Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 53853 

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. 

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. 

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 203 

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: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1709, 1710, 1715b, 

1715z–16, and 1715u; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). 

§ 203.43e [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 

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 antibacksliding 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: 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– 

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 http:// 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53854 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

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 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 53855 

1Petitions 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2However, the State subsequently reversed these 

rules when the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked. 

3On 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. 

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 

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 

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 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 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). 

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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53858 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/ 

DIVISIONS/Assessment/AirFieldServices/ 

AmbientAirMonitoringProgram/ 

AirMonitoringData.aspx. 

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

Site 

4th Highest daily max Design values 

three year 

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 

Monitoring period Design value 

(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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53860 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

(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 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 8- 

hour ozone RACT requirements for all 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 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. 

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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53862 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

6The 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. 

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 1- 

hour and 8-hour attainment 

demonstration will be terminated. 

(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 

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, 

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 1- 

hour 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 53863 

’’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 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 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 8- 

hour 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 1- 

hour 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. 

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 .......................................... August 26, 1996 (61 FR 38590). 

182(a)(2)(B) I/M Program ................................................... Required under section 182(c)(3). 

August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45454). 

182(a)(2)(C) Permit programs and 182(a)(4) General Offset requirement.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. 

182(a)(3)(B) Emissions Statements ................................... February 6, 1995 (60 FR 02014). 

182(b)(1) Plan Provisions for Reasonable Further 

Progress.

This is covered by the requirement in 182(c)(2). 

182(b)(2) Reasonably Available Control Technology ........ 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). 

182(b)(3) Gasoline Vapor Recovery .................................. March 25, 1994 (59 FR 14112). 

182(b)(4) Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance ....... Required under section 182(c)(3). 

August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45454). 

182(c)(1) Enhanced Monitoring ......................................... June 19, 1996 (61 FR 31035). 

182(c)(2) Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstrations.

December 23, 1996 (61 FR 54737). 

August 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.

August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45454). 

182(c)(4) Clean-Fuel Vehicle Programs ............................ Clean Fuel Fleet Substitute Program, July 19, 1999. 

182(c)(5)Transportation Control ......................................... October 2, 2002 (67 FR 61786). 

182(c)(6) De Minimis Rule ................................................. This requirement is related to the NSR program that is not an applicable requirement 

for redesignation. 

182(c)(7) Special Rule for Modifications of Sources Emitting Less Than 100 Tons.This requirement is related to the NSR program that is not an applicable requirement 

for redesignation. 

182(c)(8) Special Rule for Modifications of Sources Emitting 100 Tons or More.This requirement is related to the NSR program that is not an applicable requirement 

for redesignation. 

182(c)(9) Contingency Provisions ...................................... September 26, 2002 (67 FR 60590). This requirement was suspended pursuant to 

the 1-hour determination of attainment. 

February 10, 2010 ( 75 FR 6570). 

182(c)(10) General Offset Requirement ............................ September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61260). 

182(d)(1) Vehicle Miles Traveled ....................................... November 21, 2006 (71 FR 67308). 

182(d)(2)Offset Requirement ............................................. This requirement is related to the NSR program that is not an applicable requirement 

for redesignation. 

182(d)(3) Enforcement Under Section 185 ........................ July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39775). 

(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 

(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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 53865 

7EPA. 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). 

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 1- 

hour 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 

VOC 

TPD 

Base Year (2002) Inventory ...................... 200.3 211.0 

2008 Emissions ............ 143.8 101.3 

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] 

Source category 

VOC Emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX Emissions 

(tpd) 

2002 2006 Percent 

change 2002 2006 Percent change 

Point ............................................................................... 40.17 33.10 ¥17 .6 117.91 73.40 ¥37.75 

Area ................................................................................ 29.71 31.59 +5 .95 3.90 4.06 +4.10 

Non-Road Mobile ........................................................... 22.97 13.60 ¥22 .38 43.59 36.75 ¥15.69 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................. 14.99 17.60 +16 .75 34.01 29.30 ¥13.85 

Total ........................................................................ 107.84 95.89 ¥11 .08 199.41 143.50 ¥28.04 

2. Impact of Emissions Controls 

Implementation: Trend Analysis 

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.) 

3. Permanent and Enforceable Emissions 

Controls Implemented 

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 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53866 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

a. Reasonably Available Control 

Techniques 

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 

approved by the EPA as revisions of the 

Louisiana SIP. 

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 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 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2g/Hp-hr. 

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 

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: 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 53867 

8Emission Inventory Improvement Program 

(EIIP), EPA–454/R–97–004a–g, http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/; AP–42, http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html; Air 

Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR Rule), 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/aerr/ 

final_published_aerr.pdf 

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). 

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 

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) 

Point .................................. 73 .4 33 .1 

Nonpoint ........................... 4 .06 31 .59 

On-road Mobile ................. 29 .3 17 .60 

Non-road Mobile ............... 36 .75 13 .59 

Total .................................. 143 .51 95 .88 

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. 

3. Has the state of Louisiana committed 

to maintain the ozone monitoring 

system in the BRNA? 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53868 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

9The Cross State Air Pollution Rule was 

proposed August 2, 2010 as the ‘‘Transport Rule.’’ 

We refer to the rule as the CSAPR. 

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 EPAapproved 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] 

Source category 

2006 2008 2012 2016 2020 2022 Net change 

2022–2006 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Point ............................ 33.10 73.40 32.22 67.71 32.22 67.71 32.22 67.71 32.22 67.71 32.22 67.71 ¥0 .88 ¥5.69 

Nonpoint ...................... 31.59 4.06 32.35 4.16 33.63 4.36 35.59 4.53 37.54 4.74 38.51 4.83 6 .92 0.78 

Nonroad ....................... 13.60 36.75 12.59 37.45 11.22 38.51 10.27 39.59 9.78 41.36 9.99 40.60 ¥3 .61 3.85 

Onroad ........................ 17.60 29.30 17.82 28.35 10.64 18.63 9.70 12.08 7.82 8.33 7.55 6.96 ¥10 .1 ¥22.34 

Total ..................... 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. 

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, 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 53869 

10EPA. 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). 

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 8- 

hour 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 

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 

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; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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: http://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] 

Pollutant 2006 2008 2012 2016 2020 2022 

NOX .......................................................... 29.30 28.35 18.63 12.08 8.33 6.96 

VOC ......................................................... 17.60 17.82 10.64 9.70 7.82 7.55 

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. 

As shown in Table 8, substantial 

reductions in both NOX and VOC 

transportation emissions are projected 

between 2006 and 2022. Further, as 

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, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 53871 

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 .................................................. 6.96 

VOC .................................................. 7.55 

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 1- 

hour 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 

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 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed temporary rule; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: 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 http://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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

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 http://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) 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS