accepted only between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–
0776. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53854
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Do not submit through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public
inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review
Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below to make an
appointment. If possible, please make
the appointment at least two working
days in advance of your visit. There will
be a fee of 15 cents per page for making
photocopies of documents. On the day
of the visit, please check in at the EPA
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The State submittal, which is part of
the EPA record, is also available for
public inspection at the State Air
Agency listed below during official
business hours by appointment:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton
Rouge, LA 70802.
Ms.
Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,
telephone (214) 665–7367; fax number
214–665–7263; e-mail address
rennie.sandra@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?
II. What is the background for these actions?
A. What are the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards?
B. What is ozone and why do we regulate
it?
C. What is the background for the Baton
Rouge area under the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS?
D. What is the background for the BRNA
under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS?
III. What are the impacts of the court
decisions on EPA’s phase 1 and 2
implementation rules upon the BRNA
redesignation request?
A. Summary of the Court Decisions
B. Summary of EPA’s Analysis of the
Impact of the Court Decisions on the
BRNA Area
1. Requirements under the 1997 Eight-Hour
Ozone Standard
2. Requirements under the One-Hour
Ozone Standard
IV. What are the CAA criteria for
redesignation?
V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s
redesignation request and maintenance
plan and what is the basis for EPA’s
proposed actions?
A. Has the BRNA attained the ozone
NAAQS?
1. Attainment of the 8-Hour NAAQS
2. Attainment of the 1-Hour NAAQS
B. Has the state of Louisiana met all
applicable requirements of section 110
and part D of the CAA and does the
BRNA have a fully approved SIP under
section 110(k) of the CAA for purposes
of redesignation to attainment?
1. The BRNA Has Met All Requirements of
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation
for the 8-Hour NAAQS
a. Section 110 and General SIP
Requirements
b. Part D SIP Requirements
(i) Has the BRNA met the part D
nonattainment requirements under the
1-hour ozone standard?
(ii) South Coast Anti-Backsliding Measures
(iii) Part D SIP Requirements Under 1997
8-Hour Standard: Part D, subpart 2
applicable SIP requirements
(iv) Section 176 Conformity Requirements
(v) NSR Requirements
(vi) Section 182(a)(1) Inventory
Requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. The BRNA Has a Fully Approved SIP
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
C. Are the air quality improvements in the
BRNA nonattainment area due to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions resulting from the
implementation of state and federal
regulations and other permanent and
enforceable emission reductions?
1. Emissions Reductions as Shown by
Emissions Inventory Data
2. Impact of Emissions Controls
Implementation: Trend Analysis
3. Permanent and Enforceable Emissions
Controls Implemented
a. Reasonably Available Control
Techniques
b. ROP Plans and Attainment
Demonstration Plan
c. NOX Control Rules
d. Federal Emission Control Measures
D. Does the BRNA have a fully approvable
maintenance plan pursuant to section
175A of the CAA?
1. What is required in an ozone
maintenance plan?
2. What is the attainment inventory for the
BRNA?
3. Has the state of Louisiana committed to
maintain the ozone monitoring system in
the BRNA?
4. Has the state demonstrated maintenance
in the BRNA?
5. What is the contingency plan for the
BRNA?
a. Verification of Continued Attainment
b. Contingency Plan
c. Controls to Remain In Effect
VI. What is EPA’s evaluation of the BR area’s
motor vehicle emissions budgets?
A. What are the transportation
requirements for approvable MVEBs?
B. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy
determination?
C. Is the MVEB approvable?
VII. What are EPA’s proposed actions?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What are the actions EPA is
proposing?
EPA is proposing to take several
related actions pursuant to the Act for
the BRNA moderate 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, consisting of
Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville,
Livingston, and West Baton Rouge
Parishes in Louisiana. EPA is proposing
to find that the BRNA has met the
requirements for redesignation under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, and is
therefore proposing to approve a request
from the State of Louisiana to
redesignate the BRNA to attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
also proposing to approve, pursuant to
section 175A of the Act, the area’s 1997
8-hour ozone maintenance plan as a
revision to the Louisiana SIP; to approve
the plan’s associated 2022 MVEB; to
approve additional submissions to meet
applicable VOC and NOX RACT
requirements; and to approve a State
Rule revision that establishes a
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
contingency measure for the
maintenance plan. In a separate
rulemaking, EPA has finalized an action
to terminate CAA section 185 penalty
fee requirements for the 1-hour ozone
standard. (July 7, 2011, 76 FR 39775).
EPA is proposing to find that the BR
area will satisfy all moderate area
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and severe area 1-hour ozone
anti-backsliding requirements
applicable for purposes of the area’s
redesignation for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard once the CTG Rule Update is
finalized. A fuller discussion of how the
BRNA met these requirements is
discussed in detail later in this
document. The Technical Support
Document (TSD), for this action also
provides further information on how the
BRNA area satisfies the 8-hour moderate
area requirements and 1-hour severe
area requirements for anti-backsliding
purposes.
Based upon the above, EPA is
proposing to approve the State of
Louisiana’s request, submitted on
August 31, 2010, and supplemented on
February 14, 2011, through the
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ), to redesignate the
BRNA to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. What is the background for these
actions?
A. What are the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards?
Section 109 of the Act requires EPA
to establish NAAQS for pollutants that
‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health and welfare,’’
and to develop a primary and secondary
standard for each NAAQS. The primary
standard is designed to protect human
health with an adequate margin of
safety, and the secondary standard is
designed to protect public welfare and
the environment. EPA has set NAAQS
for six common air pollutants, referred
to as criteria pollutants: Carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide. These standards present state
and local governments with the
minimum air quality levels they must
meet to comply with the Act. Also,
these standards provide information to
residents of the United States about the
air quality in their communities. A
State’s SIP addresses these
requirements, as required by section 110
and other provisions of the Act. The SIP
is a set of air pollution regulations,
control strategies, other means or
techniques, and technical analyses
developed by the state, to ensure that
the state meets the NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
B. What is ozone and why do we
regulate it?
Ozone, a gas composed of three
oxygen atoms, at the ground level is
generally not emitted directly by
sources such as from a vehicle’s exhaust
or an industrial smokestack; rather,
ground level ozone is produced by a
chemical reaction between nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and VOCs in the presence
of sunlight and high ambient
temperatures. NOX and VOCs are
referred to as precursors of ozone. Motor
vehicle exhaust and industrial
emissions, gasoline vapors, and
chemical solvents all contain NOX and
VOCs. Urban areas tend to have high
concentrations of ground-level ozone,
but areas without significant industrial
activity and with relatively low
vehicular traffic are also subject to
increased ozone levels because wind
carries ozone and its precursors many
miles from the sources. The Act
establishes a process for air quality
management through the NAAQS.
Repeated exposure to ozone pollution
may cause lung damage. Even at very
low concentrations, ground-level ozone
triggers a variety of health problems
including aggravated asthma, reduced
lung capacity, and increased
susceptibility to respiratory illnesses
like pneumonia and bronchitis. It can
also have detrimental effects on plants
and ecosystems.
C. What is the background for the Baton
Rouge area under the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS?
EPA first designated the Baton Rouge
area as an ozone nonattainment area in
1978. 43 FR 8964, 8998 (March 3, 1978).
The BR 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area contains five parishes: East Baton
Rouge; West Baton Rouge; Ascension;
Iberville; and Livingston Parishes (40
CFR 81.319). In 1991, the BR area was
designated nonattainment by operation
of law and EPA classified the BR area
as a ‘‘serious’’ ozone nonattainment area
with a statutory attainment deadline of
November 15, 1999. 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). EPA approved the
serious attainment demonstration SIP
and its associated elements, e.g.,
attainment Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets (MVEB), the Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM)
demonstration, on July 2, 1999. See 64
FR 35930. The BR area, however, did
not attain by the serious area statutory
deadline of November 15, 1999. Before
this deadline however, EPA had issued
a guidance memorandum that allowed
an area to retain its existing
classification and receive a later
attainment deadline if the EPA found
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53855
that area met all of its existing
classification requirements, approved a
demonstration that the area would
attain but for the transport from another
area, and approved the attainment
demonstration SIP with its associated
elements. See EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on
Extension of Attainment Dates for
Downwind Transport Areas’’ (the
Extension Policy) (Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation) July 16, 1998. On
October 2, 2002, EPA approved the
revised attainment demonstration SIP
and its associated elements, found the
area met all of the serious area
requirements, found there was transport
from Texas affecting the BR area
reaching attainment, and extended the
attainment date for the BR area to
November 15, 2005, without
reclassifying the area from serious to
severe, consistent with the policy. 67 FR
61786 (October 2, 2002).
On December 11, 2002, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated
EPA’s attainment date extension policy,
which had been applied to extend the
1-hour ozone attainment deadline for
the Baton Rouge area without
reclassifying the area. Sierra Club v.
EPA, 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002).
Thereupon EPA on April 24, 2003,
withdrew the action extending the
attainment deadline for Baton Rouge,
finalized its finding that the area failed
to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by
the serious area deadline, and
reclassified the Baton Rouge area by
operation of law, to severe
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard. See 68 FR 20077.1 As a result
of its reclassification to severe, the State
was required, among other things, to
submit by June 23, 2004, a new 1-hour
severe attainment demonstration SIP
with an attainment date of November
15, 2005, with a 25 ton per year major
stationary source threshold, additional
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) rules for sources subject to the
new lower major stationary source
1 Petitions for review of the October 2, 2002,
rulemaking were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana Environmental
Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, No. 02–60991). The
issues raised concerned EPA’s decision to approve
Louisiana’s substitute contingency measures plan,
the revised attainment demonstration SIP with a
later attainment deadline without reclassifying the
area to severe, and the associated precursor trading
provision of the NSR rules. On February 25, 2003,
the court granted EPA’s partial voluntary remand to
allow EPA the time to meet the December 2002
court decision by withdrawing its approval of the
revised attainment demonstration SIP that extended
the attainment deadline without reclassifying the
area and the associated NSR precursor trading
provision. The court also addressed the substitute
contingency measures claim, and vacated and
remanded EPA’s approval of the contingency
measures.
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53856
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
threshold, a new source review (NSR)
offset requirement of at least 1.3 to 1, a
rate of progress in emission reductions
of ozone precursors of at least 3 percent
of baseline emissions per year from
November 15, 1999, until the attainment
year, additional transportation control
measures (TCMs) needed to offset
growth in emissions due to growth in
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and a fee
requirement for major stationary sources
of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and nitrogen oxides (NOx) should the
area fail to attain by 2005. The state was
required to implement the EPAtriggered failure-to-attain contingency
measures, submit a replacement for, i.e.,
backfill for, the triggered failure-toattain contingency measures, and to
meet the remaining severe area
requirements under section 182(d) of
the Act. The State submitted severe area
rules that addressed the 25 tpy and
major source offset requirements,2 a
VMT offset analysis, and a substitute
contingency measure to replace the
serious area contingency measure that
was previously approved into the
serious area attainment demonstration.
Upon reclassification to severe, under
section 211(k) of the Act, the use of
reformulated gasoline (RFG) was to be
required in the BRNA one year after the
effective date of the reclassification. The
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, the City of Baton Rouge, and
the Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge all
formally requested a waiver and/or
delay of implementation of the RFG
requirement in the Baton Rouge severe
ozone nonattainment area. EPA denied
these requests. The City and the
Chamber filed a Petition for Review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. The parties filed a joint motion
for a voluntary remand to EPA to allow
it to reconsider its decision in light of
new information. On August 2, 2004,
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
approved the joint motion, remanding
the matter to EPA and staying the
litigation and enforcement of the RFG
requirement for the BRNA during the
remand. The Court’s stay of enforcement
of the RFG requirement in the BRNA
currently remains in effect.
On February 10, 2010 EPA
determined that the BRNA area was
attaining the 1-hour ozone standard
based on quality-assured, certified data
for the 2006–2008 ozone monitoring
seasons. This determination suspended
the 1-hour attainment demonstration
requirement, 1-hour rate of progress
requirement, the 1-hour contingency
measures, and other SIP planning
2 However, the State subsequently reversed these
rules when the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
requirements related to attainment of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 75 FR
6570. Lastly, on July 7, 2011, EPA
finalized its action to terminate the CAA
section 185 penalty fee requirements for
the Baton Rouge 1-hour ozone standard.
For a more detailed rationale, see our
proposed and final actions at 76 FR
17368 and 76 FR 39775.
D. What is the background for the BRNA
under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm), which is more
protective than the previous 1-hour
ozone standard (62 FR 38855).3 The
EPA published the 1997 8-hour ozone
designations and classifications on
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858). The
BRNA was designated nonattainment
and initially classified as marginal. The
area includes five parishes (counties):
Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville,
Livingston, and West Baton Rouge
(these constitute the former 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area). The
effective date of designation for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS was June 15,
2004. Under the marginal
nonattainment designation, the latest
attainment date for the BRNA was June
15, 2007. The BRNA did not monitor
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the June 15, 2007 deadline,
based upon complete, quality-assured
and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 2004–2006
ozone seasons.
Therefore, EPA determined that the
BRNA had failed to attain the 1997
8-hour ozone standard by the applicable
attainment deadline and the area was
reclassified by operation of law as a
moderate 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, effective April 21,
2008 (73 FR 15087). This determination
was based on ambient air quality data
from the 2004–2006 monitoring period.
In a subsequent rulemaking (September
9, 2010, 75 FR 54778) EPA determined
that (based on monitoring data for 2006–
2009 monitoring periods and
preliminary 2010 data) the BRNA has
since attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Recent certified air quality
data for 2010 indicate that the BRNA
3 On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA
promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of
0.075 ppm. On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to
set the level of the primary 8-hour ozone standard
within the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm, rather than
at 0.075 ppm. EPA anticipates that by August 2011
it will have completed reconsideration of the
standard and thereafter will proceed with
designations. The actions addressed in today’s
proposed rulemaking relate only to redesignation
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA’s actions
with respect to this new standard do not affect
EPA’s action here.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. See Section V.A.
The deadline for submission of
requirements to meet the area’s new
8-hour moderate nonattainment area
classification was January 1, 2009 (73
FR 14391). The LDEQ, on December 14,
2009, submitted a request that EPA
determine that the BRNA was
monitoring attainment for the 1997 8hour ozone standard. As stated earlier,
EPA finalized a determination of
attainment on September 9, 2010. This
determination suspended the
requirement for a 1997 8-hour
attainment demonstration, 8-hour rate of
progress plan and 8-hour contingency
measures. (See 75 FR 54778). On August
31, 2010, the state submitted a request
for redesignation to attainment. As
stated previously, the request included
a maintenance plan with associated
MVEB.
III. What are the impacts of the court
decisions on EPA’s phase 1 and 2
implementation rules upon the BRNA
redesignation request?
A. Summary of the Court Decisions
The following sets forth EPA’s views
on the effect of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
rulings on this proposed redesignation
action. For the reasons set forth below,
EPA does not believe that the Court’s
rulings alter any requirements relevant
to this redesignation action or prevent
EPA from proposing or ultimately
finalizing this redesignation. EPA
believes that the Court’s December 22,
2006, June 8, 2007, and July 10, 2009,
decisions impose no impediment to
moving forward with redesignation of
this area to attainment, because even in
light of the court’s decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the
CAA and longstanding policies
regarding redesignation requests.
EPA published a first phase rule
governing implementation of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) on
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951). The Phase
1 Rule addresses classifications for the
1997 8-hour NAAQS and for revocation
for the 1-hour NAAQS; how antibacksliding principles will ensure
continued progress toward attainment of
the 1997 8-hour NAAQS; attainment
dates; and the timing of emissions
reductions needed for attainment. The
Phase 1 Rule revoked the 1-hour ozone
standard. The Phase 1 Rule also
provided that 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas are required to
adopt and implement ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ according to the area’s
classification under the 1-hour ozone
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
standard for anti-backsliding purposes.
See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(i). On May 26,
2005, we determined that an area’s
1-hour designation and classification as
of June 15, 2004 would dictate what 1hour obligations remain as ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ under the Phase 1 Rule.
40 CFR 51.900(f). (70 FR 30592). As
discussed previously, the Baton Rouge
area’s classification under the 1-hour
standard as of June 15, 2004 was
‘‘severe.’’
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Rule in South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On
June 8, 2007, in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the Court
clarified that the Phase 1 rule was
vacated only with regard to those parts
of the rule that had been successfully
challenged. See 489 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir.
2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1065
(2008). By limiting the vacatur, the
Court let stand EPA’s revocation of the
1-hour standard and those antibacksliding provisions of the Phase 1
rule that had not been successfully
challenged. The June 8, 2007 opinion
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006
decision that EPA had improperly failed
to retain four measures required for
1-hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area new
source review (NSR) requirements based
on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas that fail to attain
the 1-hour standard by the 1-hour
attainment date; and (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS or for
failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) the
court clarified that the Court’s reference
to conformity requirements was limited
to requiring the continued use of 1-hour
motor vehicle emissions budgets until
8-hour budgets were available for
8-hour conformity determinations.
