[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 57 (Thursday, March 26, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13166-13170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6598]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0014; FRL-8783-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Louisiana; Baton Rouge 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Determination 
of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Baton Rouge (BR) 1-hour 
ozone nonattainment area is currently attaining the 1-hour ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination is 
based upon certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has 
monitored attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2006-2008 
monitoring period. If this proposed determination is made final, the 
requirements for this area to submit a severe attainment demonstration, 
a severe reasonable further progress plan, applicable contingency 
measures plans, and other planning State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
requirements related to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, shall be 
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS. EPA is proposing this action in accordance with section 110 and 
part D of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA's 
regulations and consistent with EPA's guidance.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2009-0014, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select 
``Air'' before submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9cf8f3f2fdf0f8eff3f2b2fbe9e5dcf9ecfdb2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7939899969b93849899d990828eb7928796d9909881">[email protected]</span></a>. Please 
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
    <bullet> Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
    <bullet> Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    <bullet> Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are 
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except 
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries 
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2009-0014. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be 
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material,

[[Page 13167]]

will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by 
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please 
make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your 
visit. There will be a fee of 15 cents per page for making photocopies 
of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA 
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 
75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra Rennie, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7367, 
fax (214) 665-7263, e-mail address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f3d2a2121262a611c2e212b3d2e0f2a3f2e61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ae8fff4f4f3ffb4c9fbf4fee8fbdaffeafbb4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' means EPA. This supplementary information section is 
arranged as follows:

I. What Is the Background for This Action?
II. What Is the Impact of a United States Court of Appeals Decision 
in the South Coast Case Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Ozone Implementation 
Rule on This Proposed Rule?
III. Proposed Determination of Attainment
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This Action?

    The Act requires us to establish NAAQS for certain widespread 
pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (sections 108 and 109 
of the Act). In 1979, we promulgated the revised 1-hour ozone standard 
of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979). For 
ease of communication, many reports of ozone concentrations are given 
in parts per billion (ppb); ppb = ppm x 1000. Thus, 0.12 ppm becomes 
120 ppb or 124 ppb when rounding is considered.
    An area exceeds the 1-hour ozone standard each time an ambient air 
quality monitor records a 1-hour average ozone concentration above 0.12 
ppm in any given day. Only the highest 1-hour ozone concentration at 
the monitor during any 24-hour day is considered when determining the 
number of exceedance days at the monitor. An area violates the ozone 
standard if, over a consecutive 3-year period, more than 3 days of 
exceedances occur at the same monitor. For more information please see 
``National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards 
for ozone'' (40 CFR 50.9) and ``Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary 
and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' (40 
CFR part 50, Appendix H).
    The fourth-highest daily ozone concentration over the 3-year period 
is called the design value (DV). The DV indicates the severity of the 
ozone problem in an area; it is the ozone level around which a state 
designs its control strategy for attaining the ozone standard. A 
monitor's DV is the fourth highest ambient concentration recorded at 
that monitor over the previous 3 years. An area's DV is the highest of 
the design values from the area's monitors.
    The Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as 
nonattainment any area that was violating the 1-hour ozone standard, 
generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through 
1989 period (section 107(d)(4) of the Act; 56 FR 56694, November 6, 
1991). The Act further classified these areas, based on their ozone 
DVs, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme.
    The control requirements and date by which attainment is to be 
achieved vary with an area's classification. Marginal areas are subject 
to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the earliest 
attainment date, November 15, 1993, while severe and extreme areas are 
subject to more stringent planning requirements and are provided more 
time to attain the standard.

