17368 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons: (1) The regulation 

is procedural and has no impact on any 

entity unless that entity chooses to 

participate, in which case, the cost to 

the participant is the same cost for any 

size participant; (2) access to NVLAP’s 

accreditation system is not conditional 

upon the size of a laboratory or 

membership of any association or group, 

nor are there undue financial conditions 

to restrict participation; and (3) the 

technical criteria, against which 

individual laboratories are assessed, are 

not changed by this proposal. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not involve 

a new collection of information subject 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 

The collection of information for 

NVLAP has been approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

under control number 0693–0003. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

the law, no person is required to 

comply, nor shall any person be subject 

to penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information, subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This proposed rule will not 

significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment. Therefore, an 

environmental assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement is not 

required to be prepared under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 285 

Accreditation, Business and industry, 

Calibration, Commerce, Conformity 

assessment, Laboratories, Measurement 

standards, Testing. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, it is proposed that title 15 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations be 

amended as follows: 

PART 285—NATIONAL VOLUNTARY 

LABORATORY ACCREDITATION 

PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 285 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 272 et seq. 

2. Section 285.4 is amended by 

revising the last sentence to read as 

follows: 

§ 285.4 Establishment of laboratory 

accreditation programs (LAPs) within 

NVLAP. 

* * * * * 

For requests from private sector 

entities and Government agencies, the 

Chief of NVLAP shall analyze each 

request, and, after consultation with 

interested parties through public 

workshops or other means to ensure 

open participation, shall establish the 

requested LAP, if the Chief of NVLAP 

determines there is need for the 

requested LAP. 

Dated: March 21, 2011. 

Charles H. Romine, 

Acting Associate Director for Laboratory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7336 Filed 3–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0404; FRL–9287–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Louisiana; Determination of 

Termination of Section 185 Fees 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

determine that the State of Louisiana is 

no longer required to submit a section 

185 fee program State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision for the Baton Rouge 

ozone nonattainment area to satisfy antibacksliding requirements for the 1-hour 

ozone standard. This proposed 

determination (‘‘Termination 

Determination’’) is based on complete, 

quality-assured monitoring data 

showing attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS), which is due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions 

implemented in the area. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2010–0404, by one of the 

following methods: 

Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ Web 

site: http://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– 

0404. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail that you consider to be CBI or 

otherwise protected from disclosure. 

The http://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 http://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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17369 

1Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1, 

69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 

2May 10, 1995, EPA memorandum from John S. 

Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, entitled ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

Meeting the Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standard.’’ 

3Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. Guidance on Developing 

Fee Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 

185 for the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS. January 5, 2010. 

4 Ibid. 

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 http:// 

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 75202– 

2733. 

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 (214) 

665–7263, e-mail address 

rennie.Sandra@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. Background 

III. What is the legal rationale for this action? 

IV. What is the effect of this action? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis? 

a. Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

b. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Reductions 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

Louisiana is no longer required to 

submit a Clean Air Act section 185 fee 

program SIP revision for the Baton 

Rouge 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 

to satisfy anti-backsliding requirements 

associated with the transition from the 

1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. This proposed 

Termination Determination is based on 

EPA’s belief that the area is attaining the 

1-hour ozone standard due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions implemented in the area. If 

finalized, the effect of EPA’s 

determination would be to terminate the 

area’s obligation to submit a section 185 

fee program SIP revision for the 1-hour 

ozone standard. 

II. Background 

In 2003, EPA determined that the 

Baton Rouge 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area had failed to meet 

its 1-hour ozone serious area 

nonattainment date, and consequently 

the area was reclassified as a matter of 

law to severe nonattainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard effective June 23, 

2003. 68 FR 20077 (April 24, 2003). The 

reclassification of the area as severe 

required the State to adopt a SIP 

revision creating a penalty fee program 

under CAA section 185 that would 

apply if the area failed to meet the 

November 15, 2005 attainment date that 

applied to severe 1-hour ozone areas. 

