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

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