[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52128-52129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25737]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FR1-7082-2]
Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for pubic
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g) notice is hereby given of a
proposed Settlement Agreement, to address a lawsuit (the ``lawsuit'')
filed by four environmental groups, consisting of Louisiana
Environmental Action Network, North Baton Rouge Environmental
Association, Save Our Lakes and Ducks, and Southern University
Environmental Law Society, represented by Tulane Environmental Law
Clinic (collectively, ``LEAN''). LEAN petitioned for judicial review of
a final rule (``the Rule'') promulgated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') on July 2, 1999, published at
64 FR 35930, approving the revised Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress
(``ROP''), Attainment Demonstration, and Contingency Measures State
Implementation Plans for the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area.
Louisiana Environmental Action Network, et al., v. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 99-60570 (5th Cir.). These State
Implementation Plan (``SIP'') revisions were submitted by the State of
Louisiana, through its Department of Environmental Quality (``LDEQ''),
pursuant to the Act.
DATES: Written comments on the proposed Settlement Agreement must be
received by November 13, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Jonathan Weisberg, Office
of Regional Counsel (6 RC-M), Region 6, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Copies of the proposed
Settlement Agreement are available from Jonathan Weisberg, (214) 665-
2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 1996, the State of Louisiana,
through LDEQ, proposed a revised State Implementation Plan (the
``revised SIP'') for the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (``NAAQS'') for ozone for the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment
area. On July 2, 1999, EPA approved the revised SIP. LEAN objected to
EPA's approval of the revised SIP, alleging that the revised SIP must
provide for more reductions in VOC emissions, that the contingency plan
in the revised SIP was inadequate, and that Louisiana did not
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS for ozone by November 15, 1999.
Under the revised SIP, Louisiana elected to develop a contingency
measure plan using Emission Reduction Credits (``ERCs'') held in escrow
in the Louisiana Emission Reduction Credit Bank (the ``Louisiana ERC
Bank''), established pursuant to Louisiana's banking rule, set forth in
Title 33 of the Louisiana Administrative Code, Chapter 6. LEAN alleged
the ERCs held in escrow in the Louisiana ERC Bank were
[[Page 52129]]
not adequate to meet requirements for contingency measures.
Subsequent to the initiation of the lawsuit, EPA learned that LDEQ
did not interpret the Act to require emission reductions to be
discounted to reflect all emission reductions required under the Act,
at time of their use, and that LDEQ did not discount ERCs in the
Louisiana ERC Bank at time of their use. In part, based on this new
information, on October 6, 2000, the parties to the lawsuit filed a
joint motion for a partial voluntary remand of EPA's approval of
Louisiana's contingency measure plan for the Baton Rouge ozone
nonattainment area, and for a stay of all proceedings of the lawsuit
(the ``joint motion''). On October 19, 2000, the Court granted the
joint motion.
Louisiana has been working to develop a new State Implementation
Plan (the ``new SIP'') for the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area.
The minimum requirements for SIP submissions are described in 40 CFR
part 51. As part of the new SIP, EPA expects Louisiana to submit a new
ozone attainment demonstration for the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment
area. The ozone attainment demonstration must document the
photochemical modeling procedure used to determine the impacts of both
local and regional control measures, must document modeling results,
and, to the extent necessary to attain the ozone standard, must
document additional control measures that Louisiana has selected. Any
additional control measures must be reflected through adopted emission
control regulations.
The Settlement Agreement provides that: (1) Tulane Environmental
Law Clinic (on behalf of LEAN) will file a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit in its entirety, with prejudice to its refiling, within five
(5) days after the Settlement Agreement becomes effective; (2) EPA and
LDEQ has met and/or will meet with representatives from LEAN to discuss
the proper modeling and attainment protocols to calculate and assess
the attainment demonstration in the new SIP for the Baton Rouge ozone
nonattainment area; and (3) the United States will reimburse LEAN
$34,000 in full satisfaction of any claim for attorney's fees and costs
that was or could have been asserted in connection with the lawsuit.
LDEQ published notice of the Settlement Agreement in the Louisiana
Register (0106Pot2) on June 20, 2001. The notice specified that, to be
considered, comments had to be received by July 13, 2001. LDEQ did not
receive substantial adverse comment, and LDEQ has opted to proceed with
the Settlement Agreement.
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to
the proposed Settlement Agreement from persons who were not named as
parties or interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
Settlement Agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations
that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate,
or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the
Department of Justice determine, following the comment period, that
consent is inappropriate, the Settlement Agreement will be final.
Dated: October 1, 2001.
Alan W. Eckert,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-25737 Filed 10-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M