23646 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the District of

Columbia. The revision makes the

oxygenated gasoline program a

contingency measure for the District of

Columbia (the District), which means

that the oxygenated gasoline program

would only be required to be

implemented in the District if there is a

violation of the carbon monoxide (CO)

national ambient air quality standard

(NAAQS). The District’s revision also

makes technical amendments to its

oxygenated gasoline regulations which

correct the deficiencies previously

identified by EPA in a January 26, 1995

final rule granting limited approval/

limited disapproval of those regulations.

Therefore, the limited approval/limited

disapproval is being converted to a full

approval. In the ‘‘Rules and

Regulations’’ section of this Federal

Register, EPA is approving the State’s

SIP submittal as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

submittal and anticipates no adverse

comments. A more detailed description

of the state submittal and EPA’s

evaluation are included in a Technical

Support Document (TSD) prepared in

support of this rulemaking action. A

copy of the TSD is available, upon

request, from the EPA Regional Office

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

document. If EPA receives no adverse

comments, EPA will not take further

action. If EPA receives adverse

comments, EPA will withdraw the

direct final rule and it will not take

effect. EPA will address all public

comments in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by June 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to David L. Arnold, Chief,

Air Quality Planning and Information

Services Branch , Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and

the District of Columbia Department of

Public Health, Air Quality Division, 51

N Street, NE., Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly L. Bunker, (215) 814–2177, at the

EPA Region III address above, or by email at bunker.kelly@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

further information, please see the

information provided in the direct final

action, with the same title, that is

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of this Federal Register

publication.

Dated: April 24, 2001.

William C. Early,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 01–10987 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[FRL–6975–9]

Clean Air Act Reclassification and

Notice of Potential Eligibility for

Extension of Attainment Date,

Louisiana; Baton Rouge Ozone

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to find that the

Baton Rouge serious ozone

nonattainment area (hereinafter referred

to as the Baton Rouge area) has failed to

attain the one-hour ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

by November 15, 1999, the date set forth

in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for

serious nonattainment areas. If EPA

takes final action on this proposed

finding, the area would be reclassified

as a severe ozone nonattainment area.

Alternatively, EPA is also issuing a

notice of the Baton Rouge area’s

potential eligibility for an attainment

date extension, pursuant to EPA’s

‘‘Guidance on Extension of Attainment

Dates for Downwind Transport Areas’’

(hereinafter referred to as the extension

policy) (Richard D. Wilson, Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation) issued July 16, 1998. The

extension policy provides that a

nonattainment area, such as the Baton

Rouge area, may be eligible for an

attainment date extension if it meets

certain conditions. The extension policy

applies where pollution from upwind

areas interferes with the ability of a

downwind area to demonstrate

attainment with the one-hour ozone

standard by the dates prescribed in the

Act. Louisiana is working to comply

with the conditions for receiving an

extension. If Louisiana makes a

submittal in response to the extension

policy, we will address the adequacy of

the submittal in a subsequent

supplemental proposal. If the submittal

meets the criteria for an extension, the

attainment date for the Baton Rouge area

will be extended, and the area will not

be reclassified. We do not intend to take

final action on reclassification of the

Baton Rouge area prior to allowing

Louisiana an opportunity to qualify for

an attainment date extension under the

extension policy.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs,

Chief, Air Planning Section,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

Copies of the Baton Rouge area

monitored air quality data analyses,

guidance on extension of attainment

dates in downwind transport areas,

State submittal requesting consideration

for an attainment date extension, and

other relevant documents used in

support of this proposal are contained

in the docket file, which is available at

the following addresses for inspection

during normal business hours: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6, Air Planning Section, 1445

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas

75202; Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality, 7920

Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge,

Louisiana 70884. Please contact the

appropriate office at least 24 hours in

advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Jeanne Schulze, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The use of

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ in this document

refers to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action are we taking today?

II. What are the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards?

III. What is the NAAQS for ozone?

IV. What is the Baton Rouge ozone

nonattainment area?

V. Why is the Baton Rouge area currently

classified as a serious nonattainment

area?

VI. Why are we proposing to reclassify the

Baton Rouge area?

VII. Has air quality improved in the Baton

Rouge area in recent years?

VIII. What would a reclassification mean for

the Baton Rouge area?

IX. Can an extension of the serious area

attainment date be granted for the Baton

Rouge area?

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23647

1On November 22, 2000, the Louisiana

Environmental Action Network (LEAN) filed a

complaint in the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana regarding the

attainment status and classification of the Baton

Rouge area. If EPA needs to take any action as a

result of this litigation, we will publish further

notice in the Federal Register.

