[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 648-653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-42]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[LA-34-1-7300; FRL-5670-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Louisiana; 
Correction of Classification; Approval of the Maintenance Plan; 
Redesignation of Pointe Coupee Parish to Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 22, 1996, EPA simultaneously published a direct final 
notice of rulemaking and a notice of proposed rulemaking in which EPA 
published its decision to approve a revision to the Louisiana State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) to redesignate Pointe Coupee Parish to 
attainment for ozone. During the 30-day comment period, EPA received an 
adverse comment letter in response to the July 22, 1996, rulemaking. 
This final rule summarizes the comments and EPA's responses, and 
finalizes EPA's decision to correct the classification of Pointe Coupee 
Parish from a serious to a marginal ozone nonattainment area. This 
action also approves the redesignation of Pointe Coupee Parish, 
Louisiana to attainment for ozone.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on December 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's request and other information relevant 
to this action are available for inspection during normal hours at the 
following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. 
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 
7290 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810.

    Anyone wishing to review this petition at the EPA office is asked 
to contact the person below to schedule an appointment 24 hours in 
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt. Mick Cote, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-

[[Page 649]]

L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 22, 1996, EPA published a direct final rulemaking approving 
a revision to the existing Louisiana SIP to redesignate Pointe Coupee 
Parish to attainment for ozone (61 FR 37833). At the same time that EPA 
published the direct final rule, a separate notice of proposed 
rulemaking was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 37875). This 
proposed rulemaking specified that EPA would withdraw the direct final 
rule if adverse or critical comments were filed on the rulemaking 
within 30 days of its publication. The EPA received a letter containing 
adverse comments regarding the direct final rule on August 21, 1996, 
and published the withdrawal of the direct final rule on September 25, 
1996 (61 FR 50238).
    The specific rationale EPA used to approve the redesignation of 
Pointe Coupee Parish to attainment for ozone was explained in the 
direct final rule and will not be restated here. This final rule 
addresses the comments received during the public comment period and 
announces EPA's final action regarding approval of the redesignation 
request.

II. Response to Public Comments

    The EPA received an adverse comment letter dated August 21, 1996, 
from the Citizens Commission for Clean Air in the Lake Michigan Basin, 
and thus proceeded to withdraw the direct final rule and adequately 
address each comment. The EPA's responses to each comment are detailed 
below.

A. Comments on the Correction Action

    Comment: The commenters challenge the authority of the 
Administrator under section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) to 
reclassify an ozone nonattainment area by asserting that the original 
classification was made in error. The EPA failed to pause and consider 
section 110(k)(6) in conjunction with section 107(d)(4)(A).
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that 
the Administrator exceeded her authority in correcting the 
classification of Pointe Coupee Parish from serious to marginal. 
Section 110(k)(6) of the Act clearly allows the Administrator to revise 
an area's classification when a determination is made that the original 
classification was made in error. Section 107(d)(4)(A) of the Act 
discusses nonattainment designations for ozone and carbon monoxide. 
Section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of the Act requires that the boundaries of any 
such area classified as serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment for 
ozone shall include the entire Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or 
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), unless notice is 
received by the Administrator from the Governor of the State that 
additional time is necessary to evaluate the application of this 
clause. This notice must be received within 45 days of the initial 
classification. It should be noted that MSA and CMSA boundaries are 
established by the Bureau of the Census. Section 107(d)(4)(A)(v) of the 
Act further states that, in order to make a finding that a portion of 
the MSA or CMSA should be excluded from the nonattainment area 
boundaries, the Administrator should take into account such factors as 
population density, traffic congestion, commercial development, 
meteorological conditions, and pollution transport. The EPA agrees that 
these requirements must be considered when evaluating a proposed change 
to an existing MSA's or CMSA's boundary condition. As detailed in the 
July 22, 1996, Federal Register, EPA considered all of the 
aforementioned factors prior to making the decision to correct Pointe 
Coupee Parish's classification. However, it should be noted once again 
that Pointe Coupee Parish is not part of the Baton Rouge CMSA, and thus 
the requirements of 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) and 107(d)(4)(A)(v) of the Act do 
not demand our consideration when correcting this error under section 
110(k)(6)of the Act.

