[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 648-653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-42]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[LA-34-1-7300; FRL-5670-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Louisiana;
Correction of Classification; Approval of the Maintenance Plan;
Redesignation of Pointe Coupee Parish to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 22, 1996, EPA simultaneously published a direct final
notice of rulemaking and a notice of proposed rulemaking in which EPA
published its decision to approve a revision to the Louisiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to redesignate Pointe Coupee Parish to
attainment for ozone. During the 30-day comment period, EPA received an
adverse comment letter in response to the July 22, 1996, rulemaking.
This final rule summarizes the comments and EPA's responses, and
finalizes EPA's decision to correct the classification of Pointe Coupee
Parish from a serious to a marginal ozone nonattainment area. This
action also approves the redesignation of Pointe Coupee Parish,
Louisiana to attainment for ozone.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on December 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's request and other information relevant
to this action are available for inspection during normal hours at the
following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality,
7290 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810.
Anyone wishing to review this petition at the EPA office is asked
to contact the person below to schedule an appointment 24 hours in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt. Mick Cote, Air Planning Section
(6PD-
[[Page 649]]
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 22, 1996, EPA published a direct final rulemaking approving
a revision to the existing Louisiana SIP to redesignate Pointe Coupee
Parish to attainment for ozone (61 FR 37833). At the same time that EPA
published the direct final rule, a separate notice of proposed
rulemaking was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 37875). This
proposed rulemaking specified that EPA would withdraw the direct final
rule if adverse or critical comments were filed on the rulemaking
within 30 days of its publication. The EPA received a letter containing
adverse comments regarding the direct final rule on August 21, 1996,
and published the withdrawal of the direct final rule on September 25,
1996 (61 FR 50238).
The specific rationale EPA used to approve the redesignation of
Pointe Coupee Parish to attainment for ozone was explained in the
direct final rule and will not be restated here. This final rule
addresses the comments received during the public comment period and
announces EPA's final action regarding approval of the redesignation
request.
II. Response to Public Comments
The EPA received an adverse comment letter dated August 21, 1996,
from the Citizens Commission for Clean Air in the Lake Michigan Basin,
and thus proceeded to withdraw the direct final rule and adequately
address each comment. The EPA's responses to each comment are detailed
below.
A. Comments on the Correction Action
Comment: The commenters challenge the authority of the
Administrator under section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) to
reclassify an ozone nonattainment area by asserting that the original
classification was made in error. The EPA failed to pause and consider
section 110(k)(6) in conjunction with section 107(d)(4)(A).
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that
the Administrator exceeded her authority in correcting the
classification of Pointe Coupee Parish from serious to marginal.
Section 110(k)(6) of the Act clearly allows the Administrator to revise
an area's classification when a determination is made that the original
classification was made in error. Section 107(d)(4)(A) of the Act
discusses nonattainment designations for ozone and carbon monoxide.
Section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of the Act requires that the boundaries of any
such area classified as serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment for
ozone shall include the entire Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), unless notice is
received by the Administrator from the Governor of the State that
additional time is necessary to evaluate the application of this
clause. This notice must be received within 45 days of the initial
classification. It should be noted that MSA and CMSA boundaries are
established by the Bureau of the Census. Section 107(d)(4)(A)(v) of the
Act further states that, in order to make a finding that a portion of
the MSA or CMSA should be excluded from the nonattainment area
boundaries, the Administrator should take into account such factors as
population density, traffic congestion, commercial development,
meteorological conditions, and pollution transport. The EPA agrees that
these requirements must be considered when evaluating a proposed change
to an existing MSA's or CMSA's boundary condition. As detailed in the
July 22, 1996, Federal Register, EPA considered all of the
aforementioned factors prior to making the decision to correct Pointe
Coupee Parish's classification. However, it should be noted once again
that Pointe Coupee Parish is not part of the Baton Rouge CMSA, and thus
the requirements of 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) and 107(d)(4)(A)(v) of the Act do
not demand our consideration when correcting this error under section
110(k)(6)of the Act.
