Document ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0776-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: LA033.01 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Louisiana; Baton Rouge Redesignation to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard. 20 pages r8w
Posted Date: 2011-08-30T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53853-53872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21728]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0776; FRL-9456-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Louisiana; Baton Rouge 
Ozone Nonattainment Area: Redesignation to Attainment for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a request from the State of 
Louisiana to redesignate the Baton Rouge, Louisiana moderate 1997 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard. In proposing to approve this request, EPA also proposes to 
approve as a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP), 
a 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan with a 2022 Motor Vehicle 
Emissions Budget (MVEB) for the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area (BRNA or 
BR). EPA is also proposing to approve revisions to the Louisiana SIP 
that meets the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
requirements (for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs)) for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standard 
requirements, and to approve a state rule establishing a maintenance 
plan contingency measure. In prior, separate rulemaking actions, EPA 
finalized its action to terminate the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding 
section 185 penalty fee requirement. EPA has proposed to approve the 
Control Technique Guideline Rules (CTG Rules Update) that are necessary 
for redesignation. We are proposing that if the CTG Rules Update is 
finalized, the area will have a fully approved SIP that meets all of 
its applicable 1997 8-hour requirements and 1-hour anti-backsliding 
requirements under section 110 and Part D of the Federal Clean Air Act 
(CAA or Act) for purposes of redesignation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2010-0776, by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select 
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please 
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are 
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except 
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries 
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0776. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute.

[[Page 53854]]

Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by 
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please 
make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your 
visit. There will be a fee of 15 cents per page for making photocopies 
of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA 
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal, which is part of the EPA record, is also 
available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below 
during official business hours by appointment: Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra Rennie, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7367; 
fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address rennie.sandra@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' means EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?
II. What is the background for these actions?
    A. What are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
    B. What is ozone and why do we regulate it?
    C. What is the background for the Baton Rouge area under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS?
    D. What is the background for the BRNA under the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS?
III. What are the impacts of the court decisions on EPA's phase 1 
and 2 implementation rules upon the BRNA redesignation request?
    A. Summary of the Court Decisions
    B. Summary of EPA's Analysis of the Impact of the Court 
Decisions on the BRNA Area
    1. Requirements under the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard
    2. Requirements under the One-Hour Ozone Standard
IV. What are the CAA criteria for redesignation?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the state's redesignation request and 
maintenance plan and what is the basis for EPA's proposed actions?
    A. Has the BRNA attained the ozone NAAQS?
    1. Attainment of the 8-Hour NAAQS
    2. Attainment of the 1-Hour NAAQS
    B. Has the state of Louisiana met all applicable requirements of 
section 110 and part D of the CAA and does the BRNA have a fully 
approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA for purposes of 
redesignation to attainment?
    1. The BRNA Has Met All Requirements of Section 110 and Part D 
of the CAA Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation for the 8-Hour 
NAAQS
    a. Section 110 and General SIP Requirements
    b. Part D SIP Requirements
    (i) Has the BRNA met the part D nonattainment requirements under 
the 1-hour ozone standard?
    (ii) South Coast Anti-Backsliding Measures
    (iii) Part D SIP Requirements Under 1997 8-Hour Standard: Part 
D, subpart 2 applicable SIP requirements
    (iv) Section 176 Conformity Requirements
    (v) NSR Requirements
    (vi) Section 182(a)(1) Inventory Requirements
    2. The BRNA Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the 
CAA
    C. Are the air quality improvements in the BRNA nonattainment 
area due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting 
from the implementation of state and federal regulations and other 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions?
    1. Emissions Reductions as Shown by Emissions Inventory Data
    2. Impact of Emissions Controls Implementation: Trend Analysis
    3. Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Controls Implemented
    a. Reasonably Available Control Techniques
    b. ROP Plans and Attainment Demonstration Plan
    c. NOX Control Rules
    d. Federal Emission Control Measures
    D. Does the BRNA have a fully approvable maintenance plan 
pursuant to section 175A of the CAA?
    1. What is required in an ozone maintenance plan?
    2. What is the attainment inventory for the BRNA?
    3. Has the state of Louisiana committed to maintain the ozone 
monitoring system in the BRNA?
    4. Has the state demonstrated maintenance in the BRNA?
    5. What is the contingency plan for the BRNA?
    a. Verification of Continued Attainment
    b. Contingency Plan
    c. Controls to Remain In Effect
VI. What is EPA's evaluation of the BR area's motor vehicle 
emissions budgets?
    A. What are the transportation requirements for approvable 
MVEBs?
    B. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination?
    C. Is the MVEB approvable?
VII. What are EPA's proposed actions?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?

    EPA is proposing to take several related actions pursuant to the 
Act for the BRNA moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, 
consisting of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and 
West Baton Rouge Parishes in Louisiana. EPA is proposing to find that 
the BRNA has met the requirements for redesignation under section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, and is therefore proposing to approve a 
request from the State of Louisiana to redesignate the BRNA to 
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to 
approve, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, the area's 1997 8-hour 
ozone maintenance plan as a revision to the Louisiana SIP; to approve 
the plan's associated 2022 MVEB; to approve additional submissions to 
meet applicable VOC and NOX RACT requirements; and to 
approve a State Rule revision that establishes a

[[Page 53855]]

contingency measure for the maintenance plan. In a separate rulemaking, 
EPA has finalized an action to terminate CAA section 185 penalty fee 
requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard. (July 7, 2011, 76 FR 
39775). EPA is proposing to find that the BR area will satisfy all 
moderate area requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and severe 
area 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements applicable for purposes 
of the area's redesignation for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard once the 
CTG Rule Update is finalized. A fuller discussion of how the BRNA met 
these requirements is discussed in detail later in this document. The 
Technical Support Document (TSD), for this action also provides further 
information on how the BRNA area satisfies the 8-hour moderate area 
requirements and 1-hour severe area requirements for anti-backsliding 
purposes.
    Based upon the above, EPA is proposing to approve the State of 
Louisiana's request, submitted on August 31, 2010, and supplemented on 
February 14, 2011, through the Louisiana Department of Environmental 
Quality (LDEQ), to redesignate the BRNA to attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard.

II. What is the background for these actions?

A. What are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

    Section 109 of the Act requires EPA to establish NAAQS for 
pollutants that ``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public 
health and welfare,'' and to develop a primary and secondary standard 
for each NAAQS. The primary standard is designed to protect human 
health with an adequate margin of safety, and the secondary standard is 
designed to protect public welfare and the environment. EPA has set 
NAAQS for six common air pollutants, referred to as criteria 
pollutants: Carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate 
matter, and sulfur dioxide. These standards present state and local 
governments with the minimum air quality levels they must meet to 
comply with the Act. Also, these standards provide information to 
residents of the United States about the air quality in their 
communities. A State's SIP addresses these requirements, as required by 
section 110 and other provisions of the Act. The SIP is a set of air 
pollution regulations, control strategies, other means or techniques, 
and technical analyses developed by the state, to ensure that the state 
meets the NAAQS.

B. What is ozone and why do we regulate it?

    Ozone, a gas composed of three oxygen atoms, at the ground level is 
generally not emitted directly by sources such as from a vehicle's 
exhaust or an industrial smokestack; rather, ground level ozone is 
produced by a chemical reaction between nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and VOCs in the presence of sunlight and high ambient 
temperatures. NOX and VOCs are referred to as precursors of 
ozone. Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, 
and chemical solvents all contain NOX and VOCs. Urban areas 
tend to have high concentrations of ground-level ozone, but areas 
without significant industrial activity and with relatively low 
vehicular traffic are also subject to increased ozone levels because 
wind carries ozone and its precursors many miles from the sources. The 
Act establishes a process for air quality management through the NAAQS.
    Repeated exposure to ozone pollution may cause lung damage. Even at 
very low concentrations, ground-level ozone triggers a variety of 
health problems including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and 
increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and 
bronchitis. It can also have detrimental effects on plants and 
ecosystems.

C. What is the background for the Baton Rouge area under the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS?

    EPA first designated the Baton Rouge area as an ozone nonattainment 
area in 1978. 43 FR 8964, 8998 (March 3, 1978). The BR 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area contains five parishes: East Baton Rouge; West Baton 
Rouge; Ascension; Iberville; and Livingston Parishes (40 CFR 81.319). 
In 1991, the BR area was designated nonattainment by operation of law 
and EPA classified the BR area as a ``serious'' ozone nonattainment 
area with a statutory attainment deadline of November 15, 1999. 56 FR 
56694 (November 6, 1991). EPA approved the serious attainment 
demonstration SIP and its associated elements, e.g., attainment Motor 
Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB), the Reasonably Available Control 
Measures (RACM) demonstration, on July 2, 1999. See 64 FR 35930. The BR 
area, however, did not attain by the serious area statutory deadline of 
November 15, 1999. Before this deadline however, EPA had issued a 
guidance memorandum that allowed an area to retain its existing 
classification and receive a later attainment deadline if the EPA found 
that area met all of its existing classification requirements, approved 
a demonstration that the area would attain but for the transport from 
another area, and approved the attainment demonstration SIP with its 
associated elements. See EPA's ``Guidance on Extension of Attainment 
Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' (the Extension Policy) (Richard D. 
Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation) July 16, 
1998. On October 2, 2002, EPA approved the revised attainment 
demonstration SIP and its associated elements, found the area met all 
of the serious area requirements, found there was transport from Texas 
affecting the BR area reaching attainment, and extended the attainment 
date for the BR area to November 15, 2005, without reclassifying the 
area from serious to severe, consistent with the policy. 67 FR 61786 
(October 2, 2002).
    On December 11, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit vacated EPA's attainment date extension policy, which had been 
applied to extend the 1-hour ozone attainment deadline for the Baton 
Rouge area without reclassifying the area. Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 
735 (5th Cir. 2002). Thereupon EPA on April 24, 2003, withdrew the 
action extending the attainment deadline for Baton Rouge, finalized its 
finding that the area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the 
serious area deadline, and reclassified the Baton Rouge area by 
operation of law, to severe nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 
standard. See 68 FR 20077.\1\ As a result of its reclassification to 
severe, the State was required, among other things, to submit by June 
23, 2004, a new 1-hour severe attainment demonstration SIP with an 
attainment date of November 15, 2005, with a 25 ton per year major 
stationary source threshold, additional reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) rules for sources subject to the new lower major 
stationary source

[[Page 53856]]

threshold, a new source review (NSR) offset requirement of at least 1.3 
to 1, a rate of progress in emission reductions of ozone precursors of 
at least 3 percent of baseline emissions per year from November 15, 
1999, until the attainment year, additional transportation control 
measures (TCMs) needed to offset growth in emissions due to growth in 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and a fee requirement for major 
stationary sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen 
oxides (NOx) should the area fail to attain by 2005. The 
state was required to implement the EPA-triggered failure-to-attain 
contingency measures, submit a replacement for, i.e., backfill for, the 
triggered failure-to-attain contingency measures, and to meet the 
remaining severe area requirements under section 182(d) of the Act. The 
State submitted severe area rules that addressed the 25 tpy and major 
source offset requirements,\2\ a VMT offset analysis, and a substitute 
contingency measure to replace the serious area contingency measure 
that was previously approved into the serious area attainment 
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \2\ However, the State subsequently reversed these rules when 
the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon reclassification to severe, under section 211(k) of the Act, 
the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG) was to be required in the BRNA 
one year after the effective date of the reclassification. The 
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the City of Baton Rouge, 
and the Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge all formally requested a waiver 
and/or delay of implementation of the RFG requirement in the Baton 
Rouge severe ozone nonattainment area. EPA denied these requests. The 
City and the Chamber filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The parties filed a joint motion for a 
voluntary remand to EPA to allow it to reconsider its decision in light 
of new information. On August 2, 2004, the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals approved the joint motion, remanding the matter to EPA and 
staying the litigation and enforcement of the RFG requirement for the 
BRNA during the remand. The Court's stay of enforcement of the RFG 
requirement in the BRNA currently remains in effect.
    On February 10, 2010 EPA determined that the BRNA area was 
attaining the 1-hour ozone standard based on quality-assured, certified 
data for the 2006-2008 ozone monitoring seasons. This determination 
suspended the 1-hour attainment demonstration requirement, 1-hour rate 
of progress requirement, the 1-hour contingency measures, and other SIP 
planning requirements related to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 
See 75 FR 6570. Lastly, on July 7, 2011, EPA finalized its action to 
terminate the CAA section 185 penalty fee requirements for the Baton 
Rouge 1-hour ozone standard. For a more detailed rationale, see our 
proposed and final actions at 76 FR 17368 and 76 FR 39775.

