[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53853-53872]
[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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

''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.

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

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.

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

  [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

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

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;

     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