[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60877-60886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-24636]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[LA-62-1-7571; FRL-7384-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 
Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides in the Baton Rouge Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions to the Louisiana State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). This rulemaking covers two separate actions. 
First, we are approving revisions to the Louisiana Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX) rules in the Baton Rouge (BR) 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area (BR area) and its Region of Influence as submitted 
to us by the State on February 27, 2002 (the February 27, 2002, SIP 
revision). In this document, we will refer to this revision as Action 
Number 1. The revisions concern Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT) for point sources of NOX in the BR area and its 
Region of Influence. Second, we are approving revisions to the 
Louisiana NOX rules for lean burn engines within the BR 
ozone nonattainment area as submitted to us on July 25, 2002 (the July 
25, 2002, SIP revision). In this document, we will refer to this 
revision as Action Number 2. The February 27, and July 25, 2002, SIP 
revisions will contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the BR area. The EPA is 
finalizing approval of these 2 SIP revisions to regulate emissions of 
NOX as meeting the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act 
(the Act).
    The EPA is making these 2 SIP revisions effective immediately. See 
section 2 of this document for more information.

DATES: This rule will be effective on September 27, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Technical Support Document (TSD) and other 
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection 
during normal business hours at the following locations. Persons 
interested in examining these documents should make an appointment with 
the

[[Page 60878]]

appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), 7290 
Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70810.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, 
telephone (214) 665-6691, and [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

1. What actions are we taking in this document?
2. Why are we making this action effective immediately?
3. When did the public comment periods for our proposals expire?
4. Who submitted comments to us?
5. How do we respond to the submitted written comments?
6. What is definition of a major source for NOX?
7. What is the history of NOX RACT rules for point 
sources in the BR area?
8. What are the NOX emissions factors for point sources 
of NOX in the BR area?
9. What is the compliance schedule for point sources of 
NOX in the BR area?
10. What areas in Louisiana will today's action affect? Throughout 
this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' means EPA.

1. What Actions are we Taking in This Document?

    On July 23, 2002, we proposed to approve the Louisiana's rule 
revisions to LAC 33:III, Chapter 22, ``Control of Emissions of Nitrogen 
Oxides,'' (AQ215), as a revision to the Louisiana SIP for point sources 
of NOX in the BR area and its Region of Influence. See 67 FR 
48095.
    The BR area constitutes the 5 ozone nonattainment parishes of 
Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton 
Rouge. The Region of Influence constitutes the 4 ozone attainment 
parishes of East Feliciana, Pointe Coupee, St. Helena, and West 
Feliciana. This SIP revision establishes RACT for point sources of 
NOX in all these 9 parishes. RACT is defined as the lowest 
emission limitation that a particular source can meet by applying a 
control technique that is reasonably available considering 
technological and economic feasibility. See 44 FR 53761, September 17, 
1979. The State of Louisiana submitted this revision to us as a part of 
the NOX reductions needed for the BR area to attain the 1-
hour ozone standard. These NOX reductions will assist the BR 
area to attain the 1-hour ozone standard.
    Today, we are finalizing our approval of Action Number 1.
    Action Number 2 concerns RACT for lean burn engines in 5 ozone 
nonattainment parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, 
Livingston, and West Baton Rouge. See above for definition of RACT. On 
July 31, 2002, we proposed to approve Louisiana's rule revisions to LAC 
33:III, Chapter 22, ``Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides,'' 
(AQ224), as a revision to the Louisiana SIP for lean burn engines 
within the BR ozone nonattainment area. See 67 FR 49647. These 
revisions would require lean burn engines to adopt RACT to assist the 5 
nonattainment parishes to achieve the 1-hour ozone standard. See 67 FR 
49647. We used a procedure known as ``parallel processing'' in 
proposing to approve these revisions. See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V 
for more information on ``parallel processing.'' Briefly, parallel 
processing allows a State to submit a SIP revision prior to actual 
adoption by the State and provides an opportunity for the State to 
consider EPA comments prior to submission of a final SIP revision for 
final EPA review and action.
    Today, we are finalizing our approval of Action Number 2.
    By finalizing our approval of Action Numbers 1 and 2, we are 
agreeing that the State of Louisiana will be implementing RACT for 
major point sources of NOX in the BR area and its Region of 
Influence. Our TSD contains more information concerning Action Numbers 
1 and 2, including technical justification for our action. For 
additional information concerning NOX, nonattainment areas, 
SIPs, federal approval of a SIP, and RACT you can refer to either 67 FR 
48095 (July 23, 2002), or 67 FR 49647 (July 31, 2002).

2. Why are we Making This Action Effective Immediately?

    Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act generally 
provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they 
are published in the Federal Register. However, if an Agency identifies 
a good cause, section 553(d)(3) allows a rule to take effect earlier, 
provided that the Agency publishes its reasoning in the final rule. The 
EPA is making this action effective immediately because this rule is 
related to the Baton Rouge 1-hour ozone Attainment Plan and Transport 
State Implementation Plan, on which the EPA intends to take imminent 
action (see 67 FR 50391, August 2, 2002). In conjunction with its 
August 2, 2002, proposed approval of the attainment demonstration, EPA 
proposed to extend the ozone attainment date for the BR area to 
November 15, 2005, while retaining the area's current classification as 
a serious ozone nonattainment area and to withdraw EPA's June 24, 2002, 
rulemaking determining nonattainment and reclassification of the BR 
area (67 FR 42687). The effective date of EPA's June 24, 2002, 
nonattainment determination and reclassification is imminent. 
Furthermore, making this action effective immediately does not impose 
any additional requirements, because the underlying regulations are 
already effective under State law.

3. When did the Public Comment Periods for our Proposals Expire?

    The public comment period for Action Number 1 (67 FR 48095) expired 
on August 24, 2002.
    The public comment period for Action Number 2 (67 FR 49647) expired 
on September 1, 2002.

4. Who submitted comments to us?

    We received written comments from the Baton Rouge Clean Air 
Coalition (BRCAC), M. D. Mc Daniel and Associates (MDA) on behalf of 
the Baton Rouge Ozone Task Force, Louisiana Chemical Association (LCA), 
Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LAMOGA), Louisiana 
Generating, LLC (LG), LDEQ, NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG), and Tulane 
Environmental Law Clinic (TELC) on behalf of the Louisiana 
Environmental Action Network (LEAN) concerning Action Number 1.
    We received written comments from LDEQ, LAMOGA and TELC concerning 
Action Number 2.