D. What is the background for the BRNA under the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS?

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard 
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), which is more protective than the 
previous 1-hour ozone standard (62 FR 38855).\3\ The EPA published the 
1997 8-hour ozone designations and classifications on April 30, 2004 
(69 FR 23858). The BRNA was designated nonattainment and initially 
classified as marginal. The area includes five parishes (counties): 
Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton 
Rouge (these constitute the former 1-hour ozone nonattainment area). 
The effective date of designation for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was 
June 15, 2004. Under the marginal nonattainment designation, the latest 
attainment date for the BRNA was June 15, 2007. The BRNA did not 
monitor attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007 
deadline, based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient 
air quality monitoring data for the 2004-2006 ozone seasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised 
8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed 
to set the level of the primary 8-hour ozone standard within the 
range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm, rather than at 0.075 ppm. EPA 
anticipates that by August 2011 it will have completed 
reconsideration of the standard and thereafter will proceed with 
designations. The actions addressed in today's proposed rulemaking 
relate only to redesignation for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 
EPA's actions with respect to this new standard do not affect EPA's 
action here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA determined that the BRNA had failed to attain the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment deadline and 
the area was reclassified by operation of law as a moderate 1997 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment area, effective April 21, 2008 (73 FR 15087). This 
determination was based on ambient air quality data from the 2004-2006 
monitoring period. In a subsequent rulemaking (September 9, 2010, 75 FR 
54778) EPA determined that (based on monitoring data for 2006-2009 
monitoring periods and preliminary 2010 data) the BRNA has since 
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Recent certified air quality 
data for 2010 indicate that the BRNA continues to attain the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. See Section V.A.
    The deadline for submission of requirements to meet the area's new 
8-hour moderate nonattainment area classification was January 1, 2009 
(73 FR 14391). The LDEQ, on December 14, 2009, submitted a request that 
EPA determine that the BRNA was monitoring attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. As stated earlier, EPA finalized a determination 
of attainment on September 9, 2010. This determination suspended the 
requirement for a 1997 8-hour attainment demonstration, 8-hour rate of 
progress plan and 8-hour contingency measures. (See 75 FR 54778). On 
August 31, 2010, the state submitted a request for redesignation to 
attainment. As stated previously, the request included a maintenance 
plan with associated MVEB.

III. What are the impacts of the court decisions on EPA's phase 1 and 2 
implementation rules upon the BRNA redesignation request?

A. Summary of the Court Decisions

    The following sets forth EPA's views on the effect of the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rulings on this proposed 
redesignation action. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not 
believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to 
this redesignation action or prevent EPA from proposing or ultimately 
finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 
22, 2006, June 8, 2007, and July 10, 2009, decisions impose no 
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to 
attainment, because even in light of the court's decisions, 
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation 
provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation 
requests.
    EPA published a first phase rule governing implementation of the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 
23951). The Phase 1 Rule addresses classifications for the 1997 8-hour 
NAAQS and for revocation for the 1-hour NAAQS; how anti-backsliding 
principles will ensure continued progress toward attainment of the 1997 
8-hour NAAQS; attainment dates; and the timing of emissions reductions 
needed for attainment. The Phase 1 Rule revoked the 1-hour ozone 
standard. The Phase 1 Rule also provided that 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment areas are required to adopt and implement ``applicable 
requirements'' according to the area's classification under the 1-hour 
ozone

[[Page 53857]]

standard for anti-backsliding purposes. See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(i). On May 
26, 2005, we determined that an area's 1-hour designation and 
classification as of June 15, 2004 would dictate what 1-hour 
obligations remain as ``applicable requirements'' under the Phase 1 
Rule. 40 CFR 51.900(f). (70 FR 30592). As discussed previously, the 
Baton Rouge area's classification under the 1-hour standard as of June 
15, 2004 was ``severe.''
    On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia vacated EPA's Phase 1 Rule in South Coast Air Quality 
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 
2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the Court 
clarified that the Phase 1 rule was vacated only with regard to those 
parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. See 489 F.3d 
1245 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1065 (2008). By limiting 
the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour 
standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 rule that 
had not been successfully challenged. The June 8, 2007 opinion 
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly 
failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas 
under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) 
Nonattainment area new source review (NSR) requirements based on an 
area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) section 185 penalty 
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas that fail to 
attain the 1-hour standard by the 1-hour attainment date; and (3) 
measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) 
of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further 
progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS or for failure to attain 
that NAAQS; and (4) the court clarified that the Court's reference to 
conformity requirements was limited to requiring the continued use of 
1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were 
available for 8-hour conformity determinations.
    EPA published a second rule governing implementation of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard (Phase 2 Rule) on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 
as revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31727). The Phase 2 Rule addressed, 
among other things, the Clean Data Policy as codified in 40 CFR 51.918. 
The Court upheld the Clean Data Policy, agreeing with the Tenth Circuit 
that EPA's interpretation of the Act was reasonable. NRDC v. EPA, 571 
F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th 
Cir. 1996).

B. Summary of EPA's Analysis of the Impact of the Court Decisions on 
the BRNA Area

1. Requirements under the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard
    For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the BRNA ozone nonattainment 
area was originally classified as marginal nonattainment under subpart 
2 of the CAA and reclassified to moderate on March 21, 2008 (73 FR 
15087). The June 8, 2007, opinion clarifies that the Court did not 
vacate the Phase 1 Rule's provisions with respect to classifications 
for areas under subpart 2. The Court's decision, therefore, upholds 
EPA's classifications for those areas classified under subpart 2 for 
the eight-hour ozone standard, and all eight-hour ozone requirements 
for these areas remain in place.
2. Requirements Under the One-Hour Ozone Standard
    In its June 8, 2007, decision, the Court limited its vacatur so as 
to uphold those provisions of EPA's anti-backsliding requirements that 
were not successfully challenged. Therefore, an area must meet the 
anti-backsliding requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900, et seq.; 70 FR 30592, 
30604 (May 26, 2005), which apply by virtue of the area's 
classification for the one-hour ozone NAAQS. As set forth in more 
detail below, the area must also address several additional anti-
backsliding provisions identified by the Court in its decisions. We 
address later on in this notice how the 1-hour anti-backsliding 
obligations (as interpreted and directed by the court) are met in the 
context of a redesignation action for the 1997 8-hour NAAQS.

IV. What are the CAA criteria for redesignation?

    The Act sets forth the requirements for redesignating a 
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation provided that (1) The 
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable 
NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable 
implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k); (3) the 
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air 
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan 
for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and (5) 
the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to 
the area under CAA section 110 and part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing 
redesignation requests in the following documents:
    1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' 
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990.
    2. ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
    3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
    4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment'', Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
    5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response 
to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
    6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone 
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas'', Memorandum from G.T. 
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
    7. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas 
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and 
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On 
or After November 15, 1992'', Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
    8. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for 
Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
    9. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for

[[Page 53858]]

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and
    10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and 
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

V. What is EPA's analysis of the state's redesignation request and 
maintenance plan and what is the basis for EPA's proposed actions?

A. Has the BRNA attained the ozone NAAQS?

    EPA has previously determined that that the BRNA ozone 
nonattainment area has attained both the 1- hour and 1997 8-hour ozone 
standards. As set forth below, data available subsequent to those 
determinations shows that the area continues to attain both standards.
1. Attainment of the 8-Hour NAAQS
    EPA determined that the BRNA area was attaining the 1997 8-hour 
standard based on complete quality-assured, certified data for the 
2006-2009 ozone monitoring seasons. For a more detailed rationale, see 
our final action at 75 FR 54778 (September 9, 2010). Since that time, 
complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the 2010 
calendar year have become available that show the area is still 
attaining the 1997 8-hour standard. Draft air quality monitoring data 
\4\ indicate the area is still attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard. The fourth high values for 8-hour ozone for 2010, and the 3-
year average of these values (i.e., design value), are summarized in 
Table 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/DIVISIONS/Assessment/AirFieldServices/AmbientAirMonitoringProgram/AirMonitoringData.aspx.

     Table 1--BRNA Area, Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values Data Summary (ppm) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            4th Highest daily max                 Design values
                                             ---------------------------------------------------    three year
                    Site                                                                             averages
                                                    2008             2009             2010      ----------------
                                                                                                    2008-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaquemine (22-047-0009)....................            0.076            0.071            0.074            0.073
Carville (22-047-0012)......................            0.073            0.076            0.072            0.073
Dutchtown (22-005-0004).....................            0.074            0.074            0.078            0.075
Baker (22-033-1001).........................            0.071            0.071            0.075            0.072
LSU (22-033-0003)...........................            0.072            0.084            0.080            0.078
Grosse Tete (22-047-0007)...................            0.071            0.070            0.074            0.071
Port Allen (22-121-0001)....................            0.072            0.072            0.071            0.071
Pride (22-033-0013).........................            0.074            0.072            0.071            0.072
French Settlement (22-063-0002).............            0.075            0.075            0.076            0.075
Capitol (22-033-0009).......................            0.067            0.076            0.076            0.073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, design value calculations for the 8-hour ozone standard are based on a
  rolling three-year average of the annual 4th highest values (40 CFR part 50, Appendix I).

    In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance 
plan, Louisiana has committed to continue monitoring in this area in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
    Should the area violate the 1997 8-hour ozone standard before the 
proposed redesignation is finalized, EPA will not proceed with final 
redesignation.
    The ozone monitoring network run by LDEQ in the BRNA has monitored 
attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on data from 2006 
through 2010. The 1997 ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts per million based on 
the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 
average ozone concentration measured at each monitor within an area. 
The 1997 ozone standard is considered to be attained at 84 parts per 
billion (ppb). The design value for the monitoring period 2006-2008 was 
0.083 ppb. For the monitoring period 2007-2009, it was 0.080 ppb. For 
the monitoring period 2008-2010, the design value for the BRNA was 
0.078 ppb. Draft data available for 2011 are consistent with continued 
attainment. In summary, the data show BRNA has attained the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS.
2. Attainment of the 1-Hour NAAQS
    On February 10, 2010 EPA determined that the BRNA area was 
attaining the 1-hour ozone standard based on quality-assured, certified 
data for the 2006-2008 ozone monitoring seasons. For a more detailed 
rationale, see our final action at 75 FR 6570. Since that time, 
complete, quality-assured and certified data that have become available 
showing the area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone standard as shown 
in Table 2.