B. Comments on the Urban Airshed Modeling (UAM) Study

    Comment: The Baton Rouge UAM study utilized an outdated and 
underestimated biogenic volatile organic compound (VOC) inventory, 
which recent EPA modeling guidance and Ozone Transport Assessment Group 
(OTAG) participants concluded warranted replacement with the Biogenic 
Emission Inventory System-2 (BEIS-2) inventory of biogenic VOCs. The 
Baton Rouge UAM study would likely not model nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X) 
reduction disbenefits if it incorporated the BEIS-2 inventory.
    Response: Biogenic hydrocarbon emissions have been determined to 
play an important role in the chemistry of urban ozone formation, 
especially in warm southern cities. In light of this, the State 
developed the biogenic emission inventory for the Baton Rouge area 
based on area-specific data rather than using EPA BEIS-2 program. The 
area-specific land-use database used in the biogenic emission 
development was derived from four different sources: the Louisiana 
Department of Transportation and Development; a study of Baton Rouge's 
biogenic hydrocarbon emissions by Carlos Cardolino and William 
Chameides at the Georgia Institute of Technology using LANDSAT imagery; 
the U.S. Geological Survey's geo-ecology database; and the U.S. Forest 
Service's 1991 forest statistics for the southeast Louisiana parishes 
and forest statistics of south delta Louisiana parishes. The emission 
factors used in estimating biogenic emissions in the Baton Rouge area 
were obtained from the Rasmussen and Khalil and Zimmermann studies of 
biogenic sources. The emission factors from the Rasmussen and Khalil 
and Zimmermann studies were derived from direct measurements of various 
types of vegetation in the Baton Rouge and Tampa Bay, Florida areas, 
respectively.
    In addition, the correction factors based on Guenther, et. al., 
were used to adjust both temperature and solar radiation for isoprene, 
while the correction factors developed by Tingey, et. al., were used to 
address temperature concerns for alpha-pinene and beta-pinene. The EPA 
believes this approach represents a site-specific approach which 
describes the VOC biogenic source inventory in Baton Rouge more 
accurately than BEIS-2.
    Comment: The Baton Rouge UAM study lacked an updated chemistry 
component (CB-4). The EPA would be remiss in not reconsidering these 
improvements in UAM capability and reevaluating the accuracy of the 
Baton Rouge UAM study.
    Response: The updated CB-4 has been developed for use with BEIS-2. 
As explained above, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 
(LDEQ) developed its VOC biogenic inventory based on area-specific data 
instead of the BEIS-2 program. In addition, the updated chemistry 
component was not available at the time when LDEQ conducted the Baton 
Rouge UAM study.
    Comment: It appears unreasonable for EPA to claim sufficient 
confidence in the accuracy of the Baton Rouge UAM study, that reliance 
upon it warrants reclassification of Pointe Coupee under section 
110(k)(6) of the Act.
    Response: The LDEQ used UAM version IV, an EPA-approved 
photochemical grid model, for reclassification of Point Coupee under 
section 110(k)(6) of the Act. The State has followed EPA guidance on 
the application of UAM. As required, the State performed quality 
assurance testing of model inputs and diagnostic testing of the base 
meteorological

[[Page 650]]

episode simulation to ensure that the model functioned properly and 
that accurate results were obtained for the right reasons. The State 
applied a number of performance evaluation techniques such as 
diagnostic analyses to examine the effects of uncertainty and identify 
possible deficiencies in the model input. The sensitivity analysis 
investigated the sensitivity of the model to the various model inputs 
and ensured that the response of the model to changes in the inputs was 
physically realistic. In addition, the State conducted a model 
performance evaluation using graphical and statistical analyses to 
demonstrate that its model results acceptably replicated the historical 
ozone episodes.
    Comment: The commenters believe that the Baton Rouge UAM study is 
equivocal and disputed by other peer-reviewed UAM studies and field 
research. The commenters cited a recent analysis prepared by ENVIRON 
Corporation which reviewed the Baton Rouge UAM study. This review 
commented that the model-predicted peak always occurred late in the 
afternoon (5 p.m.), whereas the observed peak occurred late in the 
morning (11 a.m. or noon). This suggested that there were 
meteorological and/or chemical phenomena occurring that were not being 
captured by the model.
    Response: The mistiming of the observed peak with the simulated 
peak at one monitoring site is not as important a criterion in 
evaluating performance as the model's ability to simulate the 
concentrations of the observed peaks. The base case model simulations 
provided a good representation of the spatial and temporal 
characteristics of the episodes as a whole. There was good replication 
of the average ozone concentration throughout the entire domain and the 
observed peaks were well simulated. Model performance is judged by the 
overall statistics at all the monitoring sites, not by a microscale 
effect of the model being able to simulate the exact timing of the 
observed peak at one monitoring site. All EPA model performance 
criteria fell well within the limits established by EPA to judge model 
performance. The EPA has confidence in the accuracy of the UAM study 
and its results.
    Comment: The commenters were concerned that the Baton Rouge UAM 
study excluded potentially significant contributions of ozone precursor 
emissions from Pointe Coupee in the Baton Rouge boundary conditions.
    Response: The LDEQ selected a large modeling domain to ensure that 
it allowed resolution of ozone and precursor advection upwind and 
downwind of the area of interest. The Baton Rouge modeling domain 
covers all or part of 20 parishes in Louisiana, including Point Coupee 
Parish. The ozone precursor emissions from all the parishes in the 
Baton Rouge modeling domain were taken into consideration in the UAM 
study. The Baton Rouge boundary conditions were based on aircraft 
measurements, surface based measurements, and EPA-recommended 
background values.