5. How do we Respond to the Submitted Written Comments?

    Our response to written comments concerning Action Number 1 (67 FR 
48095) are as follows:
    Comment #1: The BRCAC, MDA, LCA, LAMOGA, LDEQ, and LG expressed 
their support for our July 23, 2002 proposal (67 FR 48095).
    Response to comment #1: We appreciate the commenters' support of 
our July 23, 2002 proposal (67 FR 48095) and have considered these 
comments in making our final determination.
    Comment #2: The LDEQ commented on spelling of the East Feliciana 
and West Feliciana parishes in section 15 of our July 23, 2002 proposal 
(67 FR 48095).
    Response to comment #2: We appreciate the comment and have 
corrected the typographical error in spelling of these two parishes.

[[Page 60879]]

    Comment #3: The NRG commented that the definition of ``averaging 
capacity'' in subsection B, Chapter 22 uses the actual heat input from 
two prior ozone seasons and thus is limiting in nature. The Commenter 
proposes language for the definition that includes the term ``other 
acceptable periods'' instead.
    Response to comment #3: Subsection B, Chapter 22 defines the 
averaging capacity as ``the average actual heat input rate in MMBtu/
hour at which an affected point source operated during the ozone season 
of the two calendar years of 2000 and 2001 (e.g., total heat input for 
the period divided by the actual hours of operation for the same 
period).'' The provision goes on to provide, ``Another period may be 
used to calculate the averaging capacity if approved by the department. 
For units with permit revisions that legally curtailed capacity or that 
were permanently shut down after 1997, the averaging capacity is the 
average actual heat input during the last two ozone seasons of 
operation before the curtailment or shutdown.'' The rationale for 
specifically stating the two calendar years of 2000 and 2001 in 
definition of ``averaging capacity'' is to ensure consistency and 
replicability of Chapter 22 with the photochemical grid modeling inputs 
used for the BR area attainment demonstration. The term ``acceptable 
periods'' as suggested by the commenter could introduce confusion or 
ambiguity for compliance determination purposes, as well. The current 
definition in Chapter 22, as stated above, does provide for a source to 
use alternative periods pending approval by the LDEQ. Therefore, we 
believe that the definition, as adopted by the State, offers a 
harmonized blend of flexibility, consistency, and specificity and are 
approving the rule without any changes to subsection B.
    Comment #4: The NRG commented that use of averaging capacity in 
subsections D.3 and D.4 of Chapter 22 essentially precludes operation 
of a facility at its maximum capacity if the owner elects to use a ton 
per day or pound per hour emission cap.
    Response to comment #4: As stated previously, the rationale for 
specifically stating the two calendar years of 2000 and 2001 in the 
definition of ``averaging capacity'' is to ensure consistency and 
replicability of Chapter 22 with the photochemical grid modeling inputs 
used for the BR area attainment demonstration. Subsections D.3 and D.4 
allow for a 30-day rolling average as the basis for calculating mass of 
NOX emitted per unit of heat input (lb NOX/MM 
Btu). The 30-day rolling average window is long enough and flexible 
enough to allow for potential fluctuations associated with the demand 
for electricity. The cap, as calculated by Equation D-1 of Chapter 22, 
is offered as an alternative and provides additional flexibility. If a 
source operated at or near its maximum capacity during the two calendar 
years of 2000 and 2001, then the source would be assigned a ton per day 
or pound per hour emission cap for NOX that is 
representative of its historical operations. In response to a similar 
comment, the State wrote and we agree,

``the rule limits an individual unit to its historical averaging 
capacity as determined by the operation in the ozone seasons of 2000 
and 2001. The owner can also request DEQ approval for a different 
historical period if he knows that the 2000-2001 period is not 
representative of typical operation. The rule was written this way 
because the actual, rather than permitted, 1997 emissions were used 
to establish the base case for the model. The 1997 actuals were 
projected to the baseline for 2005. The NOX control rule 
was designed to reduce the baseline emissions to the point that 
attainment with the standard was attained. If permitted emissions 
had been used to establish the baseline, more stringent controls 
would have been required to reach attainment. If an owner decides to 
group several sources under an emission cap, he would determine his 
cap by adding up all of the allowed emissions of the capped sources 
and then operate so as not to exceed the cap. In so doing, he is 
free to operate any unit or units in the cap at a rate(s) that is 
above the averaging capacity as long as the cap is not exceeded. 
This gives an owner a lot of flexibility to optimize his operation 
to his best interests.''

    We do not believe that an electrical power generator would want to 
bear the risk of having to adopt more stringent control measures or to 
operate under a year-round (as opposed to a seasonal) NOX 
control strategy for the sake of a higher cap limit that is not 
historically representative of its recent operations. Thus, we are 
approving the rule without any changes to subsections D.3 and D.4.
    Comment #5: The NRG commented that compliance with the emission 
limits for all sources associated with the generation of electric power 
should be on a 30-day rolling average basis.
    Response to comment #5: We disagree with the commenter. We agree 
with the State's response to a similar comment. In response to comments 
during the State rulemaking, LDEQ stated:

    ``the basis for the Baton Rouge area is the one-hour ozone 
standard that requires compliance in each and every hour of the day. 
Typically, non-electric facilities operate at a steady rate with 
steady NOX emissions and the averaging time is not very 
significant. However, the nature of an electric utility is to raise 
and lower rates as load demands vary. There is typically a very 
large variation in day-to-day electricity demand as weather fronts, 
rain and other conditions change to affect atmospheric temperatures. 
This causes large changes in NOX emissions. The DEQ 
believes that a tighter control on electric utilities is necessary 
to prevent exceedances of the standard from occurring.''

