1

1 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Pl ans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; Louisiana; Baton Rouge Oz one Nonattainment Area: Redesignation to
Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

Technical Support Document
Sandra Rennie

Erik Snyder August 2011

This Technical Support Document (TSD) has been written in support of the proposed Federal Register action for the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area in Louisiana for Redesignation to Attainment fo r the 1997 8-Hour Ozone standard

.

The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality submitted 1) a redesignation request and maintenance plan on August 31, 20 10. This was accompanied by 2) the Baton Rouge 1997 8 Hour Moderate Area Reclassification, and 3) VOC RACT Control Technique Guidelines

. This was later supplemented with 4) the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area Redesignation and Maintenance Plan, Tech nical Amendment to Section 5, Attainment Inventory and Supporting Appendix E documenta tion submitted on February 14, 2011. This technical support document will cover submittals 1 and 4. Submittal 3 is the subject of a separate rulemaking. Although the requireme nt to submit the 1997 8 Hour Moderate Area Reclassification SIP(2) was suspended on Septem ber 9, 2010, in a determination of attainment for the 1997 8-hour standard (75 FR 54778), the informa tion in it is being used to support of the
state’s maintenance demonstration.

The Clean Air Act sets forth the requiremen ts for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for re designation providing that the following conditions are met:

(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 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 regu lations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and, (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.

EPA provided guidance on redesi gnation in the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the CAA Amen dments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in a number of documents identified in section IV of the corresponding2

2 proposed Federal Register acti on, including two which specifical ly discuss requirements for redesignation of ozone nonattainment areas:

“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesi gnate Areas to Attainment”, Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division (MD-15), September 4,
1992. “Technical Support Documents (TSD’s) fo r Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas”, Me morandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993.

This TSD covers material for the Baton R ouge Nonattainment Area (BRNA) as required by the 1992 Calcagni memo and the 1993 Helms memo mentioned above, and further supplements the proposed Federal Register notic e. The following outline provides an overview of the material covered in this document. In the outline, the text appearing in regular print pertains to the Calcagni memo, and th e text in italics pertains to the Helms memo

.

Part I.

A. The EPA has determined that the national am bient air quality standards (NAAQS) have been
attained. What years are the supporting air quality data covering? Where are the monitors
located? What are the re levant concentrations?

B. The EPA has determined that the improveme nt in air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions. State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to emissions reductions which are permanent and enforceable. 1. Reasonably Available Control Techniques
2. ROP Plans and Attainment Demonstration Plan

3. NO
x Control Rules
4. Federal Emission Control Measures
5. Additional State and Local Emission Reductions
6. Controls to Remain In Effect

C. The State has met all applicable requirement s for the area under section 110 and part D that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request.

1. Regulatory Requirements. 40 CFR 51.900(f)(1) and (3). RACT and Ma jor source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT. 40 CFR 51.900(f) (2). Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M). 40 CFR 51.900(f) (4). Rate of progress reductions. 40 CFR 51.900(f) (5). Stage II vapor recovery. 40 CFR 51.900(f)(6). Clean fuels fleet program

. 40 CFR 51.900(f) (7). Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3 ) of the CAA. 40 CFR 51.900(f)(8). Transportation Cont rol Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic hours as provided under sec tion 182(e)(4) of the CAA.3

3 40 CFR 51.900(f) (9). Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under sec tion 182(c)(1) of
the CAA. 40 CFR 51.900(f) (10). TCMs under s ection 182(c)(5) of the CAA. 40 CFR 51.900(f)(11). Vehicle miles trav eled (VMT) provisions of section 182(d)(1) of the CAA

. 40 CFR 51.900(f) (12). NO

x requirements under sect ion 182(f) of the CAA. 40 CFR 51.905 (13). Attainment demonstrat ion or alternativ e as provided under section 51.905(a)(1)(ii).

2.South Coast anti-back sliding measures requirements.

a.NSR b.Section 185 Penalty Fees c.Contingency Measures

D. The applicable implementation plan has b een fully approved by EP A under section 110(k) and must satisfy all requireme nts that apply to the area.

E. The state has a fully approved maintenan ce plan, including a contingency plan under 175A. 1. Attainment Inventory. F or what years were emissions inven tories prepared and how were they developed? In the interim, what are th e total season-day and/or annual emissions by pollutant for point, area, and mobile sources for the attainment and maintenance years?

a. BRNA Attainment Year Emission Inventory
b. Point Source Emissions c. Non-point Source Emissions
d. On-Road Emissions
e. Non-road Emissions
f. Emissions Reductions as Show n by Emissions Inventory Data g. Attainment Modeling

2. Maintenance Demonstration. F or what years were emissions inventories prepared and how were they developed? What transportation, em ission, and/or dispersion models were used? What were the significant input parameters, including air quality data and assumptions used in
the demonstration? What are the model results?

a. VOC and NOx Emissions b. Trend Analysis

c. E ffect/Impact of CAIR/Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

3. Monitoring Network. Once the State is redesignated, it should opera te with an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR 58, to verify the attainment status of
the area.

4. Verification of Continued Attainment. The State should ensure it has legal authority to implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and to maintain the NAAQS.

5. Contingency plan. 175A requires that a maintenance plan includ e contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of4

4 the area. What are the maintenance pl an contingency measures, triggers and commitments ? What is the process for tracking the plan and re porting the results to EPA? What are the adoption and implementation sche dules for the contingency me asures? How is maintenance demonstrated in the interim years? Are addition al controls to be adopted and implemented in the future to offset emission in creases, and what is the impact of these controls on emissions inventory planning cap(s)? a. Triggers. The State should identify triggers which will be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. b. Contingency Measures. These s hould be adopted expediently once they are triggered, plan should identify the measures to be a dopted, a schedule and pro cedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action the State.

6. Commitments. What are the commitmen ts by the State in the maintenance plan?

F. What was the public hearing and what are the re sults of any comments received by the State? What is the status of any outstanding SIP call or findings letter, if any? 1. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
2. Reformulated Gasoline

G. What is EPA’s evaluation of the State’s supporting materials that accompanied the submittal,
such as the technical data and commitment letter, and how do these materials conform to EPA policy, guidance, and the Clean Air Act?

Part II. Motor Vehicle Emission Budget

A. What is EPA’s Evaluation of the BRNA Ar ea’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget?

B. Is the MVEB Approvable?

Part III. Recommendation.

Appendix A

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Part I

Part I: Documentation according to the above guidance memos.

A. The EPA has determined that the nati onal ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) have been attained based on ambient air quality data. What years are the supporting air quality data covering? Where are the mon itors located? What are the relevant
concentrations?

EPA has previously determined that that the BRNA ozone nonattainment area has
attained the both 1- hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS if5

5 there are no violations, as determined in acco rdance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, cons ecutive calendar years of quality- assured air quality monitoring data. This standard is attained if the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone concentration at each monitor in the area that is eligible for comparison to the NAAQS is less than or equa l to 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the 1997 8- hour ozone standard is attained at a monitor if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. Th e data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at th e same location for the dur ation of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. For ease of communica tion, many reports of ozone concentrations are given in parts pe r billion (ppb); ppb = ppm x 1,000. Thus, 0.084 ppm equals 84 ppb.

EPA approved a final determination of a ttainment of the 1997 8-hour standard on September 9, 2010. 75 FR 54778. This determination was based on quality assured, certified monitoring data for the monitoring periods 2006-2008 and 2007-2009, and certified data from the 2010 ozone season that showed continuing attainment of the st andard for the 2008-2010 monitoring period. The design value for 2006 – 2008 is 0.083 ppm; the design value for 2007 – 2009 is 0.080 ppm. The design value for the 2008 – 2010 ozone seasons is 0.078 ppm. The data
for all three sets of ozone seasons show that the BRNA area is attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Table 1 provides the 8-hour design values ba sed on data from the ten monitors in the BRNA area. Each of the ten monitoring sites in the BRNA area monitored attainment with the
1997 8-hour ozone standard for the 2006-2010 ozone seasons. (To find the overall design value for the area for a given year, simply find the hi ghest design value from any of the ten monitors for that year.) As mentioned above, the locati on of each monitoring site in the BRNA area is shown on the map entitled, “Map of the Baton Rouge Ozone Maintenance Area Monitoring Network” (Figure 2 in the document Louisiana State Implementation Plan Revision, Baton Rouge Ozone Maintenance Area, Redesignation Request and Mainte nance Plan) included in the
docket associated wi th this action.6