2EPA has established only a primary standard for

carbon monoxide.

3EPA revoked the one-hour standard in areas that

were attaining the standard on June 5, 1998 (63 FR

31051). However, on May 14, 1999, the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled

that the 8-hour ozone standard could not be

enforced by EPA. Although the Court of Appeals

determined that the 8-hour standard could not be

enforced, it did not vacate the standard. Hence, the

8-hour standard remained in effect. While

appealing this decision to the United States

Supreme Court, EPA reinstated the one-hour

standard in areas where it had been revoked. (65 FR

45181, dated July 20, 2000). On February 27, 2001,

the Supreme Court upheld the 8-hour standard and

instructed EPA to develop an implementation plan

for the 8 hour standard that is consistent with the

Supreme Court’s opinion. Whitman v. American

Trucking Assoc., Inc., 531 U.S. ll (2001), Nos.

99–1257 and 99–1426.

X. What is EPA’s policy regarding extension

of attainment dates for downwind

transport areas?

XI. Is the Baton Rouge area eligible for an

attainment date extension under the

extension policy?

XII. What progress has Louisiana made to

meet the extension policy so that an

attainment date extension can be

granted?

XIII. What actions has Louisiana taken to

improve air quality in the Baton Rouge

area?

XIV. If we finalize our proposed rulemaking

reclassifying the Baton Rouge area, what

would be the Baton Rouge area’s new

classification?

XV. If the Baton Rouge area is reclassified to

severe, what would its new schedule be?

XVI. When will we make a final decision

whether to reclassify or grant an

extension to the Baton Rouge area?

XVII. Administrative requirements.

I. What Action Are We Taking Today?

We are proposing to find that the

Baton Rouge area has failed to attain the

one-hour ozone NAAQS by the

November 15, 1999, attainment deadline

prescribed under the CAA for serious

ozone nonattainment areas. EPA’s

authority to make this finding is

discussed under section 181(b)(2) of the

CAA. Section 181(b)(2) explains the

process for determining whether an area

has attained the one-hour ozone

standard and reclassification of the area

if necessary. If we finalize this finding,

the Baton Rouge area will be reclassified

by operation of law from serious

nonattainment to severe nonattainment.

Alternatively, we are considering an

extension of the Baton Rouge area’s

attainment date, provided that

Louisiana submits, by August 31, 2001,

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that

qualifies for an extension pursuant to

EPA’s extension policy. If the State

meets the extension policy criteria and

we propose to approve the State’s

submittal, then a specific extended

attainment date will be proposed in the

same notice. We will take final action

on the new attainment date at the time

we take final action on the submittal.

However, if Louisiana’s SIP submittal

fails to meet the criteria of the extension

policy, we will finalize this proposed

finding of failure to attain, and the

Baton Rouge area will be reclassified to

a severe ozone nonattainment area.1

II. What Are the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards?

Since the CAA’s inception in 1970,

EPA has set NAAQS for six common

pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead,

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate

matter, and sulfur dioxide. For most of

these common air pollutants, there are

two types of pollution limits referred to

as the primary and secondary

standards.2 The primary standard is

based on health effects; the secondary

standard is based on environmental

effects such as damage to property,

plants, and visibility. The CAA requires

these standards to be set at levels that

protect public health and welfare with

an adequate margin of safety. These

standards present state and local

governments with the air quality levels

they must meet to achieve clean air.

Also, these standards allow the

American people to assess whether the

air quality in their communities is

healthful.

III. What Is the NAAQS for Ozone?

The NAAQS for ozone is expressed in

two forms which are referred to as the

one-hour and eight-hour standards.

Table 1 summarizes the ozone

standards.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF OZONE STANDARDS

Standard Value (parts

per million) Type Method of compliance

1-hour ...................................... 0.12 Primary and secondary ........... Must not be exceeded, on average, more than one day per

year over any 3-year period.

8-hour ...................................... 0.08 Primary and secondary ........... The 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest maxima 8-

hour average ozone concentrations measured at secondary each monitor within an area.

The 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12

ppm has existed since 1979. On July 18,

1997, EPA adopted the 8-hour ozone

standard, which was intended to replace

the one-hour standard in areas that were

attaining the one-hour standard, (62 FR

38856).3 The one-hour ozone standard

continues to apply to all areas,

notwithstanding promulgation of the 8-

hour standard (40 CFR § 50.9(b)). This

document addresses the classification of

the Baton Rouge area relative to the onehour ozone standard.

IV. What Is the Baton Rouge Ozone

Nonattainment Area?

