Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
FRL ID: [FRL-7387-5]
NOTICE: RULES
ACTION: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area; Ozone; 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration; Attainment Date Extension, and Withdrawal of Nonattainment Determination and Reclassification
DATES: This rule is effective October 2, 2002. The amendment to Sec. 81.319 which published on June 24, 2002 (67 FR 42688) and were revised on August 20, 2002 (67 FR 53882) are withdrawn.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (Act), EPA is approving the Louisiana 1hour ozone attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Baton Rouge serious ozone nonattainment area. In conjunction with its approval of the attainment demonstration, EPA is: approving Louisiana's transport demonstration and extending the ozone attainment date for the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area to November 15, 2005, while retaining the area's current classification as a serious ozone nonattainment area; withdrawing EPA's June 24, 2002, rulemaking determining nonattainment and reclassification of the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area; finding that the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area meets the reasonably available control measures (RACM) requirements of the Act; approving the State's enforceable commitment to perform a midcourse review and submit a SIP revision to EPA by May 1, 2004; approving the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) and an enforceable commitment to submit revised budgets using MOBILE6; and approving an enforceable transportation control measure (TCM).
This action also approves SIP submittals relating to corrections to the 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory, the 9% RateofProgress Plan (ROPP), and the 15% ROPP.
SUMMARY: Louisiana,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.Background
A notice of proposed rulemaking was published on this action on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50391). EPA has also published a notice regarding the Baton Rouge area's potential eligibility for an attainment date extension on May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23646). EPA received comments on these proposals. EPA has also published a related notice: the ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas,'' 64 FR 14441 (March 25, 1999). That notice announced EPA's interpretation of the Act regarding the possibility of extending attainment dates for ozone nonattainment areas that had been classified as moderate or serious for the 1hour ozone standard and which are downwind of areas that have interfered with their ability to demonstrate attainment. In that notice EPA also noted that we intended to finalize our interpretation only when we applied this policy in the context of individual rulemakings addressing specific attainment demonstrations and requests for attainment date extensions. We have received comments on our application of this policy to the Baton Rouge area. Therefore, in this final rule, EPA responds to adverse comments on these proposed rulemakings and notices. For details on the SIP submittals and EPA's analysis of the submittals, refer to the notices of the proposed rules referenced above in this paragraph, and the technical support documents for the August 2, 2002, and May 9, 2001, proposals.
EPA is making this final rulemaking effective immediately. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. However, if an Agency identifies a good cause, section 553(d)(3) allows a rule to take effect earlier, provided that the Agency publishes its reasoning in the final rule. EPA is making this action effective immediately because the effective date of the nonattainment determination and reclassification (which is being withdrawn as a result of this final rule) is imminent. In addition, EPA finds good cause for making this action effective immediately because, in part, it relieves a restriction that would otherwise go into effect. Information
This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:
I. What Louisiana SIP revisions are the topic of this action?
II. What previous actions have been taken regarding the Baton Rouge area attainment demonstration and attainment date?
III. What MVEBs are we approving?
IV. What revisions concerning the 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory, the 9% ROPP, and the 15% ROPP are we approving?
V. Implementation of RACM.
VI. What are the requirements for full approval of the attainment demonstration?
VII. Did Louisiana fulfill these requirements for full approval?
VIII. What are the criteria for an attainment date extension?
IX. How did Louisiana satisfy the criteria for an attainment date extension?
X. What action is EPA taking regarding the Determination of
Nonattainment as of November 15, 1999, and Reclassification published on June 24, 2002?
XI. What comments were received on the proposals covered by this
final action, and on the March 25, 1999, publication of the
attainment date extension policy, and how has EPA responded to those?
XII. What action is EPA taking regarding the State submittals addressed by this final rule?
I. What Louisiana SIP Revisions Are the Topic of This Action?
The Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area encompasses the East Baton
Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Ascension, Iberville, and Livingston Parishes
(40 CFR 81.319). The State of Louisiana made several submittals to us
relating to the ozone attainment demonstration and their request for an
extension of the attainment date for the Baton Rouge ozone
nonattainment area. The submittals listed below relate directly to EPA's final action described in this document:
(a) On December 31, 2001, LDEQ submitted an ozone attainment
demonstration and transport SIP revision. The SIP revision included:
i. A revision to the 15% ROPP for the control of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions in the Baton Rouge area. The 15% Rate ROPP was approved by EPA on October 22, 1996 (61 FR 54737).
ii. Revisions to the 1990 base year emissions inventory. The inventory was approved on July 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930).
iii. Revisions to the Post1996 ROPP. The Post1996 ROPP, also referred to as the 9% ROPP, was approved on July 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930).
iv. Revisions to the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program.
v. Attainment MVEBs for 2005 for VOCs and Nitrogen Oxides (NO
vi. An enforceable commitment to submit revised MVEBs within 24 months after the release of MOBILE6.
vii. An enforceable commitment for midcourse review.
viii. An enforceable transportation control measure referred to as the Advanced Transportation Management System.
ix. An emissions control strategy that incorporates federal, state, and local control measures.
x. Revisions to Louisiana's New Source Review (NSR) rules.
xi. Substitute contingency measures.
(b) On February 27, 2002, LDEQ submitted final rules for the emission reductions credit banking program.
(c) On February 27, 2002, LDEQ also submitted final revisions to
the contingency measures proposed in the December 31, 2002, SIP submittal.
(d) On May 20, 2002, LDEQ submitted a letter concerning the
revisions to the rulemaking dealing with VOC emissions from industrial wastewater.