    In other words, allowing a 30-day rolling average for electric 
utility boilers could result in exceedances of the one-hour standard 
due to varying NOX emissions caused by load variations.
    Comment #6: The NRG presents a hypothetical example that should a 
generating unit experience an unexpected shutdown the demand for 
electricity must be met by other generators and the averaging capacity 
in section E.1.d is restrictive. The commenter then suggests that 
throughout Chapter 22, the term ``averaging capacity'' for sources 
associated with the electrical power generation should be replaced with 
``maximum rated capacity.''
    Response to comment #6: We disagree. There are multiple layers of 
operational flexibility embedded in the Chapter 22 rule. First, Chapter 
22 allows for seasonal NOX control (May 1 to September 30 of 
each year as opposed to a year-round) measures. See subsection A.2. The 
seasonal control measure by itself offers a significant degree of 
latitude to an affected source. Replacing the averaging capacity with 
maximum rated capacity as suggested by the commenter would create an 
artificially higher cap limit for these sources which is 
unrepresentative of their recent historical operations, and in turn the 
attainment demonstration strategy could call for implementation of more 
stringent control measures for the BR area. Second, Chapter 22 allows 
for use of the peaking services option. For the definition and emission 
factors of ``peaking service,'' see subsection B in Chapter 22, and 
Table I of this document, respectively. Third, Chapter 22 allows for 
the facility-wide averaging plan as an alternative method of 
compliance. Subsection E.1.b(i) offers a 30-day rolling average limit 
for each individual unit that fires gaseous or liquid fuels and chooses 
to participate in the facility-wide averaging plan. Subsection E.1.c(i) 
offers a 30-day rolling average limit for each individual unit, 
including those in a coal-fired electrical power generation system, 
that chooses to participate in the facility-wide averaging plan. We 
believe that routine maintenance, generators' know how/training, good 
housekeeping measures, and preventive practices should be the 
determining factors in minimizing or eliminating occurrences

[[Page 60880]]

of unexpected shutdowns rather than the Chapter 22 rule. We thus 
disagree with the commenter in this regard.
    Comment #7: The NRG commented that limiting usage of secondary 
fuels to the average usage of secondary fuel in 2000 and 2001 is 
restrictive and unnecessary.
    Response to comment #7: We disagree. The Chapter 22 rule actually 
benefits the source by avoiding year-round NOX control 
requirements. See subsection A.2 of the Chapter 22 rule. The Chapter 22 
rule is not overly restrictive, as it provides for an alternative 
method of compliance with the NOX emission factors. 
Subsection D.2 allows the followings options for a source which is 
capable of firing more than one type of fuel (primary and back-up 
fuel(s)):
    Subsection D.2.a states ``if a combination of fuels is used 
normally, the emission factor from Paragraph D.1 of this Section shall 
be adjusted by the weighted average heat input of the fuels based on 
the ozone season average usage in 2000 and 2001, or another period if 
approved by the department,''
    Subsection D.2.b states ``if the boiler is normally fired with a 
primary fuel and a secondary fuel is available for back-up, the unit 
shall comply with the emission factor for the primary fuel while firing 
the primary fuel and with the emission factor for the secondary fuel 
while firing the secondary fuel. In addition, the usage of the 
secondary fuel shall be limited to the ozone season average usage of 
the secondary fuel in 2000 and 2001, or another period if approved by 
the department,'' and
    Subsection D.2.c states ``if the secondary fuel is less than 10 
percent of the weighted average, the owner or operator may choose to 
comply with the unadjusted limit for the primary fuel.''
    As stated previously, the rationale for specifically stating the 
two calendar years of 2000 and 2001 in Chapter 22 is to ensure 
consistency and replicability in the photochemical grid modeling inputs 
used for the BR area attainment demonstration. Having enforceable 
limits for the secondary fuel usage, and adhering to a historically 
representative quantity of fuel usage would benefit the source by not 
having to adopt year-round and more stringent controls in order for the 
BR area to reach attainment. Therefore, we find that limiting usage of 
secondary fuels to the average usage of secondary fuel in 2000 and 2001 
is neither restrictive nor unnecessary and thus disagree with the 
commenter in this regard.
    Comment #8: The NRG commented that precluding the 30-day averaging 
of emissions could subject the state to regulatory takings claim.
    Response to comment #8: The EPA's role in reviewing SIP submittals 
is to evaluate whether state choices meet the criteria of the Act. 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness and other 
constitutionally protected rights of state action is not allowed under 
the Act (see, Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-266 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)) other than for purposes of evaluating the 
reasonableness and availability of alternatives for purposes of a 
waiver of Federal preemption. The State has submitted information 
indicating that the administrative requirements of Louisiana law have 
been met. The EPA believes this rule can be approved pursuant to the 
Act based on our review of the LDEQ's responses to comments, taken 
together with the rest of the information in the administrative record 
for the SIP. We thus disagree with the commenter in this regard. In 
approving LDEQ's adopted NOX rules, we also note the 
following: (a) The Chapter 22 rule calls for seasonal NOX 
control (May 1 to September 30 of each year) measures. See subsection 
A.2 of the rule, and (b) the seasonal NOX control measure by 
itself offers a significant degree of flexibility and latitude to an 
affected source.
    Comment #9: The TELC requested an extension of 30 days to the 
public comment period.
    Response to comment #9: The EPA is under no obligation to extend 
the comment period or to accept late comments. We decided to accept 
comments which were received by our office by close-of-business on 
August 26, 2002. This time frame corresponds to the estimated travel 
time for first class mail for a letter mailed and postmarked on the 
last day of the comment period, August 22, 2002.
    Comment #10: The TELC commented that exemption of flares, 
incinerators, kilns and ovens in subsection B is a nonexisting section.
    Response to comment #10: Chapter 22 is titled as ``Control of 
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX).'' Section 2201 is titled 
``Affected Facilities in the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area and the 
Region of Influence.'' Subsection B addresses the applicable 
definitions, and subsection C includes the exemptions. Therefore, the 
reference to subsection B, in the text of subsection C.7 of the rule, 
is valid and will remain unchanged.
    Comment #11: The TELC has concerns with the emission reductions 
generated by facilities which are required to comply with the 
NOX RACT requirements in Louisiana's revised NOX 
rule. The commenter is concerned that facilities which elect to 
implement RACT before the compliance date required by the rule, May 1, 
2005, could be considered to be doing so voluntarily. And as voluntary 
reductions, i.e., not required by federal or state law, these 
NOX reductions could be deemed surplus, and therefore, 
eligible for use as emission offsets, including offsets of Volatile 
Organic Compounds (VOCs).
    Response to comment #11: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's 
interpretation that facilities which elect to implement RACT before the 
compliance date required by the rule, May 1, 2005, would generate 
reductions eligible for use as emission offsets.
    The revised NOX rule requires certain affected 
categories of NOX-generating facilities to achieve RACT ``as 
expeditiously as possible, but no later than May 1, 2005.'' This date 
takes into consideration time affected categories of NOX-
generating facilities may need to procure, calibrate and implement 
RACT. LDEQ has noted, and EPA agrees, that the May 1, 2005 date is 
reasonable because in the three years from the promulgation to 
compliance, owners and operators will have to put together design and 
engineering packages, procure control equipment, complete construction, 
shakedown and debug new equipment, and bring the NOX control 
equipment into normal operation. In many instances these activities 
will have to be coordinated with scheduled outages, which may also 
impact implementation schedules. Furthermore, during this same period, 
facilities in neighboring states will be attempting to accomplish these 
same activities, which could cause delays due to competition and 
overloading at engineering offices and equipment vendors' fabrication 
shops.
    Section 173(c)(2) of the Act states that reductions otherwise 
required by the Act are not creditable as offsets. Louisiana has 
promulgated revisions to the Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) at 
Part III, Section 504, which contains the rules for nonattainment New 
Source Review (NSR) procedures that apply to the Baton Rouge area. The 
NSR revisions include increases to the minimum offset ratios for new 
major stationary sources and major modifications to major stationary 
sources in the Baton Rouge area. The revisions also add minimum offset 
ratios for NOX. The EPA proposed approval of Louisiana's 
revised NSR rules on July 23, 2002. (67 FR 48090). For additional 
information regarding NSR and offsets, see LAC III:33, Chapter

