[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42688-42696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15712]



[[Page 42687]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 81



Determination and Proposed Effective Date Modification for the 
Determination of Nonattainment as of November 15, 1999, and 
Reclassification of the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area; Final 
Rule and Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 42688]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[LA-58-1-7522; FRL-7235-9]


Determination of Nonattainment as of November 15, 1999, and 
Reclassification of the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its finding that the Baton Rouge ozone 
nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the Baton Rouge area) 
did not attain the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard 
(NAAQS or standard) by November 15, 1999, the attainment date for 
serious nonattainment areas set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
Act). By operation of law, the Baton Rouge area is to be reclassified 
from a serious to a severe nonattainment area on the effective date of 
this rule. In addition, EPA is requiring Louisiana to submit State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions addressing the CAA's pollution 
control requirements for severe ozone nonattainment areas within 12 
months of the effective date of this rule and establishing November 15, 
2005, as the date by which the Baton Rouge area must attain the ozone 
NAAQS.
    In a Judgment entered on March 7, 2002, the United States District 
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, ordered EPA to determine, 
within 90 days, whether the Baton Rouge area had attained the 
applicable ozone standard under the CAA, and ordered EPA to promptly 
thereafter publish the required notice. Louisiana Environmental Action 
Network (LEAN) v. Whitman, No. 00-879-A. The rulemaking issued today 
complies with the Court's Judgment. See Supplementary Information 
regarding a proposed rule published elsewhere in this issue that would 
affect this final rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 23, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents relevant to this action are available 
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; and the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality (LDEQ), 7920 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana 70884. Please contact the appropriate office at least 24 
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Maria L. Martinez, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, telephone (214) 665-2230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a separate document titled: ``Proposed 
Effective Date Modification for Determination of Nonattainment as of 
November 15, 1999, and Reclassification of the Baton Rouge Ozone 
Nonattainment Area,'' published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, 
EPA is proposing to delay the effective date of this rule until October 
4, 2002. In that document, EPA also sets forth its intent to propose to 
withdraw this final determination and reclassification, if EPA grants 
the State an attainment date extension before the effective date of 
this reclassification rule.
    On May 10, 2000, the Governor of Louisiana submitted a request for 
an attainment date extension for the Baton Rouge area pursuant to EPA's 
``Guidance on Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport 
Areas'' (Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation) issued July 16, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 
extension policy). On November 22, 2000, Tulane Law School, on behalf 
of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), filed a complaint 
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of 
Louisiana against EPA, alleging that EPA failed to discharge its duty 
to make and publish a determination whether the Baton Rouge area 
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1999. On May 9, 2001, 
EPA published a proposal to determine that the Baton Rouge area did not 
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or in the alternative allow Louisiana an 
opportunity to qualify for an attainment date extension pursuant to 
EPA's extension policy.
    Louisiana is in the concluding stages of a process that could 
culminate in EPA final action on the Attainment Plan and Transport SIP 
(hereinafter referred to as Attainment Plan/Transport) that was 
submitted on December 31, 2001, and on a possible attainment date 
extension. This extension, if granted, would allow the area to remain 
classified as a serious nonattainment area. EPA is continuing to work 
to complete action on the extension request by October 4, 2002. If EPA 
takes final action to extend the attainment date during the pre-
effective period of this rule, EPA intends to withdraw this final 
determination and reclassification prior to the time that they become 
effective.

Background

    Throughout this document whenever ``we, us, or our'' is used, we 
mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing 
the following questions:

I. What Are The National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
II. What Is the NAAQS For Ozone?
III. What Is a SIP?
IV. What Is the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area?
V. What Does This Action Do?
VI. What Does the CAA Say about Determinations of Nonattainment and 
Reclassifications, and How Does it Apply to the Baton Rouge Area?
VII. Why Did EPA Defer Making a Determination Regarding the Baton 
Rouge Area's Attainment Status Beyond the Time Frame Prescribed by 
the CAA?
VIII. Why Is this Action Necessary?
IX. What Is the Area's New Classification?
X. What Is the New Attainment Date for the Baton Rouge Area?
XI. When must Louisiana Submit SIP Revisions Fulfilling the 
Requirements for Severe Ozone Attainment Areas?
XII. What Comments Were Received on the Proposed and Supplemental 
Proposed Rule for the Reclassification and Potential Eligibility for 
Extension of the Attainment Date?
XIII. Administrative Requirements

I. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

    EPA has set NAAQS for six common air pollutants: carbon monoxide, 
lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. 
The CAA requires that these standards be set at levels that protect 
public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. These 
standards, established under section 109 of the CAA, present state and 
local governments with the air quality levels they must meet to achieve 
clean air. Also, these standards allow the American people to assess 
whether or not the air quality in their communities is healthful.

II. What Is the NAAQS for Ozone?

    The NAAQS for ozone is expressed in two forms which are referred to 
as the 1-hour and 8-hour standards. Table 1 summarizes the ozone 
standards.

[[Page 42689]]



                                      Table 1.--Summary of Ozone Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Standard                         Value                    Type \a\  Method of compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-hour...............................  0.12 ppm...............  Primary and Secondary. Must not be exceeded, on
                                                                 average, more than one day per year over any
                                                                 three-year period at any monitor within an
                                                                 area.
8-hour...............................  0.08 ppm...............  Primary and secondary. The average of the annual
                                                                 fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average
                                                                 ozone concentration measured at each monitor
                                                                 over any three-year period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Primary standards are designed to protect public health and secondary standards are designed to protect
  public welfare and the environment.