          Table 2--Summary of 1-Hour Design Values Through 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Design value
                    Monitoring period                          (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-2008...............................................             114
2007-2009...............................................             114
2008-2010...............................................             107
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Has the state of Louisiana met all applicable requirements of 
section 110 and part D of the CAA and does the BRNA have a fully 
approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA for purposes of 
redesignation to attainment?

    EPA has reviewed the Louisiana SIP for the BR area with respect to 
SIP requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D 
of the Act for both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. EPA believes that, with the exception of certain 1-hour and 8-
hour ozone RACT requirements that will be acted on in a separate 
rulemaking, the Louisiana SIP

[[Page 53859]]

for the BRNA currently contains approved SIP measures that meet the 
part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. We are 
also proposing to find that the area meets the severe area 1-hour ozone 
and 1997 8-hour RACT requirements, provided that EPA finally approves 
in a separate rulemaking action the RACT requirements for the source 
categories covered by the CTG Rules Update. As discussed previously, 
EPA, in a separate final rulemaking, has approved the termination of 
the section 185 penalty fee requirement. The 1-hour and 1997 8-hour 
ozone applicable requirements are discussed in detail below.
    In evaluating a request for redesignation, EPA's long-held position 
is that those requirements expressly linked by statutory language with 
the attainment and reasonable further progress requirements do not 
apply if EPA determines that the area is attaining the standard. 
Additionally, it is EPA's interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) 
that applicable requirements of the Act that come due subsequent to the 
area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable 
until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a 
prerequisite to redesignation. Under this interpretation, to qualify 
for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must 
meet only the relevant requirements of the Act that come due prior to 
the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri); September 4, 1992 
Calcagni memorandum; September 17, 1993 Michael Shapiro memorandum, and 
60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann 
Arbor, MI).
    The applicable 1997 8-hour ozone standard requirements for the BRNA 
area are those for a moderate nonattainment area.
    Because EPA found the BRNA monitored attainment of the 1-hour and 
1997 8-hour standards (see citations in section V.A. above), it 
suspended the requirements for the state to submit certain planning 
SIPs related to attainment, including attainment demonstration 
requirements, the reasonably available control measures (RACM) 
requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the Act, the reasonable further 
progress (RFP) and attainment demonstration requirements of sections 
172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) of the Act, and the requirement for 
contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of the Act as long as the 
area continues to monitor attainment of those standards. These 
requirements will cease to apply upon redesignation to attainment.
    In addition, in the context of redesignations, EPA has interpreted 
requirements related to attainment as not applicable for purposes of 
redesignation. For example, in the General Preamble EPA stated that:

    [T]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring 
RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no 
longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible 
for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans * 
* * provides specific requirements for contingency measures that 
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for 
these areas. [General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' (General Preamble) 57 FR 
13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992)]

See also Calcagni memorandum dated Sept 4, 1992 (``The requirements for 
reasonable further progress and other measures needed for attainment 
will not apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for 
areas not attaining the standard.'' From the memorandum, section 
4.b.i.).
    In prior separate actions, EPA has finalized the termination of the 
requirement for the 1-hour ozone 185 fees program. EPA has proposed 
approval of the CTG Rules Update. EPA is thus proposing to find that 
upon final approval of the CTG Rules Update, the BRNA will have a fully 
approved SIP under 110(k) for redesignation purposes and it will meet 
all CAA 110 and part D applicable requirements for purposes of 
redesignation for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
1. The BRNA Has Met All Requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the 
CAA Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation for the 8-Hour NAAQS
a. Section 110 and General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA contains the general 
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the 
implementation plan submitted by a State must have been adopted by the 
State after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other 
things, must: Include enforceable emission limitations and other 
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the 
requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of 
appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to 
monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source 
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any 
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include 
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, NSR permit programs; include criteria 
for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and 
reporting; include provisions for air quality modeling; and provide for 
public and local agency participation in planning and emission control 
rule development.
    We believe that the section 110 elements that are not connected 
with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's 
attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of 
redesignation. A State remains subject to these requirements after an 
area is redesignated to attainment. Only the section 110 and part D 
requirements that are linked with a particular area's designation and 
classification are the relevant measures which we may consider in 
evaluating a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with 
EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity and oxygenated 
fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section 
184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed 
and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996)) and (62 FR 
24826 (May 7, 1997)); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking 
(61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996)); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 
FR 62748 (December 7, 1995)). See also the discussion on this issue in 
the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890 (June 19, 
2000)), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone redesignation 
(66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001)).
    We have reviewed Louisiana's SIP and have concluded that it meets 
the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent 
they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously 
approved provisions of the Louisiana SIP addressing section 110 
elements under the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 52.970-.999). In 
addition, EPA has proposed approval of a section 110(a)(2) 
Infrastructure SIP for PM2.5 and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. (April 
18, 2011, 76 FR 21682) Final action on the April 18, 2011 proposal is 
not required for purposes of redesignation.
b. Part D SIP Requirements
    EPA has reviewed the Louisiana SIP for the BRNA area with respect 
to SIP requirements applicable for purposes of

[[Page 53860]]

redesignation under part D of the Act for both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
and the1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes that the Louisiana SIP for 
the BRNA area contains approved SIP measures that meet the part D 
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has approved 
or proposed to approve all of the required Part D elements. We are 
proposing to find the NOX and VOC RACT requirements have 
been met as part of this redesignation action. The VOC RACT finding is 
contingent on our finalizing our proposed approval of the rules 
implementing RACT controls on the source categories covered by the CTG 
Rules Update. As discussed previously, we have finalized a separate 
action approving the termination of the 185 fee requirement. Upon final 
approval of the CTG Rules Update, the BRNA area will meet all of the 
requirements applicable to the area under part D for purposes of 
redesignation. The 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone applicable requirements 
are discussed in detail below.
(i) Has the BRNA met the part D nonattainment area requirements under 
the 1-hour ozone standard?
    The Baton Rouge 1-hour ozone nonattainment area was reclassified as 
severe for that standard, effective June 23, 2003. Thus, the 1-hour 
ozone standard requirements applicable to the area are those that apply 
to nonattainment areas classified as severe. Upon reclassification to 
severe, under section 211(k) of the Act, the use of reformulated 
gasoline also was to be required in the BRNA one year after the 
effective date of the reclassification. However, the state never 
implemented RFG in the BR area. As noted earlier, enforcement of the 
RFG requirement in the BRNA is currently stayed by court order. As 
such, the state has not relied on the RFG program in the past for 
emissions reduction and does not rely on RFG in its maintenance plan 
for attainment purposes. Since it is a program implemented by EPA and 
not by the State, we do not consider RFG a necessary requirement for 
redesignation. A detailed analysis of the relevant requirements and 
their status is provided below.
    The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-
hour ozone NAAQS requirements that continue to apply after revocation 
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. 
Section 51.905(a)(1) provides that:

    The area remains subject to the obligations to adopt and 
implement the applicable requirements defined in section 51.900(f), 
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section and 
except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

    Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005), 
states:

    Applicable requirements means for an area the following 
requirements to the extent such requirements apply or applied to the 
area for the area's classification under section 181(a)(1) of the 
CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS at the time of designation for the 8-hour 
NAAQS:
    (1) Reasonably available control technology (RACT).
    (2) Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M).
    (3) Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT.
    (4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.
    (5) Stage II vapor recovery.
    (6) Clean-fuel vehicle program under section 182(c)(4) of the 
CAA.
    (7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA.
    (8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic 
hours as provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.
    (9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the 
CAA.
    (10) TCMs under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA.
    (11) Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) provisions of section 
182(d)(1) of the CAA.
    (12) NOX requirements under section 182(f) of the 
CAA.
    (13) Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under 
section 51.905(a)(1)(ii).

    As explained earlier in this action, in addition to applicable 
requirements listed under section 51.900(f), the State must also comply 
with the additional 1-hour anti-backsliding requirements discussed in 
the Court's decisions in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 
EPA: (1) NSR requirements based on the area's 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment classification; (2) section 185 source penalty fees; (3) 
contingency measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 
182(c)(9) of the CAA for areas not making reasonable further progress 
toward attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS, or for failure to attain 
the NAAQS; and, (4) transportation conformity requirements for certain 
types of Federal actions.
    The following discusses how the applicable CAA requirements have 
been met in the BRNA.
    40 CFR 51.905 (1), (3), and (12). RACT, Major source applicability 
cut-offs for purposes of RACT, and NOX requirements under 
section 182(f) of the CAA. Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 of the CAA 
require areas that are classified as moderate or above for ozone 
nonattainment to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
requirements for sources that are subject to Control Techniques 
Guidelines (CTGs) issued by EPA and for ``major sources'' of volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which 
are ozone precursors. See 42 U.S.C. sections 7502(c)(1) and 7511a(b) 
and (f). RACT is defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a 
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control 
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and 
economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979). A CTG provides 
information on the available controls for a source category and 
provides a ``presumptive norm'' RACT. In this action, EPA is addressing 
RACT for both NOX and VOCs in the BR area for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, and for the 1-hour standard.
    The Phase 1 Rule provides that 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas 
designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS are required to 
adopt and implement ``applicable requirements'' according to the area's 
classification under the 1-hour ozone standard at the time of 
designation under the 8-hour standard (see 40 CFR 51.905(a)(i)). The BR 
area was classified as a severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS at the time of the 8-hour designation and an outstanding 
``applicable requirement'' for the BR area is VOC and NOX 
RACT. Louisiana previously adopted rules to address RACT requirements 
for all source categories covered by EPA CTGs that had been issued up 
to that time, and to address major sources at the serious area major 
source threshold of 50 tons per year (tpy). The reclassification of the 
area from serious to severe for the 1-hour ozone standard, on April 24, 
2003 (68 FR 20077), required Louisiana to ensure that RACT was in place 
on non-CTG sources down to 25 tpy. Louisiana has submitted SIP 
revisions to address the NOX and VOC RACT requirement for 
non-CTG sources down to 25 tpy for BR for purposes of the 1-hour ozone 
requirement and to address NOX and VOC RACT for the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. On June 15, 2005, Louisiana submitted rule revisions 
lowering the major source NOX and VOC applicability from 50 
to 25 tpy for purposes of non-CTG RACT. We approved these rule 
revisions as part of a larger package on July, 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977).
    For the 1997 8-hour ozone RACT requirements, according to EPA's 
Phase 2 Rule (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005), areas classified as 
moderate nonattainment or higher must submit a demonstration, as a 
revision to the SIP, that their current rules fulfill 1997 8-hour ozone 
RACT requirements for all

[[Page 53861]]