6 Table 1 Table 1 – Fourth High 8-hour Ozone Average Con centrations and Design Values (ppm) in the Baton Rouge Area 1

Site 4 th Highest Daily Max Design Values Three Year Averages

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-
2008 2007-
2009 2008-
2010 Plaquemine (22-047-0009) 0.083 0.079 0.076 0.071 0.074 0.079 0.075 0.073

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

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

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

LSU (22-033-0003) 0.085 0.085 0.072 0.084 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.078

Grosse Tete (22-047-0007) 0.086 0.084 0.071 0.070 0.074 0.080 0.075 0.071

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

Pride (22-033-0013) 0.082 0.077 0.074 0.072 0.071 0.077 0.074 0.072

French Settlement (22-063-0002) 0.079 0.084 0.075 0.075 0.076 0.079 0.078 0.075

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

1 Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, de sign value calculations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard are based on a rolling three-ye ar average of the annual 4th highest values (40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I).7

7 The fourth high values for 8-hour ozone for 2006 through 2009, and the 3-year average of these values (i.e., design value), ar e summarized in Table 2:

Table 2

BRNA Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone Conc entrations and Design Values Data Summary (ppm) 1

Area
Overall 4 th Highest Daily Max Design Values BRNA Three Year Averages

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010

0.091 0.088 0.076 0.084 0.080 0.083 0.080 0.078

1 Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, desi gn value calculations for the 8-hour ozone standard are based on a rolling three-year av erage of the annual 4th highest values (40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I).

As shown in Table 2, the 8-hour ozone design values for 2008, 2009, and 2010, which are based on a three-year average of the fourth-hi ghest daily maximum average ozone concentration at the monitor recording the highest concentr ations, are below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The design values of 0.083 ppm for 2006- 2008, 0.080 ppm for 2007-2009, and 0.078 ppm for
2008-2010 demonstrate the area is in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Certified data through 2010 have been quality assured, as recorded in AQS. Draft data in AIRNow for 2011 not yet certified also indicate that the ar ea continues to attain the 1997 8-hour NAAQS (and the 1-hour standard). The design value fo r the BRNA area for 2008-2010 is 0.078 ppm. In summary, monitoring data for BRNA for the y ears 2008 through 2010, as well as the preliminary draft monitoring data for 2011, show continued at tainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

In addition, on February 10, 2010, EPA approved a final determination of attainment of
the 1-hour ozone standard based on the 2006-2008 set of data (75 FR 6570). Table 3 shows the certified data for the area through the 2010 monito ring period continuing to attain the 1-hour
ozone standard. Draft 1-hour data for 2011 shows continued attainment to date.

Table 3. Summary of 1-Hour Design Values Through 2010

Monitoring Period Design Value (ppb)

2006-2008 114

2007-2009 114

2008-2010 107

In summary, EPA previously determined th at complete, quality-assured data for 2006-
2010 ozone seasons show that the BRNA 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 19978

8 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and draft data for 2011 (not yet in AQS and not yet certified) show that
the area continues to attain the standard.

Should the area violate the 1997 8-hour ozone standard before the proposed redesignation is finalized, EPA will not proceed with final redesignation.

B. The EPA has determined that the improv ement in air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions.

EPA believes that Louisiana has demonstrat ed that the observed ozone air quality improvement in the BR area is due to permanen t and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of emissions cont rols contained in the SIP, Federal control measures, and other State-adopted control m easures. In Louisiana’s 1997 8-hour ozone redesignation request , the State documented all the emission control rules or programs that have impacted VOC and NO

x emissions during the period 1991 - 2008. These can be found on page
14 and 15 of the State’s submittal. For a disc ussion of the emission inventory and emission reduction trend data, see s ections E.1. and 2. below

1. Reasonably Available Control Techniques
A number of VOC and NO

x RACT rules developed in prior years have continued to provide additional VOC and NO

x emission reductions during the more recent years. For VOC controls, including the source categories covered by the most recently published CTGs (see a
discussion of the new CTG RACT source cate gories below), Louisiana has adopted and implemented VOC RACT rules for source categorie s covered by older (prior to 2006) CTGs and for major non-CTG sources in Ascension, East Ba ton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge Parishes. All VOC RACT rules are c ontained in Chapter 21 of Title 33, Part III of
the Louisiana Administrative C ode (LAC 33.III.21)), and all NO

x RACT rules are contained in Chapter 22 of Title 33, Part III (LAC 33.III.22). All VOC and NO

x RACT rules have been proposed for approval (March 13, 2011, 76 FR 14602) and will be finalized by the EPA as revisions of the Louisiana SIP by the time this ru lemaking goes final. A detailed analysis of
RACT in the BRNA is found below in section D. The State has met all applicable requirements for the area under section 110 and part D for RACT.

LDEQ also adopted VOC rules for ba tch process and industrial wastewater
sources. These rules were initi ally adopted in 1995, with emi ssions reductions resulting from these rules beginning one year from promulgation. The last amendments to this rule were in 2004, with those reductions taking place starting in 2005.

2. ROP Plans and Attainment Demonstration Plan The requirements for the St ate to submit ROP and atta inment plans for the 1997
8-hour and the 1-hour ozone standards were su spended when EPA made determinations of
attainment for these standard s on February 10, 2010 (for the 1-hour) and September 9, 2010 (for the 8-hour ozone standard), cited above.9

9 The state has implemented all require d emission reduction control measures required by the Clean Air Act includi ng implementation of the VOC and NO

x emission control programs and implementation of all emission cont rol measures contained in the various ROP plans applicable to Ascension, East Baton Rouge , Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge Parishes. EPA approved a 1-hour 15% ROP Plan on October 22, 1996 (61 FR 54737). EPA approved the Post-1996 VOC and NO

x ROP Plan on July 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930). The Post-1996 ROP Plan provided 9 percent reductions. EPA al so approved a 1-hour serious area attainment demonstration on October 2, 2002 (67 FR 61786).

3. NO
x Control Rules LDEQ developed NO

x emission control rules for elec tric power generating system boilers, industrial boilers, process heaters, ga s turbines, rich-burn and lean-burn stationary gasfired internal combustion engines in addition to what was required in the CAA. These rules were adopted in February 2002. Emission reductions estim ated at 40 tons per day resulted from these rules starting no late r than May 1, 2005.

Subsequent to the 1990 CAA amendments, Louisiana complied with the planning requirements of the CAA for a serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (67 FR 61786, October 2, 2002). 1 But because the area failed to attain that standard by the attainment date for a serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, in anticipation of being reclassifi ed to severe, and in response to EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (remanded ba ck to EPA), additional NOx emission reductions were achieved through the implementation of NOx c ontrol measures for sta tionary sources which were adopted by the state effective on February 20, 2002, and approved by EPA on September 27, 2002 (67 FR 60877). These rules were implemen ted between February 20, 2002, and May 1, 2005. The Baton Rouge area was reclassified as severe for the 1-hour ozone standard on April 24, 2003. (68 FR 20077)

1 A litigant challenged EPA’s approval of the serious area contingency measures, but the obligation related to these measures was later suspended by EPA’s determination that the area has attained the 1-hour standard (75 FR 6570, February 10, 2010).10

10 The rules established emission factors (sta ndards) for NOx sources within the Baton Rouge nonattainment area. These revisions achi eved approximately 40 TPD of additional NOx reductions in the Baton Rouge nonattainment area. The specific standards are listed below.

NOx Reduction Measures 2002-2005 NOx Standard Electric Power Generating System Boilers
Coal-fired > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr
Coal-fired > 80 MMBtu/hr
No. 6 fuel oil-fired > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr
No. 6 fuel oil-fired > 80 MMBtu/hr All others (gaseous or li quid) > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr All others (gaseous or liquid) > 80 MMBtu/hr 0.50 lb/MMBtu
0.21 lb/MMBtu
0.30 lb/MMBtu
0.18 lb/MMBtu
0.20 lb/MMBtu
0.10 lb/MMBtu

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

Process Heater/Furnaces
Ammonia reformers > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr
Ammonia reformers > 80 MMBtu/hr
All others > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr
All others > 80 MMBtu/hr 0.30 lb/MMBtu
0.23 lb/MMBtu
0.18 lb/MMBtu
0.08 lb/MMBtu Stationary Gas Turbines Peaking Service, Fuel Oil-fired > 5 to < 10 MW Peaking Service, Fuel Oil-fired > 10 MW Peaking Service, Gas-fired > 5 to < 10 MW Peaking Service, Gas-fired > 10 MW
All Others > 5 to < 10 MW
All Others > 10 MW 0.37 lb/MMBtu
0.30 lb/MMBtu
0.27 lb/MMBtu
0.20 lb/MMBtu
0.24 lb/MMBtu
0.16 lb/MMBtu Stationary Internal Combustion Engines Lean-burn engines > 150 to < 320 Hp Lean-burn engines > 320 Hp Rich-burn engines > 150 to < 300 Hp Rich-burn engines > 300 Hp 10 g/Hp-hr 4 g/Hp-hr 2 g/Hp-hr 2g/Hp-hr11