    The 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) was 
promulgated in 1979. The 1-hour ozone standard continues to apply to 
Baton Rouge and it is the classification of the Baton Rouge area with 
respect to the 1-hour ozone standard that is addressed in this 
document.

III. What Is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution 
regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality 
meets the NAAQS established by EPA.
    After engaging in any state-required public participation, each 
state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for 
approval and incorporation into the Federally enforceable SIP.
    Each Federally approved SIP protects air quality primarily by 
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be 
extensive. They may contain state regulations or other enforceable 
documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, 
monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

IV. What Is the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area?

    The Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area, located in southern 
Louisiana, consists of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Ascension, 
Iberville, and Livingston Parishes.
    Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, each ozone area designated 
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard prior to enactment of the 
1990 CAA Amendments, such as the Baton Rouge area, was designated 
nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 
Amendments. In addition, under section 181(a) of the Act, each area 
designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was classified as 
``marginal,'' ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe,'' or ``extreme,'' 
depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. The design 
value for an area, i.e., the highest of the fourth highest 1-hour daily 
maximums in a given three-year period, characterizes the severity of 
the air quality problem. Table 2 provides the design value ranges for 
each nonattainment classification. Ozone nonattainment areas with 
design values between 0.160 and 0.180 ppm, such as the Baton Rouge area 
(which had a design value of 0.164 ppm in 1989), were classified as 
serious. These nonattainment designations and classifications were 
initially codified in 40 CFR Part 81 (see 56 FR 56694, November 6, 
1991).

                                  Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Classifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Area class                        Design value (ppm)                   Attainment date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marginal................................  0.121 up to 0.138..............  November 15, 1993.
Moderate................................  0.138 up to 0.160..............  November 15, 1996.
Serious.................................  0.160 up to 0.180..............  November 15, 1999.
Severe..................................  0.180 up to 0.280..............  November 15, 2005.
Extreme.................................  0.280 and above................  November 15, 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under section 182(c) of the CAA, states containing 
areas that were classified as serious nonattainment were required to 
submit SIPs to provide for certain air pollution controls, to show 
progress toward attainment of the ozone standard through incremental 
emissions reductions, and to provide for attainment of the ozone 
standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than November 
15, 1999. The SIP requirements for serious areas are listed primarily 
in section 182(c) of the CAA.

V. What Does This Action Do?

    On May 9, 2001, EPA proposed its finding that the Baton Rouge ozone 
nonattainment area did not attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date (66 FR 23646). The proposed finding was 
based upon ambient air quality data from the years 1997, 1998, 1999. 
These data showed that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million 
(ppm) had been exceeded on an average of more than one day per year 
over this three-year period and that the area did not qualify for an 
attainment date extension under section 181(a)(5). EPA also proposed 
that the appropriate reclassification of the area was too severe.
    In that proposed action, we also stated that Louisiana was seeking 
an extension of its attainment date pursuant to EPA's extension policy, 
published in a March 25, 1999, Federal Register notice (64 FR 14441). 
EPA's extension policy addresses areas which are affected by downwind 
transport of ozone and/or ozone precursors.
    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 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 
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. 00-879-A. Given the 
compliance date of the Court's Judgment and the current status of the 
State's Attainment Plan/Transport SIP, EPA is not at this time able to 
complete its consideration of the applicability of its extension policy 
to the Baton Rouge area.
    This action finalizes our finding that the Baton Rouge area did not 
to attain

[[Page 42690]]