CTG categories and all major non-CTG sources. The State may either 
demonstrate the existing SIP approved RACT rules continue to be RACT or 
submit revised RACT rules (See EPA's Phase 2 Rule: 70 FR 71612, as 
further explained in a memo from William T. Harnett dated May 19, 2006, 
which is included in the docket). Since BR is classified as moderate 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, for purposes of meeting the 8-hour 
RACT requirement, the BR area must demonstrate RACT level controls for 
sources covered by a CTG document, and for each major non-CTG source.
    Louisiana has submitted several SIP revisions to address the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard RACT requirements for NOX and VOCs for 
BR. These revisions are being addressed by EPA through two actions.
    First, on June 20, 2009 and August 20, 2010, Louisiana submitted 
SIP revisions to control VOC emissions in response to CTGs issued in 
2006, 2007, and 2008. On March 17, 2011, we proposed to approve these 
SIP revisions, which we refer to as the CTG Rules Update (76 FR 14602). 
As part of the CTG Updates proposed rule, we also proposed approval, 
through parallel processing, of a revision proposed by Louisiana on 
January 20, 2011. If EPA issues a final approval of the rules addressed 
in the CTG Rules Update by the time this redesignation goes final, then 
Louisiana will have met for BR the requirement to adopt RACT rules for 
sources addressed in any newly issued CTGs.
    Second, we are proposing in this action to approve the RACT 
demonstration submitted by LDEQ on August 20, 2010, and a supplement on 
May 16, 2011, which provides an analysis demonstrating how the BR area 
meets RACT requirements for all other CTG and non-CTG sources through 
the currently SIP-approved RACT rules. EPA reviewed and evaluated 
LDEQ's RACT determination for both NOX and VOCs. This review 
and evaluation is provided in the RACT TSD which accompanies this 
action.
    The State submittal included among other things, the following 
components:
    (a) A RACT demonstration including adopted State rules, which have 
been federally approved, addressing RACT requirements for CTG and ACT 
source categories. See the RACT TSD for more information.
    (b) An analysis of RACT for all major sources not covered by a CTG 
or ACT and how these are controlled to meet RACT. This information was 
provided in the August 2010 submittal, and also in an Addendum to 
Appendix F dated May 16, 2011.
    To ensure RACT was in place for major sources, the State identified 
all sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 25 tons/
year of VOC in the BR 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The State 
provided a list of each major source in a source category covered by a 
CTG/ACT and the rules applicable to those major sources.
    The State's RACT SIP analysis was available for public comment 
prior to adoption by the State. For the RACT portion of its August 2010 
submittal, the State received a comment letter from EPA which was 
addressed in the adopted rulemaking with an amendment for the RACT 
analysis. EPA evaluated the following elements of LDEQ's RACT SIP 
submittal for the BR Area:
     State Rules Addressing NOX RACT Requirements 
and VOC RACT Requirements for sources Covered by a CTG/ACT.
     Potential Major VOC Emissions Sources possibly not covered 
by a CTG/ACT.
    EPA reviewed LDEQ's RACT analysis including the State's Rules and 
evaluation of major sources. Also, EPA reviewed LDEQ's emissions 
inventory database for potential sources missing from the LDEQ 
analysis. Based on this review, LDEQ's RACT analysis, including its 
identification of all sources requiring RACT, appeared to be thorough. 
Additional discussion of our review and evaluations is available in the 
TSD.
    In today's proposal, we are proposing that if we take final action 
to approve the CTG Rules Update, and determine in this final rule that 
the existing SIP-approved rules remain RACT, then Louisiana's SIP would 
meet the NOX and VOC RACT requirements for 8-hour ozone 
standard for all CTG categories and for major sources of NOX 
and VOCs. We are also proposing that based on our July 5, 2011 approval 
(76 FR 38977) of the lower major-source threshold of 25 tpy, that the 
state has met its outstanding 1-hour RACT obligation for the BR area. 
Additional detail is provided in the TSD.
    40 CFR 51.905 (2). Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M). The 
BRNA is required to implement a vehicle inspection and maintenance 
program in the five-parish area. EPA approved this program on September 
26, 2002 (67 FR 60594) and a revision to the program on November 13, 
2006 (71 FR 66113).
    40 CFR 51.905 (4). Rate of progress reductions. We approved the 
post-1996 ROP Plan and its associated MVEB and a revised 1990 base year 
emissions inventory on August 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930) for the BRNA 
serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. This plan covered the 3-year 
period between 1996 and1999, achieving 9 percent reductions no later 
than November 15, 1999. As discussed previously, ROP is not a required 
element for redesignation request. With the Clean Data determinations 
for the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone standards, EPA suspended the 
obligations to submit SIP provisions to meet the 1-hour and 8-hour Rate 
of Progress requirements. If EPA finalizes approval of this 
redesignation, these obligations will be terminated.
    40 CFR 51.905 (5) Stage II vapor recovery. EPA approved Louisiana 
Stage II Vapor Recovery rules for the BRNA on March 25, 1994 (59 FR 
14112).
    40 CFR 51.905 (6) Clean-Fuel Vehicle program under section 
182(c)(4) of the CAA. The State met this requirement with a substitute 
program, which we approved on July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38577). This program 
imposes controls beyond the Act's requirements (i.e., RACT) for storage 
tanks in the BRNA by requiring guide pole and stilling well controls on 
external floating roof tanks. The resultant long term emission 
reductions were greater than the Louisiana Clean Fuel Fleet program 
emission reductions in the ozone nonattainment area. We had previously 
approved a Clean Fuel Fleet program on December 22, 1995 (60 FR 54305).
    40 CFR 51.905 (7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) 
of the CAA. This is an extreme area requirement and therefore does not 
apply to the BRNA severe area.
    40 CFR 51.905 (8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during 
heavy traffic hours as provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA. 
This is an extreme area requirement and therefore does not apply to the 
BRNA severe area.
    40 CFR 51.905 (9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 
182(c)(1) of the CAA. EPA approved a Louisiana SIP revision for 
enhanced ambient monitoring on June 19, 1996 (61 FR 31037) as meeting 
section 182(c)(1) of the CAA. The monitoring network meets the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 58 and section 182(c)(1) for enhanced 
monitoring.
    40 CFR 51.905 (10) TCMs under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA. As 
required by the Clean Air Act section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), the 
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality demonstrated conformity 
of area transportation plans to the motor vehicle emissions budgets 
established in the BRNA Attainment Demonstration approved by EPA on 
October 2, 2002 (67 FR 61786).
    40 CFR 51.905 (11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions of 
section

[[Page 53862]]

182(d)(1) of the CAA. EPA approved the VMT Offset Analysis on November 
21, 2006 (71 FR 67308).
    40 CFR 51.905 (13) Attainment demonstration or alternative as 
provided under section 51.905(a)(1)(ii). Louisiana elected the option 
to submit an 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP to demonstrate 
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by the area's 8-hour ozone 
attainment date with associated MVEBs and an RACM analysis. The SIP was 
submitted to EPA on August 31, 2010. EPA has not acted on it. As 
discussed previously, EPA's long-held position is that an attainment 
demonstration with the RACM analysis is not an applicable requirement 
for purposes of evaluating an ozone redesignation request where the 
area is attaining the standard. (General Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See 
also 40 CFR 51.918. Upon redesignation, the obligation is terminated. 
Moreover EPA has determined that the area has attained the 1-hour and 
1997 8-hour ozone standards, and thus the area's obligation to submit 
either attainment demonstration has been suspended. See Our Clean Data 
Determinations at 75 FR 6570 and 75 FR 54778. Upon our final approval 
of the redesignation request the requirement to have an approved 1-hour 
and 8-hour attainment demonstration will be terminated.
(ii) South Coast Anti-Backsliding Measures
    NSR. EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not 
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to 
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the 
standard without a part D NSR program in effect, since PSD requirements 
will apply after redesignation. The rationale for this view is 
described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation dated October 14, 1994, titled, ``Part D New 
Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to 
Attainment.'' The State's PSD program becomes effective in the area 
immediately upon redesignation to attainment. \5\ Louisiana has 
demonstrated that BRNA will be able to maintain the standard without a 
part D NSR program in effect, and therefore, Louisiana need not have a 
fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the 
redesignation request. Consequently, EPA concludes that an approved NSR 
program is not an applicable requirement for purposes of redesignation, 
where it is not required for maintenance, as is the case here. See the 
more detailed explanations of this issue in the following rulemakings: 
Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468 (March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, 
Kentucky (66 Fr 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan 
(61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If the State believes that a rule change is required, it 
must adopt and submit it to EPA for approval as a SIP revision. Upon 
EPA's approval of the SIP revision submittal, PSD applies in the 
area.
    \6\ The interpretation that NNSR does not apply to areas 
designated attainment for a NAAQS and thus is not needed in the SIP 
for such an area is consistent with Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3rd 527, 
at 536 (``It would make little sense for [NSR] to be included in the 
post-attainment SIP, as the Clean Air Act * * * explicitly states 
that attainment area SIPs must include a PSD program.''). As the DC 
Circuit held in Alabama Power, 636 F.3d 323, at 365 (D.C. Cir. 
1979), the applicability of PSD is geographically limited by the 
language of CAA section 165(a), which states that unless specified 
conditions are met, ``[n]o major emitting facility * * * may be 
constructed in any area to which this part [Part C] applies'' 
(emphasis added). Thus, with respect to ozone, EPA's interpretation 
is that areas designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour standard are 
subject to section 165(a), not the 172(c)(5) SIP requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 185 fees. On July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39755), EPA finalized 
approval of a determination to terminate the CAA section 1-hour ozone 
185 penalty fees program requirement for the BRNA. EPA's rulemaking 
cited a January 5, 2010 guidance document regarding section 185, but 
the rulemaking proposal also set forth separately in detail EPA's 
proposed rationale for terminating 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding 185 
requirements when EPA determines that an area has attained the 1-hour 
standard and when that attainment is due to permanent and enforceable 
requirements. 76 FR 17368 (March 29, 2011). EPA proposed and explained 
both its interpretation of the termination requirements, derived from 
statutory criteria for redesignation, and the application of this 
interpretation to the specific circumstances of the Baton Rouge area. 
EPA explained that the Baton Rouge area met the core redesignation 
requirements that would have been applicable were EPA still 
redesignating areas for the 1-hour standard--a process EPA discontinued 
six years ago because it was unnecessary and not consistent with 
revocation of the 1-hour standard.
    EPA published notice of its proposed termination and EPA's 
underlying rationale in the Federal Register, and established a 30-day 
period for public comments to be submitted. No adverse comments were 
received; however, commenters submitted 13 sets of comments in support 
of EPA's proposal.
    On June 23, 2011, EPA signed a final rulemaking that terminated the 
1-hour anti-backsliding section 185 requirements for the Baton Rouge 
area. Subsequently, on July 1, 2011, the DC Circuit issued a ruling in 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 10-1056 (D.C. Cir), 
vacating the guidance document. The Court's opinion, however, did not 
address the rationale or circumstances pertaining to the termination of 
the 1-hour anti-backsliding 185 requirements for any area including the 
Baton Rouge area. In the case of Baton Rouge, EPA, after providing for 
notice and comment on its proposed rationale and how it applies to the 
facts of Baton Rouge, determined that the area has attained the 1-hour 
ozone standard, and that this attainment is due to permanent and 
enforceable emissions reductions. In its proposed rulemaking, EPA 
explained how and why these findings justify termination of the section 
185 requirements for Baton Rouge. See 76 FR 17368. EPA believes that 
the procedure and substance of the Baton Rouge rulemaking are outside 
the scope of the agency action of which the Court disapproved in its 
July 1 ruling, and that therefore the Baton Rouge termination 
determination survives and withstands the Court's ruling regarding 
EPA's guidance.
    In its Baton Rouge proposal, EPA proposed its interpretation of the 
statutory requirements. EPA stated its belief that a state could meet 
its 185 1-hour anti-backsliding obligations through a SIP revision 
containing either the fee program prescribed in section 185, or an 
equivalent alternative program. It stated: ``EPA believes that an 
alternative program may be acceptable if it is consistent with the 
principles of section 172(e) of the CAA, which allows EPA through 
rulemaking to accept alternative programs that are ``not less 
stringent'' where EPA has revised the NAAQS to make it less stringent. 
EPA explained that in its Phase 1 ozone implementation rule for the 
1997 ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951 April 30, 2004), EPA determined that 
although section 172(e) does not directly apply where EPA has 
strengthened the NAAQS, as it did in 1997, it was reasonable to apply 
the same principle for the transition from the 1-hour NAAQS to the 1997 
8-hour NAAQS. 76 FR 17369-70. As part of applying the principle in 
section 172(e) for purposes of the transition from the 1-hour standard 
to the 1997 8-hour standard, EPA went on to state that it would