[[Page 60881]]

5, and the separate EPA rulemaking to be issued regarding that Chapter.
    Although the NOX rule permits affected categories of 
NOX-generating facilities to achieve compliance with 
NOX RACT no later than May 1, 2005, the rule became 
effective when promulgated on February 20, 2002 (Louisiana Register, 
Vol. 28, No. 2). Therefore, facilities achieving NOX RACT 
compliance before May 1, 2005, are creating emission reductions as 
required by law. Such facilities will not obtain Emissions Reduction 
Credits (ERCs) and cannot offset VOC emissions by early RACT 
implementation. Furthermore, emissions decreased by a voluntary action 
must be permanent in order to meet the surplus ERC criteria. Because 
the rule provides for compliance no later than May 1, 2005, reductions 
made before that date could not be considered permanent, and therefore 
could not be surplus.
    For the above reasons, the comment does not indicate that any 
change to the rule is required.
    Comment #12: The TELC charges that LDEQ has taken inconsistent 
positions regarding modeling and the effects of NOX 
reduction on attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The commenter points out 
that on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2438), EPA granted an exemption from 
the RACT and NSR requirements for major stationary sources of 
NOX, pursuant to section 182(f) of the Act. This exemption 
was based on modeling submitted by LDEQ in a 1994 petition that 
demonstrated that additional NOX emission controls within 
the Baton Rouge area will not contribute to attainment of the ozone 
NAAQS for the area. On May 7, 2002 (67 FR 30638), EPA rescinded that 
exemption based on more recent modeling conducted for the Baton Rouge 
area, submitted by LDEQ September 24, 2001, that indicates that control 
of NOX sources will help the area attain the ozone NAAQS. 
According to the commenter, this change in approach to NOX 
regulation has the effect of creating ``loopholes in the law.''
    Response to comment #12: The ``loopholes'' that the commenter 
complains of are addressed in comment and response 11, above. This 
response addresses only the commenter's apparent assertion that 
Louisiana's scientific approach to NOX regulation is 
unfounded. The EPA disagrees with this argument. In granting the 
NOX exemptions January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2438), EPA reserved 
the right to reverse the approval of the exemptions if subsequent 
modeling data demonstrated an ozone attainment benefit from 
NOX emission controls. Photochemical grid modeling recently 
conducted for the Baton Rouge area SIP indicates control of 
NOX sources will help the area attain the ozone NAAQS. The 
State of Louisiana therefore requested that EPA rescind the 
NOX exemption based on this new modeling on September 24, 
2001. In our proposed approval of the rescission of the NOX 
waiver May 7, 2002, (67 FR 30638), we stated that we believed that the 
State had adequately demonstrated that additional NOX 
reductions would contribute to attainment of ozone NAAQS. The State of 
Louisiana is not the only state that has requested that EPA rescind its 
NOX waiver based on updated photochemical grid modeling 
information. Seven years elapsed between the LDEQ's previous modeling 
demonstration that additional NOX reductions would not 
contribute to area's attainment, and the most recent modeling events 
demonstrating the Baton Rouge area to be NOX limited. 
Pollution control technology, including air modeling, is a dynamic and 
evolving field. The model used by LDEQ to support its request for 
approval of the NOX waiver was Urban Airshed Model (UAM) IV, 
which is an EPA-approved photochemical grid model. The model used by 
LDEQ to support its request for rescission of the NOX waiver 
was UAM V. This represents a significant refinement in modeling 
technology. Additionally, emission inventory tools have been improved 
during this seven year period from when the State initially requested 
the NOX waiver.
    Comment #13: The TELC comments that the public has not been 
provided with the copy of the Governor's April 8, 2002, letter to EPA.
    Response to comment #13: We disagree. In section 1 of our July 31, 
2002 proposal (67 FR 49647), we specifically stated, ``on April 8, 
2002, the Governor of Louisiana submitted a letter to us requesting 
that we propose approval of their rule revision concerning RACT for 
lean burn engines through parallel processing. See 40 CFR Part 51, 
Appendix V for more information on parallel processing.'' In addition, 
under the ADDRESSES portion of our July 31, 2002 proposal (67 FR 
49647), we stated that: ``copies of the documents relevant to this 
action are available for public inspection during normal business hours 
at the following locations. Persons interested in examining these 
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at 
least 24 hours before the visiting day.'' The July 31, 2002, proposal 
(67 FR 49647) further lists both the LDEQ's and EPA's addresses at 
which the commenter could obtain or view the submittal package, 
including the April 8, 2002, letter from the Governor of Louisiana to 
EPA. The LDEQ noticed the rule in the March 20, 2002, issue of the 
Louisiana Register, and held a public hearing on April 24, 2002. Based 
on the foregoing information, we believe that the April 8, 2002, letter 
from the Governor of Louisiana to EPA and supporting documents 
contained in the State's submittal have been made available in the 
docket to the public, and therefore disagree with the commenter in this 
regard.
    Comment #14: The TELC commented that the May 3, 2002, letter from 
Mr. Dale Givens of LDEQ to EPA was not made available to the public 
during the rulemaking and thus is a violation of due process.
    Response to comment #14: We disagree. The May 3, 2002, letter from 
Mr. Dale Givens to EPA was made available as a part of the docket. See 
section 9 of our July 23, 2002, publication (67 FR 48095), and section 
3 of the July 31, 2002, publication (67 FR 49647) in the Federal 
Register, respectively. For the reasons noted in Response 13 
above, we believe that ample opportunity was provided to the public to 
review and comment on the documents supporting this rulemaking.
    Comment #15: The TELC commented that removal of provisions (a) 
through (c) in subsection E.2 of Chapter 22 will mean removal of 
accountability/compliance requirements for facilities' trading plans.
    Response to comment #15: The NOX RACT rules EPA is 
approving today do not contain offsetting requirements for new 
facilities or major modifications in attainment parishes. Thus, EPA 
does not find any basis in this comment to withhold full approval of 
Action Numbers 1 and 2. The EPA proposed to approve revisions to the 
Louisiana emission reduction credit (ERC) banking program (67 FR 48083, 
July 23, 2002). The rule was promulgated by the State at LAC 33:III, 
Chapter 6 (Regulations on Control of Emissions Through the Use of 
Emission Reduction Credit Banking), as published in the Louisiana 
Register on February 20, 2002. Additional information on the ERC 
banking program is available in our rulemaking regarding that action. 
The ERC banking regulation establishes a means of enabling stationary 
sources to identify and preserve or acquire emission reductions for NSR 
emission offsets.
    Provisions (a) through (c) in subsection E.2 of Chapter 22 outline 
the information that a facility would include in its trading plan. 
There are several provisions and safeguards in place elsewhere in 
Chapters 22 and 6