(e) On July 25, 2002, the Governor submitted Louisiana's final rule
for the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides. Prior to that, on
February 1, 2002, LDEQ had submitted changes to the proposed rule for
control of NO
EPA has taken separate final actions on other parts of the Baton
Rouge SIP, including the I/M Program, NO
[[Page 61788]]
II. What Previous Actions Have Been Taken Regarding the Baton Rouge Area Attainment Demonstration and Attainment Date?
On May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23646), EPA proposed to find that the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area had not attained the 1hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by the attainment date for serious nonattainment areas (November 15, 1999). Also in that notice, EPA issued a notice of the Baton Rouge area's potential eligibility for an attainment date extension, pursuant to EPA's, ``Guidance on Extension of Air Quality Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas' (hereinafter referred to as the attainment date extension policy) (Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation) issued on July 16, 1998. In the May 9, 2001, Federal Register, EPA proposed to finalize the reclassification of the Baton Rouge nonattainment area only after the area had an opportunity to qualify for an attainment date extension under the attainment date extension policy.
Subsequent to our May 9, 2001, proposed rulemaking, a relevant court decision was issued which affected EPA's proposed rulemaking for the Baton Rouge area. EPA was in the process of reviewing the Attainment Plan/Transport SIP when the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana entered a Judgment on March 7, 2002, ordering EPA to determine, by June 5, 2002, whether the Baton Rouge area had attained the applicable ozone standard under the CAA. LEAN v. Whitman, No. 00879A. In compliance with the Court's Order, EPA signed on June 5, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2002, (67 FR 42688) our determination that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the 1hour ozone standard by November 15, 1999 in the Federal Register (67 FR 42688). By operation of law, that determination would result in the Baton Rouge area being reclassified from a serious to a severe nonattainment area on the effective date of that rule. EPA concurrently proposed to extend the effective date of our determination from August 23, 2002, to October 4, 2002 (67 FR 42697, June 24, 2002). On August 20, 2002, we published an action finalizing the modification of the effective date of our June 24, 2002, final reclassification from August 23, 2002, until October 4, 2002.
In the June 24, 2002, proposed rulemaking, EPA also set forth its intent to withdraw the final determination and reclassification, if EPA granted the State an attainment date extension before the effective date of the determination and reclassification rule.
On August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50391), EPA proposed to approve Louisiana's 1hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP for the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area. Also, in that notice we proposed to approve an extension of the ozone attainment date for the Baton Rouge area to November 15, 2005, while retaining the area's classification as a serious ozone nonattainment area if EPA took final action to approve the State's ozone attainment demonstrations. EPA also proposed other related actions in the August 2, 2002, proposal.
Additionally, EPA has taken separate actions on other related
revisions to the Baton Rouge SIP, including the I/M Program (proposed
at 67 FR 44410, July 2, 2002), NO
EPA has received comments on portions of our May 9, 2001; June 24, 2002; and August 2, 2002, proposed rules. The Tulane Environmental Law Clinic and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) submitted adverse comments on portions of the May 9, 2001; June 24, 2002; and August 2, 2002, proposed rules. Earthjustice submitted adverse comments on portions of the August 2, 2002, proposed rule. Louisiana Generating, LLC and Big Cajun I and II (LAGen), submitted adverse comments on Section 4.2.1 of the SIP in response to our August 2, 2002, proposed approval. All other comments on the proposals supported EPA's proposed actions. In this final rule, EPA responds to the adverse comments received in response to the relevant proposals. EPA also responds to relevant adverse comments on its March 25, 1999, notice of interpretation regarding the attainment date extension policy (64 FR 14441).
III. What MVEBs Are We Approving?
On December 31, 2001, Louisiana submitted motor vehicle emissions
budgets for the 2005 attainment year for the Baton Rouge area in their
SIP. The attainment year MVEBs established by this plan that we are
approving are 15.48 tons per day for VOC and 34.26 tons per day for
NO
All States whose attainment demonstrations include the effects of the Tier 2/sulfur program have committed to revise and resubmit their MVEBs after we release MOBILE6. If a state fails to meet its commitment to submit revised budgets using MOBILE6, EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP, which would start a sanctions clock under section 179 of the Act.
The final approval action we are taking today will be effective for conformity purposes only until revised MVEBs are submitted and we have found them adequate. In other words, the budgets we are approving today will apply for conformity purposes only until there are new, adequate budgets consistent with the State's commitments to revise the budgets. The new budgets will apply for conformity purposes after we find them adequate.
We are limiting the duration of our approval in this manner because we are only approving the attainment demonstration and the budgets based on the State's commitment to revise them. Therefore, if we confirm that the revised budgets are adequate, they will be more appropriate than the budgets we are approving for conformity purposes now.
If the revised budgets raise issues about the sufficiency of the
attainment demonstration, we will work with the State to address the
issues. If the revised budgets show that motor vehicle emissions are
lower than the budgets we approve, a reassessment of the attainment
demonstration's analysis will be necessary before reallocating the
emission reductions or assigning them to the MVEB as a safety margin.
In other words, the State must assess how its original attainment
demonstration is impacted by using MOBILE6 v MOBILE5 before they reallocate any apparent motor vehicle emission
[[Page 61789]]
reductions resulting from the use of MOBILE6.
IV. What Revisions Concerning the 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory, the 9% ROPP, and the 15% ROPP Are We approving?
Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), States have the
responsibility to inventory emissions contributing to NAAQS
nonattainment, to track these emissions over time, and to ensure that
control strategies are being implemented that reduce emissions and move
areas towards attainment. The CAAA require ozone nonattainment areas
designated as moderate, serious, severe, and extreme to submit a plan
within three years of 1990 to reduce VOC emissions by 15 percent within
six years after 1990. The baseline level of emissions, from which the
15 percent reduction is calculated, is determined by adjusting the base
year inventory to exclude biogenic emissions and to exclude certain
emission reductions not creditable towards the 15 percent. The 1990
base year emissions inventory is the primary inventory from which the
periodic inventory, the Reasonable Further Progress projection
inventory, and the modeling inventory are derived.\1\ The base year
inventory plays an important role in modeling demonstrations for areas classified as moderate and above.
\1\ Further information on these inventories and their purpose
can be found in the ``Emission Inventory Requirements for Ozone
State Implementation Plans,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1991.