Baton Rouge's History

    EPA first designated the Baton Rouge area as an ozone nonattainment 
area in 1978. 43 FR 8964, 8998 (March 3, 1978). The BR 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area contains five parishes: East Baton Rouge; West Baton 
Rouge; Ascension; Iberville; and Livingston Parishes (40 CFR 81.319). 
In 1991, the BR area was designated nonattainment by operation of law 
and EPA classified the BR area as a ``serious'' ozone nonattainment 
area with a statutory deadline of November 15, 1999. 56 FR 56694 
(November 6, 1991). EPA approved the serious attainment demonstration 
SIP and its associated elements, e.g., attainment Motor Vehicle 
Emissions Budgets (MVEB), the Reasonably Available Control Measures 
(RACM) demonstration, on July 2, 1999. 64 FR 35930. The BR area, 
however, did not attain by the serious area statutory deadline of 
November 15, 1999. Before this deadline however, EPA had issued a 
guidance memorandum that allowed an area to retain its existing 
classification and receive a later attainment deadline if the EPA found 
that area met all of its existing classification requirements, approved 
a demonstration that the area would attain but for the transport from 
another area, and approved the attainment demonstration SIP with its 
associated elements. See EPA's ``Guidance on Extension of Attainment 
Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' (the Extension Policy) (Richard D. 
Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation) July 16, 
1998. On October 2, 2002, EPA approved the revised attainment 
demonstration SIP and its associated elements, found the area met all 
of the serious area requirements, found there was transport from Texas 
affecting the BR area reaching attainment, and extended the attainment 
date for the BR area to November 15, 2005, without reclassifying the 
area from serious to severe, consistent with the policy. 67 FR 61786 
(October 2, 2002).
    On December 11, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit vacated EPA's Extension Policy used to extend the 1-hour ozone 
attainment deadline for the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas, area without 
reclassifying the area. Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 
2002). Thereupon, EPA on April 24, 2003, withdrew its approval of the 
BR area's revised attainment demonstration and the granting of an 
extended attainment deadline, finalized its finding of the area failing 
to attain the standard by the serious area deadline and reclassified 
the BR area by operation of law, to severe nonattainment. See 68 FR 
20077 (April 24, 2003).\1\ Once reclassified to severe,

[[Page 13168]]