The Baton Rouge serious ozone

nonattainment area, located in southern

Louisiana, consists of East Baton Rouge,

West Baton Rouge, Ascension, Iberville,

and Livingston Parishes.

V. Why Is the Baton Rouge Area

Currently Classified as a Serious

Nonattainment Area?

Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the

CAA, each ozone area designated

nonattainment for the one-hour

standard prior to enactment of the 1990

CAA amendments, such as the Baton

Rouge area, was designated

nonattainment by operation of law upon

enactment of the amendments. Under

section 181(a) of the Act, each ozone

area designated nonattainment under

section 107(d) was also classified by

operation of law as ‘‘marginal,’’

‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘serious,’’ ‘‘severe,’’ or

‘‘extreme,’’ depending on the severity of

the area’s air quality problem. The

design value for an area, which

characterizes the severity of the air

quality problem, is represented by the

highest design value at any individual

23648 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ozone monitoring site (i.e., the highest

of the fourth highest one-hour daily

maximum monitored ozone levels in a

given three-year period with complete

monitoring data). Table 2 provides the

design value ranges for each

nonattainment classification. Ozone

nonattainment areas with design values

between 0.160 and 0.180 ppm, such as

the Baton Rouge area (which had a

design value of 0.164 ppm in 1989),

were classified as serious. These

nonattainment designations and

classifications were codified in 40 CFR

Part 81 (see 56 FR 56694, November 6,

1991).

TABLE 2.—OZONE NONATTAINMENT CLASSIFICATIONS

Area class Design value (ppm) Attainment date

Marginal ................................................................................. 0.121 up to 0.138 .................................................................. November 15, 1993.

Moderate ................................................................................ 0.138 up to 0.160 .................................................................. November 15, 1996.

Serious ................................................................................... 0.160 up to 0.180 .................................................................. November 15, 1999.

Severe .................................................................................... 0.180 up to 0.280 .................................................................. November 15, 2005.

Extreme .................................................................................. 0.280 and above ................................................................... November 15, 2010.

In addition, states containing areas

that were classified as serious

nonattainment were required to submit

SIPs to provide for certain controls, to

show progress toward attainment, and

to provide for attainment as

expeditiously as practicable, but not

later than November 15, 1999. Serious

area SIP requirements are found

primarily in section 182(c) of the CAA.

VI. Why Are We Proposing To

Reclassify the Baton Rouge Area?

Regarding reclassification for failure

to attain, section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act

provides that:

Within 6 months following the

applicable attainment date (including

any extension thereof) for an ozone

nonattainment area, the Administrator

shall determine, based on the area’s

design value (as of the attainment date)

whether the area attained the standard

by that date. Except for any Severe or

Extreme area, any area that the

Administrator finds has not attained the

standard by that date shall be

reclassified by operation of law in

accordance with table 1 of subsection (a)

to the higher of—

(i) The next higher classification for

the area, or

(ii) The classification applicable to the

area’s design value as determined at the

time of the notice required under

subparagraph (B).

No area shall be reclassified as

Extreme under clause (ii).

Furthermore, section 181(b)(2)(B) of

the Act provides that:

The Administrator shall publish a notice in

the Federal Register no later than 6 months

following the attainment date, identifying

each area that the Administrator has

determined under subparagraph (A) as

having failed to attain and identifying the

reclassification, if any, described under

subparagraph (A).

Table 3 lists the average number of

days when ambient ozone

concentrations exceeded the one-hour

ozone standard at each monitoring site

in the Baton Rouge area for the period

1997–1999. The ozone design value for

each monitor is also listed for the same

period. A complete listing of the ozone

exceedances for each monitoring site, as

well as EPA’s calculations of the design

values, can be found in the docket file.

The data in Table 3 show that, for 1997–

1999, two monitoring sites in the Baton

Rouge area averaged more than one

exceedance day per year. Therefore,

pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(B) of the

CAA, we propose to find that the Baton

Rouge area did not attain the one-hour

standard by the November 15, 1999,

deadline.