States containing ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal
to extreme were required under section 182(a)(1) of the 1990 CAAA to
submit a final, comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of
actual ozone season, weekday emissions from all sources by November 15,
1992. This inventory is for calendar year 1990 and is denoted as the
base year inventory. It includes both anthropogenic and biogenic sources of VOC, NO
Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act requires each State having one or more ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or higher to develop a plan by November 15, 1994, that provides for additional actual VOC reductions of at least three percent per year, averaged over each consecutive three year period, beginning six years after enactment of the Act, until such time as these areas have attained the NAAQS for ozone. EPA approved the revisions to the 9% ROPP for the Baton Rouge area on July 2, 1999 (64 FR 35930).
The revisions we are approving today consist of revisions to the 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory, the 15% ROPP, and the 9% ROPP, which were submitted as part of the December 31, 2001, Attainment Plan/ Transport SIP. Specifically, they were submitted as part of the substitute contingency measures. The substitute contingency measures are the subject of a separate EPA rulemaking action which published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2002.
The revisions consisted of emission reductions resulting from the
installation of VOC emission controls at the Trunkline Gas Company
Patterson Compressor Station (hereinafter referred to as Trunkline or
Trunkline facility) in St. Mary Parish. The Trunkline facility is
located approximately 40 kilometers from the Baton Rouge ozone
nonattainment area. In 1997, EPA issued a policy allowing 1hour ozone
nonattainment areas to take credit in their Post1996 ROPP \2\ for
emission reductions obtained from sources outside the designated
nonattainment area, provided the sources are no farther away than 100
km (for VOC sources) or 200 km (for NO
\2\ EPA has historically allowed a surplus emission reduction in
ROPP to be credited towards meeting the section 172 and section 182
requirements. EPA's rationale is that not allowing excess emission
reductions to be used as contingency measures discourages areas from
reducing emissions ``as expeditiously as practicable'' and is, therefore, inconsistent with section 172 of the CAA.
\3\ EPA memorandum, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1Hour Ozone
and PreExisting PM
The Trunkline Gas Company had not accounted for 13.4 tons per day of VOC emissions. As a result, the VOC emissions from this facility had not been included in the point source emissions inventory for 1990. Emissions reported in a corrected 1992 annual emissions inventory submitted to LDEQ on June 6, 1997, are the best estimate of the source's 1990 base year emissions. These emissions were added back to the 1990 base year emissions inventory. The revised 1990 VOC base year inventory that included these Trunkline emissions (i.e., 13.4 tons per day) would result in a total of 204.6 tons per day revised 1990 base year inventory.
An additional 2.0 tons per day of emission reductions required were identified in the 15% ROPP revisions. The additional 2.0 tons per day were offset by 1.4 tons per day ``surplus'' 9% ROPP reduction from the Trunkline permit plus 0.6 tons per day of point source reductions (163 tons per year or 0.45 tons per day of VOCs from the Dow Chemical permit and 56 tons per year or 0.15 tons per day of VOCs from the BASF Corporation permit).
There were also an additional 1.2 tons per day of reductions required for the 9% ROPP identified in the revisions. These were taken from the 13.0 tons per day Trunkline emissions reductions that were netted from the post90 emissions growth.
For additional detailed discussions on the above mentioned revisions please see our August 2, 2002, rulemaking (67 FR 50396). EPA received adverse comments concerning these revisions. Those comments are addressed elsewhere in this notice.
V. Implementation of RACM
Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires attainment demonstration SIPs to provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable. EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirements of 172(c)(1). (See 57 FR 13498, 13560.) We also discussed the RACM requirements in our August 2, 2002, Federal Register proposal. EPA has reviewed the state's submitted analyses, the process used to review and select transportation control measures, the state's evaluation of potential stationary source control measures, and the attainment year emissions inventories for the Baton Rouge area. While the Act requires nonattainment areas to implement available RACM measures, EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires implementation of potential RACM measures that either require intensive and costly implementation efforts or that produce relatively small emissions reductions that will not accelerate attainment of the ozone standard.
Analyses conducted by LDEQ concluded that the additional set of evaluated measures are not reasonably available for the Baton Rouge area, because: (a) Some would require an intensive and costly effort for numerous small area sources, and (b) the measures would not produce emission reductions sufficient to advance the attainment date in the Baton Rouge area. Therefore, the measures were rejected as possible RACM.
EPA received adverse comments on our proposed finding that
Louisiana has satisfied the RACM requirements of the Act. Those
comments are addressed below. EPA believes that the reductions from the
measures rejected by the State would not accelerate attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Based upon EPA's
[[Page 61790]]
review of the State's analysis and submission, the explanation provided
in our August 2, 2002, proposed rule (67 FR 50391) and our
interpretation of the Act, EPA is approving Louisiana's RACM analysis.
VI. What Are the Requirements for Full Approval of the Attainment Demonstration?
The attainment demonstration SIP must meet applicable criteria as
detailed in the Act. The specific requirements of the Act for serious
ozone nonattainment areas are found in section 182(c). Section 172
provides the general requirements for nonattainment plans. Refer to our
August 2, 2002, proposal (67 FR 50391) for further details of requirements for attainment demonstrations.
VII. Did Louisiana Fulfill These Requirements for Full Approval?
EPA guidance published in 1996 provides that states may rely on a
modeled attainment demonstration supplemented with additional weight of
evidence (WOE) to demonstrate attainment (``Guidance on the Use of
Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,'' EPA
454/B95007, June 1996). In our August 2, 2002, Federal Register
notice we listed documents containing many of EPA's guidelines
affecting the content and review of ozone attainment demonstration
submittals. (67 FR 50394.) In that notice, we also described in detail
the modeling requirements for an attainment demonstration as well as
the additional analyses that may be considered when the deterministic
approach, as described in EPA guidance, does not show attainment (67 FR
5039450395). In the same Federal Register document, EPA details the
statistical and modeling data presented in the state's attainment
demonstration that support the validity of the ozone modeling results
and the adequacy of the adopted ozone attainment strategies. The State
concludes, and EPA concurs, that the modeling system performs at an
acceptable level because it satisfactorily reproduces peak ozone
concentrations relative to the monitored peak ozone concentrations. The
modeling system adequately simulates the observed magnitude and spatial
and temporal patterns of monitored ozone concentrations. Furthermore,
the modeling results accurately differentiate between days with
marginal ozone levels and days with elevated ozone concentrations.