11 4. Federal Emission Control Measures

LDEQ notes that other Federal emission control measures have had significant impacts on VOC and NO

x emissions in the BRNA area. Table 4 lists these control measures. Table 4. BRNA Federal Emission Reductions Programs

Federal Measures

o Tier 2 Fuel and Vehi cle Emission Standards

o Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) for light-duty vehicles

o Heavy-Duty Engine and Ve hicle and Fuel Standards

o Federal controls on certain nonroad engines

o National VOC Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings

○ Volatile Organic Compound Emission St andards for Consumer
Products

○ Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard s for Architectural Coatings

○ Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines

Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 2000. These emission control requirement s result in lower VOC and NO

x emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated that, by the end of the phase-in period, the following
vehicle NO

x emission reductions will occur nationwide: passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light duty trucks, miniva ns, and sports utility vehicles (86 percent); and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks ( 69 to 95 percent). VOC emission reductions are expected to range from 12 to 18 percent, depe nding on vehicle class, over the same period. Although some emission reductions occurred by the attainment years (2006-2008) in the BRNA area, additional emission reductions will occur during the maintenance period. For example, note that the Tier 2 emission standards for pa ssenger vehicles weighing over 8,500 pounds were not implemented until 2008 or later. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. 2000. This rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007, which further reduced the highway diesel fuel su lfur content to 15 parts per million, leading to
additional reductions in combustion NO

x and VOC emissions. This rule is expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NO

x emissions from diesel trucks an d busses manufactured in the years
the standards are in effect as well as some reduc tions from the legacy fleet using the lower sulfur
fuel.
Non-Road Diesel Rule. 2004. This rule applies to diesel engines used in industries, such as construction, agriculture, and mining. It is estimated that compliance with
this rule will cut NO

x emissions from non-road diesel en gines by up to 90 percent from newly manufactured equipment. This rule will be fully implemented in 2014. Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines. 2008. This rule includes new emission standards for locomotives and marine diesel engines that will reduce NO

x12

12 emissions by about 80 percent compared with engi nes meeting the current standards. These new requirements have three parts: tightening emission standards for existing locomotives and large marine engines when they are remanufactured, e ffective in 2008; establis hing Tier III standards for new locomotives and marine diesel engine s that were phased in beginning in 2009; and establishing more stringent Tier IV standards for new locomotives and marine diesel engines that will be phased in beginning in 2014.

5. Additional State and Lo cal Emission Reductions Several local permanent and enforcea ble emission reductions have occurred through various mechanisms other than through RA CT rules or through Federal emission control rules/programs. These State and Local measures, which are permanent and enforceable, include the following.

Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery These federally required measures contro l VOC emissions from vehicle refueling facilities. Stage I rules require capture of fuel vapors as the underground storage tanks are being filled by gasoline delivery fuel trucks. As fuel is pumped into the underground tank the vapors being displaced are captured throug h vapor-tight hoses that lead back to the vapor-tight truck tank. The truck takes the vapors back to the di stribution point where th e vapors are recovered. Stage I systems have to be 90% efficient for th e Stage II systems to achieve proper efficiency. Louisiana has had gasoline storage vessel filling rules on their books in Chapter 21, Subchapter F as early as 1987.

Stage II rules (required by the CAA in 182(b )(3)) require that gasoline vapors produced by refueling a vehicle are captured and returned to the underground storag e tank. This can be accomplished by either vapor balance systems or vacuum assist technology. The state requires the use of CARB certified equipment which has a capture efficiency of 95%. Stage II was put in place to control these vapors before On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) systems were required on gasoline light duty ve hicles starting in 1998. By 2006 all new vehicles including sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks were required to have ORVR installed on them.

6. Controls to Remain In Effect
Louisiana commits to maintain all of the current emission control measures for
VOC and NO

x after the BRNA area is redesignated to at tainment. Louisiana, through the LDEQ Secretary, has the legal author ity and necessary resources to actively enforce against any violations of the State’s air pollution emission control rules. After the BRNA area is redesignated to attainment, LDEQ will implemen t NSR for major stationary sources and major modifications through the PSD program.

Summary. As discussed above, local controls as well as federal emission controls have contributed to the ozone air quality improvement in the BRNA area. NO

x and VOC emissions have dropped substantially. Based on the above, EPA proposes to determine that the 5-parish area and the State of Louisiana have met the requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA, and have13

13 demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions.

As noted above, Louisiana has committed to retaining all existing emission control
measures that affect ozone levels in th e BRNA area after Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge Parishes are redesi gnated to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. All changes in exis ting rules subsequently determined to be necessary must be submitted to the EPA for approval as SIP revisions.

C. The State has met all applicable requiremen ts for the area under section 110 and part D.

EPA has reviewed the Louisiana SIP for the BR area with respect to SIP requirements applicable for purposes of redesign ation under part D of the Act for both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EP A believes that the L ouisiana SIP for the BRNA area contains all 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 action. The VOC RACT finding is contingent on our finalizing the proposed approval of the rules implementing RACT cont rols on the source categories covered by the CTGs Rules Update prior to this redesignation be ing final. We finalized a 185 Fees Termination Determination on July 7, 2011 at 76 FR 39755.
The 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone applicable requirements are discussed in detail below.

The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescr ibe one-hour ozone NAAQS requirements that continue to apply af ter revocation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for
former one-hour ozone nonattainment area s. Section 51.905(a)(1) provides that: The area remains subject to the obligations to adopt and implement the applicable requirements defined in secti on 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), provides that: “Applicable requirements” me ans that for an area the following requirements, to the extent such requirements applied to the area for the ar ea’s classification under se ction 181(a)(1) of the CAA for the one-hour NAAQS at the time of desi gnation for the eight-hour NAAQS, remain in
effect: (1) Reasonably available control technology (RACT). (2) Inspection and main tenance 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.14

14 (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) provisi ons of section 182( d)(1) of the CAA. (12) NO
x requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA. (13) Attainment demonstration or al ternative as provided under section 51.905(a)(1)(ii).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the area is subject to the obligati ons set forth in 51.905(a) and 51.900(f) as well as the additiona l 1-hour anti-backsliding requireme nts discussed in the Court’s
decisions in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA :. The following addresses how the applicable CAA requirements have been met in the BRNA.

40 CFR 51.900(f)(1) and (3). RACT and Major so urce applicability cut-o ffs for purposes of
RACT.
EPA found that the BRNA area met the serious area VOC and NO

x RACT requirements
for the 1-hour standard on Fe bruary 2, 1998 (62 FR 63658). The changes to the batch process
rules that lower the threshold for affected sources of VOC emissions to the serious area requirements of 50 tons per year (tpy) were approved on September 8, 1998 (63 FR 47429). This approval action satisfies the 1-hour ozone serious RACT requirements for the BRNA area.

RACT requirements for the severe area requir ements are being acted upon concurrently in a separate action proposed on March 17, 2011, 76 FR 14602 FR. Major source thresholds of 25 tpy for both VOC and NOx were lowered in gene ral rule revisions that were finalized in a separate rulemaking at (76 FR 38977) July, 5,. The state has complied with this requirement.

An analysis of the efficacy of the state’s RACT rules for VOC and NOx can be found in the Technical Support Document for RACT available in the Docket. The an alysis shows that the RACT rules for VOC and NOx meet the requirem ents for RACT and therefore are approvable.

40 CFR 51.900(f) (2). Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M). The BRNA area was required to implement an e nhanced I/M program unde r 1-hour serious area requirements. We approved an OBD-only I/M pr ogram for the 5-parish area on September 26, 2002 (67 FR 60594), and as revised on November 13, 2006 (71 FR 66113). The state has continued to satisfactorily operate this program based on information submitted to EPA in July of each year detailing operation of the program, and an informal on-site program visit conducted in January 2005. The state has co mplied with this requirement.