TABLE 3.—AIR QUALITY DATA FOR THE BATON ROUGE AREA (1997–1999)

Site

Number of

days over

standard

(1997–1999)

Number of expected days

over standard

(1997–1999)

Average number of expected exceedance

days per year

Site design

value (ppm)

Site (Parish):

Pride (East Baton Rouge) ........................................................................ 1 1.1 0.4 0.116

Baker (East Baton Rouge) ....................................................................... 3 3.0 1.0 0.123

Capitol (East Baton Rouge) ...................................................................... 3 3.1 1.0 0.122

LSU (East Baton Rouge) .......................................................................... 4 a 4.1 a 1.4 b 0.126

Carville (Iberville) ...................................................................................... 2 2.0 0.7 0.120

Plaquemine (Iberville) ............................................................................... 2 2.0 0.7 0.120

Grosse Tete (Iberville) .............................................................................. 5 a 5.3 a 1.8 b 0.126

Port Allen (West Baton Rouge) ................................................................ 3 3.0 1.0 0.119

Dutchtown (Ascension) ............................................................................. 3 3.0 1.0 0.123

French Settlement (Livingston) ................................................................. 3 3.0 1.0 0.123

aA violation occurs when the number of expected exceedances is greater than 3.1 over a 3-year (rolling) period (or a 3-year (rolling) average

greater than 1.04). The statistical term ‘‘expected exceedances’’ is an arithmetic average explained at 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix H. b Represents the 1997–1999 design value for the Baton Rouge area.

Raw data source: U.S. EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) database.

As discussed later in this document,

because the EPA interprets the CAA to

allow for an extension of the attainment

date based on EPA’s findings on the

effects of ozone transport, we believe it

is fair to allow Louisiana an opportunity

to apply and qualify for an attainment

date extension before we finalize our

finding and the area is reclassified.

This proposal details the following

reasons which support our decision to

proceed in this manner:

1. EPA has concluded that this is the

best way to reconcile the Act’s

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23649

4A listing of the ozone exceedances (1995–1999)

and 3-year design values (95–97, 96–98, 98–00) by

monitoring site can be found in the docket file for

this proposed rulemaking.

5A listing of the preliminary ozone exceedances

and design values can be found in the docket file

for this proposed rulemaking. 6 ‘‘Review of the Grosse Tete Ozone Monitor and

Data in Iberville Parish: May 12, 1999—August 6,

1999,’’ U.S. EPA Region 6, Multimedia Planning

and Permitting Division, final report dated June 29,

2000.

requirements under section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as applied to ozone

transport with the attainment dates and

graduated control scheme in sections

181 and 182 of the Act. EPA’s extension

policy represents a reasonable effort to

avoid thwarting Congressional intent

that upwind areas be responsible for

preventing interference with timely

downwind attainment and that

downwind areas not be unfairly

burdened. The Act shows Congressional

intent that transport be considered

when EPA acts to reclassify an area and

a reluctance to subject an area to more

burdensome controls than necessary to

bring local sources into compliance.

2. Louisiana has submitted analyses

indicating that Baton Rouge may be

affected by ozone transport from an

upwind area.

3. Based on current monitored air

quality, if the Baton Rouge area was

newly designated ozone nonattainment

today, it would be classified as a

marginal nonattainment area. However,

if the area were to be reclassified, it

would be required to impose the

controls which are normally demanded

only for an area with severe levels of air

pollution.

4. By a letter from the Governor, dated

May 10, 2000, Louisiana has committed

to submit by August 31, 2001, a SIP that

meets the criteria of the extension

policy.

Furthermore, in this proposal, our

recognition that the area should be

given an opportunity to qualify for an

extension is balanced by our action in

moving forward with the process of

reclassification in the event that the

state is unsuccessful in demonstrating

that it can satisfy the criteria for an

extension.

VII. Has Air Quality Improved in the

Baton Rouge Area in Recent Years?

The air quality in the Baton Rouge

area has improved significantly since

the area was designated nonattainment

following enactment of the 1990 CAA

amendments, when the area’s (1987–

1989) ozone design value was 0.164

ppm. The most recent (i.e. 1997–1999)

areawide ozone design values had

shown a continued downward trend

measuring 0.139, 0.127, and 0.126 ppm,

respectively 4—very closely approaching

the one-hour NAAQS design value of

0.124 ppm. However, based on

exceedances registered in the Baton

Rouge area in 2000, the area’s

preliminary (1998–2000) ozone design

value has now risen to 0.135 ppm.5

VIII. What Would a Reclassification

Mean for the Baton Rouge Area?

If reclassified, the Baton Rouge area

would need to attain the one-hour ozone

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,

but no later than November 15, 2005.

Louisiana would also need to submit

SIP revisions addressing the severe area

requirements for the one-hour standard

in section 182(d) of the Act. The

requirements for severe ozone

nonattainment areas include, but are not

limited to, the following:

1. Attainment and reasonable further

progress demonstrations.

2. A 25 ton-per-year major source

threshold for volatile organic

compounds.

3. More stringent new source review

requirements.