Therefore, based on the modeling and WOE results presented by the State
which confirm the adequacy of the adopted emission control strategy,
EPA is approving the State's attainment demonstration. EPA also finds
that the appropriate attainment date is November 15, 2005, based on the
attainment demonstration. EPA received adverse comments regarding the
State's modeled attainment demonstration. These comments and our responses are summarized elsewhere in this notice.
VIII. What Are the Criteria for an Attainment Date Extension?
EPA's policy regarding an extension of the ozone attainment date for the Baton Rouge area was set forth in EPA's notice of proposed rulemakings dated May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23646, 2365023651) and August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50391). On July 16, 1998, a guidance memorandum entitled ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' was issued by EPA and was published in a notice of interpretation on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 12221). In it, EPA set forth its interpretation of the Act regarding the extension of attainment dates for ozone nonattainment areas that have been classified as moderate or serious for the 1hour ozone standard, and which are downwind of areas that have interfered with the moderate and serious nonattainment areas's attainment of the ozone standard by dates prescribed in the Act. EPA stated that it will consider extending the attainment date for an area or a state that:
1. Has been identified as a downwind area affected by transport from either an upwind area in the same state with a later attainment date or an upwind area in another state that significantly contributes to downwind ozone nonattainment;
2. Has submitted an approvable attainment demonstration with any
necessary, adopted local measures, and with an attainment date that
shows it will attain the 1hour standard no later than the date that
the emission reductions are expected from upwind areas in the final
NO
3. Has adopted all applicable local measures required under the area's current ozone classification and any additional emission control measures demonstrated to be necessary to achieve attainment, assuming the emission reductions occur as required in the upwind areas; and
4. Has provided that it will implement all adopted measures as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date by which the upwind reductions needed for attainment will be achieved.
IX. How Did Louisiana Satisfy the Criteria for an Attainment Date Extension?
Louisiana satisfied the criteria for an attainment date extension as follows:
1. EPA finds that Louisiana has demonstrated that it is a downwind area affected by transport from the Houston area and that Houston contributes to the Baton Rouge area's ozone nonattainment;
2. As explained elsewhere in this notice, EPA finds that the State of Louisiana has submitted an approvable attainment demonstration that provides for attainment no later than the date emissions reductions are expected from the upwind area. Furthermore, all of the control measures needed for attainment have been adopted and submitted to EPA. These measures include all serious area requirements under section 182(c).
3. EPA has determined that Louisiana has adopted local measures required by the Act for the area's current classification as a serious nonattainment area. See Louisiana's SIP submittals and 67 FR 50391 (August 2, 2002) and the references cited therein for a discussion of the local measures adopted by the State.
4. With respect to implementation of all adopted measures as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the time upwind controls are expected, Louisiana has demonstrated to EPA that all control measures would be in place by November 15, 2005. This is two years in advance of the Houston, Texas, upwind area that is contributing to the Baton Rouge area's nonattainment. Since the local measures adopted by Louisiana necessary for attainment will be implemented no later than 2005 and EPA finds that they will be implemented as expeditiously as practicable, the State has shown that this element of the attainment date extension policy has been satisfied.
EPA therefore concludes, consistent with the attainment date
extension policy, the State has met the criteria for an attainment date
extension. EPA is thus extending the attainment date for the Baton
Rouge area to November 15, 2005, to allow the upwind reductions to
occur before attainment is required. Additional background information
on EPA's attainment date extension policy can be found in the following Federal Register notices:
64 FR 14441 (March 25, 1999)
64 FR 12284 (March 18, 1999)
64 FR 18864 (April 16, 1999)
64 FR 27734 (May 21, 1999)
64 FR 70459 (December 16, 1999)
65 FR 20404 (April 17, 2000)
66 FR 585 (January 3, 2001)
[[Page 61791]]
66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001)
66 FR 666 (January 3, 2001)
66 FR 17647 (April 3, 2001)
66 FR 20122 (April 19, 2001)
66 FR 26913 (May 15, 2001)
66 FR 33996 (June 26, 2001)
67 FR 30574 (May 7, 2002)
EPA received comments regarding the basis for and application of
the extension policy in granting the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment
area an attainment date extension. Those comments and our responses to comments are summarized elsewhere in this document.
X. What Action Is EPA Taking Regarding the Determination of
Nonattainment as of November 15, 1999, and Reclassification Published on June 24, 2002?
On May 10, 2000, the Governor of Louisiana requested an attainment date extension for the Baton Rouge area. On May 9, 2001, EPA proposed its finding that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the 1hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (66 FR 23646). In that proposed action, we also stated that Louisiana was seeking an extension of its attainment date pursuant to EPA's attainment date extension policy. EPA proposed to take final action on the determination of nonattainment and reclassification of the Baton Rouge area only after the area had received an opportunity to qualify for an attainment date extension under the attainment date extension policy. Louisiana submitted an Attainment Plan/Transport SIP on December 31, 2001, for the Baton Rouge area. EPA was in the process of reviewing the Attainment Plan/Transport SIP when, on March 7, 2002, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana entered a Judgment ordering EPA to determine, by June 5, 2002, whether the Baton Rouge area had attained the applicable ozone standard under the CAA. LEAN v. Whitman, No. 00 879A. In compliance with the Court's Order, EPA signed on June 5, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2002, (67 FR 42688) our determination that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the 1hour ozone standard by November 15, 1999.