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1999, as prescribed in section 
181 of the CAA, and fulfills EPA's nondiscretionary duty pursuant to 
section 182 of the Act. In addition, this action sets the dates by 
which Louisiana must submit SIP revisions addressing the CAA's 
pollution control requirements for severe ozone nonattainment areas and 
attain the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA's rulemaking actions are to be 
effective 60 days from publication in the Federal Register, unless the 
effective date is delayed as set forth below.
    In its decision, the United States District Court for the Middle 
District of Louisiana acknowledged its limited authority under 42 
U.S.C. 7604, ruling that it lacked the authority to issue an order 
restricting the effective date that EPA selects for its action. LEAN v. 
Whitman, No. 00-879-A.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For additional information on other court rulings on the 
issue of the effective date for such an action, see, Sierra Club v. 
Browner, 130 F.Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2001), aff'd., 285 F. 3d 63 
(D.C.Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate document titled: ``Proposed Effective Date 
Modification for Determination of Nonattainment as of November 15, 
1999, and Reclassification of the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment 
Area,'' published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is 
proposing to delay the effective date of this rule until October 4, 
2002. In that document, EPA also sets forth its intent to withdraw this 
final determination and reclassification, if EPA grants the State an 
attainment date extension before the effective date of this 
reclassification rule. EPA believes that, if the Baton Rouge area is 
reclassified, the proposed additional time is necessary to allow 
regulated entities in the Baton Rouge area time to prepare for the new 
requirements that would become applicable in the area upon the 
effective date of the nonattainment determination and reclassification. 
During the period prior to the effective date, EPA and the State would 
also continue to work toward completing a separate rulemaking on the 
issue of whether Baton Rouge should be granted an extension of its 
attainment date based on Louisiana's December 31, 2001, Attainment 
Plan/Transport SIP pursuant to EPA's extension policy. EPA intends to 
withdraw this final determination of nonattainment and reclassification 
if we approve an attainment date extension within the pre-effective 
period.
    Thus, EPA is today fully complying with the Court's Judgment while 
continuing to work with Louisiana to make progress toward final 
rulemaking action on an attainment date extension request for the Baton 
Rouge area. Louisiana and EPA are in the final stages of completing the 
actions necessary for a final rule. EPA believes that it is in the 
public interest to move forward to complete that rulemaking. Completion 
of the rulemaking prior to the effective date of today's action would 
allow EPA to assess and take into consideration the role of transported 
pollution in Baton Rouge's nonattainment problems, and to provide for 
an equitable distribution of responsibility for achieving attainment of 
the ozone standard in the area. In addition, concluding rulemaking on 
the attainment date extension would allow EPA to make available to the 
Baton Rouge area the attainment date extension policy that EPA has 
applied to other areas affected by transport. EPA has issued six final 
rulemakings granting requests for attainment areas: Washington, D.C. 
(66 FR 585, January 3, 2001), Greater Connecticut (66 FR 633, January 
3, 2001), Springfield, Massachusetts (66 FR 665, January 3, 2001), 
Beaumont, Texas (66 FR 26913, May 15, 2001), St. Louis, Missouri (66 FR 
33996, June 26, 2001), and Atlanta, Georgia (67 FR 30574, May 7, 2002). 
Thus, EPA's rulemaking actions today should be viewed in the context of 
complying with the Court's Judgment while continuing to conduct 
rulemaking on its nationwide program to address the role of transported 
air pollutants in ozone nonattainment areas.

VI. What Does the CAA Say About Determinations of Nonattainment and 
Reclassifications, and How Does It Apply to the Baton Rouge Area?

    Under sections 107(d)(1)(C) and 181(a) of the Act, the Baton Rouge 
area was designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 
classified as ``serious'' based on its design value of 0.164 ppm in 
1989. These nonattainment designations and classifications were 
codified in 40 CFR Part 81 (see 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991).
    In addition, states containing areas that were classified as 
serious nonattainment areas were required to submit SIPs to provide for 
certain controls, to show progress toward attainment, and to provide 
for attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 
November 15, 1999 (section 181(a)(1)). Serious areas SIP requirements 
are found primarily in section 182(c) of the CAA.
    Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act specifies that:
    Within 6 months following the applicable attainment date (including 
any extension thereof) for an ozone nonattainment area, the 
Administrator shall determine, based on the area's design value (as of 
the attainment date), whether the area attained the standard by that 
date. Except for any Severe or Extreme areas, any area that the 
Administrator finds has not attained the standard by that date shall be 
reclassified by operation of law in accordance with table 1 of 
subsection (a) to the higher of--
    (i) The next higher classification for the area, or
    (ii) The classification applicable to the area's design value as 
determined at the time of the notice required under subparagraph (B).
    No area shall be reclassified as Extreme under clause (ii).
    Furthermore, section 181(b)(2)(B) of the Act provides that:
    The Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register no 
later than 6 months following the attainment date, identifying each 
area that the Administrator has determined under subparagraph (A) as 
having failed to attain and identifying the reclassification, if any, 
described under subparagraph (A).
    On May 9, 2001, EPA proposed its finding that the Baton Rouge area 
did not attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the applicable date (66 FR 
23646). The proposed finding was based upon ambient ozone concentration 
data for the period 1997--1999, from the monitoring sites in the Baton 
Rouge area, which recorded an average of more than one exceedance per 
day per year (see Table 3).

[[Page 42691]]



                         Table 3.--Air Quality Data for the Baton Rouge Area (1997-1999)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of    Average number
                                                  Number of days   expected days    of expected     Site design
                      Site                         over standard   over standard    exceedance      value (ppm)
                                                    (1997-1999)     (1997-1999)    days per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site (Parish):
    Pride (East Baton Rouge)....................               1             1.1             0.4           0.116
    Baker (East Baton Rouge)....................               3             3.0             1.0           0.123
    Capitol (East Baton Rouge)..................               3             3.1             1.0           0.122
    LSU (East Baton Rouge)......................               4           a 4.1           a 1.4         a 0.126
    Carville (Iberville)........................               2             2.0             0.7           0.120
    Plaquemine (Iberville)......................               2             2.0             0.7           0.120
    Grosse Tete (Iberville).....................               5           a 5.3           a 1.8         b 0.126
    Port Allen (West Baton Rouge)...............               3             3.0             1.0           0.119
    Dutchtown (Ascension).......................               3             3.0             1.0           0.123
    French Settlement (Livingston)..............               3             3.0             1.0          0.123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a A violation occurs when the number of expected exceedances is greater than 3.1 over a 3-year (rolling) period
  (or a 3-year (rolling) average greater than 1.04). The statistical term ``expected exceedances'' is an
  arithmetic average explained at 40 CFR part 50, appendix H.
b Represents the 1997-1999 design value for the Baton Rouge area. Raw data source: U.S. EPA Aerometric
  Information Retrieval System (AIRS) database.