4. Enforceable transportation control

strategies and measures to offset

projected growth in vehicle miles

traveled or number of vehicle trips.

5. Contingency provisions.

6. A plan for assessing fees to major

stationary sources in the event the Baton

Rouge area fails to meet the severe

attainment date.

7. On-road mobile emissions budget

for transportation conformity purposes.

IX. Can an Extension of the Serious

Area Attainment Date Be Granted for

the Baton Rouge Area?

The attainment date specified in the

Act for serious nonattainment areas,

such as Baton Rouge, is November 15,

1999. Two separate mechanisms exist

for an area to obtain an extension of this

date. First, pursuant to section 181(a)(5)

of the CAA, the state may request, and

EPA may grant, up to two one-year

attainment date extensions. EPA may

grant an extension if: (1) The state has

complied with the requirements and

commitments pertaining to the

applicable implementation plan for the

area, and (2) the area has measured no

more than one exceedance of the ozone

standard at any monitoring site in the

nonattainment area in the year in which

attainment is required.

As indicated in Table 4, one or fewer

actual exceedances occurred at any

given monitoring site in the area in

1999. However, because a significant

amount of air quality data was

invalidated due to malfunctioning

equipment at the Grosse Tete site in

1999,6 the number of expected

exceedances for that monitor in 1999

was greater than 1.04 (i.e., 1.3).

Louisiana did not submit a request for

a one-year extension of the attainment

date under section 181(a)(5) of the CAA

based on these 1999 monitoring results.

TABLE 4.—OZONE EXCEEDANCES IN THE BATON ROUGE AREA (1999)

Site

Number of

days over

standard

(1999)

Number of expected days

over standard

(1999)

Site (Parish):

Pride (East Baton Rouge) ................................................................................................................................ 0 0.0

Baker (East Baton Rouge) ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.0

Capitol (East Baton Rouge) ............................................................................................................................. 0 0.0

LSU (East Baton Rouge) .................................................................................................................................. 0 0.0

Carville (Iberville) .............................................................................................................................................. 0 0.0

Plaquemine (Iberville) ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0

Grosse Tete (Iberville) ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3

Port Allen (West Baton Rouge) ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.0

Dutchtown (Ascension) ..................................................................................................................................... 0 0.0

French Settlement (Livingston) ........................................................................................................................ 0 0.0

Raw data source: U.S. EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) database.

23650 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

7Through a two-year effort known as the Ozone

Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), the EPA

worked in partnership with the 37 easternmost

states and the District of Columbia, industry

representatives, academia, and environmental

groups to develop recommended strategies to

address transport of ozone-forming pollutants

across state boundaries.

On November 7, 1997, the EPA acted on OTAG’s

recommendations and issued a proposal (the

proposed NOX SIP call, 62 FR 60318) requiring 22

states and the District of Columbia to submit SIPs

addressing the regional transport of ozone. These

SIPs will decrease the transport of ozone across

state boundaries in the eastern half of the United

States by reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides (a

precursor to ozone formation known as NOX). The

EPA took final action on the NOX SIP call on

October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356). The EPA expects

the final NOX SIP call will assist many areas in

attaining the one-hour ozone standard. Louisiana

was a member of the OTAG, but was not included

in the NOX SIP call.

8To support the Governor’s request that EPA

consider an attainment date extension for the Baton

Rouge area based on transported air pollution, the

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

(LDEQ) submitted to EPA a report entitled,

‘‘Assessment of the Contribution of Emissions from

the Houston Area to Ozone Concentrations in the

Five-Parish Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area,’’

dated May 3, 2000, indicating that pollution

transported from Texas may have impeded

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in Baton

Rouge. A copy of this report can be found in the

docket for this proposed rulemaking.

9On July 2, 1999, EPA issued final approval of

Louisiana’s revised SIP for the Baton Rouge area,

which contained a contingency measures plan

using Emission Reductions Credits (‘‘ERCs’’) held in

escrow in Louisiana’s ERC ‘‘bank’’ (64 FR 35930).

On August 30, 1999, LEAN, the North Baton Rouge

Environmental Association, Save Our Lakes and

Ducks, and the Southern University Environmental

Law Society filed a petition for review in the United

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

challenging EPA’s July 2, 1999 SIP approval. In

response to the litigation, EPA performed a

preliminary investigation and became concerned

that Louisiana’s application of its ERC banking rule

might not be consistent with EPA regulations and

guidance. As a result, EPA requested a partial

voluntary remand to reconsider its July 2, 1999 final

approval of Louisiana’s contingency measures plan

for the Baton Rouge area. On October 19, 2000, the

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a Joint

Motion for a Partial Voluntary Remand in Louisiana

Environmental Action Network, et al. v. United

States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 99–

60570 (5th Cir.). EPA expects to propose further

action and/or rulemaking to address Louisiana’s

contingency measures plan before taking further

action on this notice.