EPA published a second rule
governing implementation of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard (Phase 2 Rule) on
November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as
revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31727).
The Phase 2 Rule addressed, among
other things, the Clean Data Policy as
codified in 40 CFR 51.918. The Court
upheld the Clean Data Policy, agreeing
with the Tenth Circuit that EPA’s
interpretation of the Act was reasonable.
NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir.
2009). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d
1551 (10th Cir. 1996).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
B. Summary of EPA’s Analysis of the
Impact of the Court Decisions on the
BRNA Area
1. Requirements under the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard
For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
the BRNA ozone nonattainment area
was originally classified as marginal
nonattainment under subpart 2 of the
CAA and reclassified to moderate on
March 21, 2008 (73 FR 15087). The June
8, 2007, opinion clarifies that the Court
did not vacate the Phase 1 Rule’s
provisions with respect to
classifications for areas under subpart 2.
The Court’s decision, therefore, upholds
EPA’s classifications for those areas
classified under subpart 2 for the eighthour ozone standard, and all eight-hour
ozone requirements for these areas
remain in place.
2. Requirements Under the One-Hour
Ozone Standard
In its June 8, 2007, decision, the Court
limited its vacatur so as to uphold those
provisions of EPA’s anti-backsliding
requirements that were not successfully
challenged. Therefore, an area must
meet the anti-backsliding requirements,
see 40 CFR 51.900, et seq.; 70 FR 30592,
30604 (May 26, 2005), which apply by
virtue of the area’s classification for the
one-hour ozone NAAQS. As set forth in
more detail below, the area must also
address several additional antibacksliding provisions identified by the
Court in its decisions. We address later
on in this notice how the 1-hour antibacksliding obligations (as interpreted
and directed by the court) are met in the
context of a redesignation action for the
1997 8-hour NAAQS.
IV. What are the CAA criteria for
redesignation?
The Act sets forth the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation
provided that (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the
area under CAA section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions; (4) the
Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 175A; and (5) the State
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53857
containing such area has met all
requirements applicable to the area
under CAA section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations,’’
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18,
1990.
2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment’’, Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992;
5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas’’, Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992’’, Memorandum
from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993;
8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in
Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, November 30,
1993;
9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part
D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
53858
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s
redesignation request and maintenance
plan and what is the basis for EPA’s
proposed actions?
A. Has the BRNA attained the ozone
NAAQS?
EPA has previously determined that
that the BRNA ozone nonattainment
area has attained both the 1- hour and
1997 8-hour ozone standards. As set
forth below, data available subsequent
to those determinations shows that the
area continues to attain both standards.
1. Attainment of the 8-Hour NAAQS
EPA determined that the BRNA area
was attaining the 1997 8-hour standard
based on complete quality-assured,
certified data for the 2006–2009 ozone
monitoring seasons. For a more detailed
rationale, see our final action at 75 FR
54778 (September 9, 2010). Since that
time, complete, quality-assured and
certified monitoring data for the 2010
calendar year have become available
that show the area is still attaining the
1997 8-hour standard. Draft air quality
monitoring data 4 indicate the area is
still attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. The fourth high values for
8-hour ozone for 2010, and the 3-year
average of these values (i.e., design
value), are summarized in Table 1:
TABLE 1—BRNA AREA, FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AND DESIGN VALUES DATA SUMMARY
(PPM) 1
4th Highest daily max
Design values
three year
averages
Site
2008
2009
2010
2008–2010
Plaquemine (22–047–0009) ....................................................................
Carville (22–047–0012) ...........................................................................
Dutchtown (22–005–0004) ......................................................................
Baker (22–033–1001) ..............................................................................
LSU (22–033–0003) ................................................................................
Grosse Tete (22–047–0007) ...................................................................
Port Allen (22–121–0001) ........................................................................
Pride (22–033–0013) ...............................................................................
French Settlement (22–063–0002) ..........................................................
Capitol (22–033–0009) ............................................................................
0.076
0.073
0.074
0.071
0.072
0.071
0.072
0.074
0.075
0.067
0.071
0.076
0.074
0.071
0.084
0.070
0.072
0.072
0.075
0.076
0.074
0.072
0.078
0.075
0.080
0.074
0.071
0.071
0.076
0.076
0.073
0.073
0.075
0.072
0.078
0.071
0.071
0.072
0.075
0.073
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, design value calculations for the 8-hour ozone standard are based on a rolling three-year average of
the annual 4th highest values (40 CFR part 50, Appendix I).
In addition, as discussed below with
respect to the maintenance plan,
Louisiana has committed to continue
monitoring in this area in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58.
Should the area violate the 1997
8-hour ozone standard before the
proposed redesignation is finalized,
EPA will not proceed with final
redesignation.
The ozone monitoring network run by
LDEQ in the BRNA has monitored
attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard based on data from 2006
through 2010. The 1997 ozone NAAQS
is 0.08 parts per million based on the
three-year average of the fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration measured at each monitor
within an area. The 1997 ozone
standard is considered to be attained at
84 parts per billion (ppb). The design
value for the monitoring period 2006–
2008 was 0.083 ppb. For the monitoring
period 2007–2009, it was 0.080 ppb. For
the monitoring period 2008–2010, the
design value for the BRNA was 0.078
ppb. Draft data available for 2011 are
consistent with continued attainment.
In summary, the data show BRNA has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
4 https://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/
DIVISIONS/Assessment/AirFieldServices/
AmbientAirMonitoringProgram/
AirMonitoringData.aspx.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
2. Attainment of the 1-Hour NAAQS
On February 10, 2010 EPA
determined that the BRNA area was
attaining the 1-hour ozone standard
based on quality-assured, certified data
for the 2006–2008 ozone monitoring
seasons. For a more detailed rationale,
see our final action at 75 FR 6570. Since
that time, complete, quality-assured and
certified data that have become
available showing the area continues to
attain the 1-hour ozone standard as
shown in Table 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 1-HOUR
DESIGN VALUES THROUGH 2010
Monitoring period
2006–2008 ............................
2007–2009 ............................
2008–2010 ............................
Design value
(ppb)
114
114
107
B. Has the state of Louisiana met all
applicable requirements of section 110
and part D of the CAA and does the
BRNA have a fully approved SIP under
section 110(k) of the CAA for purposes
of redesignation to attainment?
EPA has reviewed the Louisiana SIP
for the BR area with respect to SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under part D of the Act for
both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
believes that, with the exception of
certain 1-hour and 8-hour ozone RACT
requirements that will be acted on in a
separate rulemaking, the Louisiana SIP
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
for the BRNA currently contains
approved SIP measures that meet the
part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation. We are also
proposing to find that the area meets the
severe area 1-hour ozone and 1997
8-hour RACT requirements, provided
that EPA finally approves in a separate
rulemaking action the RACT
requirements for the source categories
covered by the CTG Rules Update. As
discussed previously, EPA, in a separate
final rulemaking, has approved the
termination of the section 185 penalty
fee requirement. The 1-hour and 1997
8-hour ozone applicable requirements
are discussed in detail below.
In evaluating a request for
redesignation, EPA’s long-held position
is that those requirements expressly
linked by statutory language with the
attainment and reasonable further
progress requirements do not apply if
EPA determines that the area is
attaining the standard. Additionally, it
is EPA’s interpretation of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) that applicable
requirements of the Act that come due
subsequent to the area’s submittal of a
complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation is
approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. Under this
interpretation, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting
redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant requirements of the
Act that come due prior to the submittal
of a complete redesignation request. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St.
Louis, Missouri); September 4, 1992
Calcagni memorandum; September 17,
1993 Michael Shapiro memorandum,
and 60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor, MI).
The applicable 1997 8-hour ozone
standard requirements for the BRNA
area are those for a moderate
nonattainment area.
Because EPA found the BRNA
monitored attainment of the 1-hour and
1997 8-hour standards (see citations in
section V.A. above), it suspended the
requirements for the state to submit
certain planning SIPs related to
attainment, including attainment
demonstration requirements, the
reasonably available control measures
(RACM) requirement of section 172(c)(1)
of the Act, the reasonable further
progress (RFP) and attainment
demonstration requirements of sections
172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) of the
Act, and the requirement for
contingency measures of section
172(c)(9) of the Act as long as the area
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
continues to monitor attainment of
those standards. These requirements
will cease to apply upon redesignation
to attainment.
In addition, in the context of
redesignations, EPA has interpreted
requirements related to attainment as
not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. For example, in the
General Preamble EPA stated that:
[T]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are
directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by
the applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained the
standard and is eligible for redesignation.
Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance
plans * * * provides specific requirements
for contingency measures that effectively
supersede the requirements of section
172(c)(9) for these areas. [General Preamble
for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (General
Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16,
1992)]
See also Calcagni memorandum dated
Sept 4, 1992 (‘‘The requirements for
reasonable further progress and other
measures needed for attainment will not
apply for redesignations because they
only have meaning for areas not
attaining the standard.’’ From the
memorandum, section 4.b.i.).
In prior separate actions, EPA has
finalized the termination of the
requirement for the 1-hour ozone 185
fees program. EPA has proposed
approval of the CTG Rules Update. EPA
is thus proposing to find that upon final
approval of the CTG Rules Update, the
BRNA will have a fully approved SIP
under 110(k) for redesignation purposes
and it will meet all CAA 110 and part
D applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard.
1. The BRNA Has Met All Requirements
of Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
Applicable for Purposes of
Redesignation for the 8-Hour NAAQS
a. Section 110 and General SIP
Requirements
Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a
SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a
State must have been adopted by the
State after reasonable public notice and
hearing, and, among other things, must:
Include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques necessary to meet
the requirements of the CAA; provide
for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems,
and procedures necessary to monitor
ambient air quality; provide for
implementation of a source permit
program to regulate the modification
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53859
and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the
plan; include provisions for the
implementation of part C, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part
D, NSR permit programs; include
criteria for stationary source emission
control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; include provisions for air
quality modeling; and provide for
public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule
development.
We believe that the section 110
elements that are not connected with
nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked with an area’s attainment
status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. A State
remains subject to these requirements
after an area is redesignated to
attainment. Only the section 110 and
part D requirements that are linked with
a particular area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
which we may consider in evaluating a
redesignation request. This approach is
consistent with EPA’s existing policy on
applicability of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with
section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176
(October 10, 1996)) and (62 FR 24826
(May 7, 1997)); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458
(May 7, 1996)); and Tampa, Florida,
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995)). See also the
discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone
redesignation (65 FR 37890 (June 19,
2000)), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone
redesignation (66 FR 50399 (October 19,
2001)).
We have reviewed Louisiana’s SIP
and have concluded that it meets the
general SIP requirements under section
110 of the CAA to the extent they are
applicable for purposes of
redesignation. EPA has previously
approved provisions of the Louisiana
SIP addressing section 110 elements
under the 1-hour ozone standard (40
CFR 52.970–.999). In addition, EPA has
proposed approval of a section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure SIP for PM2.5 and the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. (April 18,
2011, 76 FR 21682) Final action on the
April 18, 2011 proposal is not required
for purposes of redesignation.
b. Part D SIP Requirements
EPA has reviewed the Louisiana SIP
for the BRNA area with respect to SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
53860
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
redesignation under part D of the Act for
both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and
the1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
believes that the Louisiana SIP for the
BRNA area contains approved SIP
measures that meet the part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation. EPA has approved or
proposed to approve all of the required
Part D elements. We are proposing to
find the NOX and VOC RACT
requirements have been met as part of
this redesignation action. The VOC
RACT finding is contingent on our
finalizing our proposed approval of the
rules implementing RACT controls on
the source categories covered by the
CTG Rules Update. As discussed
previously, we have finalized a separate
action approving the termination of the
185 fee requirement. Upon final
approval of the CTG Rules Update, the
BRNA area will meet all of the
requirements applicable to the area
under part D for purposes of
redesignation. The 1-hour and 1997 8hour ozone applicable requirements are
discussed in detail below.
(i) Has the BRNA met the part D
nonattainment area requirements under
the 1-hour ozone standard?
The Baton Rouge 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area was reclassified as
severe for that standard, effective June
23, 2003. Thus, the 1-hour ozone
standard requirements applicable to the
area are those that apply to
nonattainment areas classified as severe.
Upon reclassification to severe, under
section 211(k) of the Act, the use of
reformulated gasoline also was to be
required in the BRNA one year after the
effective date of the reclassification.
However, the state never implemented
RFG in the BR area. As noted earlier,
enforcement of the RFG requirement in
the BRNA is currently stayed by court
order. As such, the state has not relied
on the RFG program in the past for
emissions reduction and does not rely
on RFG in its maintenance plan for
attainment purposes. Since it is a
program implemented by EPA and not
by the State, we do not consider RFG a
necessary requirement for redesignation.
A detailed analysis of the relevant
requirements and their status is
provided below.
The anti-backsliding provisions at 40
CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-hour ozone
NAAQS requirements that continue to
apply after revocation of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS for former 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. Section
51.905(a)(1) provides that:
The area remains subject to the obligations
to adopt and implement the applicable
requirements defined in section 51.900(f),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of
this section and except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70
FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005), states:
Applicable requirements means for an area
the following requirements to the extent such
requirements apply or applied to the area for
the area’s classification under section
181(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS
at the time of designation for the 8-hour
NAAQS:
(1) Reasonably available control technology
(RACT).
(2) Inspection and maintenance programs
(I/M).
(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for
purposes of RACT.
(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.
(5) Stage II vapor recovery.
(6) Clean-fuel vehicle program under
section 182(c)(4) of the CAA.
(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section
182(e)(3) of the CAA.
(8) Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs) during heavy traffic hours as
provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.
(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under
section 182(c)(1) of the CAA.
(10) TCMs under section 182(c)(5) of the
CAA.
(11) Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
provisions of section 182(d)(1) of the CAA.
(12) NOX requirements under section 182(f)
of the CAA.
(13) Attainment demonstration or
alternative as provided under section
51.905(a)(1)(ii).
As explained earlier in this action, in
addition to applicable requirements
listed under section 51.900(f), the State
must also comply with the additional 1hour anti-backsliding requirements
discussed in the Court’s decisions in
South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. v. EPA: (1) NSR requirements
based on the area’s 1-hour ozone
nonattainment classification; (2) section
185 source penalty fees; (3) contingency
measures to be implemented pursuant
to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the
CAA for areas not making reasonable
further progress toward attainment of
the one-hour ozone NAAQS, or for
failure to attain the NAAQS; and, (4)
transportation conformity requirements
for certain types of Federal actions.
The following discusses how the
applicable CAA requirements have been
met in the BRNA.
40 CFR 51.905 (1), (3), and (12).
RACT, Major source applicability cutoffs for purposes of RACT, and NOX
requirements under section 182(f) of the
CAA. Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 of the
CAA require areas that are classified as
moderate or above for ozone
nonattainment to adopt Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements for sources that are subject
to Control Techniques Guidelines
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(CTGs) issued by EPA and for ‘‘major
sources’’ of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX),
which are ozone precursors. See 42
U.S.C. sections 7502(c)(1) and 7511a(b)
and (f). RACT is defined as the lowest
emissions limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility
(44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979). A
CTG provides information on the
available controls for a source category
and provides a ‘‘presumptive norm’’
RACT. In this action, EPA is addressing
RACT for both NOX and VOCs in the BR
area for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, and for the 1hour standard.
The Phase 1 Rule provides that 1-hour
ozone nonattainment areas designated
as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS are required to adopt and
implement ‘‘applicable requirements’’
according to the area’s classification
under the 1-hour ozone standard at the
time of designation under the 8-hour
standard (see 40 CFR 51.905(a)(i)). The
BR area was classified as a severe
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS at the time of the 8-hour
designation and an outstanding
‘‘applicable requirement’’ for the BR
area is VOC and NOX RACT. Louisiana
previously adopted rules to address
RACT requirements for all source
categories covered by EPA CTGs that
had been issued up to that time, and to
address major sources at the serious area
major source threshold of 50 tons per
year (tpy). The reclassification of the
area from serious to severe for the 1hour ozone standard, on April 24, 2003
(68 FR 20077), required Louisiana to
ensure that RACT was in place on nonCTG sources down to 25 tpy. Louisiana
has submitted SIP revisions to address
the NOX and VOC RACT requirement
for non-CTG sources down to 25 tpy for
BR for purposes of the 1-hour ozone
requirement and to address NOX and
VOC RACT for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. On June 15, 2005, Louisiana
submitted rule revisions lowering the
major source NOX and VOC
applicability from 50 to 25 tpy for
purposes of non-CTG RACT. We
approved these rule revisions as part of
a larger package on July, 5, 2011 (76 FR
38977).