    The air quality data in Table 3 were available for comment in our 
May 9, 2001, proposed finding of the area's failure to attain the ozone 
NAAQS. We received no comments pertaining to these data. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(B) of the CAA, we hereby make the 
determination that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the one-hour 
standard by the November 15, 1999, attainment date. For a listing of 
the average number of days when ambient ozone concentrations exceeded 
the one-hour ozone standard see 66 FR 23646 (May 9, 2001).

VII. Why Did EPA Defer Making a Determination Regarding the Baton Rouge 
Area's Attainment Status Beyond the Time Frame Prescribed by the CAA?

    For some time, EPA has recognized that pollutant transport can 
impair an area's ability to meet air quality standards by the date 
prescribed in the Act. In March 1995 a collaborative, Federal-state 
process to assess the ozone transport problem began. Through a two-year 
effort known as the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), EPA worked 
in partnership with the 37 easternmost states and the District of 
Columbia, industry representatives, academia, and environmental groups 
to develop recommended strategies to address transport of ozone and 
ozone-forming pollutants across state boundaries.
    On November 7, 1997, EPA acted on OTAG's recommendations and issued 
a proposal (the proposed oxides of nitrogen (NOX) SIP call, 
62 FR 60318) requiring 22 states and the District of Columbia to submit 
state plans addressing the regional transport of ozone. These SIPs will 
decrease the transport of ozone across state boundaries in the eastern 
half of the United States by reducing emissions of NOX (a 
precursor to ozone formation). EPA took final action on the 
NOX SIP call on October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356). EPA expects 
the final NOX SIP call will assist many areas in attaining 
the 1-hour ozone standard.
    On July 16, 1998, in consideration of these factors and the 
realization that many areas are unable to meet the CAA-mandated 
attainment dates due to transport, EPA issued an attainment date 
extension policy. Under this policy, the attainment date for an area 
may be extended provided that the following criteria are met: (1) The 
area is 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 
nonattainment (by ``affected by transport,'' EPA means an area whose 
air quality is affected by transport from an upwind area to a degree 
that affects the area's ability to attain); (2) an approvable 
attainment demonstration is submitted along with any necessary, adopted 
local measures and with an attainment date that shows that the area 
will attain the 1-hour standard no later than the date that the 
reductions are expected from upwind areas under the final 
NOX SIP call and/or the statutory attainment date for upwind 
nonattainment areas, i.e., assuming the boundary conditions reflect 
those upwind reductions; (3) the area has adopted all applicable local 
measures required under the area's current classification and any 
additional measures necessary to demonstrate attainment, assuming the 
reductions occur as required in the upwind areas; and (4) the area 
provides 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 (64 FR 14441, March 25, 1999).
    EPA contemplated that when it acted to approve such an area's 
attainment demonstration, it would, as necessary, extend that area's 
attainment date to a date appropriate for that area in light of the 
schedule for achieving the necessary upwind reductions. As a result, 
the area would no longer be subject to reclassification or ``bump-up'' 
for failure to attain by its original attainment date under section 
181(b)(2).
    On May 10, 2000, the Governor of Louisiana submitted a letter to 
EPA committing to meet the criteria of the extension policy by August 
31, 2001.\2\ To support the Governor's request that EPA consider an 
attainment date extension for the Baton Rouge area based on transported 
air pollution, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 
submitted to EPA a report entitled, ``Assessment of the Contribution of 
Emissions from the Houston Area to Ozone Concentrations in the Five-
Parish Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area,'' dated May 3, 2000, indicating 
that pollutants transported from Texas may have impeded attainment of 
the 1-hour ozone standard in Baton Rouge. A copy of this report can be 
found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Governor's commitment letter and EPA's response to the 
letter are included in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, on May 9, 2001, EPA proposed (66 FR 23646) its 
finding that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
by its

[[Page 42692]]

attainment date and announced the area's potential eligibility for an 
attainment date extension under the extension policy. The area's 
eligibility was dependent, in part, on EPA's approval of an attainment 
demonstration. Our proposed action described the conditions that EPA 
anticipated would lead to final action on both alternatives.
    We outlined the necessary steps that Louisiana needed to take in 
order for us to consider extending the Baton Rouge area attainment date 
under the extension policy. Those steps included:
    1. Demonstrate that the Baton Rouge area's air quality is affected 
by transport from (a) an upwind area in Louisiana with a later 
attainment date, or (b) an upwind area in another State, which 
significantly contributes to Baton Rouge's continued ozone 
nonattainment.
    2. Submit to EPA an approvable attainment demonstration by August 
31, 2001.\3\ This demonstration must show that the Baton Rouge area 
will attain as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the 
attainment date of the upwind area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We proposed to extend the August 31, 2001 submittal deadline 
to December 31, 2001, on July 25, 2001 (Supplemental Proposed Rule, 
66 FR 38608). No adverse comments were received on the proposed 
deadline extension, therefore, the extension was granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Submit any additional local control measures needed for 
expeditious attainment.
    4. Submit proof that all applicable local control measures required 
under the serious classification have been adopted. As part of this 
demonstration, Louisiana's SIP submittal must include at least the 
following:
    (a) Any changes to Louisiana's Nonattainment New Source Review 
program necessary to ensure that the State's rules meet EPA's 
nonattainment new source review requirements.
    (b) Contingency measures that meet the requirements of section 
182(c)(9) of the Act.
    (c) Any revisions to the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
program necessary to meet the applicable federal I/M program 
requirements.
    5. Provide that all newly adopted control measures will be 
implemented as expeditiously as practicable. All measures must be 
implemented no later than the date that the upwind reductions needed 
for attainment will be achieved.
    We anticipated that when we acted to approve such an area's 
attainment demonstration, we would, as necessary, extend that area's 
attainment date to the date appropriate for that area in light of the 
schedule for achieving the necessary upwind reductions. The area would 
then no longer be subject to reclassification or ``bump-up'' for 
failure to attain by its original attainment date under section 
181(b)(2) since we would extend the Baton Rouge area's attainment date 
to a date consistent with the approved attainment demonstration. Under 
these circumstances, the area would retain its serious nonattainment 
status. In other words, EPA would propose to defer the attainment 
determination required under section 181(b)(2)(B) of the Act until such 
time as the new, extended attainment date had passed. However, if 
Louisiana did not meet the criteria of the extension policy, we 
proposed to finalize the finding of failure to attain, and the Baton 
Rouge area would be reclassified to severe ozone nonattainment.