On June 24, 2002, EPA published its ``Determination of Nonattainment as of November 15, 1999, and Reclassification of the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area; State of Louisiana; Final Rule'' (67 FR 42688). The effective date of that Determination and Reclassification was initially set at August 23, 2002. However, in a separate notice the same day (67 FR 42697), EPA proposed to extend the effective date of the Determination and Reclassification until October 4, 2002. On August 20, 2002 (67 FR 53882), EPA finalized the modification of the effective date of the Determination of Nonattainment as of November 15, 1999, and Reclassification of the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area, extending it until October 4, 2002.
In our August 2, 2002, Federal Register document (67 FR 50391), EPA proposed to withdraw the Notice of Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification if we approved an attainment date extension prior to the effective date of the Determination of Nonattainment. As noted in our August 2, 2002, proposal, EPA believes this is appropriate for a number of reasons.
Since we are today granting an extension until November 15, 2005,
for attainment of the 1hour ozone standard, EPA's obligation under
section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act to determine attainment is thereby
shifted into the future. As a result, we are hereby withdrawing the published nonattainment determination and the consequent
reclassification, which has not yet gone into effect. Therefore, the
Baton Rouge area retains its classification as a serious ozone
nonattainment area. As stated previously, comments on our proposal to
extend the attainment date are addressed below. In today's action, we
are withdrawing the Notice of Nonattainment Determination and
Reclassification, prior to its becoming effective. EPA received adverse
comments relating to our proposal to withdraw the nonattainment
determination and consequent reclassification in the event we granted
an attainment date extension. Those adverse comments are addressed below in this document.
XI. What Comments Were Received on the Proposals Covered by This Final
Action, and on the March 25, 1999, Publication of the Attainment Date Extension Policy, and How Has EPA Responded to Those?
EPA received comments from the public on the Notices of Proposed Rulemaking published on May 9, 2001; June 24, 2002; and August 2, 2002, for the proposed approval of the Baton Rouge's ozone attainment demonstration and attainment date extension. EPA received adverse comments from Tulane and LEAN for our May 9, 2001 and the August 2, 2002, proposals. We received adverse comments from Earthjustice on our August 2, 2002, proposal. EPA also received comments in support of the proposals from 24 commenters.
EPA sets forth below in this section our responses to adverse comments received on these notices which are relevant to this rulemaking. EPA also received comments relating to the proposal to determine that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the ozone standard by November 15, 1999. These comments relate primarily to the necessity of making the nonattainment determinations, and the appropriate attainment date if the area were reclassified. In EPA's June 24, 2002, final rule, EPA responded to adverse comments on the proposed determination that the area did not attain the standard by November 15, 1999, and finalized the reclassification to severe nonattainment. (67 FR 42688, 4269342695). The effective date of that action was extended to October 4, 2002. Today we are withdrawing our June 24, 2002, final rule.
Finally, some of the comments received in Docket A9847 on EPA's notice regarding ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' 64 FR 12221 (March 25, 1999), are relevant to this rulemaking. EPA incorporates its responses to those comments, set forth in 66 FR 586, 66 FR 634, 66 FR 666 (January 3, 2001), and 66 FR 26913 (May 15, 2001), 66 FR 33996 (June 26, 2001), 66 FR 33996 (June 26, 2001), and 67 FR 30574 (May 7, 2002), insofar as herein relevant.
The following discussion summarizes and responds to all adverse comments:
Comments Received in Response to the May 9, 2001 (67 FR 23646), Proposal
Comment 1: Eleven comment letters were received with statements of support for EPA's proposed eligibility for a transportbased attainment date extension. Two comment letters were received in opposition to the transportbased attainment date extension. The commenters in support believed that the Baton Rouge area was affected by the transport of ozone from the HoustonGalveston, Texas, nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as Houston). The commenters in opposition believed that either the Baton Rouge area did not meet the conditions under EPA's transportbased attainment date extension policy, that the time for making an attainment determination was overdue, and/or the Act did not give EPA the authority to grant the transportbased attainment date extension.
Response 1: In this final rule, EPA responds to the relevant
adverse comments on EPA's legal authority to extend the Baton Rouge area's attainment date received in response to
[[Page 61792]]
that proposal. The responses to comments in a number of prior
rulemakings concerning the attainment date extensions granted in
Washington, DC, Springfield, Massachusetts, Greater Connecticut,
Beaumont, Texas, the St. Louis area, and Atlanta, Georgia, are relevant
and responsive to the comments received on Baton Rouge. In those prior
rulemakings, EPA responded to similar challenges to the legality of the
attainment date extension policy, and EPA therefore incorporates its
responses to those comments, set forth in 66 FR 586, 66 FR 634, 66 FR
666 (January 3, 2001), 66 FR 26913 (May 15, 2001), 66 FR 33996 (June
26, 2001), and 67 FR 30574 (May 7, 2002), insofar as herein relevant.
Many of the legal arguments and other issues raised in the comments addressing the attainment date extension proposed in Baton Rouge have also been addressed in the briefs EPA has filed in litigation concerning the extensions in Washington, DC Sierra Club v. Whitman, Nos. 011070 (DC Cir.), St. Louis, Sierra Club v. EPA 012844, No. 01 2845 (7th Cir.), Sierra Club v. Whitman, Nos. 015123 and 015299 (DC Cir.), and Beaumont, Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 0160537 (5th Cir.). These briefs have been placed in the docket for this rulemaking and are incorporated herein by reference.
Commenters cite to prior case law in support of such propositions as: a list of specific remedial provisions excludes the possibility of inferring that Congress intended any additional forms of relief; an agency cannot substitute its policy choices for those of Congress; the attainment deadlines are central to the CAA and cannot be adjusted. EPA has previously set forth its views on these issues in its prior responses and in its briefs. None of the cases or arguments cited by the commenters alters these views, or undermines EPA's authority to interpret the text of the statute in its full context so as to give effect to Congressional intent. EPA is implementing the attainment date extension not as a mere Agency policy preference, but in order to fulfill Congressional intent. Moreover, even in the absence of explicit statutory authority, EPA may grant extensions of time under the CAA where it concludes that Congress would have done the same had it foreseen the circumstances presented. NRDC v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
Please see the responses to related comments concerning Baton Rouge's eligibility for an extension in the comment section below. Comments Received in Response to the August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50391), Proposal
Twentyseven comment letters were received on our August 2, 2002, proposed approval rulemaking. Of these twentyseven letters, we received four comment letters with adverse comments dealing with our proposed action.