[[Page 60882]]

that provide for compliance and accountability of the rule. For 
example, provisions (a) through (g) in subsection F.7, Chapter 22 
detail the information that a facility would need to include in its 
plan in order for that plan to be considered approvable during the pre-
permit application phase. Subsections G and H in Chapter 22 each 
contain the requirements of Initial Demonstration of Compliance, and 
Continuous Demonstration of Compliance, respectively. For information 
concerning recordkeeping and reporting requirements on banking emission 
reduction credits see section 613 of Chapter 6. For information 
concerning determination of creditable emission reductions see section 
607 of Chapter 6. Taking subsections F, G, and H in Chapter 22, and 
sections 607 and 613 in Chapter 6 together, we disagree with the 
commenter's position in this regard.
    Comment #16: The TELC commented that the NOX rule 
violates section 172(c) of the Act because it lacks requirements for 
minimum RACT.
    Response to comment #16: We disagree. Although the Act does not 
define RACT, EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation 
that a particular source can meet by applying a control technology that 
is reasonably available considering technological and economic 
feasibility. See 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). The RACT requirement 
is established by sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Act. Section 
182(b)(2) requires States to implement RACT with respect to all major 
sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Section 182(c) makes the 
requirements of section 182(b)(2) applicable to serious nonattainment 
areas, such as Baton Rouge. Section 182(f) states that the plan 
provisions required under section 182(b)(2) for major stationary 
sources of VOCs shall also apply to major stationary sources (as 
defined in section 302 and subsections 182(c), (d), and (e)) of 
NOX. Taken together, these sections establish the 
requirements for Louisiana to submit as part of its SIP a 
NOX RACT regulation for all major stationary sources of 
NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and 
above. States may also choose to develop RACT requirements on a case by 
case basis, considering the economic and technical circumstances of an 
individual source.
    The EPA has published Guidance Documents to assist States in 
developing RACT for affected sources. As stated in section 5 of our 
July 23, 2002 proposal (67 FR 48095), on November 25, 1992 (57 FR 
55620), we published a document of proposed rulemaking entitled ``State 
Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General 
Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; 
Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement). The NOX 
Supplement describes and provides preliminary guidance on the 
requirements of section 182(f) of the Act. The EPA has also identified 
basic factors for determining RACT technological and economic 
feasibility in identifying RACT measures. See 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 
1992). Other EPA guidance memoranda, such as those included in the 
``NOX Policy Document for the Clean Air Act of 1990,'' (EPA-
452/R96-005, March 1996), also provide more information about 
NOX requirements. In addition, states can use information in 
EPA's guidance documents known as the Alternative Control Techniques 
(ACTs) to develop their RACT regulations. In section 5 of our proposal 
(67 FR 48095), we included a table listing of ACT documents for various 
source categories of NOX with their corresponding EPA 
publication numbers. We also, in section 10 of our proposal (67 FR 
48095), included a list of the affected NOX point source 
categories, maximum rated capacities, and their relevant emission 
factors.
    The LDEQ developed and promulgated the NOX RACT 
regulation with reference to such EPA guidance (see Louisiana's Comment 
Summary-Response & Concise Statement for AQ215, submitted to EPA 
December 2001). Although EPA has historically recommended source/
category-wide presumptive RACT limits, no particular emissions control 
or emissions limitation automatically qualifies as RACT. Nor is there 
one control measure or emissions limitation that is RACT for a 
particular category of sources. The level of reductions required to 
determine RACT for a particular source depend on a number of factors, 
including an area's design value, a source's general process and 
operating procedures as well as the raw materials it uses, the net 
environmental impact of the control measures and economic feasibility. 
The level of reductions required by this rule were determined using 
photochemical grid modeling, an analysis of available technology and 
resources, and comparison to control measures instituted in other areas 
(see EPA's TSD for this action and Louisiana's Comment Summary-Response 
& Concise Statement for AQ215, Comments 8-32). Based on the results of 
the modeling and an analysis of the economic and technologically 
feasible controls, EPA believes this regulation meets the Act's RACT 
requirements.
    Although the commenter alleges that the NOX rule 
violates section 172(c) for not meeting minimum RACT, the TELC fails to 
provide any specific information, an individual emission factor for an 
affected source category, or a technological and economical evaluation/
comparison to substantiate its position.
    We believe that proposed NOX control measures are 
economically and technologically feasible, do strengthen the existing 
Louisiana SIP, assist to bring the BR area into attainment with the 
ozone standards, and constitute RACT. For these reasons we disagree 
with the comment.
    Comment #17: The TELC commented that the NOX rule 
violates section 172(c)(1) of the Act because it lacks requirements for 
a ``Reasonably Available Control Mechanism.''
    Response to Comment #17: We interpret the comment as a reference to 
section 172(c)(1)'s requirement for ``Reasonably Available Control 
Measures'' (RACM). We disagree with the commenter. This rule addresses 
NOX RACT. As stated previously, EPA believes the emissions 
limitations contained in Louisiana's Chapter 22 NOX Rule 
meet the requirements for RACT. Louisiana has conducted a RACM analysis 
for its SIP, which is the subject of a separate rulemaking. See 67 FR 
50391 (August 2, 2002). The EPA will address the State's RACM analysis 
in that rulemaking. The EPA has previously provided guidance 
interpreting the RACM requirements of 172(c)(1) in the General 
Preamble. See 57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992). In the General 
Preamble, EPA indicated its interpretation of section 172(c)(1), under 
the 1990 Amendments, as imposing a duty on States to consider all 
available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as 
are reasonably available for implementation in the particular 
nonattainment area. The EPA also retained its pre-1990 interpretation 
of the RACM provisions, stating that we would not consider it 
reasonable to require implementation of measures that might in fact be 
available for implementation in the nonattainment area, but could not 
be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for attainment 
in the area. The EPA does not believe a RACM analysis is necessary to 
approve this rule. Therefore, EPA finds no basis in this comment to 
disapprove or revise the NOX rule.
    Comment #18: The TELC commented that in its July 23, 2002 proposed 
approval action (67 FR 48095), EPA