VIII. Why Is This Action Necessary?

    On November 22, 2000, LEAN filed a complaint in the United States 
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against EPA (LEAN 
v. Whitman, No. 00-879-A) regarding the attainment status and 
classification of the Baton Rouge area. On March 7, 2002, the United 
States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana entered a 
Judgment compelling EPA to determine, by June 5, 2002, whether the 
Baton Rouge area had attained the applicable ozone standard under the 
CAA. The Court also ordered EPA to publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of a final action reflecting both the determination and any 
reclassification of the area required as a result of the determination. 
Our final determination and this notice are in direct response to the 
Court's Judgment.

IX. What Is the Area's New Classification?

    Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that, when an area is 
reclassified for failure to attain, its reclassification be the higher 
of either the next higher classification or the classification 
applicable to the area's ozone design value at the time the notice of 
reclassification is published in the Federal Register. The ozone design 
value for the Baton Rouge area following the enactment of the 1990 CAA 
amendments (1987-1989) was 0.164 ppm. The preliminary design value\4\ 
for the Baton Rouge area at the time of the proposed finding of failure 
to attain was based on air quality monitoring data in 2000 and 
corresponded to a design value of 0.135 ppm\5\. The preliminary design 
value for the most recent compliance period, 1999-2001, is 0.128 
ppm.\6\ This design value of 0.128 ppm falls within the range linked to 
the classification of ``marginal'' nonattainment. By contrast, the next 
higher classification for the Baton Rouge area is ``severe'' 
nonattainment. Since ``severe'' is a higher nonattainment 
classification than ``marginal,'' under the statutory scheme prescribed 
by the Act, the area is reclassified to severe nonattainment on the 
effective date of this rule. No area can reclassified as extreme under 
section 181(b)(2), and therefore a serious area, such as Baton Rouge, 
that does not meet the serious area attainment date, must be 
reclassified to ``severe.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Preliminary design value is the design value pending the 
final Quality Assurance/Quality Control checks of the air monitoring 
data.
    \5\ A listing of the ozone exceedances (1995-1999) and 3-year 
design values (95-97, 96-98, 98-00) by monitoring site can be found 
in the docket file for the May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23646) proposed 
rulemaking.
    \6\ A listing of the preliminary ozone exceedances and design 
values can be found in the docket file for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. What Is the New Attainment Date for the Baton Rouge Area?

    Under section 181(a)(1) of the Act, the new attainment deadline for 
serious ozone nonattainment areas reclassified to severe under section 
181(b)(2) would generally be as expeditious as practicable but no later 
than the date applicable to the new classification, i.e., November 15, 
2005.

XI. When Must Louisiana Submit SIP Revisions Fulfilling the 
Requirements for Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas?

    Under section 181(a)(1) of the Act, the attainment deadline for 
serious ozone nonattainment areas reclassified to severe under section 
181(b)(2) is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than November 
15, 2005. Under section 182(i), such areas are required to submit SIP 
revisions addressing the severe area requirements for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS. Under section 182(d), severe area plans are required to meet all 
the requirements for serious area plans plus the requirements for 
severe areas, including, but not limited to: (1) A 25 ton per year 
major stationary source threshold; (2) additional reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) rules for sources subject to the new lower 
major applicability cutoff; (3) a new source review (NSR) offset 
requirement of at least 1.3 to 1; (4) a rate of progress in emission 
reductions of ozone precursors of at least 3 percent per year from 2000 
until the attainment year; and (5) a fee requirement for major