B. Comments on the Urban Airshed Modeling (UAM) Study
Comment: The Baton Rouge UAM study utilized an outdated and
underestimated biogenic volatile organic compound (VOC) inventory,
which recent EPA modeling guidance and Ozone Transport Assessment Group
(OTAG) participants concluded warranted replacement with the Biogenic
Emission Inventory System-2 (BEIS-2) inventory of biogenic VOCs. The
Baton Rouge UAM study would likely not model nitrogen oxides (NOX)
reduction disbenefits if it incorporated the BEIS-2 inventory.
Response: Biogenic hydrocarbon emissions have been determined to
play an important role in the chemistry of urban ozone formation,
especially in warm southern cities. In light of this, the State
developed the biogenic emission inventory for the Baton Rouge area
based on area-specific data rather than using EPA BEIS-2 program. The
area-specific land-use database used in the biogenic emission
development was derived from four different sources: the Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development; a study of Baton Rouge's
biogenic hydrocarbon emissions by Carlos Cardolino and William
Chameides at the Georgia Institute of Technology using LANDSAT imagery;
the U.S. Geological Survey's geo-ecology database; and the U.S. Forest
Service's 1991 forest statistics for the southeast Louisiana parishes
and forest statistics of south delta Louisiana parishes. The emission
factors used in estimating biogenic emissions in the Baton Rouge area
were obtained from the Rasmussen and Khalil and Zimmermann studies of
biogenic sources. The emission factors from the Rasmussen and Khalil
and Zimmermann studies were derived from direct measurements of various
types of vegetation in the Baton Rouge and Tampa Bay, Florida areas,
respectively.
In addition, the correction factors based on Guenther, et. al.,
were used to adjust both temperature and solar radiation for isoprene,
while the correction factors developed by Tingey, et. al., were used to
address temperature concerns for alpha-pinene and beta-pinene. The EPA
believes this approach represents a site-specific approach which
describes the VOC biogenic source inventory in Baton Rouge more
accurately than BEIS-2.
Comment: The Baton Rouge UAM study lacked an updated chemistry
component (CB-4). The EPA would be remiss in not reconsidering these
improvements in UAM capability and reevaluating the accuracy of the
Baton Rouge UAM study.
Response: The updated CB-4 has been developed for use with BEIS-2.
As explained above, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) developed its VOC biogenic inventory based on area-specific data
instead of the BEIS-2 program. In addition, the updated chemistry
component was not available at the time when LDEQ conducted the Baton
Rouge UAM study.
Comment: It appears unreasonable for EPA to claim sufficient
confidence in the accuracy of the Baton Rouge UAM study, that reliance
upon it warrants reclassification of Pointe Coupee under section
110(k)(6) of the Act.
Response: The LDEQ used UAM version IV, an EPA-approved
photochemical grid model, for reclassification of Point Coupee under
section 110(k)(6) of the Act. The State has followed EPA guidance on
the application of UAM. As required, the State performed quality
assurance testing of model inputs and diagnostic testing of the base
meteorological
[[Page 650]]
episode simulation to ensure that the model functioned properly and
that accurate results were obtained for the right reasons. The State
applied a number of performance evaluation techniques such as
diagnostic analyses to examine the effects of uncertainty and identify
possible deficiencies in the model input. The sensitivity analysis
investigated the sensitivity of the model to the various model inputs
and ensured that the response of the model to changes in the inputs was
physically realistic. In addition, the State conducted a model
performance evaluation using graphical and statistical analyses to
demonstrate that its model results acceptably replicated the historical
ozone episodes.
Comment: The commenters believe that the Baton Rouge UAM study is
equivocal and disputed by other peer-reviewed UAM studies and field
research. The commenters cited a recent analysis prepared by ENVIRON
Corporation which reviewed the Baton Rouge UAM study. This review
commented that the model-predicted peak always occurred late in the
afternoon (5 p.m.), whereas the observed peak occurred late in the
morning (11 a.m. or noon). This suggested that there were
meteorological and/or chemical phenomena occurring that were not being
captured by the model.
Response: The mistiming of the observed peak with the simulated
peak at one monitoring site is not as important a criterion in
evaluating performance as the model's ability to simulate the
concentrations of the observed peaks. The base case model simulations
provided a good representation of the spatial and temporal
characteristics of the episodes as a whole. There was good replication
of the average ozone concentration throughout the entire domain and the
observed peaks were well simulated. Model performance is judged by the
overall statistics at all the monitoring sites, not by a microscale
effect of the model being able to simulate the exact timing of the
observed peak at one monitoring site. All EPA model performance
criteria fell well within the limits established by EPA to judge model
performance. The EPA has confidence in the accuracy of the UAM study
and its results.