the statutory attainment date for BR was November 15, 2005. As a result 
of the reclassification to severe, the State was required to submit an 
attainment demonstration SIP with an attainment date of November 15, 
2005. The April 24, 2003, action also set the dates by which Louisiana 
was to submit SIP revisions addressing the CAA's pollution control 
requirements for severe ozone nonattainment areas and to attain the 1-
hour NAAQS for ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitions for review of the October 2, 2002, rulemaking were 
filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana 
Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, No. 02-60991). The 
issues raised concerned EPA's decision to approve Louisiana's 
substitute contingency measures plan, the revised attainment 
demonstration SIP with a later attainment deadline without 
reclassifying the area to severe, and the associated precursor 
trading provision of the NSR rules. On February 25, 2003, the court 
granted EPA's partial voluntary remand to allow EPA the time to meet 
the December 2002 court decision by withdrawing its approval of the 
revised attainment demonstration SIP that extended the attainment 
deadline without reclassifying the area and the associated NSR 
precursor trading provision. The court also addressed the substitute 
contingency measures claim, and vacated and remanded EPA's approval 
of the contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 182(d) and section (i) of the Act, serious ozone 
nonattainment areas reclassified to severe are required to submit SIP 
revisions addressing the severe area requirements for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS. Under section 182(d), severe area plans are required to meet all 
the requirements for serious area plans and all the requirements for 
severe area plans.
    In 1997, EPA promulgated a new, more protective standard for ozone 
based on an 8-hour average concentration (the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard). In 2004, EPA published the 1997 8-hour ozone designations 
and classifications and a rule governing certain facets of 
implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR 23858 
and 69 FR 23951, respectively, April 30, 2004). The BR area was 
designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 8-
hour nonattainment area is composed of the same five parishes as the 1-
hour ozone nonattainment area. The area was classified as marginal 
under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. At the time of designation, the 
five parishes remained in nonattainment for the 1-hour standard.
    The Phase 1 Rule revoked the 1-hour ozone standard. See 69 FR 
23951. The Phase 1 Rule also provided that 1-hour ozone nonattainment 
areas are required to adopt and implement ``applicable requirements'' 
according to the area's classification under the 1-hour ozone standard 
for anti-backsliding purposes. See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(i). On May 26, 
2005, we determined that an area's 1-hour designation and 
classification as of June 15, 2004 would dictate what 1-hour 
obligations remain as ``applicable requirements'' under the Phase 1 
Rule. 40 CFR 51.900(f). (70 FR 30592).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As detailed in Section II below, various parties challenged 
the Phase 1 rule. In particular, the Chamber of Baton Rouge 
challenged EPA's authority to continue to enforce the 1-hour area 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacated the Phase 1 Rule. South Coast Air Quality 
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, 
in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, 
in response to several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit 
clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those 
parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. With respect 
to the challenges to the anti-backsliding provisions of the rule, the 
court vacated three provisions that would have allowed States to remove 
from the SIP or not to adopt three 1-hour obligations once the 1-hour 
standard was revoked to transition to the implementation of the 8-hour 
ozone standard: (1) Nonattainment area new source review (NSR) 
requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; 
(2) section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment 
areas that fail to attain the 1-hour standard by the 1-hour attainment 
date; and (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) 
or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making 
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS or 
for failure to attain that NAAQS. The court clarified that 1-hour 
conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding 
purposes.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.905(a)-(c) concerning anti-backsliding 
remain in effect and areas must continue to meet those requirements. 
However, the court decision vacated the portions of Sec.  51.905(e) 
that removed the obligations to meet the three provisions noted above. 
As a result, states must continue to meet the obligations for 1-hour 
NSR; 1-hour contingency measures; and, for severe and extreme areas, 
the obligations related to a section 185 fee program. Currently, EPA 
has proposed one rule and is developing other actions to address the 
court's vacatur and remand with respect to these three requirements. We 
address below how the 1-hour obligations that currently continue to 
apply under EPA's anti-backsliding rule (as interpreted and directed by 
the court) apply where EPA has made a determination that the area is 
currently attaining the 1-hour NAAQS.
    The Baton Rouge 1-hour nonattainment area was still classified as 
severe on June 15, 2004, so the 1-hour ozone standard requirements 
applicable to the five-parish area are those that apply to 
nonattainment areas classified as severe. This includes meeting the 
serious area requirements. Louisiana submitted and EPA approved all the 
requirements for a 1-hour ozone area classified as serious. EPA's 
approval of the serious area Contingency Measures was challenged in the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (See footnote 1). The Court 
vacated the serious area contingency measure and remanded it to EPA.
    The severe area requirements include Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) for both VOC and NO<INF>X</INF>, NSR Emissions Offset 
Requirement, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, Post-1999 Rate of 
Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, and an Attainment Demonstration. 
The State has submitted many required severe area plan requirements, 
including the severe area ROP Plan, but has not submitted others, 
including the attainment demonstration and the contingency measures. 
The VMT Analysis was approved November 21, 2006 (71 FR 67308).
    Under the Phase 1 rule and as a result of the South Coast decision, 
the requirement to provide a severe attainment demonstration SIP and 
the serious and severe RFP/failure-to-attain contingency measures 
remain in place. However, as discussed below, these requirements would 
be suspended based on a finding of attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
standard, and for so long as the area remains in attainment of the 
standard in the future.

II. Proposed Determination of Attainment

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Baton Rouge 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area is currently in attainment of the 1-hour standard 
based on the most recent 3 years of quality-assured air quality data. 
Certified ambient air monitoring data show that the area has monitored 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2006-2008 monitoring 
period. Consistent with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H, Table 1 contains 
the 1-hour ozone data for the BR 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 
monitors that show that the area is currently attaining the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS.