40 CFR 51.900(f) (4). Rate of progress reductions. We approved the post-1996 ROP Plan and its associated MVEB and a revised 1990 base ye ar emissions inventory on July 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930). On October 2, 2002 (67 FR 61786) we a pproved revisions to the 15% and 9% ROP plans for the BRNA serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Th ese plans covered the periods of 1990-1996, and 1997-1999, respectively. The stat e submitted a ROP plan for the years 2002- 2008 as part of the 8-hour attainment plan re quirements on August 31, 2010. EPA suspended the requirement for the State to submit a ROP plan wh en we made a determination of attainment of the 1997 8-hour standard on September 9, 2010. The state has complied with this requirement.15

15 40 CFR 51.900(f) (5) Stage II vapor recovery. EPA approved Louisian a’s Stage II rules and amendments for the BRNA area on March 25, 1994 (59 FR 14112). The state has complied with this requirement.

40 CFR 51.900(f)(6) Clean fuels fleet program

. EPA approved a substitute clean fuels fleet program for the BRNA area on July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38577). The state has complied with this requirement.

40 CFR 51.900(f) (7) Clean fuels for boile rs 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 51.900(f)(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 51.900(f) (9) Enhanced (a mbient) monitoring under s ection 182(c)(1) of the CAA. EPA approved the Louisiana SIP revision for en hanced ambient monitoring on June 19, 1996 (61 FR 31035) as meeting section 182(c)(1) of th e CAA. The monitoring network meets the requirements in 40 CFR Part 58 and Section 182(c )(1) for enhanced monitoring. The state has complied with this requirement.

40 CFR 51.900(f) (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 State, dem onstrated conformity of area transportation plans to the mo tor vehicle emissions budgets established in the BRNA Rate-ofProgress SIP approved by EPA on October 2, 2 002 ( 67 FR 61786). The current aggregate vehicle mileage, aggregate vehicle emissions, c ongestion levels, and other relevant parameters were determined, as part of the conformity analysis, to be cons istent with those used for the area's demonstration of progress towards atta inment. The state has complied with this requirement.

40 CFR 51.900(f)(11) Vehicle mi les traveled (VMT) provisions of section 182(d)(1) of the
CAA

. This is a severe area requirement a pplied to the BRNA 1-hour severe ozone nonattainment area. EPA approved the VMT Offs et Analysis on November 21, 2006 at 71 FR 67308. The analysis showed that no additional TCMs were needed to stay under the emission ceiling established throu gh modeling of mandated transportation -related controls. The state has complied with this requirement.

40 CFR 51.900(f) (12) NO
x requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA. These requirements were satisfied by a previous EPA action approving a Louisiana SIP revision for rescission of section 182(f) for NO

x controls in the BRNA area on June 4, 2003 (68 FR 23597). The state has complied with this requirement.

40 CFR 51.905 (13) Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under section 51.905(a)(1)(ii). Louisiana elected the option to su bmit an 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by the area's 8-16

16 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 dem onstration with the RACM analysis is not an applicable requirement for purposes of evaluatin g 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 obliga tion is terminated. Morevoer, when EPA determined that BRNA
attained the 1997 8-hour standard on September 9, 2010, we suspended the requirement for the
state to submit a moderate area attainment de monstration. The state has submitted a modeling (attainment) demonstration for the 1997 8-hour standard. When we determined that BRNA
attained the 1-hour ozone standa rd on February 10, 2010, we also suspended the requirement for
the state to submit a 1-hour severe attainment de monstration. The state has complied with this requirement.

South Coast anti-bac ksliding measures.

1. NSR. EPA believes that NSR is not an applicable re quirement for purposes of evaluating an ozone redesignation request. The rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air a nd Radiation dated Oct ober 14, 1994, titled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Reque sting Redesignation to Attainment.” The State’s PSD program becomes effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to
attainment 2 . Consequently, EPA concludes that an a pproved NSR program is not an applicable requirement for purposes of redesignation. See the more detailed explanations of this issue in the following rulemakings: Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468 (March 7, 1995); ClevelandAkron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, Ma y 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 Fr 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996).

2. Section 185 fees. This is a severe and above area requirement. Under the 1-hour severe classification for Baton Rouge, this was a requirement. In January 5, 2010 guidance, EPA stated that the requirement for the 185 fee requirement could be terminated if the area had clean data and demonstrated that permanent and enforceable measures were in place. In a separate action, EPA determined that
the state does not need to submit a SIP revision for the 185 fee requirement based on meeting the requirements of this guidance. (76 FR 39775, July 7, 2011) When this termination determination is final, the state will no longe r be required to adopt a section 185 fee program.

On July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39755), EPA fi nalized 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 termination requirements, derived from statutory criteria for redesi gnation, and the application of

2 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.17

17 this interpretation to the specific circumstances of the Bat on Rouge area. EPA explained that the Baton Rouge area met core redesignation requirem ents that would have been applicable were EPA still redesignating areas for th e 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 propos ed 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 antibacksliding section 185 requirements for the Ba ton Rouge area. Subsequently, on July 1, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling in Na tural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No.10-1056 (D.C. Cir), vacating the guidance document.. Th e Court's opinion, however, did not address the rationale or circumstances pert aining 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 enforceab le emissions reductions. In its proposed rulemaking, EPA explained how and why these fi ndings justify termination of the section 185 requirements for Baton Rouge. See 76 FR 1736 8. EPA believes that the procedure and substance of the Baton Rouge rulemaking are outsid e the scope of the agen cy action of which the Court disapproved in its July 1 ruling, and that therefore the Ba ton Rouge termination
determination survives and withstands th e 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 th e 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 program s 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) doe s 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

“ consider alternative programs to sati sfy 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 alterna tive program is no less stringent than the otherwise applicable section 185 fee program and EPA mu st 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, ba sed on permanent and enforceable emissions18

18 reductions, the area's existing SIP could be consid ered an adequate alte rnative program. EPA explained that under these circumstances, the Baton Rouge area's existing SIP measures, in conjunction with other enforceable Federal measur es, would be adequate to achieve attainment, which is the purpose of the sect ion 185 program. EPA stated th at “the section 185 fee program
is an element of an area's attainment demonstrat ion, 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 pr ogram was originally required, as a result of permanent and enforceable emission reductions, woul d 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 dete rmination, based on notice-and-comment rulemaking, that an area has attained the 1- hour ozone standard due to permanent and
enforceable measures. This determination cent ers on the core criteria for redesignations under CAA section 107(d)(3). We believe these cr iteria provide reasonable assurance that the purpose of the 1-hour anti-backsliding fee program obligation has been fulfilled in the context of a regulatory regime where the area remains subject to other applicable 1-hour anti-backsliding and 8-hour measures.” 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, emphasi s added) for terminating 1- hour ozone section 185 requirements. With respec t to the 1-hour sect ion 185 anti-backsliding requirements for Baton Rouge, however, EPA stated that its proposed rulemaking notice for that area “ formally sets forth EPA's legal in terpretation concerning th e basis for terminating those obligations”, thereby maki ng the specific rationale for Baton Rouge subject to notice and comment rulemaking. EPA then discussed at length the facts suppor ting its proposed finding that the Baton Rouge area had continuously at tained the 1-hour ozone standard 2006-2008 time period, and that the state had show n that this attainment is due to permanent and enforceable emissions limitations, thereby supporting the co nclusion that the Stat e SIP had supplied an adequate alternative program under the specifi c circumstances presen ted. 76 FR 17371-72.

The Court's opinion does not preclude EPA from terminating the 1-hour section 185 antibacksliding 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 he re of evaluating applicable requirements pertaining to redesignation, Loui siana’s obligation to satisfy th e 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirement for section 185 fees has been terminated .

3. Contingency Measures. Sections 172(c)(9) and 182( c)(9) of the CAA require ozone cont rol plans to contain measures to19

19 be implemented in the event that any milestone in the ozone control plan is missed. When EPA
determined that the BRNA area had attained the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour standards under the Clean Data Determination final actions (see pr evious references to these approvals), we suspended requirements that the state provide contingency measur es for the 1-hour serious and
severe area SIPs and the 1997 8-hour moderate SIP.

As noted in the proposed rule, it is EPA’s pos ition that contingency measures are not an applicable requirement for purposes of evalua ting an ozone redesignation request. EPA’s longheld position is that those requirements expr essly linked by statutor y language with the attainment and reasonable further progress do not apply when an area requesting redesignation is attaining the standard. As stated in detail in the 1-hour Clean Data Determination (75 FR 13166), the requirement for the BRNA area to su bmit serious area contingency measures and severe area contingency measures was suspende d, and the obligation will be terminated upon a final approval of the redesignation action.

D. The applicable implementation plan ha s been fully approved by EPA under section 110(k) and must satisfy all require ments that apply to the area.

With the exceptions noted above for, the proposed RACT Update Analysis, and the separate CTG Rules Update ac tion, EPA believes the state has a fully approved SIP for the BR area, under section 110(k ) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. Once EPA has finaliz ed approvals of the RACT Anal ysis and CTG rules, the area will have met all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard.