But, by that date, EPA had revoked the 

1-hour standard and designated the 

Baton Rouge area for the new 1997 8- 

hour standard as marginal 

nonattainment. 

Section 185 1-Hour Ozone Antibacksliding Requirements: 

Although EPA revoked the 1-hour 

standard on June 15, 2004, during the 

transition from the 1-hour ozone to the 

8-hour ozone standard, EPA required 1- 

hour nonattainment areas to remain 

subject to certain requirements 

pertaining to the area’s previous 1-hour 

classification. 

The section 185 fee program 

requirement applied to any ozone 

nonattainment area classified as Severe 

or Extreme under the NAAQS, 

including any area that was classified 

Severe or Extreme under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS as of the effective date of 

the area’s 8-hour designation. Initially, 

in our rules to address the transition 

from the 1-hour to the 8-hour ozone 

standard, we did not include the 185 fee 

penalty requirement as one of the 

measures necessary to meet antibacksliding requirements.1 However, on 

December 23, 2006, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit issued an opinion 

determining that EPA improperly 

removed from its anti-backsliding 

requirements the application of the 

section 185 fee provision for Severe and 

Extreme nonattainment areas that failed 

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 

their attainment date. South Coast Air 

Quality Management District v. EPA, 

472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). In light of 

the Court’s decision, on January 5, 2010 

EPA issued guidance on the application 

of the 185 1-hour anti-backsliding 

requirement. EPA’s guidance addressed, 

among other matters, alternative 

methods of satisfying the section 185 

1-hour anti-backsliding requirement, 

and the circumstances under which 

EPA would determine that the 

obligation was terminated. 

After the 1-hour standard was 

revoked, and in accordance with antibacksliding regulations that remained 

unchallenged, EPA no longer 

reclassified areas under section 181(b) 

for the 1-hour standard or redesignated 

1-hour nonattainment areas to 

attainment for that standard 69 FR 

23951 (April 30, 2004). EPA continued, 

however to make determinations of 

attainment for the 1-hour standard 

under EPA’s Clean Data Policy. On 

February 10, 2010 (75 FR 6570), EPA 

determined, pursuant to the Clean Data 

Policy, that the Baton Rouge area had 

attained the 1-hour ozone standard.2

This determination suspended certain 

attainment-related severe area 1-hour 

ozone planning requirements for Baton 

Rouge, but did not affect the area’s antibacksliding obligation under the 1-hour 

ozone section 185 fee requirement. 

III. What is the legal rationale for this 

action? 3

As a result of the court decision in 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 

2006), States with areas classified as 

Severe or Extreme nonattainment for the 

1-hour ozone standard at the time of the 

area’s initial nonattainment designation 

for the 1997 8-hour standard are no 

longer categorically exempt from antibacksliding requirements under section 

185. As set forth in EPA’s January 5, 

2010 guidance 4, EPA believes that 

States can meet this obligation through 

a SIP revision containing either the fee 

program prescribed in section 185, or an 

equivalent alternative program, as 

further explained below. 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
17370 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5EPA notes that it has also finalized a 

determination that the Baton Rouge area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone standard. (75 FR 54778, 

September 9, 2010). A final determination of 8-hour 

attainment based on permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions could provide another ground 

for termination of the section 185 1-hour antibacksliding requirements, but we have not yet made 

such a determination and thus do not rely on it 

here. 

revised the NAAQS to make it less 

stringent. 

Section 172(e) is an anti-backsliding 

provision of the CAA that requires EPA 

to develop regulations to ensure that 

controls are ‘‘not less stringent’’ than 

those that applied prior to relaxing a 

standard where EPA has revised a 

NAAQS to make it less stringent. In the 

Phase 1 ozone implementation rule for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS published on 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), 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. 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 can either require States to retain 

programs that applied for purposes of 

the 1-hour standard, or alternatively can 

allow States flexibility to adopt 

alternative programs, but only if such 

alternatives are determined through 

rulemaking to be ‘‘not less stringent’’ 

than the mandated program. 

EPA is electing to 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. 