For the 1997 8-hour ozone RACT
requirements, according to EPA’s Phase
2 Rule (70 FR 71612, November 29,
2005), areas classified as moderate
nonattainment or higher must submit a
demonstration, as a revision to the SIP,
that their current rules fulfill 1997 8hour ozone RACT requirements for all
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
CTG categories and all major non-CTG
sources. The State may either
demonstrate the existing SIP approved
RACT rules continue to be RACT or
submit revised RACT rules (See EPA’s
Phase 2 Rule: 70 FR 71612, as further
explained in a memo from William T.
Harnett dated May 19, 2006, which is
included in the docket). Since BR is
classified as moderate for the 1997 8hour ozone standard, for purposes of
meeting the 8-hour RACT requirement,
the BR area must demonstrate RACT
level controls for sources covered by a
CTG document, and for each major nonCTG source.
Louisiana has submitted several SIP
revisions to address the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard RACT requirements for
NOX and VOCs for BR. These revisions
are being addressed by EPA through two
actions.
First, on June 20, 2009 and August 20,
2010, Louisiana submitted SIP revisions
to control VOC emissions in response to
CTGs issued in 2006, 2007, and 2008.
On March 17, 2011, we proposed to
approve these SIP revisions, which we
refer to as the CTG Rules Update (76 FR
14602). As part of the CTG Updates
proposed rule, we also proposed
approval, through parallel processing, of
a revision proposed by Louisiana on
January 20, 2011. If EPA issues a final
approval of the rules addressed in the
CTG Rules Update by the time this
redesignation goes final, then Louisiana
will have met for BR the requirement to
adopt RACT rules for sources addressed
in any newly issued CTGs.
Second, we are proposing in this
action to approve the RACT
demonstration submitted by LDEQ on
August 20, 2010, and a supplement on
May 16, 2011, which provides an
analysis demonstrating how the BR area
meets RACT requirements for all other
CTG and non-CTG sources through the
currently SIP-approved RACT rules.
EPA reviewed and evaluated LDEQ’s
RACT determination for both NOX and
VOCs. This review and evaluation is
provided in the RACT TSD which
accompanies this action.
The State submittal included among
other things, the following components:
(a) A RACT demonstration including
adopted State rules, which have been
federally approved, addressing RACT
requirements for CTG and ACT source
categories. See the RACT TSD for more
information.
(b) An analysis of RACT for all major
sources not covered by a CTG or ACT
and how these are controlled to meet
RACT. This information was provided
in the August 2010 submittal, and also
in an Addendum to Appendix F dated
May 16, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
To ensure RACT was in place for
major sources, the State identified all
sources that emit or have the potential
to emit at least 25 tons/year of VOC in
the BR 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. The State provided
a list of each major source in a source
category covered by a CTG/ACT and the
rules applicable to those major sources.
The State’s RACT SIP analysis was
available for public comment prior to
adoption by the State. For the RACT
portion of its August 2010 submittal, the
State received a comment letter from
EPA which was addressed in the
adopted rulemaking with an
amendment for the RACT analysis. EPA
evaluated the following elements of
LDEQ’s RACT SIP submittal for the BR
Area:
• State Rules Addressing NOX RACT
Requirements and VOC RACT
Requirements for sources Covered by a
CTG/ACT.
• Potential Major VOC Emissions
Sources possibly not covered by a CTG/
ACT.
EPA reviewed LDEQ’s RACT analysis
including the State’s Rules and
evaluation of major sources. Also, EPA
reviewed LDEQ’s emissions inventory
database for potential sources missing
from the LDEQ analysis. Based on this
review, LDEQ’s RACT analysis,
including its identification of all sources
requiring RACT, appeared to be
thorough. Additional discussion of our
review and evaluations is available in
the TSD.
In today’s proposal, we are proposing
that if we take final action to approve
the CTG Rules Update, and determine in
this final rule that the existing SIPapproved rules remain RACT, then
Louisiana’s SIP would meet the NOX
and VOC RACT requirements for 8-hour
ozone standard for all CTG categories
and for major sources of NOX and VOCs.
We are also proposing that based on our
July 5, 2011 approval (76 FR 38977) of
the lower major-source threshold of 25
tpy, that the state has met its
outstanding 1-hour RACT obligation for
the BR area. Additional detail is
provided in the TSD.
40 CFR 51.905 (2). Inspection and
maintenance programs (I/M). The BRNA
is required to implement a vehicle
inspection and maintenance program in
the five-parish area. EPA approved this
program on September 26, 2002 (67 FR
60594) and a revision to the program on
November 13, 2006 (71 FR 66113).
40 CFR 51.905 (4). Rate of progress
reductions. We approved the post-1996
ROP Plan and its associated MVEB and
a revised 1990 base year emissions
inventory on August 2, 1999 (64 FR
35930) for the BRNA serious 1-hour
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53861
ozone nonattainment area. This plan
covered the 3-year period between 1996
and1999, achieving 9 percent reductions
no later than November 15, 1999. As
discussed previously, ROP is not a
required element for redesignation
request. With the Clean Data
determinations for the 8-hour and 1hour ozone standards, EPA suspended
the obligations to submit SIP provisions
to meet the 1-hour and 8-hour Rate of
Progress requirements. If EPA finalizes
approval of this redesignation, these
obligations will be terminated.
40 CFR 51.905 (5) Stage II vapor
recovery. EPA approved Louisiana Stage
II Vapor Recovery rules for the BRNA on
March 25, 1994 (59 FR 14112).
40 CFR 51.905 (6) Clean-Fuel Vehicle
program under section 182(c)(4) of the
CAA. The State met this requirement
with a substitute program, which we
approved on July 19, 1999 (64 FR
38577). This program imposes controls
beyond the Act’s requirements (i.e.,
RACT) for storage tanks in the BRNA by
requiring guide pole and stilling well
controls on external floating roof tanks.
The resultant long term emission
reductions were greater than the
Louisiana Clean Fuel Fleet program
emission reductions in the ozone
nonattainment area. We had previously
approved a Clean Fuel Fleet program on
December 22, 1995 (60 FR 54305).
40 CFR 51.905 (7) Clean fuels for
boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the
CAA. This is an extreme area
requirement and therefore does not
apply to the BRNA severe area.
40 CFR 51.905 (8) Transportation
Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy
traffic hours as provided under section
182(e)(4) of the CAA. This is an extreme
area requirement and therefore does not
apply to the BRNA severe area.
40 CFR 51.905 (9) Enhanced
(ambient) monitoring under section
182(c)(1) of the CAA. EPA approved a
Louisiana SIP revision for enhanced
ambient monitoring on June 19, 1996
(61 FR 31037) as meeting section
182(c)(1) of the CAA. The monitoring
network meets the requirements in 40
CFR part 58 and section 182(c)(1) for
enhanced monitoring.
40 CFR 51.905 (10) TCMs under
section 182(c)(5) of the CAA. As
required by the Clean Air Act section
176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
demonstrated conformity of area
transportation plans to the motor
vehicle emissions budgets established in
the BRNA Attainment Demonstration
approved by EPA on October 2, 2002 (67
FR 61786).
40 CFR 51.905 (11) Vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) provisions of section
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
53862
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
182(d)(1) of the CAA. EPA approved the
VMT Offset Analysis on November 21,
2006 (71 FR 67308).
40 CFR 51.905 (13) Attainment
demonstration or alternative as
provided under section 51.905(a)(1)(ii).
Louisiana elected the option to submit
an 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP to demonstrate
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard by the area’s 8-hour ozone
attainment date with associated MVEBs
and an RACM analysis. The SIP was
submitted to EPA on August 31, 2010.
EPA has not acted on it. As discussed
previously, EPA’s long-held position is
that an attainment demonstration with
the RACM analysis is not an applicable
requirement for purposes of evaluating
an ozone redesignation request where
the area is attaining the standard.
(General Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See
also 40 CFR 51.918. Upon redesignation,
the obligation is terminated. Moreover
EPA has determined that the area has
attained the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour
ozone standards, and thus the area’s
obligation to submit either attainment
demonstration has been suspended. See
Our Clean Data Determinations at 75 FR
6570 and 75 FR 54778. Upon our final
approval of the redesignation request
the requirement to have an approved 1hour and 8-hour attainment
demonstration will be terminated.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(ii) South Coast Anti-Backsliding
Measures
NSR. EPA has also determined that
areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR
program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without a part D NSR program
in effect, since PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation. The rationale
for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation dated October 14, 1994, titled,
‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’ The
State’s PSD program becomes effective
in the area immediately upon
redesignation to attainment. 5 Louisiana
has demonstrated that BRNA will be
able to maintain the standard without a
part D NSR program in effect, and
therefore, Louisiana need not have a
fully approved part D NSR program
prior to approval of the redesignation
request. Consequently, EPA concludes
5 If the State believes that a rule change is
required, it must adopt and submit it to EPA for
approval as a SIP revision. Upon EPA’s approval of
the SIP revision submittal, PSD applies in the area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
that an approved NSR program is not an
applicable requirement for purposes of
redesignation, where it is not required
for maintenance, as is the case here. See
the more detailed explanations of this
issue in the following rulemakings:
Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468
(March 7, 1995); Cleveland-AkronLorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469–
20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville,
Kentucky (66 Fr 53665, 53669, October
23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61
FR 31831, 31836–31837, June 21,
1996).6
Section 185 fees. On July 7, 2011 (76
FR 39755), EPA finalized approval of a
determination to terminate the CAA
section 1-hour ozone 185 penalty fees
program requirement for the BRNA.
EPA’s rulemaking cited a January 5,
2010 guidance document regarding
section 185, but the rulemaking
proposal also set forth separately in
detail EPA’s proposed rationale for
terminating 1-hour ozone antibacksliding 185 requirements when EPA
determines that an area has attained the
1-hour standard and when that
attainment is due to permanent and
enforceable requirements. 76 FR 17368
(March 29, 2011). EPA proposed and
explained both its interpretation of the
termination requirements, derived from
statutory criteria for redesignation, and
the application of this interpretation to
the specific circumstances of the Baton
Rouge area. EPA explained that the
Baton Rouge area met the core
redesignation requirements that would
have been applicable were EPA still
redesignating areas for the 1-hour
standard—a process EPA discontinued
six years ago because it was unnecessary
and not consistent with revocation of
the 1-hour standard.
EPA published notice of its proposed
termination and EPA’s underlying
rationale in the Federal Register, and
established a 30-day period for public
comments to be submitted. No adverse
comments were received; however,
6 The interpretation that NNSR does not apply to
areas designated attainment for a NAAQS and thus
is not needed in the SIP for such an area is
consistent with Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3rd 527,
at 536 (‘‘It would make little sense for [NSR] to be
included in the post-attainment SIP, as the Clean
Air Act * * * explicitly states that attainment area
SIPs must include a PSD program.’’). As the DC
Circuit held in Alabama Power, 636 F.3d 323, at
365 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the applicability of PSD is
geographically limited by the language of CAA
section 165(a), which states that unless specified
conditions are met, ‘‘[n]o major emitting facility
* * * may be constructed in any area to which this
part [Part C] applies’’ (emphasis added). Thus, with
respect to ozone, EPA’s interpretation is that areas
designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour standard
are subject to section 165(a), not the 172(c)(5) SIP
requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
commenters submitted 13 sets of
comments in support of EPA’s proposal.
On June 23, 2011, EPA signed a final
rulemaking that terminated the 1-hour
anti-backsliding section 185
requirements for the Baton Rouge area.
Subsequently, on July 1, 2011, the DC
Circuit issued a ruling in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No.
10–1056 (D.C. Cir), vacating the
guidance document. The Court’s
opinion, however, did not address the
rationale or circumstances pertaining to
the termination of the 1-hour antibacksliding 185 requirements for any
area including the Baton Rouge area. In
the case of Baton Rouge, EPA, after
providing for notice and comment on its
proposed rationale and how it applies to
the facts of Baton Rouge, determined
that the area has attained the 1-hour
ozone standard, and that this attainment
is due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions. In its proposed
rulemaking, EPA explained how and
why these findings justify termination
of the section 185 requirements for
Baton Rouge. See 76 FR 17368. EPA
believes that the procedure and
substance of the Baton Rouge
rulemaking are outside the scope of the
agency action of which the Court
disapproved in its July 1 ruling, and that
therefore the Baton Rouge termination
determination survives and withstands
the Court’s ruling regarding EPA’s
guidance.
In its Baton Rouge proposal, EPA
proposed its interpretation of the
statutory requirements. EPA stated its
belief that a state could meet its 185 1hour anti-backsliding obligations
through a SIP revision containing either
the fee program prescribed in section
185, or an equivalent alternative
program. It stated: ‘‘EPA believes that an
alternative program may be acceptable if
it is consistent with the principles of
section 172(e) of the CAA, which allows
EPA through rulemaking to accept
alternative programs that are ‘‘not less
stringent’’ where EPA has revised the
NAAQS to make it less stringent. EPA
explained that in its Phase 1 ozone
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS (69 FR 23951 April 30, 2004),
EPA determined that although section
172(e) does not directly apply where
EPA has strengthened the NAAQS, as it
did in 1997, it was reasonable to apply
the same principle for the transition
from the 1-hour NAAQS to the 1997
8-hour NAAQS. 76 FR 17369–70. As
part of applying the principle in section
172(e) for purposes of the transition
from the 1-hour standard to the 1997
8-hour standard, EPA went on to state
that it would
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
’’consider alternative programs to satisfy the
section 185 fee program SIP revision
requirement. States choosing to adopt an
alternative program to the section 185 fee
program must demonstrate that the
alternative program is no less stringent than
the otherwise applicable section 185 fee
program and EPA must approve such
demonstration after notice and comment
rulemaking.’’
In the Baton Rouge proposed
rulemaking, EPA proposed that if it
determined that the area is attaining the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, based on
permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions, the area’s existing SIP could
be considered an adequate alternative
program. EPA explained that under
these circumstances, the Baton Rouge
area’s existing SIP measures, in
conjunction with other enforceable
Federal measures, would be adequate to
achieve attainment, which is the
purpose of the section 185 program.
EPA stated that ‘‘the section 185 fee
program is an element of an area’s
attainment demonstration, and its object
is to bring about attainment after a
failure of an area to attain by its
attainment date. Thus, areas that have
attained the 1-hour ozone standard, the
standard for which the fee program was
originally required, as a result of
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions, would have a SIP that is not
less stringent than the SIP required
under section 185.’’ 76 FR 17370.
EPA further explained its position:
‘‘We believe that it is reasonable for the fee
program obligation that applies for purposes
of anti-backsliding to cease upon a
determination, based on notice-and-comment
rulemaking, that an area has attained the 1hour ozone standard due to permanent and
enforceable measures. This determination
centers on the core criteria for redesignations
under CAA section 107(d)(3). We believe
these criteria provide reasonable assurance
that the purpose of the 1-hour antibacksliding fee program obligation has been
fulfilled in the context of a regulatory regime
where the area remains subject to other
applicable 1-hour anti-backsliding and 8hour measures.’’ 76 FR 17370.
In the proposed rulemaking, EPA
referred to the January 5, 2010 guidance
as ‘‘expressing [EPA’s] views’’ as to
‘‘potential rationales’’ (76 FR 17371,
emphasis added) for terminating 1-hour
ozone section 185 requirements. With
respect to the 1-hour section 185 antibacksliding requirements for Baton
Rouge, however, EPA stated that its
proposed rulemaking notice for that area
‘‘formally sets forth EPA’s legal
interpretation concerning the basis for
terminating those obligations’’, thereby
making the specific rationale for Baton
Rouge subject to notice and comment
rulemaking. EPA then discussed at
length the facts supporting its proposed
finding that the Baton Rouge area had
continuously attained the 1-hour ozone
standard during the 2006–2008 time
period, and that the state had shown
that this attainment is due to permanent
and enforceable emissions limitations,
thereby supporting the conclusion that
the State SIP had supplied an adequate
alternative program under the specific
circumstances presented. 76 FR 17371–
72.
The Court’s opinion does not
preclude EPA from terminating the 1hour section 185 anti-backsliding
requirement for areas like Baton Rouge,
that EPA has determined through notice
and comment rulemaking, have attained
the 1-hour ozone standard due to
permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions.
53863
We therefore believe that, for the
purpose here of evaluating applicable
requirements pertaining to
redesignation, Louisiana’s obligation to
satisfy the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding
requirement for section 185 fees has
been terminated.