When EPA determined that BRNA was atta ining the 1997 8-hour standard on September 9, 2010, we suspended the requirement for the st ate to submit a mode rate area attainment demonstration, rate of progress plan, and contingency measures. The state has submitted a modeling (attainment) demonstrat ion for the 1997 8-hour standard in support of the maintenance
demonstration. When we determined that BR NA was attaining the 1-hour ozone standard on February 10, 2010, we also suspended the requir ement for the state to submit a 1-hour severe attainment demonstration, rate of progre ss plan, and contingency measures.

E. Maintenance Plan. EPA concludes that the State has submitted an approvable maintenance plan
under 175A.

In conjunction with its request to rede signate the BRNA, the State of Louisiana included a SIP revision to provide for mainte nance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Baton Rouge area for at least ten year s after redesignation to attainment.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth th e required elements of air quality maintenance plans for areas s eeking redesignation to attainment of a NAAQS. Section 175A requires that a maintenance plan demonstrate co ntinued attainment of the ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after EPA redesignates the area to attainment. The state must commit to submit a revised maintenance plan within 8 years after the redesignation. This revised maintenance plan20

20 must provide for maintenance of the ozone stan dard for an additional 10 years beyond the initial 10 year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plans must contain contingency m easures, with schedules of implementation, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt corre ction of any future NAAQS violation. EPA Guidance entitled, “Procedures for Processing Reque st to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” John Calgani, 09/04/92, provides additional guidan ce on the content of maintenance plans:

1. Attainment VOC and NOx emissions inventories;

2. Maintenance demonstration showing maintena nce for the 10 years of the maintenance period;

3. Commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network;

4. Factors and procedures to be used to fo r verification of continued attainment; and
5. Contingency plan to prevent/correct any future violation of the NAAQS.

1. Attainment Inve ntory- VOC and NOx emissions. For what years were emissions inventories prepared and how were they develope d? In the interim, w hat are the total seasonday and/or annual emissions by pollutant for poin t, area, and mobile sour ces for the attainment and maintenance years?

Sections 172(c)(3) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA require that the SIP include an inventory of actual emissions from all sources of relevant pol lutants in the nonattainment area. The emission inventory for an ozone nonattainment area contains VOC and NO

x emissions as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.

LDEQ developed the 2006 inventory fr om previous SIP development work conducted by TCEQ for a 2006 episode that wa s grown and refined from EPA’s 2002 National Emission Inventory. The 2002 inventory was used as the basis to prepare a comprehensive emissions inventory for the BRNA including point, area, on-road, off-road mobile sources for the year 2006. On February 14, 2011, LDEQ submitted an amended version of this submittal, titled “Attainment Inventory”, in which the emission i nventory factors were grown to the year 2022 in response to EPA comments. Using the 2006 inventory for NO

x and VOC in the BRNA area, emissions were projected for the interi m years of 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2022 which were selected to show a trend analysis for ma intenance of the 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS.

The State also documented the VOC and NO

x emission control measures that have been implemented in the BRNA area over the past several years, and proj ected emissions through the year 2022. Such controls include Point Source NOx, National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard for Consumer Products, Nation al Volatile Organic Co mpound for Architectural Coatings, NLEV program/Tier II Engine and Fuel Standards, Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery, Locomotive and Marine Compression-Ignition E ngines, and 2004 Clean Air Non-Road Diesel
Rule. Table 5 lists the 2006 NOx and VOC emissions for the BRNA area.21

21 Table 5. BRNA Emission Inventory

2006 Inventory (Tons/Day)

Source

Type NO
x VOC

Point 73.40 33.10

Area 4.06 31.59

Non-road 36.75 13.60

On-road
Mobile 29.30 17.60

Total 143.51 95.89

The 2006 and projected years emissions for the BRNA area were determined using the following procedures:

Point Source Emissions

Industrial sources are required to su bmit emissions data to LDEQ annually. LDEQ notifies these sources in writing, and provides them with reporting instructions, deadlines and certification requirements. Th e data had to be submitted elec tronically on an annual basis, and a certification statement has to be signed by the responsible party and sent in by mail. Emissions data provided by th e facilities are estimates of actual emissions. Estimation methodologies are required to follow state and federal guidelines utilizing AP-42 or other approved methods. AP-42 is the compilation of em ission factors issued by EPA. A list of those facilities is provided in Appendi x C of LDEQ submittal. EPA reviewed the methodologies used in collecting emissions data from stationary sources and found them to be consistent with our guidance.

Non-Point Source Emissions

Area source emissions from the 2002 National Emission Inventory (NEI) were used as the starting point for the 2006 Louisiana area em issions. Projection years’ emissions were initially grown using the EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) version 5.0 growth factors. However, since EGAS does not addres s sudden and/or localized economic dislocation, such as the landfall of Hurricane Katrina, other da ta were used to develop growth factors. Such data included Parish-level census data, Parish-level employment da ta, state-level fuel data, and agricultural acreage data. The data used to estimate and grow these emissions was provided by LDEQ’s contractor, Environ International Corporation. The methodologies used to develop area22

22 sources inventory are described in Appendix D of the submittal.

On-road Emissions

The on-road mobile EI was developed based on Parish-specific inputs provided by several state agencies. MOBILE6, an emission fact or model that predicts emissions from cars, trucks, and motorcycles under variou s conditions was then used to generate emission factors. A detailed description of on-road emission es timates is found in Appendix D of the LDEQ submittal. Two different nonattainment area onroad inventories were generated for each modeling year: an initial inve ntory based on parish level measured Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) vehicle miles trav eled (VMT) and MOBILE 6 inputs; and a final inventory based on link-level VMT derived from a transportation demand model and parish-level MOBILE6 inputs.

Non-road Emissions Inventory

For all non-road mobile categories except aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine vessels, the emissions were calculated usi ng the EPA’s National M obil Inventory Model (NMIM) to generate Louisian a state-wide parish level em issions estimates. Airport and locomotive emissions were derived from previous work done for the 2006 TCEQ episode emission inventory. Marine emissions were de veloped from 2002 CENRAP inventories. A detailed description of non-road emission estimat es is found in Appendix D, of the submittal.

EPA reviewed the 2006 base year attainment invent ory and determined that it was developed in accordance with EPA guidelines which include the following: • Emission Inventory Improvement Pr ogram (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 ; Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementati on of Ozone and Partic ulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-05-001, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/index.html.

Emissions Reductions as Shown by Emissions Inventory Data

On September 29, 2007, LDEQ submitted a 2002 base year emission inventory to EPA. The 2002 base year inventory is the starting poin t for calculating the reductions necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA Sections 172 (c)(3) and 182(b)(1). EPA reviewed and approved the 2002 base year inventory in a Fe deral Register Notice published on September 3, 2009 (74 FR 45561). To demonstrate that VOC and NO

x emissions decreased between the year 2002 and the 2006, LDEQ has documented BRNA’s VOC and NO

x emissions for 2002 and 2006 for all anthropogenic sour ce sectors. Table 6 li sts these emissions.23

23 Table 6: A Comparison of VOC and NO
x Emissions in the BRNA Area by Source Category from the year 2002 and the year 2006 (tons per average ozone season day)

VOC Emissions (tpd)

Emissions Source Category 2002 % of

Total 2006 % of

Total

Point 40.17 37.25 33.10 34.5

Area 29.71 27.56 31.59 32.9

Nonroad 22.97 32.30 13.60 14.2

On-road 14.99 13.90 17.60 18.4

Total 107.84 95.89

Table 6 (continued)
NO
x Emissions (tpd)

Emissions Source Category 2002 % of

Total 2006 % of

Total

Point 117.91 59.1 73.40 51.1

Area 3.90 1.96 4.06 2.8

Nonroad 43.59 21.86 36.75 25.6

On-road 34.01 17.06 29.30 20.4

Total 199.41 143.51

This comparison of emissions in the BRNA area shows that NO

x and VOC emissions significantly declined between 2002 and 2006. 2006 NO

x emissions were estimated to have dropped by almost 28% and VOC emissions by 11% from the 2002 levels. The reductions between 2002 and 2006 can be attributed to pe rmanent and enforceable reductions including
reductions from federal meas ures and fleet turnover.