Instead, Louisiana is seeking an

extension of its attainment date under

the second mechanism for obtaining an

extension of the attainment date: EPA’s

extension policy for areas which are

affected by downwind transport of

ozone and ozone precursors. This

extension policy reconciles section

181(b)(2) with other provisions of the

CAA to authorize attainment date

extensions for downwind transport

areas that can make appropriate

showings. The section that follows

discusses the extension policy in detail.

X. What Is EPA’s Policy Regarding

Extension of Attainment Dates for

Downwind Transport Areas?

A number of areas in the country that

have been classified as ‘‘moderate’’ or

‘‘serious’’ are affected by pollutants that

have traveled downwind from other

areas. For these downwind areas,

transport of pollutants from upwind

areas has interfered with their ability to

meet the ozone standard by the dates

prescribed by the Act. As a result, many

of these areas, such as Baton Rouge, find

themselves facing the prospect of being

reclassified, or ‘‘bumped up’’ to a higher

classification for failing to meet the

ozone standard by the specified date.

In consideration of these factors and

the realization that many areas are

unable to meet the mandated attainment

dates due to transport 7, on July 16,

1998, EPA issued a policy memorandum

entitled, ‘‘Guidance on Extension of Air

Quality Attainment Dates for Downwind

Transport Areas.’’ This policy outlines

the criteria by which the attainment

date for an area may be extended.

The extension policy offers an

opportunity for Louisiana to request an

extension of the attainment date for the

Baton Rouge area. This policy draws on

other provisions of the Act (beyond

CAA section 181(a)(5)) to authorize

attainment date extensions for

downwind transport areas.

Under the policy, EPA may extend the

attainment date for an area that: (1) Has

been identified as a downwind area

affected by transport from either an

upwind area in the same state with a

later attainment date or an upwind area

in another state that significantly

contributes to downwind nonattainment

(by ‘‘affected by transport,’’ EPA means

an area whose air quality is affected by

transport from an upwind area to a

degree that affects the area’s ability to

attain); (2) has submitted an approvable

attainment demonstration with any

necessary, adopted local measures and

with an attainment date that shows that

it will attain the one-hour standard no

later than the date that the reductions

are expected from upwind areas under

the final NOX SIP call and/or the

statutory attainment date for upwind

nonattainment areas, i.e., assuming the

boundary conditions reflecting those

upwind reductions; (3) has adopted all

applicable local measures required

under the area’s current classification

and any additional measures necessary

to demonstrate attainment, assuming the

reductions occur as required in the

upwind areas; and (4) has provided that

it will implement all adopted measures

as expeditiously as practicable, but not

later than the date by which the upwind

reductions needed for attainment will

be achieved.

XI. Is the Baton Rouge Area Eligible for

an Attainment Date Extension Under

the Extension Policy?

It is premature to say whether or not

the Baton Rouge area will qualify for an

attainment date extension under the

extension policy. We believe that the

area may be affected by upwind

transport. However, before the Baton

Rouge area can qualify for an attainment

date extension under the extension

policy, all the criteria specified in the

policy must be met.

On May 10, 2000, the Governor of

Louisiana submitted a letter to EPA

committing to meet the requirements of

the extension policy by August 31,

2001.8 (The Governor’s commitment

letter and EPA’s response to the letter

are included in the docket for this

proposed rulemaking.) The steps we

believe Louisiana will need to take in

order for us to consider extending the

Baton Rouge area attainment date under

the extension policy include:

1. Demonstrate that the Baton Rouge

area’s air quality is affected by transport

from (a) an upwind area in Louisiana

with a later attainment date, or (b) an

upwind area in another State, which

significantly contributes to Baton

Rouge’s continued ozone

nonattainment.

2. Submit to EPA an approvable

attainment demonstration by August 31,

2001. This demonstration must show

that the Baton Rouge area will attain as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

than the attainment date of the upwind

area.

3. Submit any additional local control

measures needed for expeditious

attainment. Any additional measures

must be adopted prior to August 31,

2001.

4. Submit proof that all applicable

local control measures required under

the serious classification have been

adopted. As part of this demonstration,

Louisiana’s August 31, 2001 SIP

submittal must include at least the

following:

(a) Any changes to Louisiana’s

Nonattainment New Source Review

program necessary to ensure that the

State’s rules meet EPA’s nonattainment

new source review requirements.