As set forth in EPA’s January 5, 2010 

guidance, EPA believes that for an area 

that we determine is attaining either the 

1-hour ozone or 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, based on permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions, the 

area would no longer be obligated to 

submit a fee program SIP revision to 

satisfy the anti-backsliding requirements 

associated with the transition from the 

1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. In such cases, an 

area’s existing SIP could be considered 

an adequate alternative program. Our 

reasoning follows from the fact that an 

area’s existing SIP measures, in 

conjunction with other enforceable 

Federal measures, are adequate for the 

area to achieve attainment, which is the 

purpose of the section 185 program. 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. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that the obligation to collect 

fees terminates once EPA determines 

that the area has attained the 1-hour 

ozone standard based on permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. 

In addition, EPA’s guidance states 

that once an area attains the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, which replaced the now 

revoked 1-hour ozone standard, the 

purpose of retaining the section 185 fee 

program as an anti-backsliding measure 

would also be fulfilled as the area 

would have attained the 8-hour ozone 

standard for which the fee program was 

retained as a transition measure. We 

believe that it would unfairly penalize 

sources in these areas to require that 

fees be paid after an area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone standard due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions because the fees were 

imposed due to a failure to meet the 

applicable attainment deadline for the 

revoked 1-hour ozone standard, not any 

failure to achieve the now applicable 

8-hour ozone standard for which the fee 

program was retained as a transition 

matter by its attainment date.5

There is also an additional, 

independent basis for EPA’s approach to 

determining that the anti-backsliding 

requirements associated with section 

185 have been satisfied. Although 

section 185 provides that fees are to 

continue until the area is redesignated 

for ozone, EPA no longer promulgates 

redesignations for the 1-hour ozone 

standard because that standard has been 

revoked. Therefore, relief from the 

1-hour section 185 fee program 

requirement under the terms of the 

statute is an impossibility, since the 

conditions the statute envisioned for 

relieving an area of its fee program 

obligation no longer can exist. There is 

thus a gap in the statute which must be 

filled by EPA. We believe that under 

these circumstances we must exercise 

our discretion under Chevron USA, Inc. 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 

467 U.S. 837 (1984), to fill this gap, so 

as to carry out Congressional intent in 

the unique context of anti-backsliding 

requirements for a revoked standard. 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 noticeand-comment rulemaking, that an area 

has attained the 1-hour 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 

anti-backsliding 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 8-hour 

measures. Under these circumstances, 

retention of the fee program under the 

anti-backsliding rule is no longer 

necessary for the purpose of achieving 

attainment of the 8-hour standard. See 

EPA’s January 5, 2010 guidance. 

(Footnote 3). 

IV. What is the effect of this action? 

If this proposed determination to 

terminate the section 185 fee antibacksliding requirement for the 1-hour 

ozone standard is finalized, the 

requirement for the State of Louisiana to 

submit a 185 penalty fee program SIP 

revision, which would require major 

stationary sources under the Baton 

Rouge 1-hour severe nonattainment 

classification to pay fees as a penalty for 

a failure to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by the area’s 1-hour ozone 

attainment date, would be removed. A 

final approval of the Termination 

Determination for the 1-hour standard 

section 185 measures will not be 

rescinded based on subsequent 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. After EPA has determined that 

an area has attained the 1-hour standard 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions, EPA believes that 

it would be unduly punitive, confusing, 

and potentially destabilizing to reimpose the years-old penalty 

requirements if at some point in the 

future the area lapses back into 1-hour 

nonanttainment. Moreover, EPA 

believes that under current 

circumstances, it would not be in 

keeping with the intent of Congress. 

First, we note that had the area attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard prior to its 

attainment date, no penalties at all 

would have been imposed even if the 

area subsequently lapsed into 

nonattainment. Second, the statute 

provides that penalties for failure to 

attain by an area’s attainment date 

would be terminated by redesigntion of 

the area. Now that the 1-hour ozone 

standard has been revoked and EPA is 

no longer promulgating redesignations 

for that standard, relief from the 1-hour 

section 185 fee program requirements 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17371 

6EPA anticipates announcing the reconsidered 8- 

hour ozone standard in July 2011. 