Contingency Measures. Sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA
require ozone plans for nonattainment
areas to contain measures to be
implemented in the event that any RFP
or attainment deadline is missed. As
explained in a March 26, 2009 (74 FR
13166) proposal, it is EPA’s position
that contingency measures are not an
applicable requirement for purposes of
evaluating an ozone redesignation
request when an area is attaining the
relevant standard. EPA’s long-held
position is that those requirements
expressly linked by statutory language
with the attainment and reasonable
further progress do not apply when an
area requesting redesignation is
attaining the standard. Pursuant to
EPA’s determination that the BRNA
attained the 1-hour ozone standard
(February 10, 2010, 75 FR 13166), the
requirement to submit the 1-hour
contingency measures was suspended.
This obligation will be terminated upon
a final approval of the redesignation
request.
For more detail regarding the
applicable 1-hour ozone requirements
and EPA’s approval actions, see the
Technical Support Document (TSD),
which is included in the electronic
docket. Listed below are the severe
ozone 1-hour area requirements that
have already been met by the BR area
for the purposes of this redesignation.
Requirement
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 section
EPA Approval/other justification
182(a)(2)(A) RACT corrections ..........................................
182(a)(2)(B) I/M Program ...................................................
August 26, 1996 (61 FR 38590).
Required under section 182(c)(3).
August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45454).
EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that
the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without a part D NSR program
in effect, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation.
February 6, 1995 (60 FR 02014).
This is covered by the requirement in 182(c)(2).
182(a)(2)(C) Permit programs and 182(a)(4) General Offset requirement.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
182(a)(3)(B) Emissions Statements ...................................
182(b)(1) Plan Provisions for Reasonable Further
Progress.
182(b)(2) Reasonably Available Control Technology ........
182(b)(3) Gasoline Vapor Recovery ..................................
182(b)(4) Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance .......
182(c)(1) Enhanced Monitoring .........................................
182(c)(2) Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress
Demonstrations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
May 5, 1994 (59 FR 23164).
August 26, 1996 (61 FR 38590).
December 31, 1996 (61 FR 55894).
February 2, 1998 (62 FR 63658).
November 8, 1998 (63 FR 47429).
March 25, 1994 (59 FR 14112).
Required under section 182(c)(3).
August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45454).
June 19, 1996 (61 FR 31035).
December 23, 1996 (61 FR 54737).
August 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930).
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
53864
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Requirement
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 section
EPA Approval/other justification
182(c)(3) Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program.
182(c)(4) Clean-Fuel Vehicle Programs ............................
182(c)(5)Transportation Control .........................................
182(c)(6) De Minimis Rule .................................................
182(c)(7) Special Rule for Modifications of Sources Emitting Less Than 100 Tons.
182(c)(8) Special Rule for Modifications of Sources Emitting 100 Tons or More.
182(c)(9) Contingency Provisions ......................................
182(c)(10) General Offset Requirement ............................
182(d)(1) Vehicle Miles Traveled .......................................
182(d)(2)Offset Requirement .............................................
182(d)(3) Enforcement Under Section 185 ........................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(iii) Part D SIP Requirements Under
1997 8-Hour Standard: Part D, Subpart
2 Applicable SIP Requirements
The only moderate area requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
under part D, section 182(b) that became
due prior to the submission of the
complete redesignation request are the
control techniques guidelines (CTGs) to
meet requirements for RACT under
section 182(b)(2). The State submitted
several SIP revisions addressing the
CTG rules requirements, and provided a
SIP revision addressing NOX and VOC
RACT requirements in BR on August 31,
2010. The CTG Rules Update was
proposed for approval in a separate
rulemaking published in the Federal
Register on March 17, 2011 (76 FR
14602). If EPA finalizes its proposed
approval of the CTG Rules Update
together with the NOx and VOC RACT
requirements which are addressed in
today’s action, the area will have met all
the requirements applicable under its
prior severe 1-hour classification and
current moderate 1997 8-hour
classification for purposes of
redesignation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Additional information about
the CTG Rules Update and RACT
Update requirements is provided in the
discussion above, as well as in the TSD.
(iv) Section 176 Conformity
Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
under title 23 of the United States Code
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45454).
Clean Fuel Fleet Substitute Program, July 19, 1999.
October 2, 2002 (67 FR 61786).
This requirement is related to the NSR program that is not an applicable requirement
for redesignation.
This requirement is related to the NSR program that is not an applicable requirement
for redesignation.
This requirement is related to the NSR program that is not an applicable requirement
for redesignation.
September 26, 2002 (67 FR 60590). This requirement was suspended pursuant to
the 1-hour determination of attainment.
February 10, 2010 ( 75 FR 6570).
September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61260).
November 21, 2006 (71 FR 67308).
This requirement is related to the NSR program that is not an applicable requirement
for redesignation.
July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39775).
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to
all other Federally supported or funded
projects (general conformity). State
conformity revisions must be consistent
with Federal conformity regulations
relating to consultation, enforcement
and enforceability that the CAA
required the EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and Federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. See Wall v.
EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)
(upholding this interpretation). See also
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995, Tampa,
Florida).
(v) NSR Requirements
As with the nonattainment NSR
requirements for the 1-hour ozone
standard, EPA has determined that areas
being redesignated need not have an
approved 1997 8-hour nonattainment
NSR program prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the standard without a
part D NSR program in effect, since PSD
requirements will apply after
redesignation. The rationale for this
view is described in a memorandum
from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
dated October 14, 1994, entitled ‘‘Part D
New Source Review (Part D NSR)
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’
Louisiana demonstrated in the
accompanying maintenance plan that
BR will be able to maintain the standard
without a part D NSR program in effect,
and therefore, Louisiana need not have
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a fully approved part D NSR program
prior to approval of the redesignation
request. Louisiana’s PSD program will
become effective in BRNA upon
redesignation to attainment (unless a
rule change is necessary; see footnote 4).
See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan
(60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
(vi) Section 182(a)(1) Inventory
Requirements
The moderate area requirements at
section 182(a) and 40 CFR 51.915
require that the BR 1997 8-hour ozone
area meet the emissions inventory
requirements of section 182(a)(1). An
emissions inventory is an estimation of
actual emissions of air pollutants in an
area. The emissions inventory consists
of VOC and NOX emissions, as they are
ozone precursors. EPA approved a base
year inventory for 2002 on September 3,
2009 (74 FR 45561) under 182(b) for
moderate areas. A more detailed
discussion of the emission inventory for
the BRNA can be found in the analysis
of the maintenance plan for this
redesignation below.
2. The BRNA Has a Fully Approved SIP
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA proposes to find that the area has
an approved SIP for all the 1997 8-hour
ozone requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation. This
proposal is contingent on our final
approval of the NOX and VOC RACT
analyses and provisions that are
addressed in today’s action and in the
CTG Rules Update. EPA is proposing to
find that, upon EPA’s final approval of
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
53865
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the BR emissions inventory, the VOC
and NOX RACT analysis, and the CTG
Rules Update, the BR area will meet all
requirements applicable to the area for
purposes of redesignation for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard under section
110 and part D and have a fully
approved applicable implementation
plan for the area under section 110(k).
As noted earlier, implementation of RFG
is not required for purposes of
redesignation.
EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals
in approving a redesignation request;
see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3;
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–
90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426,
plus any additional measures it may
approve in conjunction with a
redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426
(May 12, 2003) and citations therein.
Following passage of the CAA of 1970,
Louisiana adopted and submitted, and
EPA fully approved at various times,
provisions addressing the various
1-hour ozone standard SIP elements
applicable in the BR area as discussed
above.
As indicated, EPA believes that the
section 110 elements not connected
with nonattainment plan submissions
and not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. As set forth above, with
the exceptions noted, the area has met
all other applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard.
C. Are the air quality improvements in
the BR nonattainment area due to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions resulting from the
implementation of State and Federal
regulations and other permanent and
enforceable emission reductions?
EPA proposes to find that Louisiana
has demonstrated that the observed
ozone air quality improvement in the
BR area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of
emissions controls contained in the SIP,
Federal control measures, and other
State-adopted control measures.
1. Emissions Reductions as Shown by
Emissions Inventory Data
EPA believes that the improvement in
air quality in the Baton Rouge area
during the 2002–2008 timeframe, which
resulted in attainment of both the 1hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards,
is due to emissions reductions from
permanent and enforceable measures.
Table 3 shows the changes in emissions
for NOX and VOC’s from 2002 to 2008.
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF TOTAL
EMISSION REDUCTIONS
NOX
TPD
Base Year (2002) Inventory ......................
2008 Emissions ............
200.3
143.8
VOC
TPD
211.0
101.3
Emissions of both VOC and NOX have
been reduced during the time period
leading up to December 31, 2008, the
date when Baton Rouge reached
attainment for the 1-hour standard.
The State also analyzed the changes
in VOC and NOX emissions in the BR
area between the original base year of
2002 and the year 2006 during which
the area attained the standard. The 2006
inventory was generated from the
approved 2002 base year inventory
(September 3, 2009, 74 FR 45561). The
2002 and 2006 emissions for the BRNA
area were determined using EPA
accepted methods and guidance.7 The
State documented the VOC and NOX
emission control measures that have
been implemented in the BR area for at
least the past 3 years. Comparing the
2002 and 2006 NOX and VOC emissions
to the projected future year emissions, a
downward trend is observed. Broken
out by source category, the reduction in
emissions is shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4—A COMPARISON OF VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS IN THE BRNA AREA BY SOURCE CATEGORY FROM THE YEAR
2002 AND THE YEAR 2006
[Tons per average ozone season day]
VOC Emissions
(tpd)
NOX Emissions
(tpd)
Source category
2002
Percent
change
2006
2002
2006
Percent
change
Point ...............................................................................
Area ................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile ...........................................................
On-Road Mobile .............................................................
40.17
29.71
22.97
14.99
33.10
31.59
13.60
17.60
¥17.6
+5.95
¥22.38
+16.75
117.91
3.90
43.59
34.01
73.40
4.06
36.75
29.30
¥37.75
+4.10
¥15.69
¥13.85
Total ........................................................................
107.84
95.89
¥11.08
199.41
143.50
¥28.04
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Impact of Emissions Controls
Implementation: Trend Analysis
3. Permanent and Enforceable Emissions
Controls Implemented
The State provided design value data
from 1997 through 2008 to illustrate the
downward trend in ozone since 2005.
(See Chart 1 on page 9 of the state’s
submittal.) In addition, it provided a
table of design values by monitor for the
2006–2008 monitoring period that also
shows the general downward trend in
emissions during that time period.
(Table 1, Ibid.)
The Baton Rouge nonattainment area
control strategy is primarily NOXdriven, therefore no major VOC rules
have been adopted other than those
required to meet updated CTGs as
required by the Act. LDEQ attributes the
reductions in emissions primarily to the
stationary source NOX control measures
implemented no later than May 1, 2005,
which were required by the State’s
7 EPA. 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of
Air Quality Goals for Ozone PM2.5, and Regional
Haze. Prepared by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
rules. The following is a discussion of
the permanent and enforceable emission
controls that have been implemented in
the BR area. In Louisiana’s 8-hour ozone
redesignation request, the State
documented all of the emission control
rules or programs that have impacted
VOC or NOX emissions during the
period 1990–2008.
Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park,
NC (EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007).
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
53866
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
a. Reasonably Available Control
Techniques
approved by the EPA as revisions of the
Louisiana SIP.
Louisiana notes that a number of VOC
and NOX RACT rules which were
developed in prior years have continued
to provide additional VOC and NOX
emission reductions during more recent
years. For VOC controls, with the
exception of the source categories
covered by the most recently published
CTGs (see a discussion of the new CTG
RACT rules below), Louisiana has
adopted and implemented VOC RACT
rules for source categories covered by
older (prior to 2006) CTGs and for major
non-CTG sources in the five-parish
BRNA. All VOC RACT rules are
contained in Chapter 21 of Louisiana
Administrative Code (LAC 33:III
Chapter 21), and all NOX RACT rules
are contained in Chapter 22 of the LAC
(LAC 33:III Chapter 22). All of these
VOC and NOX RACT rules have been
b. ROP Plans and Attainment
Demonstration Plan
EPA approved a serious area
attainment plan and ROP plans as noted
above under the 1-hour ozone standard
requirements for serious areas. October
22, 1996 (61 FR 54737) and July 2, 1999
(64 FR 35930). Measures in these plans
include Stage II Vapor Recovery, marine
vapor recovery, tank vent recovery,
emission reductions from vents to flares,
tank fitting controls, fugitive emission
controls, secondary roof seals on tanks,
as well as some federally required
controls pursuant to NESHAPs and
NSPS. All these measures continue to
produce reductions today.
c. NOX Control Rules
NOX emission reductions were
achieved through the implementation of
NOX control measures for stationary
sources which were adopted by the state
effective on February 20, 2002, and
approved by EPA on September 27,
2002 (67 FR 60877), and adopted by the
state on August 20, 2003 and approved
by EPA on July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977).
These rules were implemented between
February 20, 2002, and May 1, 2005.
The rules established emission factors
(standards) for NOX sources within the
BRNA. These revisions achieved
approximately 40 TPD of additional
NOX reductions in the BRNA beginning
with the compliance date of May 1 2005
and continuing to date. These rules are
still part of the state’s rules and are
enforceable at the state and Federal
level. The specific standards are listed
below.
NOX Standard
NOX Reduction measures 2002–2008
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Electric Power Generating System Boilers:
Coal-fired > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr .............................................................................................................................................
Coal-fired > 80 MMBtu/hr ..........................................................................................................................................................
No. 6 fuel oil-fired > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr ................................................................................................................................
No. 6 fuel oil-fired > 80 MMBtu/hr .............................................................................................................................................
All others (gaseous or liquid) > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr ..............................................................................................................
All others (gaseous or liquid) > 80 MMBtu/hr ...........................................................................................................................
Industrial Boilers > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr .........................................................................................................................................
Industrial Boilers > 80 MMBtu/hr ......................................................................................................................................................
Process Heater/Furnaces:
Ammonia reformers > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr .............................................................................................................................
Ammonia reformers > 80 MMBtu/hr ..........................................................................................................................................
All others > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr ..............................................................................................................................................
All others > 80 MMBtu/hr ..........................................................................................................................................................
Stationary Gas Turbines:
Peaking Service, Fuel Oil-fired > 5 to < 10 MW .......................................................................................................................
Peaking Service, Fuel Oil-fired > 10 MW .................................................................................................................................
Peaking Service, Gas-fired > 5 to < 10 MW .............................................................................................................................
Peaking Service, Gas-fired > 10 MW .......................................................................................................................................
All Others > 5 to < 10 MW ........................................................................................................................................................
All Others > 10 MW ...................................................................................................................................................................
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines:
Lean-burn engines > 150 to < 320 Hp ......................................................................................................................................
Lean-burn engines > 320 Hp ....................................................................................................................................................
Rich-burn engines > 150 to < 300 Hp ......................................................................................................................................
Rich-burn engines > 300 Hp .....................................................................................................................................................
The bulk of the NOX emissions
between 2002 and 2006 came from the
source categories listed in the table
above. In 2006, stationary (point)
sources made up over 51 percent of the
entire NOX inventory for the BRNA,
which is a decrease from over 59
percent in 2002. In addition, Louisiana
adopted and implemented emission
control rules requiring existing sources
of VOC to meet, at minimum, RACT.
These requirements apply to sources in
categories covered by CTGs and other
major non-CTG sources. These rules
were adopted and implemented prior to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
2002. (62 FR 63658, February 2, 1998;
63 FR 47429, November 8, 1998).
d. Federal Emission Control Measures
LDEQ notes that on-road Federal
emission control measures have had
positive impacts on VOC and NOX
emissions in the BR area for reaching
attainment. Table 5 shows the Federal
emissions reductions programs in the
BR area for fuels and motor vehicles:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.50
0.21
0.30
0.18
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
0.30
0.23
0.18
0.08
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
0.37
0.30
0.27
0.20
0.24
0.16
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
lb/MMBtu.
10 g/Hp-hr.
4 g/Hp-hr.
2 g/Hp-hr.
2g/Hp-hr.
TABLE 5—BR FEDERAL EMISSION
REDUCTIONS PROGRAMS
Federal Measures:
Æ Tier 2 Fuel and Vehicle Emission Standards
Æ Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
(ORVR) for light-duty vehicles
Æ Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle and
Fuel Standards
Æ Federal controls on certain nonroad engines
Æ Federal control through Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
of Hazardous Air Pollutants emissions
Æ Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Consumer Products
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—BR FEDERAL EMISSION
REDUCTIONS PROGRAMS—Continued
Æ Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Architectural Coatings
Æ Locomotives and Marine CompressionIgnition Engines
Summary
The above discussion shows that
state, local and Federal emission
controls have contributed to the ozone
air quality improvement in the BR area
that resulted in attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard. Emissions
inventory data demonstrates that NOX
and VOC emissions have dropped
substantially between 2002 and 2008 for
stationary sources primarily but also for
mobile sources. These substantial
decreases in ozone precursors can be
directly attributed to State and Federal
measures. As noted above, Louisiana
has committed to retaining in the SIP all
existing emission control measures that
affect ozone levels in the BR area after
the BRNA is redesignated to attainment
of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS.