[[Page 42693]]

sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) \7\ should the area fail to attain by 2005.\8\ We have 
issued a ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' that sets forth our preliminary 
views on these section 182 requirements and how we will act on SIPs 
submitted under Title I. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 
57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed 
through the photochemical reaction of NOX and VOCs.
    \8\ Section 182(d)(3) sets a deadline of December 31, 2000, to 
submit the plan revision requiring fees for major sources should the 
area fail to attain. This date can be adjusted pursuant to CAA 
section 182(i). We proposed to adjust this date to coincide with the 
submittal deadline for the rest of the severe area plan 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, since the Baton Rouge area has did not attain by the 
serious area attainment date and in order to fulfill the contingency 
measures requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA, 
Louisiana is also required to submit a revision to the SIP containing 
additional contingency measures in their severe area SIP.
    The Baton Rouge severe area plan must also contain adopted 
regulations, and/or enforceable commitments to adopt and implement 
control measures in regulatory form by specified dates, sufficient to 
make the required rate of progress and to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than November 15, 2005. 
Section 182(i) further provides that we may adjust the CAA deadlines 
for submitting these severe area SIP requirements. In addition to 
establishing a new attainment date, EPA must also address the schedule 
by which Louisiana is required to submit SIP revisions meeting the 
CAA's pollution control requirements for severe areas. An option on 
which EPA invited comments (66 FR 23646), was to require that Louisiana 
submit SIP revisions fulfilling all of the severe area requirements, no 
later than one year after final action on the reclassification. We also 
proposed that if the submission showed that the area could attain the 
one-hour ozone NAAQS sooner than the attainment date established in 
this final reclassification notice, we would adjust the attainment date 
to reflect the earlier date, consistent with the requirement in section 
181(a)(1) that the NAAQS be attained as expeditiously as practicable. 
EPA did not receive any comments on the proposed schedule. Therefore, 
EPA is requiring Louisiana to submit SIP revisions addressing the Act's 
pollution control requirements for severe ozone nonattainment areas 
within 12 months of the effective date of this rule.

XII. What Comments Were Received on the Proposed Determination of 
Nonattainment and Reclassification, and How Has EPA Responded?

    EPA received comments from the public on the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPR) published on May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23646) for the 
proposed Clean Air Reclassification and Notice of Potential Eligibility 
for Extension of Attainment Date, Louisiana; Baton Rouge Ozone 
Nonattainment Area. In that notice, we proposed to find that the Baton 
Rouge serious ozone nonattainment area did not attain the one-hour 
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard by November 15, 1999. 
Alternatively, we proposed to evaluate the Baton Rouge area's potential 
eligibility for an attainment date extension if Louisiana made a 
submittal by August 31, 2001,\9\ that satisfied with the conditions of 
EPA's attainment date extension policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We proposed to extend the August 31, 2001 submittal deadline 
to December 31, 2001, on July 25, 2001 (Supplemental Proposed Rule, 
66 FR 38608). No adverse comments were received on the proposed 
deadline extension, therefore, the extension was granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also received comments from the public on the supplemental 
proposed rulemaking published on July 25, 2001 (66 FR 38608) for the 
``Clean Air Reclassification and Notice of Potential Eligibility for 
Extension of Attainment Date, Louisiana; Baton Rouge Ozone 
Nonattainment Area.'' This notice supplemented the proposed actions of 
the May 9, 2001, notice, by proposing to extend the deadline for 
submission of an attainment plan from August 31, 2001, to December 31, 
2001.
    In this action EPA is addressing the relevant comments on the May 
9, 2001, proposal and the July 25, 2001, proposals. A summary of the 
relevant comments, and EPA responses to the comments, is provided 
below.

Comments on EPA's Attainment Date Extension Policy

    Comment: Eleven comment letters were received with statements of 
support for EPA's proposed transport-based attainment date extension. 
Two comment letters were received in opposition to the transport-based 
attainment date extension. The commenters in support believed that the 
Baton Rouge area was affected by the transport of ozone from the 
Houston-Galveston, Texas, nonattainment area. The commenters in 
opposition, believed that either the Baton Rouge area did not meet the 
conditions under EPA's transport-based 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 
transport-based attainment date extension.
    Response: EPA is not able to complete its consideration of the 
applicability of the extension policy to the Baton Rouge area prior to 
the court-ordered deadline for making a determination. Therefore, EPA 
is not granting an extension in this action. Comments relating to the 
attainment date extension will be addressed if EPA takes final action 
regarding an extension of Baton Rouge's attainment date based on 
transport. However, responses to previous comments received on the 
policy can be found in the rulemakings approving attainment date 
extensions for Washington, DC, Greater Connecticut, and Springfield, 
Massachusetts, published January 3, 2001 (66 FR 585, 66 FR 633, 66 FR 
665, respectively), for Beaumont/Port Arthur, Texas, published May 15, 
2001 (66 FR 26914), St. Louis, Missouri, published June 26, 2001 (66 FR 
33996), and Atlanta, Georgia, published May 7, 2002 (67 FR 30574).
    EPA was in the process of determining whether Louisiana could 
undertake the actions necessary for the area to qualify for the 
attainment date extension 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. EPA 
cannot reach a decision on the attainment date extension request from 
Louisiana by the time the Court has ordered EPA to act. Therefore, EPA 
is using the existing attainment date in making the court-ordered 
determination. However, as explained above, in a separate Federal 
Register document EPA is proposing to delay the effective date of 
today's determination of nonattainment and reclassification to October 
4, 2002. In that notice, EPA announces its intent to propose to 
withdraw today's determination of nonattainment and reclassification if 
EPA approves an attainment date extension before the effective date of 
today's action.