(b) Contingency measures that meet

the requirements of section 182(c)(9) of

the Act.9

(c) Any revisions to the vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program necessary to meet the

applicable federal I/M program

requirements. Any such changes must

be adopted prior to August 31, 2001.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23651

5. Provide that all newly adopted

control measures will be implemented

as expeditiously as practicable. All

measures must be implemented no later

than the date that the upwind

reductions needed for attainment will

be achieved.

We contemplate that, when we act to

approve such an area’s attainment

demonstration, we will, as necessary,

extend that area’s attainment date to the

date appropriate for that area in light of

the schedule for achieving the necessary

upwind reductions. The area would no

longer be subject to reclassification or

‘‘bump-up’’ for failure to attain by its

original attainment date under section

181(b)(2).

XII. What Progress Has Louisiana Made

To Meet the Extension Policy So That

an Attainment Date Extension Can Be

Granted?

A local task force comprised of

stakeholders has been formed and is

working closely with the LDEQ to

develop a submittal that meets the

requirements of the extension policy.

Modeling efforts are well underway, and

the State has solicited public input on

numerous potential control measures.

XIII. What Actions Has Louisiana

Taken To Improve Air Quality in the

Baton Rouge Area?

EPA has approved, and Louisiana has

implemented, VOC emission reductions

as part of the State’s 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plan (see 61 FR 54737, dated

October 22, 1996), and Post-1996 Rateof-Progress Plan (see 64 FR 35390, dated

July 2, 1999). In addition, Louisiana is

in the process of implementing a low

enhanced vehicle inspection and

maintenance program in the Baton

Rouge area, which should further

reduce VOC emissions. EPA has

proposed to conditionally approve the I/

M program (see 63 FR 71807, dated

December 30, 1998).

XIV. If We Finalize Our Proposed

Rulemaking Reclassifying the Baton

Rouge Area, What Would Be the Area’s

New Classification?

As stated previously, section

181(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that,

when an area is reclassified for failure

to attain, its reclassification must be the

higher of the next higher classification

or the classification applicable to the

area’s ozone design value at the time the

notice of reclassification is published in

the Federal Register. The official design

value of the Baton Rouge area at the

time of the proposed finding of failure

to attain is based on quality-assured

ozone monitoring data from 1997–1999.

This design value is 0.126 ppm, and the

classification of ‘‘marginal’’

nonattainment would be applicable to

it. By contrast, the next higher

classification for the Baton Rouge area is

‘‘severe’’ nonattainment. Since ‘‘severe’’

is a higher nonattainment classification

than ‘‘marginal,’’ under the statutory

scheme, the area would be reclassified

to severe nonattainment. Refer to Table

3 above.

XV. If the Baton Rouge Area Is

Reclassified to Severe, What Would Its

New Schedule Be?

If the Baton Rouge area is reclassified,

Louisiana would be required to submit

a SIP that adopts the severe area

requirements. Under section 181(a)(1) of

the Act, the new attainment deadline for

serious areas reclassified to severe

under section 181(b)(2) would be as

expeditious as practicable, but no later

than the date applicable to the new

classification, i.e., November 15, 2005.

If we reclassify the Baton Rouge area,

we must also address the schedule by

which Louisiana will be required to

submit a SIP revision meeting the severe

area requirements. We propose to have

Louisiana submit this SIP within one

year after a final action on the

reclassification is taken. If the

submission shows that the area can

attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS

sooner than the attainment date

established in the final reclassification

notice, we would adjust the attainment

date to reflect the earlier date, consistent

with the requirement in section

181(a)(1) that the NAAQS be attained as

expeditiously as practicable. We solicit

comments on this proposed schedule.

XVI. When Will We Make a Final

Decision Whether To Reclassify or

Grant an Extension to the Baton Rouge

Area?

We will review Louisiana’s proposed

SIP submittal during the State’s public

comment period. We expect to receive

the SIP submittal by August 31, 2001

and will publish thereafter a document

in the Federal Register to address the

approvability of the SIP submittal and

the Baton Rouge area’s eligibility for a

extension of its attainment date

pursuant to the extension policy. If we

propose approval, we would also

propose to extend the attainment date

for the Baton Rouge area to an

appropriate expeditious date. However,

if Louisiana fails to meet the

requirements of the extension policy by

August 31, 2001, we will finalize the

finding of failure to attain, and the

Baton Rouge area will be reclassified to

severe ozone nonattainment.

