Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20853 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana citation Subject Indiana 

effective date 

EPA approval 

date Notes 

*******

Article 8. Volatile Organic Compound Rules 

8–1 .................... General Provisions.

8–1–0.5 ............. Definitions ........................................................................... 10/18/1995 11/3/1999, 64 FR 59642.

8–1–1 ................ Applicability ......................................................................... 6/5/1991 3/6/1992, 57 FR 8082.

8–1–2 ................ Compliance methods .......................................................... 12/15/2002 5/5/2003, 68 FR 23604.

8–1–3 ................ Compliance schedules ........................................................ 5/15/2010 4/14/2011, [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

8–1–4 ................ Testing procedures ............................................................. 7/15/2001 9/11/2002, 67 FR 57515.

8–1–5 ................ Petition for site-specific reasonably available control technology (RACT) plan.11/10/1988 9/6/1990, 55 FR 36635.

8–1–6 ................ New facilities; general reduction requirements .................. 6/24/2006 6/13/2007, 72 FR 32531.

8–1–7 ................ Military specifications .......................................................... ........................ 10/27/1982, 47 FR 20586.

8–1–9 ................ General record keeping and reporting requirements ......... 5/22/1997 6/29/1998, 63 FR 35141.

8–1–10 .............. Compliance certification, record keeping, and reporting 

requirements for certain coating facilities using compliant coatings.

5/22/1997 6/29/1998, 63 FR 35141.

8–1–11 .............. Compliance certification, record keeping, and reporting 

requirements for certain coating facilities using daily– 

weighted averaging.

5/22/1997 6/29/1998, 63 FR 35141.

8–1–12 .............. Compliance certification, record keeping, and reporting 

requirements for certain coating facilities using control 

devices.

5/22/1997 6/29/1998, 63 FR 35141.

* * * * * * * 

8–4 .................... Petroleum Sources. 

8–4–1 ................ Applicability ......................................................................... 5/15/2010 4/14/2011, [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

8–4–2 ................ Petroleum refineries ............................................................ ........................ 1/18/1983, 48 FR 2127.

8–4–3 ................ Petroleum liquid storage facilities ....................................... ........................ 2/10/1986, 51 FR 4912.

8–4–4 ................ Bulk gasoline terminals ....................................................... ........................ 1/18/1983, 48 FR 2127.

8–4–5 ................ Bulk gasoline plants ............................................................ ........................ 1/18/1983, 48 FR 2127.

8–4–6 ................ Gasoline dispensing facilities ............................................. 5/15/2010 4/14/2011, [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

8-4-7 .................. Gasoline transports ............................................................. 11/5/1999 5/31/2002, 67 FR 38006.

8–4–8 ................ Leaks from petroleum refineries; monitoring; reports ........ 6/5/1991 3/6/1992, 57 FR 8082.

8–4–9 ................ Leaks from transports and vapor collection systems; 

records.

11/5/1999 5/31/2002, 67 FR 38006.

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–8874 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–1186–201114; FRL– 

9295–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Kentucky; Approval of Section 

110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards for the 

Edmonson County, KY; Greenup 

County Portion of the HuntingtonAshland, WV–KY; Lexington-Fayette, 

KY; and Owensboro, KY 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the Kentucky State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that include 

maintenance plans addressing the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS or standards) 

for the following four Kentucky 

attainment areas: Edmonson County 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Edmonson 

County Area’’); the portion of Greenup 

County that was previously a part of the 

Huntington-Ashland, West VirginiaKentucky 1-hour ozone maintenance 

area (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Greenup County Area’’); Fayette and 

Scott Counties (hereafter referred to as 

the ‘‘Lexington Area’’); and Hancock 

County and the portion of Daviess 

County that was previously a part of the 

Owensboro 1-hour ozone maintenance 

area (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Owensboro Area’’)—collectively, these 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

20854 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1While the portion of Greenup County that was 

a part of the 1-hour ozone Huntington-Ashland, 

WV-KY Area was designated attainment, Boyd 

County which was also a part of the 1-hour ozone 

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY Area was designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

effective June 15, 2004. Boyd County was 

subsequently redesignated to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard and has a CAA section 

175A maintenance plan in effect. (72 FR 43172, 

August 3, 2007). 

areas will be referred to as the ‘‘Four 

Kentucky Areas.’’ The Four Kentucky 

Areas were 1-hour ozone maintenance 

areas that were designated as attainment 

areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As attainment areas that were 

previously 1-hour maintenance areas, 

Kentucky was required to submit 

maintenance plans demonstrating how 

these areas would maintain the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. These 

maintenance plans were submitted to 

EPA on May 27, 2008, as revisions to 

the Kentucky SIP, by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky 

(Commonwealth), through the Kentucky 

Energy and Environment Cabinet, 

Division for Air Quality (DAQ), and 

ensure the continued attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the 

year 2020 for the Four Kentucky Areas. 