7As noted above, a final determination of 

attainment for the 8-hour standard that is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions reductions 

would provide an additional basis for a 

Termination Determination for Baton Rouge, but 

EPA has not yet made such a determination and 

therefore does not rely on that ground here. 

8A litigant challenged EPA’s approval of the 

serious area contingency measures, but the 

obligation related to these measures was later 

suspended by EPA’s determination that the area has 

attained the 1-hour standard (75 FR 6570, February 

10, 2010). 

under the terms of the statute is an 

impossibility—the mechanism the 

statute envisioned for relief no longer 

exists. As EPA explains in its January 5 

guidance, we have reasonably 

concluded in these circumstances that a 

determination of attainment due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions, along with the area’s 

existing SIP and its continuing 

obligations to meet ever more stringent 

ozone standards, are a reasonable 

alternative means for terminating these 

unique antibacksliding penalty 

provisions. EPA believes that, given the 

gap in the statute, and the intent of 

Congress as expressed in quite different 

regulatory circumstances, it would be 

counterproductive and in conflict with 

that intent for EPA’s determination to 

merely suspend rather than 

permanently terminate the 1-hour 

antibacksliding penalty fees. Requiring 

areas to remain subject to the threat of 

reviving stale penalty fees for an old 

revoked standard, when these areas and 

the sources subject to the penalties must 

now muster their resources to focus on 

meeting newer more stringent 

standards, would be at odds with the 

purposes of the act and in conflict with 

the principle that penalty provisions 

should be narrowly construed. This is 

all more the case when the area is 

subject to a host of ongoing obligations 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as 

well as the future anticipated new 8- 

hour ozone standard,6 and when it has 

already shown great improvement in 

meeting the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis? 

EPA’s proposed Termination 

Determination is based upon EPA’s 

belief that the area is attaining the 

1-hour ozone standard due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions implemented in the area. 

EPA has issued guidance expressing its 

views as to potential rationales for 

terminating section 185 obligations for 

1-hour ozone in its January 5, 2010 

guidance. This notice formally sets forth 

EPA’s legal interpretation concerning 

the basis for terminating those 

obligations. 

a. Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

As noted above, EPA recently 

determined that the Baton Rouge 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area attained the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. 75 FR 6570 

(February 10, 2010). This determination 

was based on three years of complete, 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data that showed monitored 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

for the 2006–2009 monitoring period. 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

area continues in attainment, based on 

complete, quality-assured data for 2010 

and preliminary data available to date 

for the 2011 ozone season. 

In addition, on September 9, 2010, 

EPA determined that the Baton Rouge 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

has also attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. (75 FR 54778) This proposed 

determination is based on four years of 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ambient air monitoring data that show 

the area monitoring attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard for the 

2006–2008, 2007–2009, and 2008–2010 

monitoring periods. Preliminary data 

available to date for the 2011 ozone 

season are consistent with continued 

attainment. Table 1 shows the fourth 

high 8-hour ozone average 

concentrations and design values for 

monitors in the Baton Rouge area for the 

2006–2010 monitoring period.7

TABLE 1—FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR OZONE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS AND DESIGN VALUES (PPM) IN THE BATON

ROUGE AREA 1

Site 

4th Highest daily max Design values 

three year averages 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006–2008 2007–2009 2008–2010 

Plaquemine (22–047– 

0009) ............................ 0.083 0.079 0.076 0.071 0.074 0.079 0.075 0.073 

Carville (22–047–0012) .... 0.085 0.086 0.073 0.076 0.072 0.081 0.078 0.073 

Dutchtown (22–005–0004) 0.087 0.088 0.074 0.074 0.078 0.083 0.078 0.075 

Baker (22–033–1001) ...... 0.091 0.077 0.071 0.071 0.075 0.079 0.073 0.072 

LSU (22–033–0003) ......... 0.085 0.085 0.072 0.084 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.078 