Comment 2: One commenter contends that EPA lacks statutory authority to approve the request for an attainment date extension based on EPA's attainment date extension policy. The commenter asserts that the current classification for the Baton Rouge area is ``severe'' and not ``serious.'' The commenter contends that EPA has already determined that the area failed to attain the ozone standard within the meaning of section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act, and that, therefore, the Baton Rouge area was reclassified by operation of law, despite EPA's refusal to acknowledge this. The commenter incorporates by reference its arguments as to the legality of the attainment date extension policy contained in its briefs in Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 160162 (DC Cir. 2002); Opening and Reply Briefs of Sierra Club in Sierra Club v. EPA, DC Cir. 011070, at Part I; Earthjustice Comments dated April 26, 1999, addressing EPA's proposal entitled ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Area.'' 64 Fed. Reg. 14441 (March 25, 1999); Transcript of Oral Argument in Sierra Club v. EPA, DC Cir. 011070 (February 4, 2002).
Response 2: EPA has responded to the contentions regarding the legality of EPA's attainment date extension policy in its responses to comments on the May 9, 2001, proposed rulemaking. As to the assertion that the classification of the Baton Rouge area is ``severe'' and not ``serious,'' EPA, prior to the Courtordered rulemaking published on June 24, 2002, had issued no final rulemaking determining that the Baton Rouge area had not attained the standard by November 1999. Therefore, the Baton Rouge area was not reclassified to ``severe.'' Moreover, since EPA is today issuing a final attainment date extension and withdrawing its June 24, 2002, determination prior to that determination taking effect, the Baton Rouge area remains classified as a serious area. EPA incorporates its responses to the comments contained in its briefs in the cases cited above.
Comment 3: One commenter argues that the DC Circuit has decided adversely to the attainment date extension, and that similar cases are pending before the Seventh Circuit and before the Fifth Circuit, which is considering this issue in the Sierra Club v. EPA, (No. 0160537), argued September 4, 2002. EPA should await the outcomes of those cases. The fact that the Louisiana SIP provides for RACM and ROPP does not fix the proposed rules shortfalls. The area should still be reclassified.
Response 3: While the DC Circuit has issued a decision concerning Washington, DC, EPA nevertheless believes that its approach is justified and is currently continuing to litigate the pertinent legal issues in two other Circuits. The Seventh Circuit has yet to rule on the attainment date extension issue with regard to the St. Louis area, and the Fifth Circuit, which would have jurisdiction to review EPA's rulemaking regarding Baton Rouge, has yet to rule on the attainment date extension issue in the context of Beaumont, Texas. When these Circuits issue their decisions in these cases, EPA will reevaluate its position with respect to Baton Rouge.
Comment 4: Commenters claim that on two occasionson separate amendments offered by Senator Kasten in 1990 and Senator Levin in 1994, Congress rejected amendments to the Clean Air Act providing for attainment date extensions.
Response 4: Neither amendment cited by commenters corresponds with
EPA's attainment date extension policy, and there is no evidence that
either was acted upon by Congress. In its prior rulemaking notices and
briefs EPA has answered the arguments that the commenters raised on the
Kasten amendment. As to the Levin amendment cited by commenters, this
bill did not address attainment date extensions, but rather a revision
to section 182(h)(1) concerning rural transport areas that was aimed at
original classifications. This proposed amendment did not propose
attainment date extensions, but rather dealt with areas that made no
significant contribution to their own ozone concentrations, and
proposed to treat them as rural transport areas. In offering this
amendment, Senator Levin expressly noted that EPA was grappling with
the issue of other areas, whose air quality is affected by the area's
own emissions as well as those from upwind areas. Senator Levin's bill
did not address this situation, because he acknowledged EPA's plans
``to issue a new policy on ozone transport that will hold areas
responsible only for that portion of the ozone problem which they
cause.'' However, this new policy is expected to only correct another
inequity in the act, the fact that downwind areas suffering from significant ozone and other pollution
[[Page 61793]]
transported from more severely polluted areas have less time to achieve
attainment. The change in attainment deadlines will not address the
problem of areas inappropriately designated in the first place. 140 Cong. Rec. S1053805 (August 3, 1994).
Comment 5: Commenters contend that it is too late for Louisiana to apply for a transport extension, and that any application for an extension should be denied on the failure of the state to submit a timely application for an extension and for failure to meet the requirements of the attainment date extension in a timely fashion.
Response 5: EPA disagrees that it is too late to grant Louisiana an attainment date extension. First, Louisiana is not applying for an attainment date extension under section 181(a)(5), but in accordance with EPA's transportbased attainment date extension policy. EPA believes that the area timely applied for an attainment date extension pursuant to EPA's attainment date extension policy and that it has made the requisite showing for an extension based upon transport. In its notice of proposed rulemaking EPA set forth the history of this rulemaking action and also noted that EPA had provided additional time for the area to submit documentation in support of its request for an attainment date extension. 67 FR 50391 (August 2, 2002); 66 FR 23646 (May 9, 2001), 66 FR 38608 (July 25, 2001) (supplemental proposed rule). As EPA noted in its final rulemaking of June 24, 2002 (67 FR 42697), Footnote 3, EPA received no adverse comments on its supplemental proposal to extend Louisiana's transport SIP submission date to December 31, 2002.
Comment 6: Congress foresaw the problem of ozone transport and provided a solution under sections 110 and 126. Louisiana never petitioned EPA under section 126 for a finding that sources in Texas significantly contributed to ozone problems in Baton Rouge.