Comments Related to the Proposed Reclassification

    EPA received nine comment letters opposing and two comment letters 
supporting the proposed reclassification of the Baton Rouge area from a 
serious classification to severe classification. The comments opposing 
the

[[Page 42694]]

reclassification cited the progress toward attainment that the Baton 
Rouge area has accomplished, the contribution of the transport of ozone 
from upwind sources, and the potential negative impacts the 
reclassification may have on the area.
    Comment: The Baton Rouge area has made significant progress in 
mitigating its ozone problems and it is close to achieving attainment 
of the one-hour ozone standard. The efforts of the Louisiana Department 
of Environmental Quality and the Ozone Task Force (OTF) in generating a 
SIP with prominent features of reasonable and effective emissions 
control strategies were cited in the comments opposing the proposed 
reclassification. Also stated were opinions on: the current air quality 
data indicating a marginal classification if the Baton Rouge were 
evaluated today; the influence of transport of ozone from upwind 
sources, and, lastly; the effect reclassification would have by slowing 
down the process of cleaning up the air because of all of the work that 
has already been done in the preparation of the December 31, 2001, SIP.
    Response: We commend the work that the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality has performed, the efforts of the OTF, and the 
resulting progress of the Baton Rouge area in mitigating their ozone 
conditions. These efforts were reflected in the submitted Attainment 
Plan/Transport SIP dated December 31, 2001. EPA was in the process of 
reviewing the Attainment Plan/Transport SIP when the United States 
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued 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. Given the Court's Order and the current status of EPA's review 
of the Attainment Plan/Transport SIP, EPA is unable to act on the 
attainment date extension request from Louisiana at this time.
    Under section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, the attainment determination 
is made solely on the basis of air quality data, and any 
reclassification is by operation of law. So in keeping with the 
existing court-ordered deadline to make an attainment determination, 
EPA must make a determination of nonattainment and by operation of law, 
the Baton Rouge area is to be reclassified from a serious to a severe 
nonattainment area on the effective date of this rule. Details on the 
evaluation of the air quality data can be found in the proposal for 
this action at 66 FR 23646 (May 9, 2001).

Comments Related to the Consequences of Reclassification

    Comment 1: If the Baton Rouge area is reclassified to severe, 
additional control measures will be required by the CAA. These control 
measures include the use of reformulated gasoline, the establishment of 
transportation control measures, a change in the definition of ``major 
source,'' an adjustment of the offset ratio for modifications or new 
construction of major sources, and the imposition of a VOC emission fee 
if the Baton Rouge area does not achieve attainment by November 15, 
2005. These severe area controls would be unduly burdensome on business 
and economic growth in the area.
    Response 1: Under section 181(b)(2)(A), the attainment 
determination is made solely on the basis of air quality data, and any 
reclassification is by operation of law. If an area is reclassified to 
``severe,'' the requirements of 182(d) apply.
    With respect to the perceived burden imposed on industry by the 
severe area requirements, EPA notes that the severe area planning 
requirements are imposed by section 182(d) of the CAA and the economic 
impact of reclassification is not a consideration in making the 
attainment determination under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA. It is, 
however, appropriate for the state to consider specific economic 
impacts in meeting the planning requirements of section 182(d) and in 
developing specific regulatory requirements for specific resources.
    Comment 2: The Louisiana Chemical Association (LCA) commented on 
the Reformulated Gas program. LCA stated that when an area is 
reclassified as severe, it becomes a ``covered area'' under Clean Air 
Act section 211(k)(10)(D) and is required to use RFG which must have a 
minimum 2% (wt.) oxygen content most commonly met through the use of 
either methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) or ethanol. LCA describes 
several problems associated with the use of MTBE and ethanol, including 
contamination of drinking water supplies by MTBE, potential federal 
legislation to ban MTBE, increased cost of fuel using ethanol, 
increased VOC emissions from fuel using ethanol, carcinogenicity of 
ethanol, and potentially insufficient supplies of ethanol.
    Response 2: The commenter is correct that the Clean Air Act 
requires mandatory participation in the federal RFG program for an 
ozone non-attainment area which is reclassified as severe, effective 
one year after the reclassification, see Section 211(k)(10)(D) of the 
CAA. This requirement under the Clean Air Act is implemented as a 
matter of law; EPA does not have discretion to change, waive, or fail 
to implement this requirement. This requirement has previously been 
implemented in June 1, 1996, one year following the reclassification of 
the Sacramento, California, metropolitan area to severe non-attainment 
status, see April 25, 1995, 60 FR 20237. It will also be implemented in 
December, 2002, when one year elapses following the reclassification of 
the San Joaquin Valley, California, area to severe non-attainment 
status, see November 8, 2001, 66 FR 56476.
    The commenter has identified a number of concerns about the use of 
oxygenates in RFG, most of which were discussed in The Report of the 
Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline, ``Achieving Clean Air and 
Clean Water,'' (September, 1999) which is available on the EPA website 
at the following location: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/oxypanel/blueribb.htm. This report, which was provided to EPA's Clean 
Air Act Advisory Committee in accordance with the requirements of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, recommends a number of actions be taken 
to address water quality concerns from the use of oxygenates in 
gasoline. Some of these actions can be taken by state and federal 
environmental agencies within their existing authority, and some of 
these actions require federal legislative action. The Congressional 
bills mentioned by the commenter are some of the many legislative 
actions that have been proposed to address these issues; additional 
Congressional bills are pending today that have been introduced in the 
current Congressional session for the same purpose, but none of these 
bills has yet become law.
    EPA has initiated all of the actions recommended by the Blue Ribbon 
Panel that are within EPA's existing authority, including actions to 
improve the rate of compliance with EPA's existing underground storage 
tank (UST) requirements (designed to prevent leaks from gasoline stored 
in USTs to groundwater) and actions to strengthen EPA's existing 
programs to protect water quality. In the meantime, the federal RFG 
program continues to provide substantial air quality benefits to those 
areas currently participating in the program.
    Comment 3: LCA states that requirements for special gasoline blends 
in one area of the state will harm the gasoline distribution and supply 
system, citing an article in USA Today dated