[[Page 13169]]



                 Table 1--1-Hour Ozone Data for the Baton Rouge 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Design value        Actual and expected number of          3-year
                                                (ppb)                 exceedances \a\                exceedance
                   Site                    --------------------------------------------------------    average
                                                                                                   -------------
                                              2006-2008       2006          2007          2008        2006-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaquemine (22-047-0009)..................          114             0             0             0             0
Carville (22-047-0012)....................          113             0             0             0             0
Dutchtown (22-005-0004)...................          112             0             1             0          0.33
Baker (22-033-1001).......................          111             1             0             0          0.33
LSU (22-033-0003).........................          110             0             2             0          0.67
Grosse Tete (22-047-0007).................          110             1             1             0          0.67
Port Allen (22-121-0001)..................          106             1             0             0          0.33
Pride (22-033-0013).......................          101             0             0             0             0
French Settlement (22-063-0002)...........          100             1             0             0          0.33
Capitol (22-033-0009).....................           97             0             0             0            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The actual and expected number of exceedances were equal in all cases.

    Pursuant to the interpretation set forth in the May 10, 1995 
memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas 
Meeting the Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (Clean Data Policy), 
EPA is proposing to make a finding of attainment based on current air 
quality. Under this policy, if EPA determines through rulemaking that 
the Baton Rouge 1-hour ozone nonattainment area is meeting the 1-hour 
ozone standard, the requirements for the State to submit and have an 
approved attainment demonstration, and related components such as 
reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further 
progress (RFP) demonstration, contingency measures for failure to 
attain or make reasonable further progress are suspended as long as the 
area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA intends to address 
the impact of a Clean Data determination on a CAA section 185 fees 
program separately based on the outcome of a rulemaking to address the 
South Coast decision with respect to this issue, discussed above. See 
74 FR 2936, 2941 (January 16, 2009).
    As stated above, the suspension of requirements continues for so 
long as the area remains in attainment. If the area subsequently 
violates the ozone NAAQS, EPA would initiate notice-and-comment 
rulemaking to withdraw the determination of attainment, which would 
result in reinstatement of the requirements for the State to submit 
such suspended plans.
    The Tenth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have upheld EPA rulemakings 
applying the Clean Data Policy. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 
(10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) and 
Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 
2005) memorandum opinion.\3\ See also the discussion and rulemakings 
cited in the Phase 2 Rule, 70 FR 71644-71646 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Clean Data Policy, as it is embodied in 40 CFR 51.918, 
is being challenged in the context of the 8-hour ozone standard in 
the Phase 2 Rule ozone litigation pending in the DC Circuit, NRDC v. 
EPA, No. 06-1045 (DC Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA proposes to find that the BR 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 
has attained the 1-hour ozone standard; thus the requirements for 
submitting the severe attainment demonstration SIP with its RACM 
demonstration and other associated elements, the severe RFP 
requirements, and section 172(c)(9) and section 182(c)(9) serious and 
severe contingency measures are suspended for so long as the area is 
attaining the 1-hour ozone standard.
    Thus, pursuant to our proposed determination of attainment and in 
accordance with our Clean Data Policy, the effect of the finding is 
that the following requirements to submit SIP measures under the 1-hour 
anti-backsliding provisions (40 CFR 51.905) are suspended for so long 
as the area continues to attain the 1-hour standard:

RFP reductions under sections 182(d) and 182(c)(2)(B) (for severe 
areas). Attainment demonstration under sections 182(d) and 182(c)(2) 
(for severe areas) and associated RACM demonstration.
Contingency measures for failure to meet RFP under section 172(c)(9) 
and section 182(c)(9) (for serious and severe areas) and contingency 
measures for failure to attain under sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) 
(for severe areas).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
action proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and 
would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal 
requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et 
seq.). Because this rule proposes to make a determination based on air 
quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of 
certain Federal requirements, it does not contain any unfunded mandate 
or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed 
rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have 
Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in

[[Page 13170]]

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely 
proposes to make a determination based on air quality data and would, 
if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it proposes to determine that air quality in the 
affected area is meeting Federal standards. The requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply because it would be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA, when determining the attainment status of an 
area, to use voluntary consensus standards in place of promulgated air 
quality standards and monitoring procedures that otherwise satisfy the 
provisions of the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). Under Executive Order 
12898, EPA finds that this rule involves a proposed determination of 
attainment based on air quality data and will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any communities in the area, including minority and low-
income communities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 5, 2009.
Lawrence Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E9-6598 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>