[[Page 53863]]

''consider alternative programs to satisfy the section 185 fee 
program SIP revision requirement. States choosing to adopt an 
alternative program to the section 185 fee program must demonstrate 
that the alternative program is no less stringent than the otherwise 
applicable section 185 fee program and EPA must approve such 
demonstration after notice and comment rulemaking.''

    In the Baton Rouge proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed that if it 
determined that the area is attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, based on 
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, the area's existing SIP 
could be considered an adequate alternative program. EPA explained that 
under these circumstances, the Baton Rouge area's existing SIP 
measures, in conjunction with other enforceable Federal measures, would 
be adequate to achieve attainment, which is the purpose of the section 
185 program. EPA stated that ``the section 185 fee program is an 
element of an area's attainment demonstration, and its object is to 
bring about attainment after a failure of an area to attain by its 
attainment date. Thus, areas that have attained the 1-hour ozone 
standard, the standard for which the fee program was originally 
required, as a result of permanent and enforceable emission reductions, 
would have a SIP that is not less stringent than the SIP required under 
section 185.'' 76 FR 17370.
    EPA further explained its position:

    ``We believe that it is reasonable for the fee program 
obligation that applies for purposes of anti-backsliding to cease 
upon a determination, based on notice-and-comment rulemaking, that 
an area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard due to permanent and 
enforceable measures. This determination centers on the core 
criteria for redesignations under CAA section 107(d)(3). We believe 
these criteria provide reasonable assurance that the purpose of the 
1-hour 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, emphasis added) for terminating 1-hour ozone section 185 
requirements. With respect to the 1-hour section 185 anti-backsliding 
requirements for Baton Rouge, however, EPA stated that its proposed 
rulemaking notice for that area ``formally sets forth EPA's legal 
interpretation concerning the basis for terminating those 
obligations'', thereby making the specific rationale for Baton Rouge 
subject to notice and comment rulemaking. EPA then discussed at length 
the facts supporting its proposed finding that the Baton Rouge area had 
continuously attained the 1-hour ozone standard during the 2006-2008 
time period, and that the state had shown that this attainment is due 
to permanent and enforceable emissions limitations, thereby supporting 
the conclusion that the State SIP had supplied an adequate alternative 
program under the specific circumstances presented. 76 FR 17371-72.
    The Court's opinion does not preclude EPA from terminating the 1-
hour section 185 anti-backsliding requirement for areas like Baton 
Rouge, that EPA has determined through notice and comment rulemaking, 
have attained the 1-hour ozone standard due to permanent and 
enforceable emissions reductions.
    We therefore believe that, for the purpose here of evaluating 
applicable requirements pertaining to redesignation, Louisiana's 
obligation to satisfy the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirement for 
section 185 fees has been terminated.
    Contingency Measures. Sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA 
require ozone plans for nonattainment areas to contain measures to be 
implemented in the event that any RFP or attainment deadline is missed. 
As explained in a March 26, 2009 (74 FR 13166) proposal, it is EPA's 
position that contingency measures are not an applicable requirement 
for purposes of evaluating an ozone redesignation request when an area 
is attaining the relevant standard. EPA's long-held position is that 
those requirements expressly linked by statutory language with the 
attainment and reasonable further progress do not apply when an area 
requesting redesignation is attaining the standard. Pursuant to EPA's 
determination that the BRNA attained the 1-hour ozone standard 
(February 10, 2010, 75 FR 13166), the requirement to submit the 1-hour 
contingency measures was suspended. This obligation will be terminated 
upon a final approval of the redesignation request.
    For more detail regarding the applicable 1-hour ozone requirements 
and EPA's approval actions, see the Technical Support Document (TSD), 
which is included in the electronic docket. Listed below are the severe 
ozone 1-hour area requirements that have already been met by the BR 
area for the purposes of this redesignation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Requirement Clean Air Act as
      amended in 1990 section         EPA Approval/other justification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
182(a)(2)(A) RACT corrections.....  August 26, 1996 (61 FR 38590).
182(a)(2)(B) I/M Program..........  Required under section 182(c)(3).
                                    August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45454).
182(a)(2)(C) Permit programs and    EPA has determined that areas being
 182(a)(4) General Offset            redesignated need not comply with
 requirement.                        the requirement that a NSR program
                                     be approved prior to redesignation,
                                     provided that the area demonstrates
                                     maintenance of the standard without
                                     a part D NSR program in effect,
                                     since PSD requirements will apply
                                     after redesignation.
182(a)(3)(B) Emissions Statements.  February 6, 1995 (60 FR 02014).
182(b)(1) Plan Provisions for       This is covered by the requirement
 Reasonable Further Progress.        in 182(c)(2).
182(b)(2) Reasonably Available      May 5, 1994 (59 FR 23164).
 Control Technology.                August 26, 1996 (61 FR 38590).
                                    December 31, 1996 (61 FR 55894).
                                    February 2, 1998 (62 FR 63658).
                                    November 8, 1998 (63 FR 47429).
182(b)(3) Gasoline Vapor Recovery.  March 25, 1994 (59 FR 14112).
182(b)(4) Motor Vehicle Inspection  Required under section 182(c)(3).
 and Maintenance.                   August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45454).
182(c)(1) Enhanced Monitoring.....  June 19, 1996 (61 FR 31035).
182(c)(2) Attainment and            December 23, 1996 (61 FR 54737).
 Reasonable Further Progress        August 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930).
 Demonstrations.

[[Page 53864]]

 
182(c)(3) Enhanced Vehicle          August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45454).
 Inspection and Maintenance
 Program.
182(c)(4) Clean-Fuel Vehicle        Clean Fuel Fleet Substitute Program,
 Programs.                           July 19, 1999.
182(c)(5)Transportation Control...  October 2, 2002 (67 FR 61786).
182(c)(6) De Minimis Rule.........  This requirement is related to the
                                     NSR program that is not an
                                     applicable requirement for
                                     redesignation.
182(c)(7) Special Rule for          This requirement is related to the
 Modifications of Sources Emitting   NSR program that is not an
 Less Than 100 Tons.                 applicable requirement for
                                     redesignation.
182(c)(8) Special Rule for          This requirement is related to the
 Modifications of Sources Emitting   NSR program that is not an
 100 Tons or More.                   applicable requirement for
                                     redesignation.
182(c)(9) Contingency Provisions..  September 26, 2002 (67 FR 60590).
                                     This requirement was suspended
                                     pursuant to the 1-hour
                                     determination of attainment.
                                    February 10, 2010 ( 75 FR 6570).
182(c)(10) General Offset           September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61260).
 Requirement.
182(d)(1) Vehicle Miles Traveled..  November 21, 2006 (71 FR 67308).
182(d)(2)Offset Requirement.......  This requirement is related to the
                                     NSR program that is not an
                                     applicable requirement for
                                     redesignation.
182(d)(3) Enforcement Under         July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39775).
 Section 185.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Part D SIP Requirements Under 1997 8-Hour Standard: Part D, 
Subpart 2 Applicable SIP Requirements
    The only moderate area requirements applicable for purposes of 
redesignation for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under part D, section 
182(b) that became due prior to the submission of the complete 
redesignation request are the control techniques guidelines (CTGs) to 
meet requirements for RACT under section 182(b)(2). The State submitted 
several SIP revisions addressing the CTG rules requirements, and 
provided a SIP revision addressing NOX and VOC RACT 
requirements in BR on August 31, 2010. The CTG Rules Update was 
proposed for approval in a separate rulemaking published in the Federal 
Register on March 17, 2011 (76 FR 14602). If EPA finalizes its proposed 
approval of the CTG Rules Update together with the NOx and VOC RACT 
requirements which are addressed in today's action, the area will have 
met all the requirements applicable under its prior severe 1-hour 
classification and current moderate 1997 8-hour classification for 
purposes of redesignation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Additional 
information about the CTG Rules Update and RACT Update requirements is 
provided in the discussion above, as well as in the TSD.
(iv) Section 176 Conformity Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and 
procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects 
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The 
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, 
programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 of 
the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act 
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supported 
or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity revisions 
must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to 
consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the 
EPA to promulgate.
    EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP 
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the 
redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity 
rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity 
rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this interpretation). See also 
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida).
(v) NSR Requirements
    As with the nonattainment NSR requirements for the 1-hour ozone 
standard, EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not 
have an approved 1997 8-hour nonattainment NSR program prior to 
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the 
standard without a part D NSR program in effect, since PSD requirements 
will apply after redesignation. The rationale for this view is 
described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled ``Part D New 
Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting 
Redesignation to Attainment.'' Louisiana demonstrated in the 
accompanying maintenance plan that BR will be able to maintain the 
standard without a part D NSR program in effect, and therefore, 
Louisiana need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to 
approval of the redesignation request. Louisiana's PSD program will 
become effective in BRNA upon redesignation to attainment (unless a 
rule change is necessary; see footnote 4). See rulemakings for Detroit, 
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, 
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 
53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, 
June 21, 1996).
(vi) Section 182(a)(1) Inventory Requirements
    The moderate area requirements at section 182(a) and 40 CFR 51.915 
require that the BR 1997 8-hour ozone area meet the emissions inventory 
requirements of section 182(a)(1). An emissions inventory is an 
estimation of actual emissions of air pollutants in an area. The 
emissions inventory consists of VOC and NOX emissions, as 
they are ozone precursors. EPA approved a base year inventory for 2002 
on September 3, 2009 (74 FR 45561) under 182(b) for moderate areas. A 
more detailed discussion of the emission inventory for the BRNA can be 
found in the analysis of the maintenance plan for this redesignation 
below.
2. The BRNA Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
    EPA proposes to find that the area has an approved SIP for all the 
1997 8-hour ozone requirements applicable for purposes of 
redesignation. This proposal is contingent on our final approval of the 
NOX and VOC RACT analyses and provisions that are addressed 
in today's action and in the CTG Rules Update. EPA is proposing to find 
that, upon EPA's final approval of

[[Page 53865]]

the BR emissions inventory, the VOC and NOX RACT analysis, 
and the CTG Rules Update, the BR area will meet all requirements 
applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard under section 110 and part D and have a fully 
approved applicable implementation plan for the area under section 
110(k). As noted earlier, implementation of RFG is not required for 
purposes of redesignation.
    EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation 
request; see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania 
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 
265 F.3d 426, plus any additional measures it may approve in 
conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) 
and citations therein. Following passage of the CAA of 1970, Louisiana 
adopted and submitted, and EPA fully approved at various times, 
provisions addressing the various 1-hour ozone standard SIP elements 
applicable in the BR area as discussed above.
    As indicated, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not 
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the 
area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for 
purposes of redesignation. As set forth above, with the exceptions 
noted, the area has met all other applicable requirements for purposes 
of redesignation for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

C. Are the air quality improvements in the BR nonattainment area due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from the 
implementation of State and Federal regulations and other permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions?