Comment: The commenters were concerned that the Baton Rouge UAM
study excluded potentially significant contributions of ozone precursor
emissions from Pointe Coupee in the Baton Rouge boundary conditions.
Response: The LDEQ selected a large modeling domain to ensure that
it allowed resolution of ozone and precursor advection upwind and
downwind of the area of interest. The Baton Rouge modeling domain
covers all or part of 20 parishes in Louisiana, including Point Coupee
Parish. The ozone precursor emissions from all the parishes in the
Baton Rouge modeling domain were taken into consideration in the UAM
study. The Baton Rouge boundary conditions were based on aircraft
measurements, surface based measurements, and EPA-recommended
background values.
C. Comments on the Redesignation Action
Comment: The commenters noted that between December 1, 1990, and
June 1, 1995, EPA had approved approximately forty-one (41)
redesignation requests nationwide. Several of these redesignated areas,
such as Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri, Detroit, Michigan, San Francisco,
California, Charlotte, North Carolina; Huntington-Ashland, West
Virginia/Kentucky, and Grand Rapids violated the ozone standard after
redesignation. The commenters state that the application of EPA's
diluted redesignation guidance in reviewing these maintenance plans
contributed to the violations. The commenters also noted that the Baton
Rouge area observed 11 exceedances of the ozone standard in 1995.
Response: To date EPA has redesignated a total of 41 areas to
attainment for ozone. Of these areas, only five (Detroit, Michigan,
Memphis, Tennessee, San Francisco, California, Kansas City, Kansas-
Missouri, and Lafourche Parish, Louisiana) subsequently monitored
violations of the ozone standard. The EPA believes that this
demonstrates that for the vast majority of instances the redesignation
policy is appropriate, since most of the redesignated areas have not
violated the ozone standard to date. Furthermore, the Act and Congress
contemplated that such events may occur and therefore, required that
the Administrator fully approve a maintenance plan for the area
consistent with the requirements of section 175A of the Act before the
area can be redesignated to attainment. Section 175A(d) of the Act
requires that a maintenance plan contain contingency provisions deemed
necessary by the Administrator to assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the
redesignation of the area to attainment. Clearly, the Act and Congress
anticipated that areas redesignated to attainment may violate the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the future and ensured
that control measures to remedy the violation are available. Areas
redesignated to attainment have approved maintenance plans with
contingency measures that are and will be implemented in order to
address any violations monitored in the area after redesignation. The
maintenance plans for these areas were deemed appropriate and adequate
for purposes of addressing a future violation as they were fully
approved into the area's SIPs. Furthermore, if the contingency measures
implemented by the State do not address future violations of the NAAQS,
EPA has the authority to call for a plan revision requiring the
adoption of additional control measures and/or redesignate the area to
nonattainment which in turn would require the area to adopt and
implement additional control measures appropriate for its
classification. See sections 110(k)(5) and 107(d)(3).
Comment: The commenters state that EPA should stay approval of the
redesignation until all specified Act requirements are met. Further,
EPA should stay action on ozone redesignation requests from States
participating in the OTAG until regional ozone precursor emission
strategies are proposed and implemented.
Response: As discussed in the July 22, 1996, rulemaking action, EPA
has identified five general criteria which must be met prior to any
approval of a redesignation request. Redesignation requests which meet
these five criteria have demonstrated compliance with the ozone
standard and all the necessary requirements of the Act. As discussed in
the July 22, 1996, rulemaking action, EPA believes that the Pointe
Coupee Parish redesignation request has met all of the Act requirements
and the redesignation criteria. Therefore, EPA is compelled to approve
the request. However, it should be noted that redesignation to
attainment does not necessarily preclude an area from any future
control strategy developed by OTAG.
Comment: Exception was taken to the use of EPA's redesignation
guidance, entitled Reasonable Further Progress; Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Seitz memo),
John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), dated May 10, 1995. The Pointe Coupee redesignation is
exempted from sections 172(c)(2) and 172(c)(6) of the Act, apparently
pursuant to the Seitz memo. The EPA apparently utilized the 1995 Seitz
memo in determining that Pointe Coupee Parish had attained the ozone
standard.