C. Comments on the Redesignation Action

    Comment: The commenters noted that between December 1, 1990, and 
June 1, 1995, EPA had approved approximately forty-one (41) 
redesignation requests nationwide. Several of these redesignated areas, 
such as Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri, Detroit, Michigan, San Francisco, 
California, Charlotte, North Carolina; Huntington-Ashland, West 
Virginia/Kentucky, and Grand Rapids violated the ozone standard after 
redesignation. The commenters state that the application of EPA's 
diluted redesignation guidance in reviewing these maintenance plans 
contributed to the violations. The commenters also noted that the Baton 
Rouge area observed 11 exceedances of the ozone standard in 1995.
    Response: To date EPA has redesignated a total of 41 areas to 
attainment for ozone. Of these areas, only five (Detroit, Michigan, 
Memphis, Tennessee, San Francisco, California, Kansas City, Kansas-
Missouri, and Lafourche Parish, Louisiana) subsequently monitored 
violations of the ozone standard. The EPA believes that this 
demonstrates that for the vast majority of instances the redesignation 
policy is appropriate, since most of the redesignated areas have not 
violated the ozone standard to date. Furthermore, the Act and Congress 
contemplated that such events may occur and therefore, required that 
the Administrator fully approve a maintenance plan for the area 
consistent with the requirements of section 175A of the Act before the 
area can be redesignated to attainment. Section 175A(d) of the Act 
requires that a maintenance plan contain contingency provisions deemed 
necessary by the Administrator to assure that the State will promptly 
correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the 
redesignation of the area to attainment. Clearly, the Act and Congress 
anticipated that areas redesignated to attainment may violate the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the future and ensured 
that control measures to remedy the violation are available. Areas 
redesignated to attainment have approved maintenance plans with 
contingency measures that are and will be implemented in order to 
address any violations monitored in the area after redesignation. The 
maintenance plans for these areas were deemed appropriate and adequate 
for purposes of addressing a future violation as they were fully 
approved into the area's SIPs. Furthermore, if the contingency measures 
implemented by the State do not address future violations of the NAAQS, 
EPA has the authority to call for a plan revision requiring the 
adoption of additional control measures and/or redesignate the area to 
nonattainment which in turn would require the area to adopt and 
implement additional control measures appropriate for its 
classification. See sections 110(k)(5) and 107(d)(3).
    Comment: The commenters state that EPA should stay approval of the 
redesignation until all specified Act requirements are met. Further, 
EPA should stay action on ozone redesignation requests from States 
participating in the OTAG until regional ozone precursor emission 
strategies are proposed and implemented.
    Response: As discussed in the July 22, 1996, rulemaking action, EPA 
has identified five general criteria which must be met prior to any 
approval of a redesignation request. Redesignation requests which meet 
these five criteria have demonstrated compliance with the ozone 
standard and all the necessary requirements of the Act. As discussed in 
the July 22, 1996, rulemaking action, EPA believes that the Pointe 
Coupee Parish redesignation request has met all of the Act requirements 
and the redesignation criteria. Therefore, EPA is compelled to approve 
the request. However, it should be noted that redesignation to 
attainment does not necessarily preclude an area from any future 
control strategy developed by OTAG.
    Comment: Exception was taken to the use of EPA's redesignation 
guidance, entitled Reasonable Further Progress; Attainment 
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas 
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Seitz memo), 
John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), dated May 10, 1995. The Pointe Coupee redesignation is 
exempted from sections 172(c)(2) and 172(c)(6) of the Act, apparently 
pursuant to the Seitz memo. The EPA apparently utilized the 1995 Seitz 
memo in determining that Pointe Coupee Parish had attained the ozone 
standard.