    EPA proposes to find that Louisiana has demonstrated that the 
observed ozone air quality improvement in the BR area is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of emissions controls contained in the SIP, Federal 
control measures, and other State-adopted control measures.
1. Emissions Reductions as Shown by Emissions Inventory Data
    EPA believes that the improvement in air quality in the Baton Rouge 
area during the 2002-2008 timeframe, which resulted in attainment of 
both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards, is due to emissions 
reductions from permanent and enforceable measures. Table 3 shows the 
changes in emissions for NOX and VOC's from 2002 to 2008.

              Table 3--Summary of Total Emission Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       NOX TPD   VOC TPD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year (2002) Inventory..........................     200.3     211.0
2008 Emissions......................................     143.8     101.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions of both VOC and NOX have been reduced during 
the time period leading up to December 31, 2008, the date when Baton 
Rouge reached attainment for the 1-hour standard.
    The State also analyzed the changes in VOC and NOX 
emissions in the BR area between the original base year of 2002 and the 
year 2006 during which the area attained the standard. The 2006 
inventory was generated from the approved 2002 base year inventory 
(September 3, 2009, 74 FR 45561). The 2002 and 2006 emissions for the 
BRNA area were determined using EPA accepted methods and guidance.\7\ 
The State documented the VOC and NOX emission control 
measures that have been implemented in the BR area for at least the 
past 3 years. Comparing the 2002 and 2006 NOX and VOC 
emissions to the projected future year emissions, a downward trend is 
observed. Broken out by source category, the reduction in emissions is 
shown in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA. 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses 
for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze. Prepared by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling 
Group, Research Triangle Park, NC (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007).

  Table 4--A Comparison of VOC and NOX Emissions in the BRNA Area by Source Category From the Year 2002 and the
                                                    Year 2006
                                       [Tons per average ozone season day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             VOC Emissions (tpd)                    NOX Emissions (tpd)
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category                                        Percent                                Percent
                                       2002         2006        change         2002         2006        change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................        40.17        33.10        -17.6        117.91        73.40       -37.75
Area.............................        29.71        31.59         +5.95         3.90         4.06        +4.10
Non-Road Mobile..................        22.97        13.60        -22.38        43.59        36.75       -15.69
On-Road Mobile...................        14.99        17.60        +16.75        34.01        29.30       -13.85
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................       107.84        95.89        -11.08       199.41       143.50       -28.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Impact of Emissions Controls Implementation: Trend Analysis
    The State provided design value data from 1997 through 2008 to 
illustrate the downward trend in ozone since 2005. (See Chart 1 on page 
9 of the state's submittal.) In addition, it provided a table of design 
values by monitor for the 2006-2008 monitoring period that also shows 
the general downward trend in emissions during that time period. (Table 
1, Ibid.)
3. Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Controls Implemented
    The Baton Rouge nonattainment area control strategy is primarily 
NOX-driven, therefore no major VOC rules have been adopted 
other than those required to meet updated CTGs as required by the Act. 
LDEQ attributes the reductions in emissions primarily to the stationary 
source NOX control measures implemented no later than May 1, 
2005, which were required by the State's rules. The following is a 
discussion of the permanent and enforceable emission controls that have 
been implemented in the BR area. In Louisiana's 8-hour ozone 
redesignation request, the State documented all of the emission control 
rules or programs that have impacted VOC or NOX emissions 
during the period 1990-2008.

[[Page 53866]]

a. Reasonably Available Control Techniques
    Louisiana notes that a number of VOC and NOX RACT rules 
which were developed in prior years have continued to provide 
additional VOC and NOX emission reductions during more 
recent years. For VOC controls, with the exception of the source 
categories covered by the most recently published CTGs (see a 
discussion of the new CTG RACT rules below), Louisiana has adopted and 
implemented VOC RACT rules for source categories covered by older 
(prior to 2006) CTGs and for major non-CTG sources in the five-parish 
BRNA. All VOC RACT rules are contained in Chapter 21 of Louisiana 
Administrative Code (LAC 33:III Chapter 21), and all NOX 
RACT rules are contained in Chapter 22 of the LAC (LAC 33:III Chapter 
22). All of these VOC and NOX RACT rules have been approved 
by the EPA as revisions of the Louisiana SIP.
b. ROP Plans and Attainment Demonstration Plan
    EPA approved a serious area attainment plan and ROP plans as noted 
above under the 1-hour ozone standard requirements for serious areas. 
October 22, 1996 (61 FR 54737) and July 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930). Measures 
in these plans include Stage II Vapor Recovery, marine vapor recovery, 
tank vent recovery, emission reductions from vents to flares, tank 
fitting controls, fugitive emission controls, secondary roof seals on 
tanks, as well as some federally required controls pursuant to NESHAPs 
and NSPS. All these measures continue to produce reductions today.
c. NOX Control Rules
    NOX emission reductions were achieved through the 
implementation of NOX control measures for stationary 
sources which were adopted by the state effective on February 20, 2002, 
and approved by EPA on September 27, 2002 (67 FR 60877), and adopted by 
the state on August 20, 2003 and approved by EPA on July 5, 2011 (76 FR 
38977). These rules were implemented between February 20, 2002, and May 
1, 2005.
    The rules established emission factors (standards) for 
NOX sources within the BRNA. These revisions achieved 
approximately 40 TPD of additional NOX reductions in the 
BRNA beginning with the compliance date of May 1 2005 and continuing to 
date. These rules are still part of the state's rules and are 
enforceable at the state and Federal level. The specific standards are 
listed below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOX Reduction measures 2002-2008               NOX Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Power Generating System
 Boilers:
    Coal-fired > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr....  0.50 lb/MMBtu.
    Coal-fired > 80 MMBtu/hr............  0.21 lb/MMBtu.
    No. 6 fuel oil-fired > 40 to < 80     0.30 lb/MMBtu.
     MMBtu/hr.
    No. 6 fuel oil-fired > 80 MMBtu/hr..  0.18 lb/MMBtu.
    All others (gaseous or liquid) > 40   0.20 lb/MMBtu.
     to < 80 MMBtu/hr.
    All others (gaseous or liquid) > 80   0.10 lb/MMBtu.
     MMBtu/hr.
Industrial Boilers > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr  0.20 lb/MMBtu.
Industrial Boilers > 80 MMBtu/hr........  0.10 lb/MMBtu.
Process Heater/Furnaces:
    Ammonia reformers > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/ 0.30 lb/MMBtu.
     hr.
    Ammonia reformers > 80 MMBtu/hr.....  0.23 lb/MMBtu.
    All others > 40 to < 80 MMBtu/hr....  0.18 lb/MMBtu.
    All others > 80 MMBtu/hr............  0.08 lb/MMBtu.
Stationary Gas Turbines:
    Peaking Service, Fuel Oil-fired > 5   0.37 lb/MMBtu.
     to < 10 MW.
    Peaking Service, Fuel Oil-fired > 10  0.30 lb/MMBtu.
     MW.
    Peaking Service, Gas-fired > 5 to <   0.27 lb/MMBtu.
     10 MW.
    Peaking Service, Gas-fired > 10 MW..  0.20 lb/MMBtu.
    All Others > 5 to < 10 MW...........  0.24 lb/MMBtu.
    All Others > 10 MW..................  0.16 lb/MMBtu.
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines:
    Lean-burn engines > 150 to < 320 Hp.  10 g/Hp-hr.
    Lean-burn engines > 320 Hp..........  4 g/Hp-hr.
    Rich-burn engines > 150 to < 300 Hp.  2 g/Hp-hr.
    Rich-burn engines > 300 Hp..........  2g/Hp-hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bulk of the NOX emissions between 2002 and 2006 came 
from the source categories listed in the table above. In 2006, 
stationary (point) sources made up over 51 percent of the entire 
NOX inventory for the BRNA, which is a decrease from over 59 
percent in 2002. In addition, Louisiana adopted and implemented 
emission control rules requiring existing sources of VOC to meet, at 
minimum, RACT. These requirements apply to sources in categories 
covered by CTGs and other major non-CTG sources. These rules were 
adopted and implemented prior to 2002. (62 FR 63658, February 2, 1998; 
63 FR 47429, November 8, 1998).
d. Federal Emission Control Measures
    LDEQ notes that on-road Federal emission control measures have had 
positive impacts on VOC and NOX emissions in the BR area for 
reaching attainment. Table 5 shows the Federal emissions reductions 
programs in the BR area for fuels and motor vehicles:

            Table 5--BR Federal Emission Reductions Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Measures:
  [cir] Tier 2 Fuel and Vehicle Emission Standards
  [cir] Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) for light-duty vehicles
  [cir] Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle and Fuel Standards
  [cir] Federal controls on certain nonroad engines
  [cir] Federal control through Maximum Achievable Control Technology
   (MACT) of Hazardous Air Pollutants emissions
  [cir] Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer
   Products

[[Page 53867]]

 
  [cir] Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural
   Coatings
  [cir] Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary
    The above discussion shows that state, local and Federal emission 
controls have contributed to the ozone air quality improvement in the 
BR area that resulted in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 
Emissions inventory data demonstrates that NOX and VOC 
emissions have dropped substantially between 2002 and 2008 for 
stationary sources primarily but also for mobile sources. These 
substantial decreases in ozone precursors can be directly attributed to 
State and Federal measures. As noted above, Louisiana has committed to 
retaining in the SIP all existing emission control measures that affect 
ozone levels in the BR area after the BRNA is redesignated to 
attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. All changes in existing 
rules subsequently determined to be necessary must be submitted to the 
EPA for approval as SIP revisions.
    EPA thus proposes to find that the improvement in air quality in 
the BR area is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. 
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).