Response 6: As EPA has noted in prior rulemakings, because a functional understanding of transport was late in coming, the tools envisioned by Congress could not be deployed in time to provide the intended relief. The commenter's contention that EPA should not grant Baton Rouge an attainment date extension because Louisiana should have acted earlier to commence a section 126 petition proceeding to reduce emissions from upwind states ignores the fact that an adequate analysis and allocation of responsibility for transport did not exist in time to support relief by the area's original attainment date. EPA incorporates by reference its responses to the comments contained in its briefs in the cases cited above.
Comment 7: Commenters argue that EPA should not approve the RACM analysis for the Baton Rouge area because it does not meet the requirements of the CAA. They also argue that the State and EPA cannot lawfully limit RACM analyses to only those measures likely to advance attainment dates, nor can they lawfully apply an ``intensive and costly effort'' test. Opening and Reply Briefs of Sierra Club in Sierra Club v. EPA, DC Cir. 011070, at Part II. The commenter adds that even if that were not the case, arguendo, the states and EPA must still consider a reasonable range of potential RACM measures, and to the extent that they reject measures as allegedly not constituting RACM, must offer a reasoned and statutorily permissible explanation for doing so. Another commenter argues that control measures are clearly available. The commenters go on to state that: (1) There are many stationary VOC emissions to work with, and (2) many industries in the nonattainment area are reducing their VOC emissions from stationary sources. Since these facilities are actually making these reductions, the commenter concludes that the SIP argument that VOC reductions at this time are deemed to be technologically infeasible is clearly incorrect. The commenter further states that the LDEQ refers to computer modeling results in the SIP to imply that the requirements of RACM in the CAA can be avoided.
Response 7: Louisiana performed a RACM analysis for potential
control of NO
In our August 2, 2002, proposed approval, EPA referenced the
methodology Louisiana employed to analyze transportation control
measures (TCM) RACM for mobile sources. Louisiana's analysis is
explained in Chapter 5 of the SIP. LDEQ analyzed a broad range of TCMs
identified and listed in section 108(f) of the Act for RACM
availability. As part of its analysis, LDEQ relied on the most recent
and comprehensive TCM evaluation study that exists for the Baton Rouge
area and reflects updated attainment year vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
and emissions reduction estimates. Based on its analysis, LDEQ included
in the SIP an enforceable TCM to implement an advanced transportation
management system and a vehicle I/M program. Relative to the total
NO
Louisiana also analyzed control options as RACM for major
stationary sources of VOC and NO
[[Page 61794]]
RACM analysis please refer to the RACM TSD and LDEQ's RACM analysis.
The EPA's approach toward the RACM requirement is grounded in the language of the CAA. Section 172(c)(1) states that a SIP for a nonattainment area must meet the following requirement: ``In general. Such plan provisions shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.'' [Emphasis added.] The EPA interprets this language as tying the RACM requirement to the requirement for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standard. The CAA provides that the attainment date shall be ``as expeditiously as practicable but no later than * * *'' the deadlines specified in the CAA. EPA believes that the use of the same terminology in conjunction with the RACM requirement serves the purpose of specifying RACM as the way of expediting attainment of the NAAQS in advance of the deadline specified in the CAA. As stated in the ``General Preamble'' (57 FR 13498 at 13560, April 16, 1992), ``The EPA interprets this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in the area as components of the area's attainment demonstration.'' [Emphasis added.] In other words, because of the construction of the RACM language in the CAA, EPA does not view the RACM requirement as separate from the attainment demonstration requirement. Therefore, EPA believes that the CAA supports its interpretation that measures are not RACM if they do not advance the attainment date. In addition, EPA believes that it would not be reasonable to require implementation of measures that would not in fact advance attainment (see 57 FR 13560). EPA has historically taken this interpretation and consistently implemented it through guidance since 1979 (see 44 FR 20372, 20375, April 4, 1979).
The term ``reasonably available control measure'' is not actually defined in the CAA. Therefore, the EPA interpretation that potential measures are not to be RACM if they require an intensive and costly effort for numerous small area sources is based on the common sense meaning of the phrase, ``reasonably available.'' A measure that is reasonably available is one that is technologically and economically feasible and that can be readily implemented. Ready implementation also includes consideration of whether emissions from small sources are relatively small and whether the administrative burden, to the States and regulated entities, of controlling such sources was likely to be considerable. As stated in the General Preamble, EPA believes that States can reject potential measures based on local conditions including cost. 57 FR 13561.
When EPA presented this statutory argument in support of its RACM policy to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in defense of its approval of the Washington DC ozone SIP, the DC Circuit found reasonable EPA's interpretation that measures must advance attainment to be RACM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (DC Cir. 2002). Specifically, the Court found that:
EPA reasonably concluded that because the Act `use[s] the same
terminology in conjunction with the RACM requirement' as it does in
requiring timely attainment, compare 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1) (requiring
implementation of RACM `as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than' the applicable attainment deadline), with id. Sec. 7511(a)(1)
(requiring attainment under same constraints), the RACM requirement
is to be understood as a means of meeting the deadline for attainment.
Id. Moreover, the DC Circuit rejected, as a ``misreading of both text
and context,'' Sierra Club's arguments that EPA's interpretation of
RACM conflicts with the Act's text and purpose and lacks any rational basis.
Also, LDEQ's analysis indicates that the development of rules for a large number of very different source categories of small sources for which little control information may exist will likely take much longer than development of rules for source categories for which control information exists or that comprise a smaller number of larger sources. It is less likely that the emission reductions from such additional rules in the nonattainment area would advance the attainment date more than emission reductions achieved from controls on major stationary sources, mobile sources, and federal rules in the Baton Rouge area. Thus, it is of greater value and more expeditious for the State to expend the administrative effort and costs to pursue larger reductions from a smaller number of sources.