[[Page 651]]

    Response: The EPA's interpretation of the requirements of sections 
172(c)(2) and (c)(6) of the Act was not based upon the May 10, 1995 
Seitz memo, but rather upon the consistent rationale articulated much 
earlier in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498) and the guidance 
memorandum entitled Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 
Areas to Attainment (Calcagni memo), dated September 4, 1992. As the 
Tenth Circuit recently observed:

    In that preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency determined 
that certain general nonattainment plan requirements do not apply in 
evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment under 
circumstances where (1) an area has in fact monitored attainment of 
the standard, and (2) those requirements are expressly linked by 
statutory language with the notion of reasonable further progress. 
See 57 FR 13564. The Environmental Protection Agency rezoned that 
when an area requests redesignation to attainment status, ``at a 
minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area 
has already attained [the National Ambient Air Quality Standards]. 
Showing the State will make [reasonable further progress] towards 
attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.''

See 57 FR 13564. Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 95-9541 (10th Cir. November 
13, 1996) Slip Opinion at 12-13.
    Similarly, the General Preamble found that, with respect to section 
172(c)(6)of the Act, ``since attainment will have been reached, no 
other measures are needed to provide for attainment.'' See 57 FR 13564.
    The Calcagni memo reiterated EPA's reading of sections 172 (c)(2) 
and (c)(6) of the Act. The Calcagni memo stated that ``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.'' See Calcagni memo at 
page 6.
    The commenters cite the May 10, 1995, Seitz memo as the basis for 
EPA's interpretation that sections 172 (c)(2) and (c)(6) do not require 
area to adopt additional control strategies if that area has attained 
the standard. However, this cite is misdirected. Although the May 10, 
1995, Seitz memo and determinations that rely upon it are ``a logical 
extension of EPA's original, general interpretation of the 1990 Clean 
Air Act Amendments'' Sierra Club v. EPA, supra at 13, the Seitz memo 
concerns provisions applicable to designations of moderate and above. 
Thus, EPA does not rely upon the Seitz memo here, but rather upon the 
longstanding rationale articulated in the General Preamble and the 
Calcagni memo.
    Comment: The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) requires that 
``substantive rules of general applicability'' be subjected to public 
comment before promulgation. The EPA's guidance interpreting section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the Act's requirements constitutes substantive rules of 
general applicability and thus, required to be subjected to public 
comment.
    Response: The EPA's reference to and reliance on guidance documents 
interpreting section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, all of which are either 
published or publicly available and a part of the record of the July 
22, 1996, rulemaking and this rulemaking, is in no way illegal under 
provisions of either the Act or the APA. The commenters cite the APA's 
requirement that ``substantive rules of general applicability'' be 
published in the Federal Register and subject to public comment before 
promulgation. These documents do not purport to be anything but 
guidance. That is precisely why EPA instituted a notice and comment 
rulemaking to take comment on its statutory interpretations and factual 
determinations in order to make a binding and enforceable determination 
regarding the Pointe Coupee reclassification and redesignation. The EPA 
explained the legal and factual basis for its rulemaking in the July 
22, 1996, rulemaking and afforded the public a full opportunity to 
comment on EPA's proposed interpretation and determination fully 
consistent with the applicable procedural requirements of the APA.
    Comment: The 1993 Nichols and 1995 Seitz memoranda are inconsistent 
with earlier redesignation guidance (General Preamble, Calcagni and 
Shapiro memoranda) pertaining to required SIP revisions for 
redesignations.
    Response: The October 1994 Nichols memorandum and the May 1995 
Seitz memorandum represented modifications of earlier policies. That 
does not necessarily mean these memoranda were by any means completely 
inconsistent with prior policies. For example, the May 1995 Seitz 
memorandum interpreted the more specific RFP requirements of section 
182(b)(1) of the Act in a manner consistent with EPA's previous 
interpretation of the more general section 171 and 172 Act 
requirements. Furthermore, EPA notes that it is permissible to revise 
its policies provided that the revised policies, as is the case with 
these, are legally justified and reasonable.
    Comment: Exempting marginal ozone nonattainment areas from 
compliance with applicable Title I, part D requirements, for purposes 
of facilitating redesignation requests for these areas is inconsistent 
and illegal under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act.
    Response: The EPA has not exempted marginal ozone nonattainment 
areas from the applicable requirements of Title I, part D of the Act. 
As discussed in the July 22, 1996, rulemaking action, Pointe Coupee 
would be subject to the marginal requirements of section 182(a) of the 
Act rather than section 182(c) of the Act. Therefore, in order to be 
redesignated, the State must have met the applicable requirements of 
subpart 1 of part D--specifically sections 172(c) and 176 of the Act, 
as well as the applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D. As 
explained in the July 22, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 37835), EPA 
evaluated the redesignation request against those applicable part D 
requirements and determined that those requirements had been met.