Grosse Tete (22–047– 

0007) ............................ 0.086 0.084 0.071 0.070 0.074 0.080 0.075 0.071 

Port Allen (22–121–0001) 0.087 0.076 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.078 0.073 0.071 

Pride (22–033–0013) ....... 0.082 0.077 0.074 0.072 0.071 0.077 0.074 0.072 

French Settlement (22– 

063–0002) .................... 0.079 0.084 0.075 0.075 0.076 0.079 0.078 0.075 

Capitol (22–033–0009) .... 0.084 0.074 0.067 0.076 0.076 0.075 0.072 0.073 

1 Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, design value calculations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard are based on a rolling three-year average 

of the annual 4th highest values (40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I). 

b. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Reductions 

EPA believes that the State has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvements with respect to 

the 1-hour ozone standard are due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions through the implementation 

of emission controls contained in the 

SIP and in Federal control measures. 

Subsequent to the 1990 CAA 

amendments, Louisiana complied with 

the planning requirements of the CAA 

for a serious 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (67 FR 61786, 

October 2, 2002).8 But because the area 

failed to attain that standard by the 

attainment date for a serious 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, in 

anticipation of being reclassified to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
17372 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

severe, and in response to EPA’s Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (now vacated and 

remanded), additional 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). These rules were implemented 

between February 20, 2002, and May 1, 

2005. The Baton Rouge area was 

reclassified as severe for the 1-hour 

ozone standard on April 24, 2003. (68 

FR 20077) 

The rules established emission factors 

(standards) for NOX sources within the 

Baton Rouge nonattainment area. These 

revisions achieved approximately 40 

TPD of additional NOX reductions in the 

Baton Rouge nonattainment area. The 

specific standards are listed below. 

NOX reduction measures 2002–2008 NOX standard 

Electric Power Generating System Boilers: 

Coal-fired > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr .................................................................................. 0.50 lb/MMBtu. 

Coal-fired > 80 MMBtu/hr ............................................................................................... 0.21 lb/MMBtu. 

No. 6 fuel oil-fired > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr ..................................................................... 0.30 lb/MMBtu. 

No. 6 fuel oil-fired > 80 MMBtu/hr ................................................................................. 0.18 lb/MMBtu. 

All others (gaseous or liquid) > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr ................................................... 0.20 lb/MMBtu. 

All others (gaseous or liquid) > 80 MMBtu/hr ................................................................ 0.10 lb/MMBtu. 

Industrial Boilers > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr .............................................................................. 0.20 lb/MMBtu. 

Industrial Boilers > 80 MMBtu/hr ........................................................................................... 0.10 lb/MMBtu. 

Process Heater/Furnaces: 

Ammonia reformers > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr .................................................................. 0.30 lb/MMBtu. 

Ammonia reformers > 80 MMBtu/hr .............................................................................. 0.23 lb/MMBtu. 

All others > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr .................................................................................. 0.18 lb/MMBtu. 

All others > 80 MMBtu/hr ............................................................................................... 0.08 lb/MMBtu. 

Stationary Gas Turbines: 

Peaking Service, Fuel Oil-fired > 5 to < 10 MW ........................................................... 0.37 lb/MMBtu. 

Peaking Service, Fuel Oil-fired > 10 MW ...................................................................... 0.30 lb/MMBtu. 

Peaking Service, Gas-fired > 5 to < 10 MW ................................................................. 0.27 lb/MMBtu. 

Peaking Service, Gas-fired > 10 MW ............................................................................ 0.20 lb/MMBtu. 

All Others > 5 to < 10 MW ............................................................................................. 0.24 lb/MMBtu. 

All Others > 10 MW ....................................................................................................... 0.16 lb/MMBtu. 

Stationary Internal Combustion Engines: 

Lean-burn engines > 150 to < 320 Hp .......................................................................... 10 g/Hp-hr. 

Lean-burn engines > 320 Hp ......................................................................................... 4 g/Hp-hr. 