All changes in existing rules
subsequently determined to be
necessary must be submitted to the EPA
for approval as SIP revisions.
EPA thus proposes to find that the
improvement in air quality in the BR
area is due to permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Does the BRNA have a fully
approvable maintenance plan pursuant
to section 175A of the CAA?
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the BR 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, the State of
Louisiana included a SIP revision to
provide for the maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the BR area for
at least 10 years after redesignation to
attainment. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). As
discussed below, EPA has reviewed this
maintenance plan and is proposing to
approve it as meeting the requirements
of section 175A of the CAA.
1. What is required in an ozone
maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the required elements of air quality
maintenance plans for areas seeking
redesignation to attainment of a
NAAQS. Under section 175A, a
maintenance plan must demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable
NAAQS for at least 10 years after the
Administrator approves the
redesignation to attainment. The State
must commit to submit a revised
maintenance plan within eight years
after the redesignation. This revised
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
maintenance plan must provide for
maintenance of the ozone standard for
an additional 10 years beyond the initial
10 year maintenance period. To address
the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must
contain such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure prompt
correction of any future NAAQS
violation. The September 4, 1992,
Calcagni memorandum provides
additional guidance on the content of
maintenance plans.
An ozone maintenance plan should,
at minimum, address the following: (1)
The attainment VOC and NOX emission
inventories; (2) a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for
the 10 years of the maintenance period;
(3) a commitment to maintain the
existing monitoring network; (4) factors
and procedures to be used for
verification of continued attainment;
and, (5) contingency measures to correct
a future violation of the NAAQS.
2. What is the attainment inventory for
the BRNA?
Sections 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires
that the SIP include a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory of actual
emissions from sources of relevant
pollutants in the nonattainment area.
The emission inventory for an ozone
nonattainment area contains both VOC
and NOX emissions, which are
precursors to ozone formation. LDEQ
prepared a comprehensive emission
inventory for the BR area including
point, area, on-road, and off-road mobile
sources for the year 2006. Table 6 lists
the 2006 emissions inventory for the BR
area. EPA reviewed the 2006 inventory
and determined that it was developed in
accordance with EPA guidelines8. For a
full discussion of our evaluation, please
refer to Part II of the TSD, found in the
electronic docket.
TABLE 6—BR 2006 EMISSION
INVENTORY
Source type
NOX
VOC
2006 Inventory (Tons/Day)
53867
Louisiana developed its 2006
Emissions Inventory from the
previously approved 2002 baseline
inventory (September 3, 2009, 74 FR
45561). The State relied on this 2006
inventory in preparing the attainment
demonstration modeling that is
included in Appendix D of the State’s
submittal.
The 2006 and projected year
emissions for the BRNA 5-parish area
were determined using the following
procedures:
Point Source Emissions. Point source
VOC and NOX emissions for 2006 were
calculated using methodologies
according to Federal guidelines and
using AP–42 or other approved
methods. The State collected emissions
data, which are estimates of actual
emissions, provided by the facilities. A
list of those facilities is provided in
Appendix C of the LDEQ submittal.
Area Source Emissions. Area source
emissions from the 2002 National
Emission Inventory (NEI) were used as
the starting point for the 2006 Louisiana
area emissions. Projection years’
emissions were initially grown using the
EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis
System (EGAS) version 5.0 growth
factors. The methodologies used to
develop area sources inventory are
described in Appendix D of the
submittal.
On-road Emissions. Mobile source
emissions were calculated based on
Parish-specific inputs provided by
several state agencies. MOBILE6 was
then used to generate emission factors.
A detailed description of on-road
emission estimates is found in
Appendix D of the LDEQ submittal.
Non-road Emissions. For all non-road
mobile categories except aircraft,
locomotives, and commercial marine
vessels, the emissions were calculated
using the EPA’s National Mobil
Inventory Model (NMIM) to generate
Louisiana state-wide parish level
emissions estimates. Airport and
locomotive emissions were derived from
2006 LDEQ inventory. Marine emissions
were developed from CENRAP
inventories. A detailed description of
non-road emission estimates is found in
Appendix D of the submittal.
Point ..................................
Nonpoint ...........................
On-road Mobile .................
Non-road Mobile ...............
73.4
4.06
29.3
36.75
33.1
31.59
17.60
13.59
Total ..................................
143.51
95.88
3. Has the state of Louisiana committed
to maintain the ozone monitoring
system in the BRNA?
Inventory Improvement Program
(EIIP), EPA–454/R–97–004a–g, https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/; AP–42, https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/; Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR Rule),
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/aerr/
final_published_aerr.pdf
The State of Louisiana has committed
to continue operation of an EPAapproved ozone monitoring network
and to work with EPA pursuant to 40
CFR part 58 with regard to the
continued adequacy of the network,
including whether additional
8 Emission
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
53868
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
monitoring is needed, and when a
monitor site can be discontinued.
4. Has the state demonstrated
maintenance in the BRNA?
As part of its request to redesignate
the BR 1997 8-hour ozone standard
nonattainment area, the State of
Louisiana included a SIP revision to
incorporate a maintenance plan as
required under section 175A and
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA. The
maintenance plan includes a
demonstration based on a comparison of
emissions in one of the attainment years
(2008) and projected emissions to
demonstrate maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the BR area for
at least 10 years after the anticipated
redesignation year. CAA
107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To demonstrate
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, LDEQ projected VOC and NOX
emissions to 2022 and to several interim
years, 2012, 2016, and 2020. These
emissions were compared to the 2008
attainment year and 2006 base year
emissions (both years in the 2006–2008
attainment period) to show that
emissions of NOX and VOC, remain
below the attainment levels for the
entire demonstrated maintenance
period.
In projecting data for the maintenance
year 2022 inventory, LDEQ used several
methods to project data from the base
year 2006 to the years 2008, 2012, 2016,
2020, and 2022. These projected
inventories were developed using EPA-
approved technologies and
methodologies. Point source and nonpoint source projections were derived
from the Emissions Growth Analysis
System version 6.0 (EGAS 6.0). Nonroad mobile projections were derived
from EGAS 6.0, and from NONROAD
2005.
To demonstrate declines in future
emissions, LDEQ provided a
comparison between the 2006 inventory
and the emission growth projections for
the years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and
2022. Table 7 summarizes the 2006 and
2008 attainment years, interim years
during the maintenance period, horizon
year 2022, the end year for the
maintenance period, and net changes in
VOC and NOX emissions by source type.
TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF FUTURE VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE BRNA AREA
[Tons per average ozone season day]
2006
2008
2012
2016
2020
2022
Net change
2022–2006
Source category
NOX
VOC
NOX
VOC
NOX
VOC
NOX
VOC
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point ............................
Nonpoint ......................
Nonroad .......................
Onroad ........................
33.10
31.59
13.60
17.60
73.40
4.06
36.75
29.30
32.22
32.35
12.59
17.82
67.71
4.16
37.45
28.35
32.22
33.63
11.22
10.64
67.71
4.36
38.51
18.63
32.22
35.59
10.27
9.70
67.71
4.53
39.59
12.08
32.22
37.54
9.78
7.82
67.71
4.74
41.36
8.33
32.22
38.51
9.99
7.55
67.71
4.83
40.60
6.96
¥0.88
6.92
¥3.61
¥10.1
¥5.69
0.78
3.85
¥22.34
Total .....................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VOC
95.89
143.51
94.98
137.66
87.70
129.18
87.77
123.84
87.36
122.14
88.27
120.10
¥7.67
¥23.40
Federal rules implemented after
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard contribute to continued
maintenance in the area. These
measures include:
Non-Road Diesel Rule. EPA
promulgated this rule in 2004. It applies
to diesel engines used in industries,
such as construction, agriculture, and
mining. It is estimated that compliance
with this rule will cut NOX emissions
from non-road diesel engines by up to
90 percent beginning with the 2008
Model Year equipment. This rule will
be fully implemented in 2014.
Locomotives and Marine
Compression-Ignition Engines. This EPA
rule was adopted March 14, 2008, and
includes new emission standards for
locomotives and marine diesel engines
that will reduce NOX emissions by
about 80 percent compared with engines
meeting the current standards. The new
requirements have three parts:
Tightening emission standards for
existing locomotives and large marine
engines when they are remanufactured,
effective in 2008; beginning in 2009,
phasing in Tier III standards for new
locomotives and marine diesel engines;
and establishing more stringent Tier IV
standards for new locomotives and
marine diesel engines; these standards
will be phased in beginning in 2014.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
EPA evaluated the BRNA
maintenance emission inventory
component of the redesignation request
and determined that LDEQ
demonstrated that emissions levels of
VOC and NOX in the 2022 maintenance
year will decrease from the 2006
baseline year by 7.67 and 23.40 tons per
average ozone season day respectively.
Overall VOC and NOX emissions levels
will remain below the 2006–2008
attainment year levels throughout the
maintenance period. EPA also
determined that LDEQ has adequately
calculated and documented emissions
by using methods consistent with EPA’s
guidance. (See footnote 7).
As shown in the table and discussion
above, the State demonstrated that the
total future year ozone precursor
emissions will be less than the 2008
attainment year’s emissions. The
attainment inventory submitted by the
LDEQ for this area is consistent with
EPA guidance. (See footnote 7).
Considering emissions projections, EPA
finds that the expected future emissions
levels in 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2022
have been shown to be lower than
emissions levels in 2006 and 2008.
The NOX projections in Louisiana’s
maintenance demonstration relied in
part on reductions due to the Clean Air
Interstate rule (CAIR). CAIR, however,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VOC
NOX
was remanded back to EPA, and EPA on
July 6, 2011 issued the final Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule 9 (CSAPR) to replace
CAIR. EPA believes the reductions for
Louisiana due to the CSAPR are similar
in magnitude to those projected by
CAIR. Louisiana’s Ozone season NOX
budget for CAIR was 17,085 tpy for
EGUs from 2009 to 2014 and lowered to
14,238 tpy NOX for 2015 and later. The
CSAPR ozone season NOX limit is
13,432 tpy, which is 806 tpy less NOX
than the CAIR budget. So with the
reductions from the CSAPR, we believe
that Louisiana’s maintenance
demonstration 10 year projection
remains valid.
Pre-control modeling in support of the
CSAPR indicates that the Baton Rouge
area will not be in attainment of the
1997 8 hour ozone standard in 2012
because of impacts from upwind states.
For this reason, upwind States with a
significant impact on the Baton Rouge
area are required to reduce their NOX
emissions. The CSAPR modeling
indicates the Baton Rouge area will be
in attainment in 2014 after institution of
the CSAPR controls. The 2014 control
case modeling is projected off a center
weighted average of design values
9 The Cross State Air Pollution Rule was
proposed August 2, 2010 as the ‘‘Transport Rule.’’
We refer to the rule as the CSAPR.
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
during the period 2003–2007.
Additional CSAPR modeling, however,
projecting off a single year’s design
value for 2005 (years 2003–2005)
projects that the area will not be in
attainment in 2014. This variation in
model projections, depending on the
projection year, is an indication the
Baton Rouge area could have some
difficulty in maintaining attainment in
years when meteorology particularly
favors ozone production. The
maintenance plan, however, indicates
that NOX emissions will continue to
decrease over the life of the plan,
continuing to improve Baton Rouge’s
ability to maintain attainment in the
future. In addition, section 175 requires
that the area have contingency measures
that must be implemented, if due to
meteorological fluctuations, the area
does come out of attainment. We
discuss the adequacy of these
contingency measures elsewhere in the
notice. Therefore, after considering the
CSAPR modeling but also considering
the projected decline in emissions and
the fact that the maintenance plan has
contingency measures, we believe it is
appropriate to approve the maintenance
plan for the Baton Rouge area.
The fact that EPA is proposing to
redesignate Baton Rouge to attainment
does not remove the need to address
emissions in upwind States that impact
ozone levels in Baton Rouge. As
discussed above, Baton Rouge is
projected to be nonattainment without
the CSAPR reductions. The reductions
in the CSAPR along with other State and
Federal measures are projected to bring
the area into attainment. Furthermore,
without a cap on emissions in upwind
States with a significant impact,
emissions might in fact grow, increasing
the possibility that Baton Rouge will not
be able to maintain attainment.
Furthermore, since upwind States are
not required to have contingency
measures, it is incumbent on EPA to
ensure that States with significant
impacts are appropriately controlled.
LDEQ also provided attainment
demonstration modeling in support of
its redesignation request. The
attainment demonstration modeling can
be found in Appendix D of the
Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan. The modeling demonstration was
conducted according to EPA guidance.10
The modeling simulation was for June
2006 using a nested 36/12/4 km grid
system, with the 4-km grid focused on
Louisiana and the immediate Gulf coast
area. The weight of evidence assembled
from the modeling analyses and
projection methodologies described in
the report demonstrated that the 1997 8hour ozone standard would be attained
in the Baton Rouge area by 2009. The
area did indeed attain the standard by
the close of the ozone season on
December 31, 2008. This modeling has
a refined grid focused on the Baton
Rouge area, and thus it provides further
support that the Baton Rouge area has
attained due to permanent and
enforceable reductions and should
remain in attainment during the term of
the maintenance plan.
EPA proposes to find that LDEQ has
demonstrated maintenance of the ozone
standard in the BR area during the 10
year maintenance period, based on
projections that total VOC and NOX
emissions during this period will
remain below the 2006 and 2008
attainment levels emissions.
5. What is the contingency plan for the
BRNA?
a. Verification of Continued Attainment
Louisiana has the legal authority to
enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance
plan for the BR area. This includes the
authority to adopt, implement, and
enforce any subsequent emissions
control contingency measures
determined to be necessary to correct
future ozone attainment problems.
Louisiana will track the progress of
the maintenance plan through
continued ambient ozone monitoring in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR part 58, and by performing future
reviews of actual emissions for the area
using the latest emissions factors,
models, and methodologies. The State
will work with EPA to ensure that the
air monitoring network continues to be
effective and will quality assure the data
according to Federal requirements as
one way to verify continued attainment.
In addition the State will compare
emission inventory data submitted to
the National Emission Inventory with
the emission growth data submitted in
the maintenance plan to ensure
emission reductions continue the
downward trend.
b. Contingency Plan
10 EPA.
2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of
Air Quality Goals for Ozone PM2.5, and Regional
Haze. Prepared by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air
Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park,
NC (EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct or prevent
a violation of the NAAQS that might
occur after redesignation of an area to
attainment. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53869
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation of the contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by
the state. The State should also identify
specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that the
state will implement all measures with
respect to control of the pollutant(s) that
were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment.
See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the
CAA, Louisiana has adopted a
contingency plan for the BR area to
address possible future ozone air quality
problems.
The triggering mechanism for
activation of contingency measures in
the BR maintenance plan is a monitored
violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. If contingency measures are
triggered, LDEQ has committed to adopt
additional measures, if needed beyond
the adopted measures included in the
submittal, and to implement the
measures as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 24 months
following the trigger.
The following contingency measures
are identified for possible
implementation, but may not be limited
to:
• Extending the applicability of the
State’s current NOX rule in LAC
33:III.2201 by adding a new Section,
LAC 33:III.2202, that would extend LAC
33:III.2201’s application to include the
months of April and October each year
(currently LAC 33:III.2201 applies from
May 1 to September 30). This would
assist in reducing incidences of high
ozone days in the BRNA. See the TSD
for AQ 350. Because the state has
adopted this rule and submitted it to
EPA, we are proposing to approve this
rule revision in this rulemaking. In
addition, the state will consider other
measures such as lowering the NOX
emissions factors of LAC 33:III.2205.D
and/or requiring more stringent
monitoring of elevated flares, as well as
measures targeting the following:
• Diesel retrofit/replacement
initiatives;
• Programs or incentives to decrease
motor vehicle use;
• Implementation of fuel programs
including incentives for alternative
fuels;
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
53870
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
• Employer-based transportation
management;
• Anti-idling ordinances;
• Programs to limit or restrict vehicle
use in areas of high emission
concentration during periods of peak
use.
Given the substantial amount of
industrial emissions in the Baton Rouge
Area, and the fact the area’s ozone
problem is mostly driven by NOX
emissions, these potential contingency
measures would be appropriate for
adequately correcting an attainment
problem.