Based on the 2002 and 2006 nonattainment area emissions information provided by LDEQ, EPA concludes that VOC and NO

x emission totals have significantly declined in the nonattainment area during the 2002-2006 period. Th ese emission reductions have contributed to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard in this area. EPA concurs with LDEQ’s conclusions that the emission controls, emissions inventories, and emi ssions trends support the conclusion that attainment in the area is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions including reductions from federa l measures and fleet turnover.24

24 LDEQ’s Attainment Demonstration Modeling

. The attainment inventory is supported by a ttainment demonstration modeling found in Appendix D of the Redesignation Request and Main tenance Plan. LDEQ previously contracted with ENVIRON to conduct modeling 3 in support of a SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the BRNA. The modeling consisted of photoche mical modeling and analysis tools used to simulate conditions during a recent 8-hour exceedance episode in the BRNA, to project those conditions to a future attainment year, and to evaluate emissions re duction strategies for inclusion in a BRNA SIP. LDEQ included this modeling they prev iously had completed as part
of a 2009 attainment demonstration package that they were prepari ng that has now been included here to support this redesignation action. We are providing a very brief summary of the modeling and EPA’s review and co nclusions about this modeling.

LDEQ contracted with Environ to conduc t photochemical modeling using CAMx to
simulate ozone levels in BRNA dur ing the period of May 26 to July 1, 2006 (i.e., the Base Year). The simulation was performed using a nested 36 /12/4 km grid system, with the 4-km grid
focused on Louisiana and the immediate Gulf coas t area. Standard CAMx pre-processing tools were used to develop meteorological, emissi ons, initial/boundary conditions, and photochemical inputs for each day of the episode. Predictions of ozone, as well as nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volative organic compound (VOC) precursors, were compared to measurements recorded at up to ten Air Quality System (AQS) monitori ng sites and four Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) within the BRNA. The process to establish reliable CAMx 8-hour ozone modeling consists of a multi-step cycle of model testing that refined model inputs to try
and minimize the amount of bias and error to de velop a modeling platform that can be used reliably to perform the 8-hour ozone attain ment demonstration. Overall, the study was conducted according to EPA guidance 4 . EPA guidance for 8-hour ozone modeling emphasizes reliance on statistical performance “goals” to define a properly working model, and also stresses performing corroborative and conf irmatory analysis to assure that the model is working correctly. LDEQ and their contractors performed a number of iterative runs and sensitivity runs
in refinement of both the 2006 basecase a nd 2009 future case modeling. Overall, the 2006 basecase modeling performed fairly well with some under estimation bias.

CAMx was run for 2009 using the best 2006 Base Year meteorology configuration, with the 2009 Future Year emission projections. Daily 8-hour ozone concentrations were extracted from the CAMx output files for both 2006 Base Year and 2009 Future Year simulations. These modeled concentrations were supplied to the EPA Model Attainment Test Software (MATS) tool, which tabulated the change in daily maxi mum 8-hour ozone at each site, determined the relative response factors (RRF) averaged over the high ozone days, and used the RRFs to project

the 2009 DV from the observation-based 2006 DV at each site. The 2009 estimated NOx and

3 Technical Support Document. Modeling to Support the Baton Rouge, Louisiana 8-hour Ozone State implementation Plan. ENVIRON International Corporation, and Eastern Research Group, Inc. March 11, 2009.

4 EPA. 2007. “Guidance on the Use of models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainmenet of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze.” Prepared by the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC (EPA-454B-07-002, April 2007).25

25 VOC emissions for typical Ozone season weekday emissions that were included in modeling are

in the Table 7.

Table 7 VOC and NOx (TPD) Typical Ozone Season Weekday emissions in 2009 modeling

2009 Typical Ozone season weekday NOX (TPD)

AREA Nonroad Onroad Point TOTAL

Ascension 3 7.1 3.6 22.6 36.3

East Baton Rouge 5.7 11.1 11.2 27 55

Iberville 2.3 5.5 2.6 25.3 35.7

Livingston 1 1.2 5.2 0.2 7.6

West Baton Rouge 1.2 7.1 2.5 3.6 14.4

BRNA 5

‐ Parish Total 13.2 32 25.1 78.7 149

2009 Typical Ozone season weekday VOC (TPD)

AREA Nonroad Onroad Point TOTAL

Ascension 21.9 1.4 2.5 11.3 37.1

East Baton Rouge 33.3 5.1 8.3 17.4 64.1

Iberville 17.9 1.5 1.1 7.4 27.9

Livingston 5.4 3.3 2.9 1.1 12.7

West Baton Rouge 4.1 2 1.3 1.8 9.2

BRNA 5

‐ Parish Total 82.6 13.3 16.1 39 151

The 2009 Future Year DV projection was below the 85 ppb standard at all monitoring sites that had a 2006 Base DV. The maximum 2009 projecti on continued to occur at LSU (84.9 ppb) using EPA’s recommended approach. EPA’s appr oach and other approaches yielded maximum Future Design Values ranging from 84.4 to 84.9 ppb. It was necessary for MATS to use as few as 5- 10 days of 2006 Base Year simulated peak 8-hour ozone in the mid-70’s ppb for the
attainment test calculation. The attainment test and the weight of eviden ce included in LDEQ’s modeling report demonstrated that the 8-hour ozon e standard would be at tained in the Baton Rouge area by 2009. The area did indeed attain by the close of the ozone season on December 31, 2008 based on monitoring data from 2006 to 2008. Overall this modeling analysis supports
that the estimated emissions from 2009 that we re modeled would demons trate attainment and that further reductions in regional and local emi ssions should continue to achieve attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

2. Maintenance Demonstration. F or what years were emissions inventories prepared and how were they developed? In the interim, what are the total season-day and/or annual emissions by pollutant for point, area, and mobile sources for the attain ment and maintenance years? What transportation, emi ssion, and/or dispersion models were us ed? What were the significant input parameters, including air quality data and assumptions used in the demonstration? What
are the model results?26

26 Models, input parameter, air quality data and assumptions used to demonstrate attainment
or maintenance and the resu lts are discussed below.

Future VOC and NOx Emissions As part of its request to redesignat e the BRNA 8-hour ozone nonattainment area,
the State of Louisiana included a SIP revision to incorporate a maintena nce plan as required
under section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan includ es a demonstration based on a comparison of emissions in the monitored attain ment year (2008) and projected emissions to
demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour oz one NAAQS in the BRNA area for at least 10 years after the anticipated re designation year [section 107(d) (3)(E)(iv)]. To demonstrate
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone st andard, LDEQ projected VOC and NO

x emissions to 2022 and to several interim years, 2012, 2016, and 2020. These emissions were compared to the 2008 attainment year emissions to show that emissions of NO

x and VOC, when considered together, remain below the attainment levels fo r the entire demonstrated maintenance period.

To estimate if there is a decline in future emissions, LDEQ provide d a comparison between the 2006 inventory and the emission growth projections for the years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2022. No growth was assumed for the point source emissions. Nonpoint growth projections were derived from EGAS 6.0. Nonroad mobile gr owth projections for SCC codes 2275, 2280, and 2285 were derived from EGAS 6.0, and other nonroad mobile growth was derived from NONROAD 2005. On-road mobile projections were calculated as described above in the attainment inventory. Table 8 summarizes the 2006, interim years, hor izon year, and net change in VOC and NOx emissions by source type.

Table 8 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 4.05 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 10.62 18.59 9.70 12.01 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

EPA has evaluated the BRNA maintenan ce emission inventory component of the redesignation request an d determined that LDEQ has demonstrated that emissions of VOC and NOx will decrease by 7.67 and 23.40 tons per average ozone season day respectively, a decrease to levels below the 2006 emissions levels through the year 2022. EPA has also determined that LDEQ has adequately calculated and documente d emissions by using methods consistent with EPA’s guidance. Approval of the BR NA maintenance plan is recommended.

As shown in the Table, total VOC and total NO X emissions for the BRNA are projected27

27 to decrease over the 10-year peri od of the maintenance plan. While emission projections for NOx
and VOC indicate a downward tre nd through 2022, there is a sli ght increase in nonpoint VOC emissions toward the end of the projection pe riod. This projected increase is primarily associated with population increase and is relati vely small considering that it occurs over a period of approximately sixteen years (from the 2006 baseline) and is expected to be offset by reductions in other emission categories.. Because population size is related to the number of area sources, an increase in emissions could result fro m area sources that are subject to fewer, less stringent standards than point sources.

Trend Analysis According to the emissions inventory data in Table 9 for the 5-parish Baton Rouge Nonattainment area, there has been a 49.5% re duction in NOx and a 61.5% reduction in VOC
since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Th ese reductions are due to permanent and
enforceable control measures as is outlined in the VOC/RACT Analysis that is included in the submittal. (The control measures are also discussed in greater detail below.)