D. Does the BRNA have a fully approvable maintenance plan pursuant to 
section 175A of the CAA?

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the BR 1997 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment area, the State of Louisiana included a SIP 
revision to provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
in the BR area for at least 10 years after redesignation to attainment. 
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). As discussed below, EPA has reviewed this 
maintenance plan and is proposing to approve it as meeting the 
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
1. What is required in an ozone maintenance plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of air 
quality maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation to attainment 
of a NAAQS. Under section 175A, a maintenance plan must demonstrate 
continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years 
after the Administrator approves the redesignation to attainment. The 
State must commit to submit a revised maintenance plan within eight 
years after the redesignation. This revised maintenance plan must 
provide for maintenance of the ozone standard for an additional 10 
years beyond the initial 10 year maintenance period. To address the 
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must 
contain such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure 
prompt correction of any future NAAQS violation. The September 4, 1992, 
Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of 
maintenance plans.
    An ozone maintenance plan should, at minimum, address the 
following: (1) The attainment VOC and NOX emission 
inventories; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for 
the 10 years of the maintenance period; (3) a commitment to maintain 
the existing monitoring network; (4) factors and procedures to be used 
for verification of continued attainment; and, (5) contingency measures 
to correct a future violation of the NAAQS.
2. What is the attainment inventory for the BRNA?
    Sections 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires that the SIP include a 
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from 
sources of relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. The emission 
inventory for an ozone nonattainment area contains both VOC and 
NOX emissions, which are precursors to ozone formation. LDEQ 
prepared a comprehensive emission inventory for the BR area including 
point, area, on-road, and off-road mobile sources for the year 2006. 
Table 6 lists the 2006 emissions inventory for the BR area. EPA 
reviewed the 2006 inventory and determined that it was developed in 
accordance with EPA guidelines\8\. For a full discussion of our 
evaluation, please refer to Part II of the TSD, found in the electronic 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP), EPA-454/R-97-
004a-g, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/; AP-42, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html; Air Emissions Reporting 
Requirements (AERR Rule), http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/aerr/final_published_aerr.pdf

                   Table 6--BR 2006 Emission Inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Source type                         NOX      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        2006 Inventory (Tons/Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................................................    73.4     33.1
Nonpoint..............................................     4.06    31.59
On-road Mobile........................................    29.3     17.60
Non-road Mobile.......................................    36.75    13.59
                                                       -----------------
Total.................................................   143.51    95.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Louisiana developed its 2006 Emissions Inventory from the 
previously approved 2002 baseline inventory (September 3, 2009, 74 FR 
45561). The State relied on this 2006 inventory in preparing the 
attainment demonstration modeling that is included in Appendix D of the 
State's submittal.
    The 2006 and projected year emissions for the BRNA 5-parish area 
were determined using the following procedures:
    Point Source Emissions. Point source VOC and NOX 
emissions for 2006 were calculated using methodologies according to 
Federal guidelines and using AP-42 or other approved methods. The State 
collected emissions data, which are estimates of actual emissions, 
provided by the facilities. A list of those facilities is provided in 
Appendix C of the LDEQ submittal.
    Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions from the 2002 National 
Emission Inventory (NEI) were used as the starting point for the 2006 
Louisiana area emissions. Projection years' emissions were initially 
grown using the EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) version 
5.0 growth factors. The methodologies used to develop area sources 
inventory are described in Appendix D of the submittal.
    On-road Emissions. Mobile source emissions were calculated based on 
Parish-specific inputs provided by several state agencies. MOBILE6 was 
then used to generate emission factors. A detailed description of on-
road emission estimates is found in Appendix D of the LDEQ submittal.
    Non-road Emissions. For all non-road mobile categories except 
aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine vessels, the emissions 
were calculated using the EPA's National Mobil Inventory Model (NMIM) 
to generate Louisiana state-wide parish level emissions estimates. 
Airport and locomotive emissions were derived from 2006 LDEQ inventory. 
Marine emissions were developed from CENRAP inventories. A detailed 
description of non-road emission estimates is found in Appendix D of 
the submittal.
3. Has the state of Louisiana committed to maintain the ozone 
monitoring system in the BRNA?
    The State of Louisiana has committed to continue operation of an 
EPA-approved ozone monitoring network and to work with EPA pursuant to 
40 CFR part 58 with regard to the continued adequacy of the network, 
including whether additional

[[Page 53868]]

monitoring is needed, and when a monitor site can be discontinued.
4. Has the state demonstrated maintenance in the BRNA?
    As part of its request to redesignate the BR 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard nonattainment area, the State of Louisiana included a SIP 
revision to incorporate a maintenance plan as required under section 
175A and section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA. The maintenance plan 
includes a demonstration based on a comparison of emissions in one of 
the attainment years (2008) and projected emissions to demonstrate 
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the BR area for at least 
10 years after the anticipated redesignation year. CAA 
107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard, LDEQ projected VOC and NOX emissions to 2022 and 
to several interim years, 2012, 2016, and 2020. These emissions were 
compared to the 2008 attainment year and 2006 base year emissions (both 
years in the 2006-2008 attainment period) to show that emissions of 
NOX and VOC, remain below the attainment levels for the 
entire demonstrated maintenance period.
    In projecting data for the maintenance year 2022 inventory, LDEQ 
used several methods to project data from the base year 2006 to the 
years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2022. These projected inventories 
were developed using EPA-approved technologies and methodologies. Point 
source and non-point source projections were derived from the Emissions 
Growth Analysis System version 6.0 (EGAS 6.0). Non-road mobile 
projections were derived from EGAS 6.0, and from NONROAD 2005.
    To demonstrate declines in future emissions, LDEQ provided a 
comparison between the 2006 inventory and the emission growth 
projections for the years 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2022. Table 7 
summarizes the 2006 and 2008 attainment years, interim years during the 
maintenance period, horizon year 2022, the end year for the maintenance 
period, and net changes in VOC and NOX emissions by source 
type.

                                                               Table 7--Summary of Future VOC and NOX Emissions for the BRNA Area
                                                                               [Tons per average ozone season day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2006              2008              2012              2016              2020              2022          Net change 2022-
                                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------         2006
                        Source category                                                                                                                                     --------------------
                                                                   VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX       VOC       NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..........................................................    33.10    73.40    32.22    67.71    32.22    67.71    32.22    67.71    32.22    67.71    32.22    67.71     -0.88      -5.69
Nonpoint.......................................................    31.59     4.06    32.35     4.16    33.63     4.36    35.59     4.53    37.54     4.74    38.51     4.83      6.92       0.78
Nonroad........................................................    13.60    36.75    12.59    37.45    11.22    38.51    10.27    39.59     9.78    41.36     9.99    40.60     -3.61       3.85
Onroad.........................................................    17.60    29.30    17.82    28.35    10.64    18.63     9.70    12.08     7.82     8.33     7.55     6.96    -10.1      -22.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................................    95.89   143.51    94.98   137.66    87.70   129.18    87.77   123.84    87.36   122.14    88.27   120.10     -7.67     -23.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal rules implemented after attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard contribute to continued maintenance in the area. These 
measures include:
    Non-Road Diesel Rule. EPA promulgated this rule in 2004. It applies 
to diesel engines used in industries, such as construction, 
agriculture, and mining. It is estimated that compliance with this rule 
will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 
90 percent beginning with the 2008 Model Year equipment. This rule will 
be fully implemented in 2014.
    Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines. This EPA rule 
was adopted March 14, 2008, and includes new emission standards for 
locomotives and marine diesel engines that will reduce NOX 
emissions by about 80 percent compared with engines meeting the current 
standards. The new requirements have three parts: Tightening emission 
standards for existing locomotives and large marine engines when they 
are remanufactured, effective in 2008; beginning in 2009, phasing in 
Tier III standards for new locomotives and marine diesel engines; and 
establishing more stringent Tier IV standards for new locomotives and 
marine diesel engines; these standards will be phased in beginning in 
2014.
    EPA evaluated the BRNA maintenance emission inventory component of 
the redesignation request and determined that LDEQ demonstrated that 
emissions levels of VOC and NOX in the 2022 maintenance year 
will decrease from the 2006 baseline year by 7.67 and 23.40 tons per 
average ozone season day respectively. Overall VOC and NOX 
emissions levels will remain below the 2006-2008 attainment year levels 
throughout the maintenance period. EPA also determined that LDEQ has 
adequately calculated and documented emissions by using methods 
consistent with EPA's guidance. (See footnote 7).
    As shown in the table and discussion above, the State demonstrated 
that the total future year ozone precursor emissions will be less than 
the 2008 attainment year's emissions. The attainment inventory 
submitted by the LDEQ for this area is consistent with EPA guidance. 
(See footnote 7). Considering emissions projections, EPA finds that the 
expected future emissions levels in 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2022 have 
been shown to be lower than emissions levels in 2006 and 2008.
    The NOX projections in Louisiana's maintenance 
demonstration relied in part on reductions due to the Clean Air 
Interstate rule (CAIR). CAIR, however, was remanded back to EPA, and 
EPA on July 6, 2011 issued the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule \9\ 
(CSAPR) to replace CAIR. EPA believes the reductions for Louisiana due 
to the CSAPR are similar in magnitude to those projected by CAIR. 
Louisiana's Ozone season NOX budget for CAIR was 17,085 tpy 
for EGUs from 2009 to 2014 and lowered to 14,238 tpy NOX for 
2015 and later. The CSAPR ozone season NOX limit is 13,432 
tpy, which is 806 tpy less NOX than the CAIR budget. So with 
the reductions from the CSAPR, we believe that Louisiana's maintenance 
demonstration 10 year projection remains valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Cross State Air Pollution Rule was proposed August 2, 
2010 as the ``Transport Rule.'' We refer to the rule as the CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pre-control modeling in support of the CSAPR indicates that the 
Baton Rouge area will not be in attainment of the 1997 8 hour ozone 
standard in 2012 because of impacts from upwind states. For this 
reason, upwind States with a significant impact on the Baton Rouge area 
are required to reduce their NOX emissions. The CSAPR 
modeling indicates the Baton Rouge area will be in attainment in 2014 
after institution of the CSAPR controls. The 2014 control case modeling 
is projected off a center weighted average of design values