Rich-burn engines > 150 to < 300 Hp ........................................................................... 2 g/Hp-hr. 

Rich-burn engines > 300 Hp .......................................................................................... 2 g/Hp-hr. 

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 Control 

Technology Guidelines (CTGs) and 

other major non-CTG sources. These 

rules were adopted and implemented 

prior to 2002. (62 FR 63658, February 2, 

1998; 63 FR 47429, November 8, 1998) 

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. 

Finally, implementation of the 

phased-in Federal Tier II light-duty 

vehicle rule was complete in 2006, with 

100 percent of the vehicles 

manufactured for that model year 

meeting the more stringent standard. 

This would have contributed some 

small additional benefit to the Baton 

Rouge area during the 2006–2008 

monitoring period. 

EPA believes that the progress made 

to reduce emissions in the Baton Rouge 

area during the 2002–2008 timeframe 

resulting in achieving attainment of 

both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards is from permanent and 

enforceable measures which achieved 

significant reductions as summarized in 

Table 2. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS

NOX TPD VOC TPD 

Adjusted Base Year (2002) Inventory ..................................................................................................................... 193.3 103.5 

2008 Emissions ....................................................................................................................................................... 143.2 97.8 

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, to an 

extent that there are currently excess 

emission reductions for both ozone 

standards. Even though the NOx rules 

were fully implemented by May of 2005, 

the area was prevented from attaining in 

2005 by the four exceedances 

experienced in the 2003–2004 

monitoring period. 

The preceding discussion 

demonstrates that permanent and 

enforceable emission reduction 

measures adopted and implemented by 

the State have been effective in reaching 

attainment of both the 1-hour and 1997 

8-hour ozone standards. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination to terminate (Termination 

Determination) the section 185 fee 

penalty requirement for the Baton Rouge 

area for the 1-hour ozone standard. For 

the reasons set forth in this notice, this 

proposed determination is based on 

EPA’s determination that the area has 

attained and continues to attain the 1- 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17373 

hour ozone standard due to permanent 

and enforceable emissions reductions. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination of termination of the 

CAA section 185 penalty fee 

requirement based on attainment of the 

1-hour ozone standard due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, and would, if finalized, 

result in the termination of the section 

185 fee requirements for the 1-hour 

standard, and would not impose any 

additional requirements. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

Æ Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

Æ Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

Æ Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

Æ Does 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); 

Æ Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

Æ Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

Æ Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

Æ Is not subject to the 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 

Æ Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

addition, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: March 19, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7325 Filed 3–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0169; FRL–9286–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Determination of Attainment for the 

Clark County 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to determine 

that the Clark County (Nevada) 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area has attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS). This 

proposed determination is based upon 

complete, quality-assured, and certified 

ambient air monitoring data that show 

the area has monitored attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2007 

to 2009 monitoring period. Preliminary 

air quality monitoring data available for 

2010 are consistent with continued 

attainment. Based on this proposed 

determination, the requirement for the 

State of Nevada to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, contingency measures, and 

other planning requirements related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the Clark County ozone 

nonattainment area would be suspended 

for as long as the nonattainment area 

continues to meet the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0169, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: kelly.johnj@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (415) 947–3579. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0169,’’ 

Lisa Hanf, Chief, Air Planning Office, 

Air Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street (Air-2), San Francisco, 

California 94105. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: At the 

previously-listed EPA Region IX 

address. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Kelly, (415) 947–4151, or by e-mail at 

kelly.johnj@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

direct final action, of the same title, 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. EPA is approving 

the attainment determination and 

related suspension of attainment 

planning-related SIP submittal 

requirements as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial action 

and anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the determination 

and suspension of attainment-related 

SIP submittal requirements is set forth 

in the preamble to the direct final rule. 

If EPA receives no adverse comments, 

EPA will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. 

If EPA receives adverse comments, 

EPA will withdraw the direct final rule 

and it will not take effect. EPA will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if we receive adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

Dated: March 15, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7222 Filed 3–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1