These contingency measures and
schedules for implementation are
consistent with EPA’s longstanding
guidance regarding contingency
measures for maintenance plans under
section 175A. The State will continue to
operate appropriate ambient ozone
monitoring sites in the BR area to verify
continued attainment of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The air monitoring results will
reveal changes in the ambient air quality
as well as assist the State in determining
which contingency measures will be
most effective if necessary.
As required by section 175A(b) of the
CAA, Louisiana commits to submit to
the EPA an updated ozone maintenance
plan eight years after redesignation of
the BR area to cover an additional tenyear period beyond the initial ten-year
maintenance period. As required by
section 175A(d) of the CAA, Louisiana
has also committed to retain VOC and
NOX control measures contained in the
SIP prior to redesignation.
EPA finds that the maintenance plan
adequately addresses the five basic
components of a maintenance plan:
attainment inventory, maintenance
demonstration, monitoring network,
verification of continued attainment,
and contingency measures. The
maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by Louisiana for BR meets the
requirements of section 175A of the Act.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the maintenance plan for the BR area for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as a
revision to the Louisiana SIP.
c. Controls to Remain In Effect
Louisiana commits to maintain all of
the current emission control measures
for VOC and NOX after the BR area is
redesignated to attainment. Louisiana,
through LDEQ’s Secretary, has the legal
authority and necessary resources to
actively enforce against any violations
of the State’s air pollution emission
control rules. After the BR area is
redesignated to attainment, LDEQ will
implement NSR for major stationary
sources and major modifications
through the PSD program.
VI. What is EPA’s evaluation of the BR
area’s motor vehicle emissions budgets?
A. What are the transportation
requirements for approvable MVEBs?
A maintenance plan must include a
MVEB for transportation conformity
purposes. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP
means that transportation activities will
not cause new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS. It is a
process required by section 176(c) of the
Act for ensuring that the effects of
emissions from all on-road sources are
consistent with attainment or
maintenance of the standard. EPA’s
transportation conformity rules at 40
CFR part 93 require that transportation
plans, and programs, result in emissions
that do not exceed the MVEB
established in the SIP. The maintenance
plan established an MVEB for 2022,
which is the last year of the
maintenance plan.
The MVEB is the level of total
allowable on-road emissions established
by the maintenance plan. Maintenance
plans must include the estimates of
motor vehicle VOC and NOX emissions
that are consistent with maintenance of
attainment, which then act as a budget
or ceiling for the purpose of determining
whether transportation plans, and
programs conform to the maintenance
plan. In this case, the MVEB sets the
maximum level of on-road
transportation emissions that can be
produced, when considered with
emissions from all other sources, which
demonstrates continued maintenance of
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
B. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy
determination?
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing a MVEB, EPA determines
whether the MVEB contained therein is
‘‘adequate’’ for use in determining
transportation conformity. Once EPA
finds a budget adequate, the budget
must be used by local, state and Federal
agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation plans and
programs ‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as
required by section 176(c) of the Act.
EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of a MVEB are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which
was promulgated in the Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments for the
‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing
Areas; transportation conformity rule
amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004).
As discussed earlier, Louisiana’s
maintenance plan submission includes
NOX and VOC budgets for the year 2022.
EPA reviewed the budgets through the
adequacy process. The availability of
the SIP submission with this 2022
MVEB was announced for public
comment on EPA’s adequacy Web page
on, at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/
currsips.htm#baton. The EPA public
comment period on the adequacy of the
2022 MVEB for BR closed on April 4,
2011. EPA did not receive any adverse
comments on the MVEB. On May 16,
2011, EPA made a finding of adequacy
for the 2022 MVEB included in this
8-hour ozone maintenance plan (76 FR
28223).
C. Is the MVEB approvable?
Table 8 shows the total projected
transportation emissions for 2022, as
submitted by Louisiana.
TABLE 8—PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS
[Tons per avg. ozone season day]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Pollutant
2006
NOX ..........................................................
VOC .........................................................
29.30
17.60
These transportation emissions are
also represented in Table 7 of this notice
as the ‘‘mobile’’ emissions portion of
emission inventory data for the BR area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
2008
2012
28.35
17.82
18.63
10.64
As shown in Table 8, substantial
reductions in both NOX and VOC
transportation emissions are projected
between 2006 and 2022. Further, as
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2016
2020
12.08
9.70
2022
8.33
7.82
6.96
7.55
previously stated in this action, EPA
finds that the State has demonstrated
the future combined emissions levels of
NOX and VOC in 2008, 2012, 2016,
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
2020, and 2022 are expected to be
similar to or less than the emissions
levels in 2006. The projected
transportation emissions for 2022 were
used by Louisiana as the basis of the
2022 NOX and VOC MVEB for the BR
area. These emissions are consistent
with the maintenance plan
demonstrating continued compliance
with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the 10-year period following
redesignation to attainment.
The submitted NOX and VOC MVEB
for the BR area is defined in Table 9
below.
TABLE 9—NOX AND VOC MVEB
[Summer season tons per day]
Pollutant
2022
NOX ..................................................
VOC ..................................................
6.96
7.55
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to approve Louisiana’s 2022
MVEB for VOCs and NOX for the BR
area for transportation conformity
purposes, because EPA has determined
that the area maintains the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard with the emissions at
the levels of the budget. The submittal
has met the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4), and EPA has completed a
comprehensive review of the
maintenance plan, concluding that the
overall plan demonstrates maintenance,
is approvable and the budgets are
consistent with the overall plan.
Therefore, the budgets can be proposed
for approval.
VII. What are EPA’s proposed actions?
EPA is proposing several related
actions under the Act for the BR 1997
8-hour moderate ozone nonattainment
area, consisting of Ascension, East
Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and
West Baton Rouge Parishes. Consistent
with the Act, EPA is proposing to
approve a request from the state of
Louisiana to redesignate the BR area to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
In this notice, EPA is also proposing
to approve the NOX and VOC RACT
requirements for the BRNA for the 1hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards
that accompanied the State’s August 10,
2010 redesignation request. In prior
separate rulemaking actions, EPA
terminated the 1-hour ozone antibacksliding section 185 penalty fee
requirement, and proposed to approve
the CTG Rules Update. We are
proposing to determine that if EPA
finally approves the CTG Rules Update
VOC and NOX provisions submitted
with the redesignation request, the BR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
area will meet all of the applicable CAA
requirements under section 110 and Part
D for purposes of redesignation for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including
the applicable CAA requirements for a
moderate 1997 8-hour ozone area and
applicable anti-backsliding
requirements for a 1-hour ozone severe
area.
Further, EPA is proposing to approve
into the SIP, as meeting section 175A
and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act,
Louisiana’s maintenance plan for the BR
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The maintenance plan shows
maintenance of the standard through
2022. Additionally, EPA is proposing to
approve the 2022 MVEB for NOX and
VOC submitted by Louisiana for the BR
area in conjunction with its
redesignation request and maintenance
plan.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to
approve the State’s request to
redesignate the area from nonattainment
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. After evaluating Louisiana’s
redesignation request, EPA has
determined that upon final approval of
the above-identified SIP elements and
the maintenance plan, the area will
meet the redesignation criteria set forth
in sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the
Act. The final approval of this
redesignation request would change the
official designation in 40 CFR part 81
for the BR area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act,
redesignation of an area to attainment
and the accompanying approval of a
maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to
attainment does not in and of itself
create any new requirements, but rather
results in the applicability of
requirements contained in the Clean Air
Act for areas that have been
redesignated to attainment. Moreover,
the Administrator is required to approve
a SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, these actions merely do
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law and
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53871
the Clean Air Act. For that reason, these
actions:
• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory
actions’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory
action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Do not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
53872
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 16, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2011–21728 Filed 8–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 110818511–1510–01]
RIN 0648–BB32
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Northeast Skate Complex
Fishery; Secretarial Emergency Action
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed temporary rule;
request for comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes emergency
regulations to adjust catch limits in the
Northeast Skate Complex Fishery. The
proposed action was developed by
NMFS to increase the fishing year (FY)
2011 catch limits for the skate fishery,
which should extend the fishing season
over a longer duration than occurred in
FY 2010, thus ensuring a more steady
market supply. The proposed increases
in catch limits are supported by new
scientific information indicating
significant increases in skate biomass.
DATES: Public comments must be
received no later than 5 p.m., eastern
standard time, on September 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: A supplemental
environmental assessment (EA) was
prepared that describes the proposed
action and other considered alternatives
and provides a thorough analysis of the
impacts of the proposed measures and
alternatives. Copies of the supplemental
EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), are available on
request from Patricia A. Kurkul,
Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
These documents are also available
online at https://www.nero.noaa.gov.
You may submit comments, identified
by NOAA–NMFS–2011–0197, by any
one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov. To submit
comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal,
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon,
then enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2011–0197’’
in the keyword search. Locate the
document you wish to comment on
from the resulting list and click on the
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right
of that line.
• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Tobey
Curtis.
• Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the
outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on
Skate Emergency Action.’’
Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by one of the above methods
to ensure that the comments are
received, documented, and considered
by NMFS. Comments sent by any other
method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are
a part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on https://www.regulations.gov. All
personal identifying information (e.g.,
name, address, etc.) submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tobey Curtis, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978) 281–9273; fax: (978) 281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the Northeast U.S., skate fisheries
are managed by the New England
Fishery Management Council (Council).
In 2003, NMFS implemented the
Northeast Skate Complex Fishery
Management Plan (Skate FMP) to
manage a complex of seven skate
species: Winter (Leucoraja ocellata);
little (L. erinacea); thorny (Amblyraja
radiata); barndoor (Dipturus laevis);
smooth (Malacoraja senta); clearnose
(Raja eglanteria); and rosette (L.
garmani) (see 68 FR 49693, August 19,
2003). The FMP established biological
reference points and overfishing
definitions for each species based on
abundance indices in the NMFS
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
bottom trawl survey.
Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP,
which was implemented in July 2010,
instituted an annual catch limit (ACL)
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and accountability measures (AMs) for
the skate fishery (75 FR 34049, June 16,
2010), and set fishery specifications for
FY 2010–2011 (through April 30, 2012).
The ACL was set equal to the acceptable
biological catch (ABC) recommendation
of the Council’s Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) (41,080 mt).
Amendment 3 also implemented an
annual catch target (ACT), which is 75
percent of the ACL, and annual total
allowable landings (TALs) for the skate
wing and bait fisheries (TAL = ACT ¥
dead discards and state landings), and
three seasonal quotas for the bait
fishery. An incidental possession limit
may be implemented when landings
approach the TAL, preventing excessive
quota overages.
In FY 2010, the combination of
increased landings of skate wings and a
delay in implementation of Amendment
3 possession limits (5,000 lb (2,270 kg)
of wings per trip) resulted in the wing
fishery reaching the TAL trigger in early
September. Consequently, the wing
fishery was limited to the incidental
possession limit of 500 lb (227 kg) of
skate wings per trip from September 3,
2010, through the end of FY 2010 on
April 30, 2011.
Asserting that the imposition of the
incidental skate wing possession limit
so early in the FY caused disruptions in
the supply of skate wings, economic
hardship on fishing vessels and dealers,
and threatened to undermine the market
position of U.S. suppliers, members of
the skate wing fishing industry
requested that the Council consider
options to mitigate the potential for this
situation to be repeated in FY 2011. In
November 2010, the Council initiated
Framework 1 to reduce the skate wing
possession limits, and increase the TAL
trigger point, in order to maximize the
duration of the skate fishing season in
FY 2011. Framework 1 was partially
approved by NMFS and implemented
on May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28328).
Since the implementation of
Framework 1, new scientific
information on skate catch and biomass
became available, which allowed the
SSC to revise its recommendation for
skate ABC. The ABC is calculated by
multiplying the median catch/biomass
ratio by the most recent 3-yr average
skate biomass. Therefore, significant
increases in the survey biomass of little
and winter skates through autumn 2010
support increases in the ABC.
Additionally, new research on the
discard mortality of winter and little
skates in trawl gear indicates that the
assumed discard mortality rate of 50
percent is too high, and that the dead
discard portion of the catch has been
overestimated in the past. Updates to
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53853-53872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21728]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0776; FRL-9456-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Louisiana; Baton Rouge
Ozone Nonattainment Area: Redesignation to Attainment for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a request from the State of
Louisiana to redesignate the Baton Rouge, Louisiana moderate 1997 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. In proposing to approve this request, EPA also proposes to
approve as a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP),
a 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan with a 2022 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budget (MVEB) for the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area (BRNA or
BR). EPA is also proposing to approve revisions to the Louisiana SIP
that meets the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements (for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)) for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standard
requirements, and to approve a state rule establishing a maintenance
plan contingency measure. In prior, separate rulemaking actions, EPA
finalized its action to terminate the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding
section 185 penalty fee requirement. EPA has proposed to approve the
Control Technique Guideline Rules (CTG Rules Update) that are necessary
for redesignation. We are proposing that if the CTG Rules Update is
finalized, the area will have a fully approved SIP that meets all of
its applicable 1997 8-hour requirements and 1-hour anti-backsliding
requirements under section 110 and Part D of the Federal Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) for purposes of redesignation.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2010-0776, by one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: https://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0776. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
[[Page 53854]]
Do not submit through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please
make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your
visit. There will be a fee of 15 cents per page for making photocopies
of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The State submittal, which is part of the EPA record, is also
available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below
during official business hours by appointment: Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra Rennie, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7367;
fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address rennie.sandra@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?
II. What is the background for these actions?
A. What are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
B. What is ozone and why do we regulate it?
C. What is the background for the Baton Rouge area under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS?
D. What is the background for the BRNA under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS?
III. What are the impacts of the court decisions on EPA's phase 1
and 2 implementation rules upon the BRNA redesignation request?
A. Summary of the Court Decisions
B. Summary of EPA's Analysis of the Impact of the Court
Decisions on the BRNA Area
1. Requirements under the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard
2. Requirements under the One-Hour Ozone Standard
IV. What are the CAA criteria for redesignation?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the state's redesignation request and
maintenance plan and what is the basis for EPA's proposed actions?
A. Has the BRNA attained the ozone NAAQS?
1. Attainment of the 8-Hour NAAQS
2. Attainment of the 1-Hour NAAQS
B. Has the state of Louisiana met all applicable requirements of
section 110 and part D of the CAA and does the BRNA have a fully
approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA for purposes of
redesignation to attainment?
1. The BRNA Has Met All Requirements of Section 110 and Part D
of the CAA Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation for the 8-Hour
NAAQS
a. Section 110 and General SIP Requirements
b. Part D SIP Requirements
(i) Has the BRNA met the part D nonattainment requirements under
the 1-hour ozone standard?
(ii) South Coast Anti-Backsliding Measures
(iii) Part D SIP Requirements Under 1997 8-Hour Standard: Part
D, subpart 2 applicable SIP requirements
(iv) Section 176 Conformity Requirements
(v) NSR Requirements
(vi) Section 182(a)(1) Inventory Requirements
2. The BRNA Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the
CAA
C. Are the air quality improvements in the BRNA nonattainment
area due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting
from the implementation of state and federal regulations and other
permanent and enforceable emission reductions?
1. Emissions Reductions as Shown by Emissions Inventory Data
2. Impact of Emissions Controls Implementation: Trend Analysis
3. Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Controls Implemented
a. Reasonably Available Control Techniques
b. ROP Plans and Attainment Demonstration Plan
c. NOX Control Rules
d. Federal Emission Control Measures
D. Does the BRNA have a fully approvable maintenance plan
pursuant to section 175A of the CAA?
1. What is required in an ozone maintenance plan?
2. What is the attainment inventory for the BRNA?
3. Has the state of Louisiana committed to maintain the ozone
monitoring system in the BRNA?
4. Has the state demonstrated maintenance in the BRNA?
5. What is the contingency plan for the BRNA?
a. Verification of Continued Attainment
b. Contingency Plan
c. Controls to Remain In Effect
VI. What is EPA's evaluation of the BR area's motor vehicle
emissions budgets?
A. What are the transportation requirements for approvable
MVEBs?
B. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination?
C. Is the MVEB approvable?
VII. What are EPA's proposed actions?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?
EPA is proposing to take several related actions pursuant to the
Act for the BRNA moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area,
consisting of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and
West Baton Rouge Parishes in Louisiana. EPA is proposing to find that
the BRNA has met the requirements for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, and is therefore proposing to approve a
request from the State of Louisiana to redesignate the BRNA to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to
approve, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, the area's 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan as a revision to the Louisiana SIP; to approve
the plan's associated 2022 MVEB; to approve additional submissions to
meet applicable VOC and NOX RACT requirements; and to
approve a State Rule revision that establishes a
[[Page 53855]]
contingency measure for the maintenance plan. In a separate rulemaking,
EPA has finalized an action to terminate CAA section 185 penalty fee
requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard. (July 7, 2011, 76 FR
39775). EPA is proposing to find that the BR area will satisfy all
moderate area requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and severe
area 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements applicable for purposes
of the area's redesignation for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard once the
CTG Rule Update is finalized. A fuller discussion of how the BRNA met
these requirements is discussed in detail later in this document. The
Technical Support Document (TSD), for this action also provides further
information on how the BRNA area satisfies the 8-hour moderate area
requirements and 1-hour severe area requirements for anti-backsliding
purposes.