[[Page 53869]]

during the period 2003-2007. Additional CSAPR modeling, however, 
projecting off a single year's design value for 2005 (years 2003-2005) 
projects that the area will not be in attainment in 2014. This 
variation in model projections, depending on the projection year, is an 
indication the Baton Rouge area could have some difficulty in 
maintaining attainment in years when meteorology particularly favors 
ozone production. The maintenance plan, however, indicates that 
NOX emissions will continue to decrease over the life of the 
plan, continuing to improve Baton Rouge's ability to maintain 
attainment in the future. In addition, section 175 requires that the 
area have contingency measures that must be implemented, if due to 
meteorological fluctuations, the area does come out of attainment. We 
discuss the adequacy of these contingency measures elsewhere in the 
notice. Therefore, after considering the CSAPR modeling but also 
considering the projected decline in emissions and the fact that the 
maintenance plan has contingency measures, we believe it is appropriate 
to approve the maintenance plan for the Baton Rouge area.
    The fact that EPA is proposing to redesignate Baton Rouge to 
attainment does not remove the need to address emissions in upwind 
States that impact ozone levels in Baton Rouge. As discussed above, 
Baton Rouge is projected to be nonattainment without the CSAPR 
reductions. The reductions in the CSAPR along with other State and 
Federal measures are projected to bring the area into attainment. 
Furthermore, without a cap on emissions in upwind States with a 
significant impact, emissions might in fact grow, increasing the 
possibility that Baton Rouge will not be able to maintain attainment. 
Furthermore, since upwind States are not required to have contingency 
measures, it is incumbent on EPA to ensure that States with significant 
impacts are appropriately controlled.
    LDEQ also provided attainment demonstration modeling in support of 
its redesignation request. The attainment demonstration modeling can be 
found in Appendix D of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. 
The modeling demonstration was conducted according to EPA guidance.\10\ 
The modeling simulation was for June 2006 using a nested 36/12/4 km 
grid system, with the 4-km grid focused on Louisiana and the immediate 
Gulf coast area. The weight of evidence assembled from the modeling 
analyses and projection methodologies described in the report 
demonstrated that the 1997 8-hour ozone standard would be attained in 
the Baton Rouge area by 2009. The area did indeed attain the standard 
by the close of the ozone season on December 31, 2008. This modeling 
has a refined grid focused on the Baton Rouge area, and thus it 
provides further support that the Baton Rouge area has attained due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions and should remain in attainment 
during the term of the maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA. 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses 
for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone PM2.5, 
and Regional Haze. Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality 
Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle 
Park, NC (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that LDEQ has demonstrated maintenance of the 
ozone standard in the BR area during the 10 year maintenance period, 
based on projections that total VOC and NOX emissions during 
this period will remain below the 2006 and 2008 attainment levels 
emissions.
5. What is the contingency plan for the BRNA?
a. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Louisiana has the legal authority to enforce and implement the 
requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for the BR area. This 
includes the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent 
emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to 
correct future ozone attainment problems.
    Louisiana will track the progress of the maintenance plan through 
continued ambient ozone monitoring in accordance with the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 58, and by performing future reviews of actual emissions 
for the area using the latest emissions factors, models, and 
methodologies. The State will work with EPA to ensure that the air 
monitoring network continues to be effective and will quality assure 
the data according to Federal requirements as one way to verify 
continued attainment. In addition the State will compare emission 
inventory data submitted to the National Emission Inventory with the 
emission growth data submitted in the maintenance plan to ensure 
emission reductions continue the downward trend.
b. Contingency Plan
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or 
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation 
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a 
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems 
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of 
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should 
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and 
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, 
and a time limit for action by the state. The State should also 
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the 
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The 
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will 
implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 
were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to 
attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Louisiana has adopted a 
contingency plan for the BR area to address possible future ozone air 
quality problems.
    The triggering mechanism for activation of contingency measures in 
the BR maintenance plan is a monitored violation of the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard. If contingency measures are triggered, LDEQ has 
committed to adopt additional measures, if needed beyond the adopted 
measures included in the submittal, and to implement the measures as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 24 months following the 
trigger.
    The following contingency measures are identified for possible 
implementation, but may not be limited to:
     Extending the applicability of the State's current 
NOX rule in LAC 33:III.2201 by adding a new Section, LAC 
33:III.2202, that would extend LAC 33:III.2201's application to include 
the months of April and October each year (currently LAC 33:III.2201 
applies from May 1 to September 30). This would assist in reducing 
incidences of high ozone days in the BRNA. See the TSD for AQ 350. 
Because the state has adopted this rule and submitted it to EPA, we are 
proposing to approve this rule revision in this rulemaking. In 
addition, the state will consider other measures such as lowering the 
NOX emissions factors of LAC 33:III.2205.D and/or requiring 
more stringent monitoring of elevated flares, as well as measures 
targeting the following:
     Diesel retrofit/replacement initiatives;
     Programs or incentives to decrease motor vehicle use;
     Implementation of fuel programs including incentives for 
alternative fuels;

[[Page 53870]]

     Employer-based transportation management;
     Anti-idling ordinances;
     Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in areas of high 
emission concentration during periods of peak use.
    Given the substantial amount of industrial emissions in the Baton 
Rouge Area, and the fact the area's ozone problem is mostly driven by 
NOX emissions, these potential contingency measures would be 
appropriate for adequately correcting an attainment problem.
    These contingency measures and schedules for implementation are 
consistent with EPA's longstanding guidance regarding contingency 
measures for maintenance plans under section 175A. The State will 
continue to operate appropriate ambient ozone monitoring sites in the 
BR area to verify continued attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The air 
monitoring results will reveal changes in the ambient air quality as 
well as assist the State in determining which contingency measures will 
be most effective if necessary.
    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Louisiana commits to 
submit to the EPA an updated ozone maintenance plan eight years after 
redesignation of the BR area to cover an additional ten-year period 
beyond the initial ten-year maintenance period. As required by section 
175A(d) of the CAA, Louisiana has also committed to retain VOC and 
NOX control measures contained in the SIP prior to 
redesignation.
    EPA finds that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five 
basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, 
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of 
continued attainment, and contingency measures. The maintenance plan 
SIP revision submitted by Louisiana for BR meets the requirements of 
section 175A of the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 
maintenance plan for the BR area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as 
a revision to the Louisiana SIP.
c. Controls to Remain In Effect
    Louisiana commits to maintain all of the current emission control 
measures for VOC and NOX after the BR area is redesignated 
to attainment. Louisiana, through LDEQ's Secretary, has the legal 
authority and necessary resources to actively enforce against any 
violations of the State's air pollution emission control rules. After 
the BR area is redesignated to attainment, LDEQ will implement NSR for 
major stationary sources and major modifications through the PSD 
program.

VI. What is EPA's evaluation of the BR area's motor vehicle emissions 
budgets?

A. What are the transportation requirements for approvable MVEBs?

    A maintenance plan must include a MVEB for transportation 
conformity purposes. ``Conformity'' to the SIP means that 
transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, 
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. It 
is a process required by section 176(c) of the Act for ensuring that 
the effects of emissions from all on-road sources are consistent with 
attainment or maintenance of the standard. EPA's transportation 
conformity rules at 40 CFR part 93 require that transportation plans, 
and programs, result in emissions that do not exceed the MVEB 
established in the SIP. The maintenance plan established an MVEB for 
2022, which is the last year of the maintenance plan.
    The MVEB is the level of total allowable on-road emissions 
established by the maintenance plan. Maintenance plans must include the 
estimates of motor vehicle VOC and NOX emissions that are 
consistent with maintenance of attainment, which then act as a budget 
or ceiling for the purpose of determining whether transportation plans, 
and programs conform to the maintenance plan. In this case, the MVEB 
sets the maximum level of on-road transportation emissions that can be 
produced, when considered with emissions from all other sources, which 
demonstrates continued maintenance of attainment of the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS.

B. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination?

    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance 
plans containing a MVEB, EPA determines whether the MVEB contained 
therein is ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation 
conformity. Once EPA finds a budget adequate, the budget must be used 
by local, state and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed 
transportation plans and programs ``conform'' to the SIP as required by 
section 176(c) of the Act.
    EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of a MVEB 
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was promulgated in the 
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone 
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and 
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; transportation conformity 
rule amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule 
Change,'' on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004).
    As discussed earlier, Louisiana's maintenance plan submission 
includes NOX and VOC budgets for the year 2022. EPA reviewed 
the budgets through the adequacy process. The availability of the SIP 
submission with this 2022 MVEB was announced for public comment on 
EPA's adequacy Web page on, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#baton. The EPA public comment period on the 
adequacy of the 2022 MVEB for BR closed on April 4, 2011. EPA did not 
receive any adverse comments on the MVEB. On May 16, 2011, EPA made a 
finding of adequacy for the 2022 MVEB included in this 8-hour ozone 
maintenance plan (76 FR 28223).

C. Is the MVEB approvable?

    Table 8 shows the total projected transportation emissions for 
2022, as submitted by Louisiana.

                                                       Table 8--Projected Transportation Emissions
                                                            [Tons per avg. ozone season day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Pollutant                              2006            2008            2012            2016            2020            2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................................           29.30           28.35           18.63           12.08            8.33            6.96
VOC.....................................................           17.60           17.82           10.64            9.70            7.82            7.55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These transportation emissions are also represented in Table 7 of 
this notice as the ``mobile'' emissions portion of emission inventory 
data for the BR area. As shown in Table 8, substantial reductions in 
both NOX and VOC transportation emissions are projected 
between 2006 and 2022. Further, as previously stated in this action, 
EPA finds that the State has demonstrated the future combined emissions 
levels of NOX and VOC in 2008, 2012, 2016,

[[Page 53871]]

2020, and 2022 are expected to be similar to or less than the emissions 
levels in 2006. The projected transportation emissions for 2022 were 
used by Louisiana as the basis of the 2022 NOX and VOC MVEB 
for the BR area. These emissions are consistent with the maintenance 
plan demonstrating continued compliance with the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS for the 10-year period following redesignation to attainment.
    The submitted NOX and VOC MVEB for the BR area is 
defined in Table 9 below.

                        Table 9--NOX and VOC MVEB
                      [Summer season tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Pollutant                               2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX............................................................     6.96
VOC............................................................     7.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve Louisiana's 
2022 MVEB for VOCs and NOX for the BR area for 
transportation conformity purposes, because EPA has determined that the 
area maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone standard with the emissions at the 
levels of the budget. The submittal has met the adequacy criteria in 40 
CFR 93.118(e)(4), and EPA has completed a comprehensive review of the 
maintenance plan, concluding that the overall plan demonstrates 
maintenance, is approvable and the budgets are consistent with the 
overall plan. Therefore, the budgets can be proposed for approval.

VII. What are EPA's proposed actions?

    EPA is proposing several related actions under the Act for the BR 
1997 8-hour moderate ozone nonattainment area, consisting of Ascension, 
East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge Parishes. 
Consistent with the Act, EPA is proposing to approve a request from the 
state of Louisiana to redesignate the BR area to attainment of the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard.
    In this notice, EPA is also proposing to approve the NOX 
and VOC RACT requirements for the BRNA for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour 
ozone standards that accompanied the State's August 10, 2010 
redesignation request. In prior separate rulemaking actions, EPA 
terminated the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding section 185 penalty fee 
requirement, and proposed to approve the CTG Rules Update. We are 
proposing to determine that if EPA finally approves the CTG Rules 
Update VOC and NOX provisions submitted with the 
redesignation request, the BR area will meet all of the applicable CAA 
requirements under section 110 and Part D for purposes of redesignation 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including the applicable CAA 
requirements for a moderate 1997 8-hour ozone area and applicable anti-
backsliding requirements for a 1-hour ozone severe area.
    Further, EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP, as meeting 
section 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act, Louisiana's maintenance 
plan for the BR area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance 
plan shows maintenance of the standard through 2022. Additionally, EPA 
is proposing to approve the 2022 MVEB for NOX and VOC 
submitted by Louisiana for the BR area in conjunction with its 
redesignation request and maintenance plan.
    Consequently, EPA is proposing to approve the State's request to 
redesignate the area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. After evaluating Louisiana's redesignation request, 
EPA has determined that upon final approval of the above-identified SIP 
elements and the maintenance plan, the area will meet the redesignation 
criteria set forth in sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the Act. The 
final approval of this redesignation request would change the official 
designation in 40 CFR part 81 for the BR area from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, redesignation of an area to attainment and 
the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area 
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources 
beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does 
not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in 
the applicability of requirements contained in the Clean Air Act for 
areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the 
Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies 
with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 
EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the 
criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these actions merely do not 
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law and 
the Clean Air Act. For that reason, these actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

[[Page 53872]]

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

    Dated: August 16, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2011-21728 Filed 8-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P