Table 9 Trend Analysis

Source Category NOx, tpd VOC, tpd

1990 2008 1990 2008

Point Sources 184.0 67.1 128.4 32.2

Area/Nonroad 26.8 41.6 40.7 44.9

Onroad 60.5 28.4 78.2 17.8

Total 271.3 137.1 247.3 95.0
Source: Response to comments #27, page 56 of the submittal.

In its ozone maintenance demonstration, LDEQ presented the 2022 NO

x and VOC emission totals for 2006 and all projection years for the BRNA area with the impacts of CAIR. 5
LDEQ’s maintenance demonstr ation shows that in 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2022 (with the impacts of CAIR rules), VOC and NO

x emission totals for the BRNA area, when considered together, are projected to be below the 2008 VOC and NO

x emissions for the area.

The December 23, 2008, remand of EPA’s CAIR by the U.S. Court of Appeals led to both the State and EPA further considering the impact of this remand on Louisiana’s ozone
maintenance demonstration for the BRNA area. The CAIR was remanded to EPA, and the process of developing a replacemen t rule is now complete. The NOx projections in Louisiana’s maintenance demonstration relied in part on redu ctions due to the Clean Air Interstate rule (CAIR). EPA on July 6, 2011 issued the final Cross-Stat e Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace

5 As discussed in a footnote in the proposal, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit has remanded the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) without vacat ur, directing EPA to revise the CAIR rule. This left the current version of the CAIR rule in question and raises questions about the future emission impacts of States' CAIR-based emission control rules until EPA replaced the CAIR Rule with the Cross State Air Pollution Rule signed on July 6, 2011 and published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208).28

28 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 17,805 tpy for EGUs from 2009 to 2014 and lowered to 14,238 tpy NOx for 2015 and later. The CSAPR Ozone season NOx Budget limit is 13,432 tpy, whic h is 806 tpy less NOx than the CAIR budget.
So with the reductions from CSAP R, we believe that NOx emi ssions from EGUs that were subject to CAIR will be lower than were requir ed by CAIR. Therefore, Louisiana’s maintenance demonstration 10 year projection remains valid.

Pre-control modeling in suppor t of CASPR, that did not include benefits from reductions of the CAIR rule, indicates that the Baton R ouge area will not be in attainment of the 1997 8
hour ozone standard in 2012. This 2012 mode ling indicated a maximu m DV of 85.6 ppb for the attainment test and a maximum DV of 89.3 ppb for the maintenance receptor analysis. For this reason, upwind States with a sign ificant impact on the Baton R ouge area are required to reduce their NOx emissions. Since this modeling did not include benefits from previous CAIR reductions or from the new CSAPR, these projec tions are higher for 2012 than what would be expected to occur in 2012. This is also a diffe rent modeling platform than LDEQ used in the modeling they provided as part of the redesignation package. 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 cente r weighted average of design values during the period 2003-2007 for the attainment test and indicates a maximum value of 84.0 ppb. However, Additional CSAPR modeling for assess ing maintenance receptors/problems projecting off a single year’s design value for 2005 (years 2003-2005) projects that the area will not be in attainment in 2014 with a value of 87.7 ppb. Th is variation in model projections, depending on the projection year, is an i ndication the Baton Rouge area c ould have some difficulty in maintaining attainment in years when meteorol ogy particularly favors ozone production. The maintenance plan, however, indicates that NOx emi ssions will continue to decrease over the life of the plan continuing to improve Baton Rouge’s abil ity to maintain attainment in the future. In addition, section 175 requires that the area have con tingency measures th at will must be implemented, if due to meteorological fluctuations , the area does come out of attainment. We discuss the adequacy of these contingency measures elsewhere. Therefore, after considering the CSAPR modeling but also considering the projecte d decline in emissions and the fact that the maintenance plan has contingency measures, we believe it is appropr iate to approve the maintenance plan for the Baton Rouge area.

The fact that EPA is proposing to redesi gnate Baton Rouge to attainment does not remove the need to address emissions in upwind St ates that impact ozone le vels in Baton Rouge. As discussed above, Baton Rouge area is projecte d to be nonattainment without the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule reductions. The reductions in the CASPR along with ot her State and Federal Measure are projected to bring the area into attainment. Furthermore, without a cap on emissions in upwind States with a significant im pact, 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 insure that States with significant impacts are appropriately controlled.

As previously discussed, LDEQ also provi ded attainment demonstration modeling in support of its redesignation reque st. Additional details of th e 2009 attainment demonstration29

29 modeling can be found in Appendix D of LDEQ’s Redesignation Request a nd Maintenance Plan. The modeling did included the benefit of reducti ons projected in 2009 from CAIR. The weight of evidence and 2009 modeling projections demons trated 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 th at the Baton Rouge areas has attained due to permanent and enforceable reducti ons and should remain in attainment during the term of the maintenance plan. With the CS APR requiring reductions in Louisiana and upwind states that is equal to or better than the exp ected reductions that LDEQ assumed in the Baton Rouge modeling, EPA has requirements in place th at will yield results si milar to the results expected by LDEQ from CAIR a nd thus protect from upwind tran sport negatively impacting the

BRNA.

Louisiana, has demonstrated that the BRN A area can maintain the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard without any additional NO

x emission reduction requirements beyond those required by CAIR or CASPR. Therefore, EPA believes that Louisiana’s demonstration of maintenance under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E ) of the CAA is valid.

Louisiana has successfully demonstrated ma intenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard between 2008 and 2022. In addition, VOC and NO

x emissions in the BRNA area, when considered together with Louisiana’s photochemi cal modeling analyses, are projected to decline between 2008 and 2022. Given the emissions growth and source control factors used to project emissions, EPA and Louisiana do not anticipate an increase in the overall combined VOC and

NO
x emissions in the BRNA area between 2010 and 2022.

A full description of Louisiana’s approach is detailed in Appendix E of the August 31,
2010 submittal which is included in the docket.

3. Monitoring Network

The State of Louisiana has committed in its maintenance plan for the BRNA area to continue operation of an appr opriate ozone monitoring network and to work with EPA in compliance with 40 CFR Part 58 with regard to the continued adequacy of the network, including whether additional mon itoring is needed, and when monitoring can be discontinued. There are ten monitoring sites operated by the LD EQ in the BRNA area, located in the 5-parish BRNA area. LDEQ operates these monitors in accordance with the requirement of 40 CFR Part 58 and the EPA-approved Quality Assurance Program Plan. In the maintenance plan, Louisiana commits to continue operation of a monitori ng network in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 through the end of the maintenance period (2022). The State also commits to enter data into the Air Quality System in accordance with Federal guidelines.

The 10 monitors in the BRNA have monitore d attainment with the 1997 ozone standard from 2006 through 2010 and beyond. The 1997 ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts per million based on the three-year average of the four th-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration30

30 measured at each monitor within an area. The 1997 oz one 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. To date based on uncertified data for 2011,
the area continues to be in attainment. This s hows a continued improvement in air quality in the

BRNA.
A more detailed discussion of the BRNA mon itoring area is found above in section I.A.
of this TSD.

4. 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. The primary purpose of a maintenance plan is to demonstrate how an area will continue to remain in compliance with the 1997 ozone standard for the 10-year period following the effective date of designation as attainment. The e nd projection year is 10 years from the effective date of the attainment designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which for the BRNA was December 31, 2008. Therefore, this plan must demonstrate attainment through at least 2018. Because the redesignation request was submitte d in August 2010, the maintenance plan needed to show attainment at least 10 years out from th an plus additional time for EPA to process the request. Louisiana has identifie d the level of ozone-forming em issions in the BRNA that were consistent with attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in 2006. Louisiana has projected VOC and

NO X emissions for the years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2022 in the BRNA, and EPA finds that the future emissions levels in those years are ex pected to be below the emissions levels in 2006. Louisiana will track the progress of the maintenance plan through continued ambient ozone monitoring in accordance with the requir ements of 40 CFR Part 58, and by performing
future reviews of actual emissions for the area us ing 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 th e data according to federal requirements as one way to verify continued attainment. In additi on the State will compare emission inventory data submitted to the NEI with the emission growth data submitted in the maintenance plan to ensure
emission reductions continue the downward trend.

5. Contingency plan. What are the maintenance plan co ntingency measures, triggers and commitments ? What is the process for trac king the plan and reporting the results to EPA? What are the adoption and implem entation schedules for the con tingency measures? How is maintenance demonstrated in the interim years? Are additional cont rols to be adopted and implemented in the future to offset emission incr eases, and what is the impact of these controls

on emissions invento ry planning cap(s)?