[[Page 42695]]

June 27, 2000, which says the gasoline distribution system is designed 
to handle six grades of gasoline and since the 1970s has had to 
accommodate at least seven new varieties of cleaner-burning fuels. The 
article says this can cause gas prices to increase.
    Response 3: EPA reiterates its response to Comment 2, that 
mandatory participation in the federal RFG program for areas 
reclassified as severe is a statutory requirement which EPA has no 
discretion to change, waive, or fail to implement. We also note that, 
at the direction of the National Energy Policy Development Group in its 
May, 2001, report on ``National Energy Policy'', EPA studied the 
effects on fuel supply and distribution of unique fuel blends (often 
called ``boutique'' fuels,) and released two reports in October, 2001, 
both of which are available on EPA's website at the following location: 
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels.htm#oct2401. Impacts on prices are 
discussed in these two reports.
    Comment 4: LCA states that it is likely vehicles will re-fuel 
outside the RFG covered area in order to avoid the higher prices, which 
would reduce the efficacy of the program. LCA also states that the RFG 
requirement makes no sense when these problems could be avoided by 
allowing the state more time to demonstrate the need for an extension 
of the attainment deadline due to transport of emissions from Houston.
    Response 4: EPA reiterates its response to Comment 2, that 
mandatory participation in the federal RFG program for areas 
reclassified as severe is a statutory requirement which EPA has no 
discretion to change, waive, or fail to implement. We also note that 
the commenter has provided no support for its statement that vehicles 
will re-fuel outside the RFG covered area in order to avoid higher 
prices. We are unaware that this is a significant problem in any of the 
existing RFG covered areas.
    Comment 5: The LCA commented on the negative impacts of the 
volatile organic carbon (VOC) emission fee program requirement in CAA 
sections 182(d)(3) and 185.
    Response 5: The emission fee program is a specific requirement 
under the CAA for severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas. It is 
required to be implemented only in the event a severe nonattainment 
area does not attain by the applicable attainment date of November 15, 
2005. Furthermore, EPA believes that is unlikely that the fee 
requirements will have to be implemented if the State proceeds with the 
planned emission reductions since these should result in the Baton 
Rouge area attaining the one hour ozone standard.
    Comment 6: One commenter contends that section 181(b)(2) of the 
Clean Air Act is unconstitutional on its face and/or as applied when it 
requires reclassification to severe where the area is affected by 
transport and where its current design value is ``marginal.'' The 
commenter claims that the exercise of the Police Power is 
unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the Constitution 
because there is no rational relationship between the ends chosen by 
Congress and its purpose. The commenter further alleges that this 
interpretation of section 181(b)(2) violates the Equal Protection 
Clause because areas affected by transport within the U.S. are not 
provided the same protection afforded to areas affected by transport 
from outside of the U.S. under section 179B.
    Response 6: The bare constitutional challenges are without merit. 
The commenter provides no support for its allegations of 
unconstitutionality and no case law upholding its assertions. Moreover, 
section 181(b)(2) passes Constitutional muster under the Due Process 
and Equal Protection clauses.
    Comment 7: A commenter contends that the VOC emission fee, if 
imposed, is an illegal and unconstitutional tax under the U.S. and 
Louisiana constitutions.
    Response 7: The commenter provides no support for its bare 
assertions of illegality and unconstitutionality. Moreover, the 
emission fee is not being imposed on sources by this rulemaking but is 
merely a SIP submission requirement of the CAA to which severe ozone 
nonattainment areas are subject.

XIII. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not 
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order. 
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a

[[Page 42696]]

rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the 
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will 
submit 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 United States prior to publication of the rule in the 
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This rule will be 
effective August 23, 2002.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 23, 2002. 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: June 5, 2002.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. In Sec. 81.319 the table for Louisiana--Ozone is amended by 
revising the entry for the Baton Rouge area to read as follows:


Sec. 81.319  Louisiana

* * * * *

                                                           Louisiana--Ozone (1-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Designation                                           Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baton Rouge Area:
    Ascension Parish....................     11/15/90  Nonattainment............................      8/23/02  Severe.
    East Baton Rouge Parish.............     11/15/90  Nonattainment............................      8/23/02  Severe.
    Iberville Parish....................     11/15/90  Nonattainment............................      8/23/02  Severe.
    Livingston Parish...................     11/15/90  Nonattainment............................      8/23/02  Severe.
    West Baton Rouge Parish.............     11/15/90  Nonattainment............................      8/23/02  Severe.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 02-15712 Filed 6-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P