These maintenance plans meet 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements and are consistent with 

EPA’s guidance. EPA is approving the 

revisions pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). This final rule also 

responds to adverse comments made on 

EPA’s previously published proposed 

approvals of the maintenance plans for 

the Four Kentucky Areas. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective May 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2007–1186. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that, if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Spann, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Jane 

Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–9029 or by electronic mail address 

spann.jane@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA Guidance and CAA Requirements 

III. This Action 

IV. Comments and Responses 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. Background 

In accordance with the CAA, 

Edmonson County, Kentucky; 

Huntington-Ashland, West VirginiaKentucky; Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky; 

and Owensboro, Kentucky were 

designated as nonattainment for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS (effective 

January 6, 1992, 56 FR 56694). 

On November 13, 1992, Kentucky 

submitted requests to redesignate the 

Edmonson County, Lexington-Fayette, 

and Owensboro 1-hour nonattainment 

Areas to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Subsequently, on November 

12, 1993, Kentucky submitted a request 

to redesignate the Kentucky portion of 

the Huntington-Ashland Area to 

attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. In addition to the 

redesignation requests, Kentucky 

submitted the required ozone 

monitoring data and maintenance plans 

to ensure that the redesignated Areas 

would remain in attainment for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS for a period of 10 

years after redesignation, consistent 

with the CAA section 175A(a). 

EPA approved Kentucky’s 

maintenance plans and requests to 

redesignate the Kentucky portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland Area (60 FR 33748; 

June 29, 1995); the Lexington-Fayette 

Area (60 FR 47089; September 11, 

1995); the Edmonson County Area (59 

FR 55053; November 3, 1994); and the 

Owensboro Area (60 FR 7124; February 

7, 1995) for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated 

areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

(69 FR 23858), and published the final 

Phase I Implementation Rule for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 

23951) (Phase I Rule). Daviess, 

Edmonson, Fayette, Greenup,1 Hancock 

and Scott Counties (including all 

portions that were previously 

designated nonattainment for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS) were designated as 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, effective June 15, 2004. 

II. EPA Guidance and CAA 

Requirements 

As a consequence of their 

designations as attainment for both the 

1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards, the 

Four Kentucky Areas (all 8-hour ozone 

attainment areas) were required to 

submit 10-year maintenance plans 

pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

and the Phase I Rule, 40 Code Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 51.905(a)(4). On May 

20, 2005, EPA issued guidance as to 

how a state might fulfill the section 

110(a)(1) maintenance plan obligation 

established by the CAA and the Phase 

I Rule (Memorandum from Lydia N. 

Wegman to Air Division Directors, 

Maintenance Plan Guidance Document 

for Certain 8-Hour Ozone Areas Under 

Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act, May 

20, 2005, hereafter referred to as 

‘‘Wegman Memorandum’’). Neither 

section 110(a)(1) nor any other 

provision of the CAA contains detail 

regarding the specific content of 

maintenance plans for these types of 

areas. EPA’s Phase I Rule, in 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(4) provides that section 

110(a)(1) maintenance plans must 

include contingency measures. 

On December 22, 2006, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) issued 

an opinion that vacated portions of 

EPA’s Phase I Rule. See South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

On June 8, 2007, in response to several 

petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit 

Court clarified that the Phase I Rule was 

vacated only with regard to those parts 

of the Rule that had been successfully 

challenged. Of particular relevance, the 

Court vacated those portions of the 

Phase I Rule that provided for regulation 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas designated under Subpart 1 (of 

part D of the CAA) in lieu of Subpart 2, 

among other portions of the Phase I 

Rule. The Court’s decisions do not alter 

any 8-hour ozone attainment area 

requirements under the Phase I Rule for 

CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance 

plans. EPA is thus finalizing its 

approvals of Kentucky’s May 27, 2008, 

proposed SIP revisions as satisfying the 

section 110(a)(1) CAA requirements for 

plans that provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20855 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Four 

Kentucky Areas. 