[[Page 60883]]

proposes to approve Louisiana's NOX RACT rule based on an 
agreement ``that the State of Louisiana will be implementing RACT for 
point source categories.'' The TELC states that this agreement does not 
provide for the implementation of RACT as required by the Act.
    Response to comment #18: The EPA does not know to what 
``agreement'' the commenter is referring. As explained in Comment and 
Response 16, above, EPA is approving this rule because it 
meets the requirements of sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Act. We 
agree that in our July 23, 2002, EPA stated, ``By this approval, we are 
also agreeing that the State of Louisiana will be implementing RACT for 
point sources of NOX in the BR area and its Region of 
Influence.'' We intended that statement to mean that, upon EPA 
approval, Louisiana's regulations would meet the RACT requirements of 
the Act. For these reasons, we find nothing in this comment to preclude 
our approval of this rule.
    Our response to written comments concerning Action Number 2 (67 FR 
49647) are as follows:
    Comment #19: The LDEQ expressed its support for our July 31, 2002 
proposal (67 FR 49647).
    Response to comment #19: We appreciate the commenter's support of 
our July 31, 2002 proposal (67 FR 49647) and have considered these 
comments in making our final determination.
    Comment #20: The TELC commented that Action Number 2 can not be 
part of the SIP because it has not been properly promulgated by the 
State and that EPA's consideration of the NOX rule in 
parallel proceedings is an improper procedure.
    Response to comment #20: As stated in our July 31, 2002, proposal 
(67 FR 49647), the Governor of Louisiana submitted a letter, dated 
April 8, 2002, to us requesting that we propose approval of their rule 
revision concerning RACT for lean burn engines through parallel 
processing. We proposed approval of the April 8, 2002, SIP revision at 
the same time as the State was accepting comments and finalizing its 
rule revision. The method of simultaneously processing and approving a 
State's proposed rule revision is referred to as parallel processing. 
Parallel processing allows a State to submit a SIP revision prior to 
actual adoption by the State and provides an opportunity for the State 
to consider EPA comments prior to submission of final SIP revision for 
final EPA review and action. The 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V provides 
for this method of regulatory review and SIP processing. The EPA 
explained its reasoning when promulgating these procedures. See also, 
55 FR 5824 (February 16, 1990). As stated in our July 31, 2002, 
proposal (67 FR 49647), the State and EPA properly followed the 
parallel processing requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. Since 
the criteria set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V have been 
promulgated long since, the procedural rules that allow this means of 
considering SIP revisions of Action Number 2 can no longer be 
challenged. Finally, the State's final rule revision is not 
significantly different from its April 8, 2002 submission (proposed 
rule); therefore, we will not be re-proposing our action.
    The State's submittal, the Governor's letter, and our proposal to 
approve this particular SIP revision were made available for public 
review and comment, in accordance with the applicable rules, 
regulations, and procedures. We disagree with the commenter's position, 
and believe our approval of this SIP revision will strengthen 
Louisiana's SIP and will further safeguard the health and welfare of 
the public in the affected areas.
    Comment #21: The LAMOGA commented that EPA's requirement to amend 
the capacity threshold for the lean burn engines was a last minute 
action.
    Response to comment #21: Contrary to the LAMOGA's statement, EPA's 
recommendation to amend the capacity for the lean burn engines was not 
a last minute decision or action. In a letter to the LDEQ dated 
December 3, 2001, on page 11, EPA wrote: ``we are concerned that major 
sources of NOX may not be controlled if the exemption level 
for lean burn engines in the NOX rule remains at 1500 
horsepower (hp)... Louisiana should lower the applicability threshold 
for lean burn engines to insure all major sources institute RACT at a 
minimum as required by the Clean Air Act * * * '' In a letter to the 
LDEQ, dated January 24, 2002, EPA expressed its concern over this issue 
again by stating ``we are concerned that all major sources of 
NOX may not be controlled sufficiently to meet the statutory 
RACT requirement, if the exemption level for the lean burn engines is 
1500 Hp.'' The LDEQ has since lowered the threshold limit for the lean 
burn engines and in a May 1, 2002, letter to the LDEQ we expressed our 
support for the State's action in this regard. The December 3, 2001, 
January 24, 2002, and May 1, 2002, letters are part of the docket and 
have been available to the public since the commencement of this 
rulemaking. Based on these three letters of record, we believe that 
there has been ample notice and opportunity for comment regarding EPA's 
position, and therefore disagree with the commenter's position in this 
regard.
    Comment #22: The LAMOGA expressed its concern that the LDEQ's 
request to process the AQ224 rule through parallel processing was 
driven by mandated deadlines; otherwise, RACT would not have been 
triggered for lean burn engines of 320 Hp or above.
    Response to comment #22: We refer to our response to comment 
20 with respect to LAMOGA's comments regarding parallel 
processing. LAMOGA's comments indicate that the organization has been 
actively involved in the regulatory development arena of the BR area 
SIP and state's Ozone Task Force.
    Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires that a state submit a 
revision to its SIP that includes provisions requiring implementation 
of RACT under section 172(c)(1). Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires 
that SIP provisions provide for implementation of RACT, at a minimum, 
as expeditiously as practicable to attain the NAAQS. In addition, 
section 182(f) of the Act states that SIP provisions required for major 
sources of VOCs also apply to the major sources of NOX. The 
BR area was designated a serious ozone nonattainment area (40 CFR 
81.319). According to section 182(c) of the Act, a major source in a 
serious nonattainment area is a source that has a potential to emit 50 
tpy or more of NOX. Lean burn engines of 320 hp and above 
have the potential to emit 50 tpy or more of NOX. See Pages 
9 and ten of our TSD for this rulemaking. The 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix 
V provides for a state to request EPA to process revisions to its SIP 
as the state is accepting comments and finalizing its rule revision. We 
believe that the above listed statutory requirements of the Act are the 
driving forces for adoption of AQ224. While we appreciate the 
commenter's statement for not wanting to jeopardize approval of the BR 
area ozone attainment demonstration SIP, we also note that the major 
source threshold for a stationary source in a severe ozone 
nonattainment area is 25 tpy. The 25 tpy cut-off could potentially 
subject additional lean burn engines in the BR area to RACT 
requirements if the current measures are not adopted or implemented 
accordingly. The proposed lean burn engine requirements can be met with 
combustion modifications and without utilizing post combustion control 
technology measures. The Chapter 22 NOX rule provides for 
operational flexibility through facility-wide averaging provisions of 
which a