XVII. Administrative Requirements

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. This proposed action merely

approves state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed 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

approve pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4). This rule also does

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 rule will 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

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, 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

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because

it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

23652 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. The proposed

rule does not include environmental

justice related issues that require

consideration under Executive Order

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

As required by section 3 of Executive

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,

1996), in issuing this proposed rule,

EPA has taken the necessary steps to

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. The EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: April 19, 2001.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 01–11563 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258

[FRL–6976–7]

RIN 2090–AA18

Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for

Yolo County Landfill, Davis, Yolo

County, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for comment on

proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is today proposing a sitespecific rule to implement a project

under the Project XL program, an EPA

initiative to allow regulated entities to

achieve better environmental results at

decreased costs. Today’s proposal

would provide regulatory flexibility

under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, for

the Yolo County Landfill, Davis, Yolo

County, California.

Yolo County has proposed a project

under EPA’s Project XL to use certain

bioreactor techniques at its municipal

solid waste landfill (MSWLF),

specifically the addition of bulk or noncontainerized liquid wastes into the

landfill to accelerate the biodegradation

of landfill waste and decrease the time

it takes for the waste to stabilize in the

landfill. The principal objective of this

bioreactor XL project is to evaluate

waste decomposition rates when

leachate is supplemented with other

liquid additions. In order to carry out

this project, Yolo County would need

relief from certain requirements in EPA

regulations which set forth operating

criteria for MSWLFs and preclude the

addition of bulk or non-containerized

liquid wastes. To achieve the objectives

of the project, today’s proposed rule

would provide regulatory flexibility

from Liquid Restrictions, which

precludes the addition of bulk or noncontainerized liquid wastes. The Yolo

County bioreactor project is one of

several bioreactor XL projects currently

being considered by EPA.

DATES: Public Comments: Comments on

the proposed rule must be received on

or before June 8, 2001.

Public Hearing: Commentors may

request a public hearing by May 23,

2001 during the public comment period.

Commentors must state the basis for

requesting the public hearing. If EPA

determines there is sufficient reason to

hold a public hearing, it will do so no

later than May 30, 2001, during the last

week of the public comment period.

Requests for a public hearing should be

submitted to the address listed below. If

a public hearing is scheduled, the date,

time, and location will be made

available through a Federal Register

notice or by contacting Sherri Walker at

the EPA Headquarters office (see

ADDRESSES section).

ADDRESSES: Request to Speak at

Hearing: Requests to speak at a hearing

should be mailed to the RCRA

Information Center Docket Clerk

(5303G), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Please send an

original and two copies of all comments

and refer to Docket Number F–2000–

YCLP–FFFFF. A copy should also be

sent to Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. (1802),

Washington DC 20460.

Comments: Written comments should

be mailed to the RCRA Information

Center Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,

DC 20460. Please submit an original and

3 copies of written comments as well as

an original and 3 copies of any

attachments, enclosures, or other

documents referenced in the comments

and refer to Docket Number F–2000–

YCLP–FFFFF. A copy should also be

sent to Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (1802)

Washington DC 20460.

EPA will also accept comments

electronically. Comments should be

addressed to the following Internet

address: walker.sherri@epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/6.1/8

format file and avoid the use of special

characters or any form of encryption.

Electronic comments will be transferred

into a paper version for the official

record. EPA will attempt to clarify

electronic comments if there is an

apparent error in transmission.

Viewing Project Materials: A docket

containing the proposed rule,

supporting materials, and public

comments is available for public

inspection and copying at the RCRA

Information Center (RIC) located at

Crystal Gateway, 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway, First Floor, Arlington,

Virginia. The RIC is open from 9:00 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding federal holidays. The public

is encouraged to phone in advance to

review docket materials. Appointments

can be scheduled by phoning the Docket

Office at (703) 603–9230. Refer to RCRA

Docket Number F–2000–YCLP–FFFFF.

The public may copy a maximum of 100

pages from any regulatory docket at no

charge. Additional copies are $0.15 per

page. Project materials are also available

for review for today’s action on the

world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/

projectxl/.

A duplicate copy of the docket is

available for inspection and copying at

the regional office in which the landfill

project is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Ms.

Sherri Walker at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave. N.W. (1802), Washington DC

20460, (202) 260–4295,

walker.sherri@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed rulemaking would amend 40

CFR 258.28(a) by adding a new 40 CFR

258.28(a)(3) and will create a new

section, 40 CFR 258.41. Section

258.28(a) currently prohibits application

of bulk or noncontainerized liquid

waste into a municipal solid waste

landfill unit unless: (1) The waste is

household waste other than septic

waste; or (2) leachate or gas condensate

derived from the landfill unit and the