Based upon the above, EPA is proposing to approve the State of
Louisiana's request, submitted on August 31, 2010, and supplemented on
February 14, 2011, through the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ), to redesignate the BRNA to attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard.
II. What is the background for these actions?
A. What are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
Section 109 of the Act requires EPA to establish NAAQS for
pollutants that ``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health and welfare,'' and to develop a primary and secondary standard
for each NAAQS. The primary standard is designed to protect human
health with an adequate margin of safety, and the secondary standard is
designed to protect public welfare and the environment. EPA has set
NAAQS for six common air pollutants, referred to as criteria
pollutants: Carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate
matter, and sulfur dioxide. These standards present state and local
governments with the minimum air quality levels they must meet to
comply with the Act. Also, these standards provide information to
residents of the United States about the air quality in their
communities. A State's SIP addresses these requirements, as required by
section 110 and other provisions of the Act. The SIP is a set of air
pollution regulations, control strategies, other means or techniques,
and technical analyses developed by the state, to ensure that the state
meets the NAAQS.
B. What is ozone and why do we regulate it?
Ozone, a gas composed of three oxygen atoms, at the ground level is
generally not emitted directly by sources such as from a vehicle's
exhaust or an industrial smokestack; rather, ground level ozone is
produced by a chemical reaction between nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and VOCs in the presence of sunlight and high ambient
temperatures. NOX and VOCs are referred to as precursors of
ozone. Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors,
and chemical solvents all contain NOX and VOCs. Urban areas
tend to have high concentrations of ground-level ozone, but areas
without significant industrial activity and with relatively low
vehicular traffic are also subject to increased ozone levels because
wind carries ozone and its precursors many miles from the sources. The
Act establishes a process for air quality management through the NAAQS.
Repeated exposure to ozone pollution may cause lung damage. Even at
very low concentrations, ground-level ozone triggers a variety of
health problems including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and
increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and
bronchitis. It can also have detrimental effects on plants and
ecosystems.
C. What is the background for the Baton Rouge area under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS?
EPA first designated the Baton Rouge area as an ozone nonattainment
area in 1978. 43 FR 8964, 8998 (March 3, 1978). The BR 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area contains five parishes: East Baton Rouge; West Baton
Rouge; Ascension; Iberville; and Livingston Parishes (40 CFR 81.319).
In 1991, the BR area was designated nonattainment by operation of law
and EPA classified the BR area as a ``serious'' ozone nonattainment
area with a statutory attainment deadline of November 15, 1999. 56 FR
56694 (November 6, 1991). EPA approved the serious attainment
demonstration SIP and its associated elements, e.g., attainment Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB), the Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) demonstration, on July 2, 1999. See 64 FR 35930. The BR
area, however, did not attain by the serious area statutory deadline of
November 15, 1999. Before this deadline however, EPA had issued a
guidance memorandum that allowed an area to retain its existing
classification and receive a later attainment deadline if the EPA found
that area met all of its existing classification requirements, approved
a demonstration that the area would attain but for the transport from
another area, and approved the attainment demonstration SIP with its
associated elements. See EPA's ``Guidance on Extension of Attainment
Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' (the Extension Policy) (Richard D.
Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation) July 16,
1998. On October 2, 2002, EPA approved the revised attainment
demonstration SIP and its associated elements, found the area met all
of the serious area requirements, found there was transport from Texas
affecting the BR area reaching attainment, and extended the attainment
date for the BR area to November 15, 2005, without reclassifying the
area from serious to severe, consistent with the policy. 67 FR 61786
(October 2, 2002).
On December 11, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit vacated EPA's attainment date extension policy, which had been
applied to extend the 1-hour ozone attainment deadline for the Baton
Rouge area without reclassifying the area. Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d
735 (5th Cir. 2002). Thereupon EPA on April 24, 2003, withdrew the
action extending the attainment deadline for Baton Rouge, finalized its
finding that the area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the
serious area deadline, and reclassified the Baton Rouge area by
operation of law, to severe nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard. See 68 FR 20077.\1\ As a result of its reclassification to
severe, the State was required, among other things, to submit by June
23, 2004, a new 1-hour severe attainment demonstration SIP with an
attainment date of November 15, 2005, with a 25 ton per year major
stationary source threshold, additional reasonably available control
technology (RACT) rules for sources subject to the new lower major
stationary source
[[Page 53856]]
threshold, a new source review (NSR) offset requirement of at least 1.3
to 1, a rate of progress in emission reductions of ozone precursors of
at least 3 percent of baseline emissions per year from November 15,
1999, until the attainment year, additional transportation control
measures (TCMs) needed to offset growth in emissions due to growth in
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and a fee requirement for major
stationary sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOx) should the area fail to attain by 2005. The
state was required to implement the EPA-triggered failure-to-attain
contingency measures, submit a replacement for, i.e., backfill for, the
triggered failure-to-attain contingency measures, and to meet the
remaining severe area requirements under section 182(d) of the Act. The
State submitted severe area rules that addressed the 25 tpy and major
source offset requirements,\2\ a VMT offset analysis, and a substitute
contingency measure to replace the serious area contingency measure
that was previously approved into the serious area attainment
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitions for review of the October 2, 2002, rulemaking were
filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana
Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, No. 02-60991). The
issues raised concerned EPA's decision to approve Louisiana's
substitute contingency measures plan, the revised attainment
demonstration SIP with a later attainment deadline without
reclassifying the area to severe, and the associated precursor
trading provision of the NSR rules. On February 25, 2003, the court
granted EPA's partial voluntary remand to allow EPA the time to meet
the December 2002 court decision by withdrawing its approval of the
revised attainment demonstration SIP that extended the attainment
deadline without reclassifying the area and the associated NSR
precursor trading provision. The court also addressed the substitute
contingency measures claim, and vacated and remanded EPA's approval
of the contingency measures.
\2\ However, the State subsequently reversed these rules when
the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reclassification to severe, under section 211(k) of the Act,
the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG) was to be required in the BRNA
one year after the effective date of the reclassification. The
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the City of Baton Rouge,
and the Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge all formally requested a waiver
and/or delay of implementation of the RFG requirement in the Baton
Rouge severe ozone nonattainment area. EPA denied these requests. The
City and the Chamber filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The parties filed a joint motion for a
voluntary remand to EPA to allow it to reconsider its decision in light
of new information. On August 2, 2004, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals approved the joint motion, remanding the matter to EPA and
staying the litigation and enforcement of the RFG requirement for the
BRNA during the remand. The Court's stay of enforcement of the RFG
requirement in the BRNA currently remains in effect.
On February 10, 2010 EPA determined that the BRNA area was
attaining the 1-hour ozone standard based on quality-assured, certified
data for the 2006-2008 ozone monitoring seasons. This determination
suspended the 1-hour attainment demonstration requirement, 1-hour rate
of progress requirement, the 1-hour contingency measures, and other SIP
planning requirements related to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
See 75 FR 6570. Lastly, on July 7, 2011, EPA finalized its action to
terminate the CAA section 185 penalty fee requirements for the Baton
Rouge 1-hour ozone standard. For a more detailed rationale, see our
proposed and final actions at 76 FR 17368 and 76 FR 39775.
D. What is the background for the BRNA under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), which is more protective than the
previous 1-hour ozone standard (62 FR 38855).\3\ The EPA published the
1997 8-hour ozone designations and classifications on April 30, 2004
(69 FR 23858). The BRNA was designated nonattainment and initially
classified as marginal. The area includes five parishes (counties):
Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton
Rouge (these constitute the former 1-hour ozone nonattainment area).
The effective date of designation for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was
June 15, 2004. Under the marginal nonattainment designation, the latest
attainment date for the BRNA was June 15, 2007. The BRNA did not
monitor attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007
deadline, based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient
air quality monitoring data for the 2004-2006 ozone seasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised
8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed
to set the level of the primary 8-hour ozone standard within the
range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm, rather than at 0.075 ppm. EPA
anticipates that by August 2011 it will have completed
reconsideration of the standard and thereafter will proceed with
designations. The actions addressed in today's proposed rulemaking
relate only to redesignation for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA's actions with respect to this new standard do not affect EPA's
action here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, EPA determined that the BRNA had failed to attain the
1997 8-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment deadline and
the area was reclassified by operation of law as a moderate 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area, effective April 21, 2008 (73 FR 15087). This
determination was based on ambient air quality data from the 2004-2006
monitoring period. In a subsequent rulemaking (September 9, 2010, 75 FR
54778) EPA determined that (based on monitoring data for 2006-2009
monitoring periods and preliminary 2010 data) the BRNA has since
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Recent certified air quality
data for 2010 indicate that the BRNA continues to attain the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. See Section V.A.
The deadline for submission of requirements to meet the area's new
8-hour moderate nonattainment area classification was January 1, 2009
(73 FR 14391). The LDEQ, on December 14, 2009, submitted a request that
EPA determine that the BRNA was monitoring attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. As stated earlier, EPA finalized a determination
of attainment on September 9, 2010. This determination suspended the
requirement for a 1997 8-hour attainment demonstration, 8-hour rate of
progress plan and 8-hour contingency measures. (See 75 FR 54778). On
August 31, 2010, the state submitted a request for redesignation to
attainment. As stated previously, the request included a maintenance
plan with associated MVEB.
III. What are the impacts of the court decisions on EPA's phase 1 and 2
implementation rules upon the BRNA redesignation request?
A. Summary of the Court Decisions
The following sets forth EPA's views on the effect of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rulings on this proposed
redesignation action. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not
believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to
this redesignation action or prevent EPA from proposing or ultimately
finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December
22, 2006, June 8, 2007, and July 10, 2009, decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to
attainment, because even in light of the court's decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation
requests.
EPA published a first phase rule governing implementation of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23951). The Phase 1 Rule addresses classifications for the 1997 8-hour
NAAQS and for revocation for the 1-hour NAAQS; how anti-backsliding
principles will ensure continued progress toward attainment of the 1997
8-hour NAAQS; attainment dates; and the timing of emissions reductions
needed for attainment. The Phase 1 Rule revoked the 1-hour ozone
standard. The Phase 1 Rule also provided that 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas are required to adopt and implement ``applicable
requirements'' according to the area's classification under the 1-hour
ozone
[[Page 53857]]
standard for anti-backsliding purposes. See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(i). On May
26, 2005, we determined that an area's 1-hour designation and
classification as of June 15, 2004 would dictate what 1-hour
obligations remain as ``applicable requirements'' under the Phase 1
Rule. 40 CFR 51.900(f). (70 FR 30592). As discussed previously, the
Baton Rouge area's classification under the 1-hour standard as of June
15, 2004 was ``severe.''
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia vacated EPA's Phase 1 Rule in South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8,
2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the Court
clarified that the Phase 1 rule was vacated only with regard to those
parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. See 489 F.3d
1245 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1065 (2008). By limiting
the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour
standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 rule that
had not been successfully challenged. The June 8, 2007 opinion
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas
under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1)
Nonattainment area new source review (NSR) requirements based on an
area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas that fail to
attain the 1-hour standard by the 1-hour attainment date; and (3)
measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)
of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS or for failure to attain
that NAAQS; and (4) the court clarified that the Court's reference to
conformity requirements was limited to requiring the continued use of
1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were
available for 8-hour conformity determinations.
EPA published a second rule governing implementation of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard (Phase 2 Rule) on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612),
as revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31727). The Phase 2 Rule addressed,
among other things, the Clean Data Policy as codified in 40 CFR 51.918.
The Court upheld the Clean Data Policy, agreeing with the Tenth Circuit
that EPA's interpretation of the Act was reasonable. NRDC v. EPA, 571
F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th
Cir. 1996).
B. Summary of EPA's Analysis of the Impact of the Court Decisions on
the BRNA Area
1. Requirements under the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard
For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the BRNA ozone nonattainment
area was originally classified as marginal nonattainment under subpart
2 of the CAA and reclassified to moderate on March 21, 2008 (73 FR
15087). The June 8, 2007, opinion clarifies that the Court did not
vacate the Phase 1 Rule's provisions with respect to classifications
for areas under subpart 2. The Court's decision, therefore, upholds
EPA's classifications for those areas classified under subpart 2 for
the eight-hour ozone standard, and all eight-hour ozone requirements
for these areas remain in place.
2. Requirements Under the One-Hour Ozone Standard
In its June 8, 2007, decision, the Court limited its vacatur so as
to uphold those provisions of EPA's anti-backsliding requirements that
were not successfully challenged. Therefore, an area must meet the
anti-backsliding requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900, et seq.; 70 FR 30592,
30604 (May 26, 2005), which apply by virtue of the area's
classification for the one-hour ozone NAAQS. As set forth in more
detail below, the area must also address several additional anti-
backsliding provisions identified by the Court in its decisions. We
address later on in this notice how the 1-hour anti-backsliding
obligations (as interpreted and directed by the court) are met in the
context of a redesignation action for the 1997 8-hour NAAQS.
IV. What are the CAA criteria for redesignation?
The Act sets forth the requirements for redesignating a
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation provided that (1) The
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and (5)
the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to
the area under CAA section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990.
2. ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'', Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas'', Memorandum from G.T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On
or After November 15, 1992'', Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
8. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
9. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
[[Page 53858]]
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and
10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
V. What is EPA's analysis of the state's redesignation request and
maintenance plan and what is the basis for EPA's proposed actions?
A. Has the BRNA attained the ozone NAAQS?
EPA has previously determined that that the BRNA ozone
nonattainment area has attained both the 1- hour and 1997 8-hour ozone
standards. As set forth below, data available subsequent to those
determinations shows that the area continues to attain both standards.
1. Attainment of the 8-Hour NAAQS
EPA determined that the BRNA area was attaining the 1997 8-hour
standard based on complete quality-assured, certified data for the
2006-2009 ozone monitoring seasons. For a more detailed rationale, see
our final action at 75 FR 54778 (September 9, 2010). Since that time,
complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the 2010
calendar year have become available that show the area is still
attaining the 1997 8-hour standard. Draft air quality monitoring data
\4\ indicate the area is still attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. The fourth high values for 8-hour ozone for 2010, and the 3-
year average of these values (i.e., design value), are summarized in
Table 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/DIVISIONS/Assessment/AirFieldServices/AmbientAirMonitoringProgram/AirMonitoringData.aspx.
Table 1--BRNA Area, Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values Data Summary (ppm) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Highest daily max Design values
--------------------------------------------------- three year
Site averages
2008 2009 2010 ----------------
2008-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaquemine (22-047-0009).................... 0.076 0.071 0.074 0.073
Carville (22-047-0012)...................... 0.073 0.076 0.072 0.073
Dutchtown (22-005-0004)..................... 0.074 0.074 0.078 0.075
Baker (22-033-1001)......................... 0.071 0.071 0.075 0.072
LSU (22-033-0003)........................... 0.072 0.084 0.080 0.078
Grosse Tete (22-047-0007)................... 0.071 0.070 0.074 0.071
Port Allen (22-121-0001).................... 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.071
Pride (22-033-0013)......................... 0.074 0.072 0.071 0.072
French Settlement (22-063-0002)............. 0.075 0.075 0.076 0.075
Capitol (22-033-0009)....................... 0.067 0.076 0.076 0.073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, design value calculations for the 8-hour ozone standard are based on a
rolling three-year average of the annual 4th highest values (40 CFR part 50, Appendix I).
In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plan, Louisiana has committed to continue monitoring in this area in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
Should the area violate the 1997 8-hour ozone standard before the
proposed redesignation is finalized, EPA will not proceed with final
redesignation.
The ozone monitoring network run by LDEQ in the BRNA has monitored
attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on data from 2006
through 2010. The 1997 ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts per million based on
the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration measured at each monitor within an area.
The 1997 ozone standard is considered to be attained at 84 parts per
billion (ppb). The design value for the monitoring period 2006-2008 was
0.083 ppb. For the monitoring period 2007-2009, it was 0.080 ppb. For
the monitoring period 2008-2010, the design value for the BRNA was
0.078 ppb. Draft data available for 2011 are consistent with continued
attainment. In summary, the data show BRNA has attained the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
2. Attainment of the 1-Hour NAAQS
On February 10, 2010 EPA determined that the BRNA area was
attaining the 1-hour ozone standard based on quality-assured, certified
data for the 2006-2008 ozone monitoring seasons. For a more detailed
rationale, see our final action at 75 FR 6570. Since that time,
complete, quality-assured and certified data that have become available
showing the area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone standard as shown
in Table 2.