[[Page 60884]]

source may want to take advantage. See subsection E in Chapter 22.
    Comment #23: The LAMOGA commented that LDEQ has not adequately 
demonstrated RACT for lean burn engines between 320 and 1500 Hp.
    Response to comment #23: We disagree. The NOX emission 
factor for lean burn engines of 320 Hp or higher in size, within the BR 
area, is set forth at 4 grams/Hp-Hour. See Subsection D.1 in Chapter 
22. The EPA has received documentation from an affected facility in the 
BR area that this level of control for such engines can be easily and 
cost-effectively achieved. This documentation is part of the docket and 
available to the public for review. The NOX emission factor 
for lean burn engines as set forth in Chapter 22 rule is consistent 
with the findings of the report titled ``Stationary Reciprocating 
Internal Combustion Engines, Updated Information on NOX 
Emissions and Control Techniques'' dated September 1, 2000. See Pages 
4-4 and 4-12 of this report. You can find this report at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/ozone/rto/fip/data/rfic_engine.pdf.
    The commenter's claim that the controls are not cost-effective, and 
consequently not RACT, is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it 
appears that the commenter has selectively chosen the hours of 
operation so that its measure of cost effectiveness is biased. Second, 
in any event, as in any technology-based scheme, the focus must be 
first on emission reduction, not on cost. See e.g. Husgvarna AB v. EPA, 
254 F 3d 195,200 (D.C. Cir. 2001)(cost considerations are subordinate 
to emission reduction goals of technology-based requirement); Lignite 
Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F 3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1999)(emission 
reductions resulting from technology based scheme must be sustained 
unless economic or environmental costs are ``exorbitant''). As stated 
previously, an affected facility in the BR area has submitted 
documentation showing that it, as well as other affected facilities, 
are capable of achieving emissions levels well below the required limit 
for lean burn engines. This documentation corroborates the State's and 
EPA's similar conclusions. Therefore, the economic or environmental 
costs to the commenter can not be considered exorbitant. Furthermore, 
it is entirely unreasonable for an uncontrolled major source to 
selectively choose a desirable number of ``hours per year'' to arrive 
at a higher value for cost per ton of NOX in its economic 
analysis, declare control requirements to be economically infeasible 
based on this faulty accounting, and thus continue operation absent of 
any control measures. Based on foregoing information, we believe that 
Chapter 22 requirement for lean burn engines is technologically and 
economically feasible, and consider the State's RACT limits to be 
reasonable.
    Comment #24: The LAMOGA suggests that LDEQ may consider, at a later 
date, to amend (relax) the NOX emission limits for lean burn 
engines.
    Response to comment #24: While attaining the ozone NAAQS in BR area 
is a formidable challenge for both the regulated community and 
regulating entities, maintaining the standard could prove to be an even 
more challenging task. The EPA notes that any future revisions to the 
SIP in the BR area would have to meet the requirements of the Act, 
including section 110, and must continue to demonstrate attainment.
    This concludes our responses to the received written comments 
concerning Actions Number 1 and 2.

6. What is Definition of a Major Source for NOX?

    The BR area was designated as a serious ozone nonattainment area 
(40 CFR 81.319). According to section 182(c) of the Act, a major source 
in a serious nonattainment area is a source that emits, when 
uncontrolled, 50 tpy or more of NOX. Therefore, the major 
source size for NOX within these 9 parishes is 50 tpy or 
more, when uncontrolled.

7. What is the History of NOX RACT Rules for Point Sources in the BR 
Area?

    Prior to our proposed rulemaking actions (67 FR 48095 and 67 FR 
49647) the Louisiana's approved SIP did not a contain NOX 
RACT rule for point sources operating in these 9 parishes. We believe 
that implementation of today's rule revisions will assist in bringing 
the BR area into attainment with the federal 1-hour ozone standard, and 
will strengthen the existing Louisiana SIP.