[[Page 651]]
Response: The EPA's interpretation of the requirements of sections
172(c)(2) and (c)(6) of the Act was not based upon the May 10, 1995
Seitz memo, but rather upon the consistent rationale articulated much
earlier in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498) and the guidance
memorandum entitled Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment (Calcagni memo), dated September 4, 1992. As the
Tenth Circuit recently observed:
In that preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency determined
that certain general nonattainment plan requirements do not apply in
evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment under
circumstances where (1) an area has in fact monitored attainment of
the standard, and (2) those requirements are expressly linked by
statutory language with the notion of reasonable further progress.
See 57 FR 13564. The Environmental Protection Agency rezoned that
when an area requests redesignation to attainment status, ``at a
minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area
has already attained [the National Ambient Air Quality Standards].
Showing the State will make [reasonable further progress] towards
attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.''
See 57 FR 13564. Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 95-9541 (10th Cir. November
13, 1996) Slip Opinion at 12-13.
Similarly, the General Preamble found that, with respect to section
172(c)(6)of the Act, ``since attainment will have been reached, no
other measures are needed to provide for attainment.'' See 57 FR 13564.
The Calcagni memo reiterated EPA's reading of sections 172 (c)(2)
and (c)(6) of the Act. The Calcagni memo stated that ``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.'' See Calcagni memo at
page 6.
The commenters cite the May 10, 1995, Seitz memo as the basis for
EPA's interpretation that sections 172 (c)(2) and (c)(6) do not require
area to adopt additional control strategies if that area has attained
the standard. However, this cite is misdirected. Although the May 10,
1995, Seitz memo and determinations that rely upon it are ``a logical
extension of EPA's original, general interpretation of the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments'' Sierra Club v. EPA, supra at 13, the Seitz memo
concerns provisions applicable to designations of moderate and above.
Thus, EPA does not rely upon the Seitz memo here, but rather upon the
longstanding rationale articulated in the General Preamble and the
Calcagni memo.
Comment: The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) requires that
``substantive rules of general applicability'' be subjected to public
comment before promulgation. The EPA's guidance interpreting section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Act's requirements constitutes substantive rules of
general applicability and thus, required to be subjected to public
comment.
Response: The EPA's reference to and reliance on guidance documents
interpreting section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, all of which are either
published or publicly available and a part of the record of the July
22, 1996, rulemaking and this rulemaking, is in no way illegal under
provisions of either the Act or the APA. The commenters cite the APA's
requirement that ``substantive rules of general applicability'' be
published in the Federal Register and subject to public comment before
promulgation. These documents do not purport to be anything but
guidance. That is precisely why EPA instituted a notice and comment
rulemaking to take comment on its statutory interpretations and factual
determinations in order to make a binding and enforceable determination
regarding the Pointe Coupee reclassification and redesignation. The EPA
explained the legal and factual basis for its rulemaking in the July
22, 1996, rulemaking and afforded the public a full opportunity to
comment on EPA's proposed interpretation and determination fully
consistent with the applicable procedural requirements of the APA.
Comment: The 1993 Nichols and 1995 Seitz memoranda are inconsistent
with earlier redesignation guidance (General Preamble, Calcagni and
Shapiro memoranda) pertaining to required SIP revisions for
redesignations.
Response: The October 1994 Nichols memorandum and the May 1995
Seitz memorandum represented modifications of earlier policies. That
does not necessarily mean these memoranda were by any means completely
inconsistent with prior policies. For example, the May 1995 Seitz
memorandum interpreted the more specific RFP requirements of section
182(b)(1) of the Act in a manner consistent with EPA's previous
interpretation of the more general section 171 and 172 Act
requirements. Furthermore, EPA notes that it is permissible to revise
its policies provided that the revised policies, as is the case with
these, are legally justified and reasonable.
Comment: Exempting marginal ozone nonattainment areas from
compliance with applicable Title I, part D requirements, for purposes
of facilitating redesignation requests for these areas is inconsistent
and illegal under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act.
Response: The EPA has not exempted marginal ozone nonattainment
areas from the applicable requirements of Title I, part D of the Act.