Table 2--Summary of 1-Hour Design Values Through 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value
Monitoring period (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-2008............................................... 114
2007-2009............................................... 114
2008-2010............................................... 107
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Has the state of Louisiana met all applicable requirements of
section 110 and part D of the CAA and does the BRNA have a fully
approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA for purposes of
redesignation to attainment?
EPA has reviewed the Louisiana SIP for the BR area with respect to
SIP requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D
of the Act for both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA believes that, with the exception of certain 1-hour and 8-
hour ozone RACT requirements that will be acted on in a separate
rulemaking, the Louisiana SIP
[[Page 53859]]
for the BRNA currently contains approved SIP measures that meet the
part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. We are
also proposing to find that the area meets the severe area 1-hour ozone
and 1997 8-hour RACT requirements, provided that EPA finally approves
in a separate rulemaking action the RACT requirements for the source
categories covered by the CTG Rules Update. As discussed previously,
EPA, in a separate final rulemaking, has approved the termination of
the section 185 penalty fee requirement. The 1-hour and 1997 8-hour
ozone applicable requirements are discussed in detail below.
In evaluating a request for redesignation, EPA's long-held position
is that those requirements expressly linked by statutory language with
the attainment and reasonable further progress requirements do not
apply if EPA determines that the area is attaining the standard.
Additionally, it is EPA's interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)
that applicable requirements of the Act that come due subsequent to the
area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable
until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. Under this interpretation, to qualify
for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must
meet only the relevant requirements of the Act that come due prior to
the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See Sierra Club v.
EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12,
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri); September 4, 1992
Calcagni memorandum; September 17, 1993 Michael Shapiro memorandum, and
60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor, MI).
The applicable 1997 8-hour ozone standard requirements for the BRNA
area are those for a moderate nonattainment area.
Because EPA found the BRNA monitored attainment of the 1-hour and
1997 8-hour standards (see citations in section V.A. above), it
suspended the requirements for the state to submit certain planning
SIPs related to attainment, including attainment demonstration
requirements, the reasonably available control measures (RACM)
requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the Act, the reasonable further
progress (RFP) and attainment demonstration requirements of sections
172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) of the Act, and the requirement for
contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of the Act as long as the
area continues to monitor attainment of those standards. These
requirements will cease to apply upon redesignation to attainment.
In addition, in the context of redesignations, EPA has interpreted
requirements related to attainment as not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. For example, in the General Preamble EPA stated that:
[T]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring
RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible
for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans *
* * provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas. [General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' (General Preamble) 57 FR
13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992)]
See also Calcagni memorandum dated Sept 4, 1992 (``The requirements for
reasonable further progress and other measures needed for attainment
will not apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for
areas not attaining the standard.'' From the memorandum, section
4.b.i.).
In prior separate actions, EPA has finalized the termination of the
requirement for the 1-hour ozone 185 fees program. EPA has proposed
approval of the CTG Rules Update. EPA is thus proposing to find that
upon final approval of the CTG Rules Update, the BRNA will have a fully
approved SIP under 110(k) for redesignation purposes and it will meet
all CAA 110 and part D applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
1. The BRNA Has Met All Requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the
CAA Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation for the 8-Hour NAAQS
a. Section 110 and General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a State must have been adopted by the
State after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other
things, must: Include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, NSR permit programs; include criteria
for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; include provisions for air quality modeling; and provide for
public and local agency participation in planning and emission control
rule development.
We believe that the section 110 elements that are not connected
with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's
attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. A State remains subject to these requirements after an
area is redesignated to attainment. Only the section 110 and part D
requirements that are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification are the relevant measures which we may consider in
evaluating a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with
EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity and oxygenated
fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section
184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed
and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996)) and (62 FR
24826 (May 7, 1997)); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking
(61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996)); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60
FR 62748 (December 7, 1995)). See also the discussion on this issue in
the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890 (June 19,
2000)), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone redesignation
(66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001)).
We have reviewed Louisiana's SIP and have concluded that it meets
the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent
they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously
approved provisions of the Louisiana SIP addressing section 110
elements under the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 52.970-.999). In
addition, EPA has proposed approval of a section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure SIP for PM2.5 and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. (April
18, 2011, 76 FR 21682) Final action on the April 18, 2011 proposal is
not required for purposes of redesignation.
b. Part D SIP Requirements
EPA has reviewed the Louisiana SIP for the BRNA area with respect
to SIP requirements applicable for purposes of
[[Page 53860]]
redesignation under part D of the Act for both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and the1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes that the Louisiana SIP for
the BRNA area contains approved SIP measures that meet the part D
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has approved
or proposed to approve all of the required Part D elements. We are
proposing to find the NOX and VOC RACT requirements have
been met as part of this redesignation action. The VOC RACT finding is
contingent on our finalizing our proposed approval of the rules
implementing RACT controls on the source categories covered by the CTG
Rules Update. As discussed previously, we have finalized a separate
action approving the termination of the 185 fee requirement. Upon final
approval of the CTG Rules Update, the BRNA area will meet all of the
requirements applicable to the area under part D for purposes of
redesignation. The 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone applicable requirements
are discussed in detail below.
(i) Has the BRNA met the part D nonattainment area requirements under
the 1-hour ozone standard?
The Baton Rouge 1-hour ozone nonattainment area was reclassified as
severe for that standard, effective June 23, 2003. Thus, the 1-hour
ozone standard requirements applicable to the area are those that apply
to nonattainment areas classified as severe. Upon reclassification to
severe, under section 211(k) of the Act, the use of reformulated
gasoline also was to be required in the BRNA one year after the
effective date of the reclassification. However, the state never
implemented RFG in the BR area. As noted earlier, enforcement of the
RFG requirement in the BRNA is currently stayed by court order. As
such, the state has not relied on the RFG program in the past for
emissions reduction and does not rely on RFG in its maintenance plan
for attainment purposes. Since it is a program implemented by EPA and
not by the State, we do not consider RFG a necessary requirement for
redesignation. A detailed analysis of the relevant requirements and
their status is provided below.
The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-
hour ozone NAAQS requirements that continue to apply after revocation
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas.
Section 51.905(a)(1) provides that:
The area remains subject to the obligations to adopt and
implement the applicable requirements defined in section 51.900(f),
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section and
except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005),
states:
Applicable requirements means for an area the following
requirements to the extent such requirements apply or applied to the
area for the area's classification under section 181(a)(1) of the
CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS at the time of designation for the 8-hour
NAAQS:
(1) Reasonably available control technology (RACT).
(2) Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M).
(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT.
(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.
(5) Stage II vapor recovery.
(6) Clean-fuel vehicle program under section 182(c)(4) of the
CAA.
(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA.
(8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic
hours as provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.
(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the
CAA.
(10) TCMs under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA.
(11) Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) provisions of section
182(d)(1) of the CAA.
(12) NOX requirements under section 182(f) of the
CAA.
(13) Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under
section 51.905(a)(1)(ii).
As explained earlier in this action, in addition to applicable
requirements listed under section 51.900(f), the State must also comply
with the additional 1-hour anti-backsliding requirements discussed in
the Court's decisions in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v.
EPA: (1) NSR requirements based on the area's 1-hour ozone
nonattainment classification; (2) section 185 source penalty fees; (3)
contingency measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9) of the CAA for areas not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS, or for failure to attain
the NAAQS; and, (4) transportation conformity requirements for certain
types of Federal actions.
The following discusses how the applicable CAA requirements have
been met in the BRNA.
40 CFR 51.905 (1), (3), and (12). RACT, Major source applicability
cut-offs for purposes of RACT, and NOX requirements under
section 182(f) of the CAA. Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 of the CAA
require areas that are classified as moderate or above for ozone
nonattainment to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements for sources that are subject to Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTGs) issued by EPA and for ``major sources'' of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which
are ozone precursors. See 42 U.S.C. sections 7502(c)(1) and 7511a(b)
and (f). RACT is defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979). A CTG provides
information on the available controls for a source category and
provides a ``presumptive norm'' RACT. In this action, EPA is addressing
RACT for both NOX and VOCs in the BR area for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, and for the 1-hour standard.
The Phase 1 Rule provides that 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas
designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS are required to
adopt and implement ``applicable requirements'' according to the area's
classification under the 1-hour ozone standard at the time of
designation under the 8-hour standard (see 40 CFR 51.905(a)(i)). The BR
area was classified as a severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS at the time of the 8-hour designation and an outstanding
``applicable requirement'' for the BR area is VOC and NOX
RACT. Louisiana previously adopted rules to address RACT requirements
for all source categories covered by EPA CTGs that had been issued up
to that time, and to address major sources at the serious area major
source threshold of 50 tons per year (tpy). The reclassification of the
area from serious to severe for the 1-hour ozone standard, on April 24,
2003 (68 FR 20077), required Louisiana to ensure that RACT was in place
on non-CTG sources down to 25 tpy. Louisiana has submitted SIP
revisions to address the NOX and VOC RACT requirement for
non-CTG sources down to 25 tpy for BR for purposes of the 1-hour ozone
requirement and to address NOX and VOC RACT for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. On June 15, 2005, Louisiana submitted rule revisions
lowering the major source NOX and VOC applicability from 50
to 25 tpy for purposes of non-CTG RACT. We approved these rule
revisions as part of a larger package on July, 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977).
For the 1997 8-hour ozone RACT requirements, according to EPA's
Phase 2 Rule (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005), areas classified as
moderate nonattainment or higher must submit a demonstration, as a
revision to the SIP, that their current rules fulfill 1997 8-hour ozone
RACT requirements for all
[[Page 53861]]
CTG categories and all major non-CTG sources. The State may either
demonstrate the existing SIP approved RACT rules continue to be RACT or
submit revised RACT rules (See EPA's Phase 2 Rule: 70 FR 71612, as
further explained in a memo from William T. Harnett dated May 19, 2006,
which is included in the docket). Since BR is classified as moderate
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, for purposes of meeting the 8-hour
RACT requirement, the BR area must demonstrate RACT level controls for
sources covered by a CTG document, and for each major non-CTG source.
Louisiana has submitted several SIP revisions to address the 1997
8-hour ozone standard RACT requirements for NOX and VOCs for
BR. These revisions are being addressed by EPA through two actions.
First, on June 20, 2009 and August 20, 2010, Louisiana submitted
SIP revisions to control VOC emissions in response to CTGs issued in
2006, 2007, and 2008. On March 17, 2011, we proposed to approve these
SIP revisions, which we refer to as the CTG Rules Update (76 FR 14602).
As part of the CTG Updates proposed rule, we also proposed approval,
through parallel processing, of a revision proposed by Louisiana on
January 20, 2011. If EPA issues a final approval of the rules addressed
in the CTG Rules Update by the time this redesignation goes final, then
Louisiana will have met for BR the requirement to adopt RACT rules for
sources addressed in any newly issued CTGs.
Second, we are proposing in this action to approve the RACT
demonstration submitted by LDEQ on August 20, 2010, and a supplement on
May 16, 2011, which provides an analysis demonstrating how the BR area
meets RACT requirements for all other CTG and non-CTG sources through
the currently SIP-approved RACT rules. EPA reviewed and evaluated
LDEQ's RACT determination for both NOX and VOCs. This review
and evaluation is provided in the RACT TSD which accompanies this
action.
The State submittal included among other things, the following
components:
(a) A RACT demonstration including adopted State rules, which have
been federally approved, addressing RACT requirements for CTG and ACT
source categories. See the RACT TSD for more information.
(b) An analysis of RACT for all major sources not covered by a CTG
or ACT and how these are controlled to meet RACT. This information was
provided in the August 2010 submittal, and also in an Addendum to
Appendix F dated May 16, 2011.
To ensure RACT was in place for major sources, the State identified
all sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 25 tons/
year of VOC in the BR 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The State
provided a list of each major source in a source category covered by a
CTG/ACT and the rules applicable to those major sources.
The State's RACT SIP analysis was available for public comment
prior to adoption by the State. For the RACT portion of its August 2010
submittal, the State received a comment letter from EPA which was
addressed in the adopted rulemaking with an amendment for the RACT
analysis. EPA evaluated the following elements of LDEQ's RACT SIP
submittal for the BR Area:
State Rules Addressing NOX RACT Requirements
and VOC RACT Requirements for sources Covered by a CTG/ACT.
Potential Major VOC Emissions Sources possibly not covered
by a CTG/ACT.
EPA reviewed LDEQ's RACT analysis including the State's Rules and
evaluation of major sources. Also, EPA reviewed LDEQ's emissions
inventory database for potential sources missing from the LDEQ
analysis. Based on this review, LDEQ's RACT analysis, including its
identification of all sources requiring RACT, appeared to be thorough.
Additional discussion of our review and evaluations is available in the
TSD.
In today's proposal, we are proposing that if we take final action
to approve the CTG Rules Update, and determine in this final rule that
the existing SIP-approved rules remain RACT, then Louisiana's SIP would
meet the NOX and VOC RACT requirements for 8-hour ozone
standard for all CTG categories and for major sources of NOX
and VOCs. We are also proposing that based on our July 5, 2011 approval
(76 FR 38977) of the lower major-source threshold of 25 tpy, that the
state has met its outstanding 1-hour RACT obligation for the BR area.
Additional detail is provided in the TSD.
40 CFR 51.905 (2). Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M). The
BRNA is required to implement a vehicle inspection and maintenance
program in the five-parish area. EPA approved this program on September
26, 2002 (67 FR 60594) and a revision to the program on November 13,
2006 (71 FR 66113).
40 CFR 51.905 (4). Rate of progress reductions. We approved the
post-1996 ROP Plan and its associated MVEB and a revised 1990 base year
emissions inventory on August 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930) for the BRNA
serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. This plan covered the 3-year
period between 1996 and1999, achieving 9 percent reductions no later
than November 15, 1999. As discussed previously, ROP is not a required
element for redesignation request. With the Clean Data determinations
for the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone standards, EPA suspended the
obligations to submit SIP provisions to meet the 1-hour and 8-hour Rate
of Progress requirements. If EPA finalizes approval of this
redesignation, these obligations will be terminated.
40 CFR 51.905 (5) Stage II vapor recovery. EPA approved Louisiana
Stage II Vapor Recovery rules for the BRNA on March 25, 1994 (59 FR
14112).
40 CFR 51.905 (6) Clean-Fuel Vehicle program under section
182(c)(4) of the CAA. The State met this requirement with a substitute
program, which we approved on July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38577). This program
imposes controls beyond the Act's requirements (i.e., RACT) for storage
tanks in the BRNA by requiring guide pole and stilling well controls on
external floating roof tanks. The resultant long term emission
reductions were greater than the Louisiana Clean Fuel Fleet program
emission reductions in the ozone nonattainment area. We had previously
approved a Clean Fuel Fleet program on December 22, 1995 (60 FR 54305).
40 CFR 51.905 (7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3)
of the CAA. This is an extreme area requirement and therefore does not
apply to the BRNA severe area.
40 CFR 51.905 (8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during
heavy traffic hours as provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.
This is an extreme area requirement and therefore does not apply to the
BRNA severe area.
40 CFR 51.905 (9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section
182(c)(1) of the CAA. EPA approved a Louisiana SIP revision for
enhanced ambient monitoring on June 19, 1996 (61 FR 31037) as meeting
section 182(c)(1) of the CAA. The monitoring network meets the
requirements in 40 CFR part 58 and section 182(c)(1) for enhanced
monitoring.
40 CFR 51.905 (10) TCMs under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA. As
required by the Clean Air Act section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality demonstrated conformity
of area transportation plans to the motor vehicle emissions budgets
established in the BRNA Attainment Demonstration approved by EPA on
October 2, 2002 (67 FR 61786).
40 CFR 51.905 (11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions of
section
[[Page 53862]]
182(d)(1) of the CAA. EPA approved the VMT Offset Analysis on November
21, 2006 (71 FR 67308).
40 CFR 51.905 (13) Attainment demonstration or alternative as
provided under section 51.905(a)(1)(ii). Louisiana elected the option
to submit an 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP to demonstrate
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by the area's 8-hour ozone
attainment date with associated MVEBs and an RACM analysis. The SIP was
submitted to EPA on August 31, 2010. EPA has not acted on it. As
discussed previously, EPA's long-held position is that an attainment
demonstration with the RACM analysis is not an applicable requirement
for purposes of evaluating an ozone redesignation request where the
area is attaining the standard. (General Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See
also 40 CFR 51.918. Upon redesignation, the obligation is terminated.
Moreover EPA has determined that the area has attained the