D. Miscellaneous Comments

    Comment: There is a strong argument that the Louisiana State and 
Local Air Monitoring Network is inadequate for Pointe Coupee Parish.
    Response: The Air quality surveillance plan developed for the Baton 
Rouge area included Pointe Coupee Parish. The EPA evaluated the 
established air quality monitoring network and the surveillance plan 
against the 40 CFR part 58 Ambient Air Quality Surveillance 
requirements, determined its compliance with all applicable part 58 
requirements, and approved the plan. The EPA performs annual reviews of 
this established air quality surveillance plan to ensure its continued 
compliance with part 58. The EPA believes that the current monitoring 
location in New Roads adequately represents ambient ozone levels in 
Pointe Coupee Parish.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

    In this final action EPA is promulgating a revision to the 
Louisiana SIP and the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 52 and 81, to 
correct the classification of Pointe Coupee Parish from serious to 
marginal, and to redesignate the Parish to attainment for ozone. This 
redesignation request was submitted by the Governor to EPA by letter 
dated December 20, 1995.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific

[[Page 652]]

technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to 
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    This action has been classified for signature by the Administrator 
under the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 
1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995, memorandum from 
Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office 
of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 
12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements 
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act, 
preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids EPA 
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. See Union Electric 
Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact 
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small 
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. section 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in today's 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. section 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by March 7, 1997. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. See section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air Pollution control, Designation of areas for air quality 
planning purposes.

    Dated: December 20, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart T--Louisiana

    2. Section 52.970 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(70) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.970   Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (70) The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality submitted a 
redesignation request and maintenance plan for Pointe Coupee Parish on 
December 20, 1995. The redesignation request and maintenance plan meet 
the redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act as 
amended in 1990. The redesignation meets the Federal requirements of 
section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a revision to the Louisiana 
ozone State Implementation Plan for Pointe Coupee Parish. The EPA 
therefore approved the request for redesignation to attainment with 
respect to ozone for Pointe Coupee Parish on December 20, 1996.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Letter dated August 31, 1995, from 
Mr. Gustave Von Bodungen, P.E., Assistant Secretary, Louisiana 
Department of Environmental Quality, transmitting a copy of the Pointe 
Coupee Parish maintenance plan for the EPA's approval.
    (ii) Additional material. (A) Letter dated August 28, 1995, from 
Governor Edwin E. Edwards of Louisiana to Ms. Jane Saginaw, Regional 
Administrator, requesting the reclassification and redesignation of 
Pointe Coupee Parish to attainment for ozone.
    (B) The ten year ozone maintenance plan, including emissions 
projections and contingency measures, submitted to EPA as part of the 
Pointe Coupee Parish redesignation request on December 20, 1995.
    3. Section 52.975 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.975   Redesignations and Maintenance Plans: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (d) Approval--The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 
submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for Pointe 
Coupee Parish on December 20, 1995. The redesignation request and 
maintenance

[[Page 653]]

plan meet the redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 
Act as amended in 1990. The redesignation meets the Federal 
requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a revision to 
the Louisiana ozone State Implementation Plan for Pointe Coupee Parish. 
The EPA therefore approved the request for redesignation to attainment 
with respect to ozone for Pointe Coupee Parish on December 20, 1996.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. In Sec. 81.319, the ozone table is amended by revising the entry 
for the Baton Rouge area and by adding an entry for the Pointe Coupee 
area to read as follows:


Sec. 81.319  Louisiana.

* * * * *

                                                                    Louisiana--Ozone                                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Designation                                              Classification                  
          Designated area           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Date \1\                          Type                          Date \1\                     Type       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baton Rouge Area:                                                                                                                                       
    Ascension Parish...............  ..............................  Nonattainment.................  ..............................  Serious.           
    East Baton Rouge Parish........  ..............................  Nonattainment.................  ..............................  Serious.           
    Iberville Parish...............  ..............................  Nonattainment.................  ..............................  Serious.           
    Livingston Parish..............  ..............................  Nonattainment.................  ..............................  Serious.           
    West Baton Rouge Parish........  ..............................  Nonattainment.................  ..............................  Serious.           
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Pointe Coupee Area:                                                                                                                                     
    Pointe Coupee Parish...........  Dec. 20, 1996.................  ..............................  ..............................  ...................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.                                                                                             

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-42 Filed 1-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P