As discussed in the July 22, 1996, rulemaking action, Pointe Coupee
would be subject to the marginal requirements of section 182(a) of the
Act rather than section 182(c) of the Act. Therefore, in order to be
redesignated, the State must have met the applicable requirements of
subpart 1 of part D--specifically sections 172(c) and 176 of the Act,
as well as the applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D. As
explained in the July 22, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 37835), EPA
evaluated the redesignation request against those applicable part D
requirements and determined that those requirements had been met.
D. Miscellaneous Comments
Comment: There is a strong argument that the Louisiana State and
Local Air Monitoring Network is inadequate for Pointe Coupee Parish.
Response: The Air quality surveillance plan developed for the Baton
Rouge area included Pointe Coupee Parish. The EPA evaluated the
established air quality monitoring network and the surveillance plan
against the 40 CFR part 58 Ambient Air Quality Surveillance
requirements, determined its compliance with all applicable part 58
requirements, and approved the plan. The EPA performs annual reviews of
this established air quality surveillance plan to ensure its continued
compliance with part 58. The EPA believes that the current monitoring
location in New Roads adequately represents ambient ozone levels in
Pointe Coupee Parish.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
In this final action EPA is promulgating a revision to the
Louisiana SIP and the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 52 and 81, to
correct the classification of Pointe Coupee Parish from serious to
marginal, and to redesignate the Parish to attainment for ozone. This
redesignation request was submitted by the Governor to EPA by letter
dated December 20, 1995.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific
[[Page 652]]
technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This action has been classified for signature by the Administrator
under the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19,
1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995, memorandum from
Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office
of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from E.O.
12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,
preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry
into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids EPA
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. See Union Electric
Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. section 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. section 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 7, 1997. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2) of the Act.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air Pollution control, Designation of areas for air quality
planning purposes.
Dated: December 20, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart T--Louisiana
2. Section 52.970 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(70) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.970 Identification of Plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(70) The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality submitted a
redesignation request and maintenance plan for Pointe Coupee Parish on
December 20, 1995. The redesignation request and maintenance plan meet
the redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act as
amended in 1990. The redesignation meets the Federal requirements of
section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a revision to the Louisiana
ozone State Implementation Plan for Pointe Coupee Parish. The EPA
therefore approved the request for redesignation to attainment with
respect to ozone for Pointe Coupee Parish on December 20, 1996.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Letter dated August 31, 1995, from
Mr. Gustave Von Bodungen, P.E., Assistant Secretary, Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, transmitting a copy of the Pointe
Coupee Parish maintenance plan for the EPA's approval.
(ii) Additional material. (A) Letter dated August 28, 1995, from
Governor Edwin E. Edwards of Louisiana to Ms. Jane Saginaw, Regional
Administrator, requesting the reclassification and redesignation of
Pointe Coupee Parish to attainment for ozone.
(B) The ten year ozone maintenance plan, including emissions
projections and contingency measures, submitted to EPA as part of the
Pointe Coupee Parish redesignation request on December 20, 1995.
3. Section 52.975 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.975 Redesignations and Maintenance Plans: Ozone.
* * * * *
(d) Approval--The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for Pointe
Coupee Parish on December 20, 1995. The redesignation request and
maintenance
[[Page 653]]
plan meet the redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
Act as amended in 1990. The redesignation meets the Federal
requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a revision to
the Louisiana ozone State Implementation Plan for Pointe Coupee Parish.
The EPA therefore approved the request for redesignation to attainment
with respect to ozone for Pointe Coupee Parish on December 20, 1996.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. In Sec. 81.319, the ozone table is amended by revising the entry
for the Baton Rouge area and by adding an entry for the Pointe Coupee
area to read as follows:
Sec. 81.319 Louisiana.
* * * * *
Louisiana--Ozone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baton Rouge Area:
Ascension Parish............... .............................. Nonattainment................. .............................. Serious.
East Baton Rouge Parish........ .............................. Nonattainment................. .............................. Serious.
Iberville Parish............... .............................. Nonattainment................. .............................. Serious.
Livingston Parish.............. .............................. Nonattainment................. .............................. Serious.
West Baton Rouge Parish........ .............................. Nonattainment................. .............................. Serious.
* * * * * * *
Pointe Coupee Area:
Pointe Coupee Parish........... Dec. 20, 1996................. .............................. .............................. ...................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-42 Filed 1-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