EPA believes that the state has adopted a c ontingency plan for the BR area to address possible future ozone air quality problems pur suant to 175A of the CAA. The section 175(A) maintenance plan must include contingency provis ions to promptly correct any violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that occurs after re designation. The maintenance plan should31

31 identify the contingency measures to be a dopted, a schedule and pro cedure 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 us ed to determine when th e contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The mainte nance 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 secti on 175A(d) of the CAA.

As required by section 175A of the CAA, L ouisiana adopted a contingency plan for the BRNA area to address possible future ozone air quality problems.

a. Triggers. The contingency measure trigge r for the BRNA maintenance plan is based upon monitoring. The triggering mechanism fo r activation of contingency measures
is a monitored violation of the 1997 8-hour oz one standard. In this maintenance plan, if contingency measures are triggered, LDEQ has committed to implement the measures within 24 months of the triggering event. In order to accomplish this, in the submittal Louisiana commits to the following actions: Identification of potential sour ces for emission reductions; Identification/evaluation of prospective control measures; Initiation of stakeholder process; and Implementation of contingency measures through promulgation of appropriate control rules adhering to public no tice and comment requirements.

b. Contingency Measures. The contingency meas ures to be considered include, but are not limited to the following control measures: • Extending the applicability of the stat e’s NOx control rule LAC33:III.2202 to include the months of April and October each year. Because the st ate has adopted this rule and submitted it to EPA, we are proposing to approve th is rule revision in this rulemaking. See the separate TSD for AQ 305 for the an alysis of this rule revision. • Lowering of the NOx emission factors of LAC 33:III.2205.D and/or requiring more stringent monitoring of elevated flares;

• Diesel retrofit/replacement initiatives that could be similar to programs operated in California and Texas;

• Programs or incentives to decrease mo tor vehicle use that could encourage ridesharing, use of mass tr ansit, or bicycling;

• Implementation of fuel programs (including incentives for alternative fuels), which
could include low emission diesel fuel similar to CARB Diesel and Texas Low Emission Diesel;

• Employer-based transportation management plans to further reduce vehicle miles traveled in the urbanized areas of the BRNA; • Anti-idling ordinances; • Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in areas of high emissions concentration during periods of peak use.

These contingency measures and schedules for implementation satisfy EPA’s longstanding guidance on the requirement of section 175(A) for continued attainment. Continued attainment in the Baton Rouge area wi ll depend, in part, on the air quality measures32

32 discussed previously (see VI.B . and V.B.4.). The State will c ontinue 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 redesi gnation of the BRNA area to cover an additional ten-year period beyond the initial ten-year main tenance period. As required by section 175A(d) of the CAA, Louisiana has also committed to retain VOC and NO

x control measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation.

6. Commitments. In its August 31, 2010 submittal, Loui siana affirms that all programs instituted by Louisiana and EPA remain en forceable. In the submittal, Louisiana commits to implement, within 24 months, one or more contingency measures to re-attain
the standard in the event of a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the BRNA
nonattainment area.

Summary: EPA finds that the maintenance pl an adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainme nt inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continue d attainment, and contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by L ouisiana for BRNA meets the requirements of section 175A of the Act. Therefore, EPA is pr oposing to approve the maintenance plan for the
BR area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as part of the Louisiana SIP.

F . What was the public hearing and what are the re sults of any comments received by the State? What is the status of any outstanding SIP call or findings letter, if any?

Two public hearings were held for the Baton Rouge Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan SIP Revision, and the Baton Rouge 1997 8-Hour Moderate Redesignation (the attainment demonstration) on September 24, 2009 both at 1:30 p.m. At the hearings, nine attendees provided no oral testimony. Writte n comments were received from tw o parties. In general, the commentors expressed support for the SIP revision; however the following two major concerns
were raised:

1. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) “In the projected inventories, the department should supplement the documentation by discussing that implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) is likely to further reduce NOx emissions. The NOx rule in LAC 33:III.2201 applies to sources within the area of influence, not just the nonattainment area. Th ese provisions result in permanent and enforceable reductions. Some discussion on recent permitting actions should also be included.”

In response to this comment, the department agreed that the CAIR rule has produced NOx emission reductions, however, the department felt it was not ready to make any projections
on the future rule that EPA would issue.33

33 The CAIR rule was taken into consideration when preparing the emissions inventory for the attainment demonstration and the maintenance plan.

With the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule from EPA, the state will continue to implement NOx emission standards more stringent than CAIR mandated by state rule. The state also has a
rule in section LAC 33:III.905 that requires facilities to operate a nd maintain controls in proper working order whenever emissions are being ma de which can be controlled “even though the ambient air quality standards in affected areas are not exceeded.” This rule embodies EPA’s “once in, always in” policy. EPA approved se ction 905 into the SIP on March 8, 1989 (54 FR 097950). The rule was effective May 8, 1989. Sin ce the state was at one time under the CAIR rules, any controls installed in response to CAIR would not be allowed to be removed regardless
of the state’s status under CAIR or the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

2. Reformulated Gasoline.

“The state should consider what the impact on the maintenance projections would be if RFG is implemented in the future.”

Upon reclassification to severe, under section 211(k) of the Ac t, 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 Ba ton Rouge severe ozone nonattainment area. EPA denied these requests. The City and the Ch amber filed a Petition fo r Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit The partie s 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 th e joint motion, remanding the matter to EPA and staying the litigation and enforcem ent 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. 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 n ecessary requirement for redesignation.

G . What is EPA’s evaluation of the State’s supporting materials that accompanied the submittal,
such as the technical data and commitment letter, and how do these materials conform to EPA policy, guidance, and the Clean Air Act? Throughout this TSD and the corresponding pro posal, we have evaluated Louisiana’s redesignation request an d maintenance plan for the BRNA area, including supporting materials. Based on the information and analysis provided in these documents, EPA fi nds that Louisiana’s August 31, 2010 submittal for the BRNA area includes all of the elements required for a redesignation request an d maintenance plan as specified by EPA policy, guidance and the Clean34

34 Air Act.

Part II: Motor Vehicle Emission Budget

A. What is EPA’s Evaluation of the BRNA Area’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget? 1. 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 transporta tion activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violatio ns, 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 main tenance of the standard. EPA’s transportation conformity rules at 40 CFR 93 require that tr ansportation plans, a nd 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 allowabl e on-road emissions established by the maintenance plan. Maintenance plans must in clude the estimates of motor vehicle VOC and

NO
x emissions that are consistent with maintenan ce of attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purpose of determining whether tran sportation plans, and programs conform to the maintenance plan. In this case, the MVEB se ts 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 a ttainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. 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. On ce EPA finds a budget adeq uate, the budget must be used by local, state and federal agencies in determining whether propos ed transpor tation plans and programs “conform” to the SIP as requi red 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 Tran sportation Conformity Rule Amendments for
the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambi ent Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; transportation conf ormity rule amendments - Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change,” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). As discussed earlier, Louisiana’s ma intenance plan submission includes NO

x and VOC budgets for the year 2022. EPA reviewed the bu dgets through the adequacy process. The availability of the SIP subm ission with this 2022 MVEB wa s 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).35

35 B. Is the MVEB Approvable? Table 10 shows the total projected transportation emissions for 2022, as submitted by Louisiana.
Table 10 Projected Transportation Emissions

(tons per avg. ozone season day)

Pollutant 2006 2008 2012 2016 2020 2022
NO
x 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 repr esented in Table 6 of this notice as the “mobile” emissions portion of emission inventory da ta for the BR area. As shown in Tables 8,
substantial reductions in both NO

x and VOC transportation emi ssions 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 NO

x and VOC in 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2022 are expected to be similar to or less th an the emissions levels in 2006. The projected transportation emissions for 2022 were used by Louisiana as the basis of the 2022 NO

x and VOC
MVEB for the BR area. These emissions ar e consistent with the maintenance plan demonstrating continued compliance with the 1 997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 10-year period following redesignation to attainment.
The submitted NO

x and VOC MVEB for the BR area is defined in Table 11 below.

Table 11

NO
x and VOC MVEB (summer season tons per day)

Pollutant 2022
NO
x 6.96
VOC 7.55

Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve Louisiana’s 2022 MVEB for
VOCs and NO

x for the BR area for transportation conformity purposes, because EPA has
determined that the area mainta ins 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 appr ovable and the budgets ar e consistent with the overall plan. Therefore, the budgets can be proposed for approval.36

36 Part III: Recommendation Based on the analysis of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan submitted by the State, I recommend approval of th e request to redesignate the BRNA to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, approval of the 2006 emissi ons inventory, approval of the motor vehicle emission budget, and approval of the maintenance plan.