When EPA presented this statutory argument in support of its RACM policy to the DC Circuit in defense of its approval of the Washington DC ozone SIP, the DC Circuit also found reasonable EPA's interpretation that it could consider costs in a RACM analysis and that measures may be rejected if they would require an intensive and costly effort for regulation of many small sources. Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d at 162, 163.
Finally, the SIP does not, as the commenter claims, imply that the
requirements of RACM in the CAA can be avoided in the nonattainment
area based on the attainment modeling. The SIP merely notes that the
attainment modeling along with the proposed NO
Comment 8: A commenter states that EPA cannot lawfully approve SIPs
which lack rate of progress reductions for the full period by the CAA
which includes not just the reductions required during the period up to
November 15, 1999, but also 9% VOC reductions from November 15, 1999 to
November 15, 2002, and another 9% reductions from November 15, 2002 to
November 15, 2005. Another commenter states that the SIP must include
reductions until the area achieves its attainment date. The commenter
concludes that since the attainment date is extended, the reasonable
further progress demonstration required in Section 182(c)(2)(B) must be
included in any approvable SIP. A commenter asserts that the CAA does
not allow for the revisions to the 15% ROPP, the 1990 Base Year
Emission Inventory, nor the Post1996 ROPP because the CAA does not
allow ROPP reductions to occur outside the nonattainment area.
Additionally, the commenter states that in order for Louisiana to take
credit for the emission reductions outside the nonattainment area the
State must prove that the reductions would result in actual reductions
in ozone within the attainment area. The commenter concludes that LDEQ
did not specifically model emissions reductions from Trunkline and
therefore should not be allowed to include these credits in its ROPP. Finally, the commenter argues
[[Page 61795]]
that the reductions have already occurred and since the area remains in
nonattainment after these reductions then the reductions obviously are
not going to solve the ozone problem and can not be considered
progress. The commenter also incorporates by reference comments
submitted by LEAN on EPA's proposed approval of Louisiana's contingency measures dated May 20, 2002.
Response 8: EPA's guidance did not interpret the period of time after granting the attainment date extension based on transport as requiring additional rate of progress increments from the downwind area, since we determined that the reason the area had not attained was due to upwind transport. Consistent with the purposes of the attainment date extension policy, EPA believes it would be inequitable to require areas in which attainment is affected by transport to meet additional local ROPP requirements. EPA believes it would be unreasonable to require the downwind area into such progress requirement reductions from local sources, when the combination of local reductions with upwind area source emission reductions is what will bring the area into attainment. In any event, to the extent that it should be determined otherwise, and that any ROPP required should be imposed on the downwind area, this would not be required until EPA grants the attainment date extension and provides the area with a later attainment date. Since the requirement was not previously due, fulfilling the requirement, if any is deemed to exist, is not a condition of receiving the attainment date extension. Responses to Louisiana's contingency measures are being addressed in the Federal Register final action for that component of the SIP.
In reference to the comment concerning the modeling of the emission
reductions from Trunkline, the commenter is referred to the above
mentioned December 29, 1997, EPA guidance document. Pages 5 and 6 of
the guidance document discuss EPA's guidance on ROPP. EPA's guidance
``* * * only requires that an area in nonattainment for the 1hour
NAAQS should be allowed to take credit for emissions reductions
obtained from sources outside the designated nonattainment area for the
post1999 ROP requirement as long as the sources are no farther than
100 km (for VOC sources) or 200 km (for NO
Comment 9: One commenter asserts that EPA cannot lawfully approve SIPs that lack contingency measures. The commenter further states that as shown in the commenter's Sierra Club v. EPA briefs, contingency measures must be additional measures that activate in the event of a contingency, not surplus reductions from measures being implemented anyway (e.g., as part of the attainment rateofprogress SIP). Sierra Club, 294 F.3d at 164; Opening and Reply Briefs of Sierra Club in Sierra Club v. EPA, DC Cir. 011070, at Part IV.
Response 9: EPA has found the contingency measures in the SIP to be surplus, permanent and federally enforceable. EPA is approving these contingency measures in a separate action which published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2002. See EPA's final action on the contingency measures for responses to related comments.
Comment 10: A commenter states that EPA should not withdraw its June 24, 2002, rulemaking determining that Baton Rouge was in nonattainment and reclassifying it from ``serious'' to ``severe'' because to do so would be against both the plain language of the CAA and Congressional intent.
Response 10: EPA is withdrawing its June 24, 2002, rulemaking relating to the Baton Rouge reclassification based on Louisiana fulfilling EPA's attainment date extension policy and EPA's approval of their attainment demonstration and transport SIP. See related responses on EPA's attainment date extension policy above.
Comment 11: The commenter indicates that it is a poor idea to adopt contingency measures that require emission reductions outside the nonattainment area.
Response 11: The CAA gives the states considerable latitude and
discretion in adopting state implementation plans. The CAA also
recognizes that addressing ozone nonattainment within a given area may
involve regulation of emissions from sources outside of the
nonattainment area. See CAA sections concerning international pollution
(42 U.S.C. 7415), interstate transport commissions (42 U.S.C. 7506a),
and interstate pollution abatement (the socalled ``good neighbor''
section, 42 U.S.C. 7426). Since a state may petition the EPA to
regulate sources beyond the state's boundaries in order to address a
nonattainment area within the state, the state is certainly free to
regulate precursor emissions outside the nonattainment area, but still
within the state, that impact the nonattainment area. Furthermore, LDEQ
did conduct a modeling sensitivity run (Run LA1) to evaluate the
effectiveness of a 30% NO
Comment 12: One commenter suggests that t
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Ms. Maria L. Martinez, Air Planning Section (6PDL), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202 2733, telephone (214) 6652230.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 26 CFR Part 1 50 CFR Part 679 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 26 CFR Part 301 50 CFR Part 622 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 50 CFR Part 660 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 14 CFR Part 23 14 CFR Part 25 21 CFR Part 522 50 CFR Part 665 47 CFR Part 76 27 CFR Part 9