8. What are the NOX Emissions Factors for Point Sources of NOX in the 
BR Area?

    The following Table contains a summary of the affected 
NOX point source categories, maximum rated capacities, and 
their relevant emission factors based on the February 27, and July 25, 
2002, SIP submittals. See LAC 33:III:2201, section D(1). Table I--
Affected Categories of NOX, Maximum Rated Capacities, and 
Emission Factors in the BR area

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                       Maximum Rated Capacity                  NOX Emission Factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Power Generating System
 Boilers:
Coal-fire.........................  =80 MMBtu/Hour............  0.21 lb/MMBtu
Number 6 Fuel Oil-fired...........  =80 MMBtu/Hour............  0.18 lb/MMBtu
All Others (gaseous or liquid)....  =80 MMBtu/Hour............  0.10 lb/MMBtu
Industrial Boilers................  =80 MMBtu/Hour............  0.10 lb/MMBtu
Process Heater/Furnaces:
Ammonia Reformers.................  =80 MMBtu/Hour............  0.23lb/MMBtu
All Others........................  =80 MMBtu/Hour............  0.08 lb/MMBtu
Stationary Gas Turbines:
Peaking Services, Fuel oil-fired..  =10 MW....................  0.30 lb/MMBtu
Peaking Services, Gas-fired.......  =10 MW....................   0.20 lb/MMBtu
All others........................  =10 MW....................  0.16 lb/MMBtu or 42 ppm @ 15% O2, dry
                                                                            basis
Stationary Internal Combustion
 Engines:
Lean Burn (Region of Influence)...  =1500 Hp..................  4 g/Hp-Hour
Lean Burn (BR Nonattainment area).  =320 Hp...................  4 g/Hp-Hour
Rich Burn.........................  =300 Hp...................  2 g/Hp-Hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the above NOX emission factors for point 
sources of NOX in the BR area and Region of Influence will 
assist in bringing the BR area into attainment with the federal 1-hour 
ozone standard, and will strengthen the existing Louisiana SIP. See 
section II, A.5, 67 FR 50391 (August 2, 2002).

[[Page 60885]]

    By this approval we are agreeing that the State of Louisiana will 
be implementing RACT for point source categories listed in Table I of 
this document.

9. What is the Compliance Schedule for Point Sources of NOX in the BR 
Area?

    The compliance date for point sources of NOX in the BR 
area is as expeditiously as possible, but no later than May 1, 2005. 
See LAC 33:III:2201, sections J(1) and (2). We believe that the 
compliance schedule for point sources of NOX in the BR area 
will assist in bringing the BR area into attainment with the federal 1-
hour ozone standard, and will strengthen the existing Louisiana SIP.

10. What areas in Louisiana will today's rulemaking affect?

    The following table contains a list of Parishes affected by today's 
rulemaking.

        Table II--Rule Number and Affected Parishes of Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rule No.                         Affected parishes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAC 33:III:2201 (AQ215) provisions..  Ascension, East Baton Rouge, East
                                       Feliciana, Iberville, Livingston,
                                       Pointe Coupee, St. Helena, West
                                       Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana
LAC 33:III:2201 (AQ224) provisions..  Ascension, East Baton Rouge,
                                       Iberville, Livingston, and West
                                       Baton Rouge
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are in one of these Louisiana parishes, you should refer to 
the Louisiana NOX rules to determine if and how today's 
action will affect you.

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. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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 tribal implications because it will 
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). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not 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). This action 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 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (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. 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 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).
    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 November 26, 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 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Nonattainment, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 20, 2002.
Lawrence Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 et seq.

Subpart T--Louisiana

    2. In Sec.  52.970 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
    a. adding a new centered heading, immediately after ``Table 8'' in 
Chapter 21 and before Chapter 23, entitled ``Chapter 22--Control of 
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)''
    b. adding entries for section 2201, and subsections A, B, C, D, E, 
F, G, H, I, and J under new Chapter 22.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 60886]]



                             EPA Approved Louisiana Regulations in the Louisiana SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State approval
         State citation              Title/subject           date          EPA date approval       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
=================================
                              Chapter 21--Control of Emissions of Organic Compounds
================================================================================================================
 
=================================
                                                  * * * * * * *
=================================
Table 8.........................  Untitled [List of   Dec. 1987,          05/05/94, 59 FR     Ref 52.999(c)(49)
                                   Synthetic Organic   LR13:741.           2311666.            and (60). Table
                                   Chemicals].                                                 approved at
                                                                                               (c)(49) included
                                                                                               CAS numbers.
                                                                                               Table approved at
                                                                                               (c)(60) did not
                                                                                               include CAS
                                                                                               numbers.
=================================
                            Chapter 22--Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
================================================================================================================
Section 2201--Affected Facilities in the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area and the Region of Influence
================================================================================================================
Subsection A....................  Applicability.....  Feb. 27, 2002.....  September 27, 2002
                                                      July 25, 2002.....   and FR cite
Subsection B....................  Definitions.......  Feb. 27, 2002.....  September 27, 2002
                                                      July 25, 2002.....   and FR cite
Subsection C....................  Exemptions........  Feb. 27, 2002.....  September 27, 2002
                                                      July 25, 2002.....   and FR cite
Subsection D....................  Emission Factors..  Feb. 27, 2002.....  September 27, 2002  Cutoff size for
                                                      July 25, 2002.....   and FR cite         lean burn engines
                                                                                               lowered to 320 Hp
                                                                                               on July 25, 2002,
                                                                                               for the ozone
                                                                                               nonattainment
                                                                                               parishes. Cutoff
                                                                                               size for lean
                                                                                               burn engines in
                                                                                               the Region of
                                                                                               Influence is 1500
                                                                                               Hp.
Subsection E....................  Alternative Plans.  Feb. 27, 2002.....  September 27, 2002
                                                      July 25, 2002.....   and FR cite
Subsection F....................  Permits...........  Feb. 27, 2002.....  September 27, 2002
                                                      July 25, 2002.....   and FR cite
Subsection G....................  Initial             Feb. 27, 2002.....  September 27, 2002
                                   Demonstration of   July 25, 2002.....   and FR cite
                                   Compliance.
Subsection H....................  Continuous          Feb. 27, 2002.....  September 27, 2002
                                   Demonstration of   July 25, 2002.....   and FR cite
                                   Compliance.
Subsection I....................  Notification,       Feb. 27, 2002.....  September 27, 2002
                                   Recordkeeping,     July 25, 2002.....   and FR cite
                                   and Reporting
                                   Requirements.
Subsection J....................  Effective Dates...  Feb. 27, 2002.....  September 27, 2002
                                                      July 25, 2002.....   and FR cite
=================================
                            Chapter 23--Control of Emissions From Specific Industries
================================================================================================================
 
=================================
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-24636 Filed 9-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P