III. This Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

SIP revisions incorporating the 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the Four Kentucky 

Areas—Edmonson County, Greenup 

County, Lexington, and Owensboro. On 

May 27, 2008, Kentucky submitted these 

maintenance plans to ensure the 

continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS through the year 2020. In 

addition to reviewing the maintenance 

plans, EPA has reviewed the updated 

available air quality monitoring data for 

the Four Kentucky Areas and has 

confirmed, that based on the available 

data that these Areas continue to meet 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

table below shows the 2007–2009 

design values for these attainment areas, 

based on complete, quality-assured and 

certified monitoring data. The table 

below also shows the preliminary data 

from 2010 which are consistent with 

continued attainment. The data are 

listed in EPA’s Air Quality System 

database as the preliminary design value 

report. EPA does not anticipate any 

concerns regarding these data. 

TABLE 1—1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS DESIGN VALUE

Area 

Design value 

(2007–2009) 

parts per million (ppm) 

Design value 

(2008–2010) 

ppm 

Edmonson County Area .......................................................................................................... 0.072 0.070 

Greenup County Area .............................................................................................................. 0.072 0.069 

Lexington Area ......................................................................................................................... 0.077 0.069 

Owensboro Area ...................................................................................................................... 0.075 0.071 

In this final action, EPA is also 

responding to adverse comments 

received, from the Sierra Club and 

Kentucky Environmental Foundation, 

regarding EPA’s proposed rulemakings 

to approve these revisions, 74 FR 12567, 

March 25, 2009 (Greenup County Area, 

Lexington Area and Edmonson County 

Area); 75 FR 3183, January 20, 2010 

(Owensboro Area); and 75 FR 16387, 

April 1, 2010 (Owensboro limited 

reopening of comment period). EPA 

proposed approval of the maintenance 

plans for the Four Kentucky Areas in 

two separate actions. This final 

rulemaking action is based on EPA’s full 

review of relevant information and 

consideration of the comments received, 

and reflects EPA’s conclusion, that these 

maintenance plans comply with section 

110 of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations. See 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(4). EPA’s analyses of 

Kentucky’s SIP revisions for the 

Edmonson County, Greenup County, 

and Lexington Areas are described in 

detail in proposed and direct final rules 

published March 25, 2009 (74 FR 12774 

and 74 FR 12567, respectively). 

Although EPA’s direct final rulemaking 

was withdrawn on May 5, 2009 (74 FR 

20601), due to the adverse comments 

received, EPA’s proposed rulemaking 

remained in place. EPA’s analysis for 

Kentucky’s SIP revision for the 

Owensboro Area is described in detail 

in a proposed rule published on January 

20, 2010 (75 FR 3183). Today’s action 

responds to adverse comments received 

on EPA’s March 25, 2009, and January 

20, 2010, rulemakings, and finalizes 

those rulemakings. EPA’s action 

approving the maintenance plan for 

each area is separate and independent of 

its approval of the plans for the other 

areas. 

IV. Comments and Responses 

EPA received one set of adverse 

comments from the Sierra Club and the 

Kentucky Environmental Foundation 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Commenters’’). These comments address 

EPA’s March 25, 2009, proposed and 

direct final rules to approve Kentucky’s 

110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 

Edmonson County, Greenup County, 

and Lexington Areas. This same set of 

comments was submitted by the 

Commenters for EPA’s January 20, 2010, 

proposed rule to approve Kentucky’s 

110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 

Owensboro Area. Today’s rulemaking 

takes final action on the maintenance 

plans for all Four Kentucky Areas. The 

following section of this notice 

summarizes the adverse comments 

received, and sets forth EPA’s responses 

to the comments. (The complete 

comments are available in the docket for 

this rulemaking.) 

Comment 1. The Commenters claim 

that EPA’s proposed and direct final 

rules to approve Kentucky’s 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans for the Four 

Kentucky Areas ‘‘run contrary to 

Administrator’s Jackson’s promise that 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency decisions would henceforth be 

based on three guiding principles: 

transparency; use of sound science; and 

respect for rule of law.’’ The 

Commenters state that ‘‘[i]ssuing a direct 

final rule in which the actual rules are 

not knowable by reading the Federal 

Register notice, or for that matter, the 

administrative record, is not a 

transparent process.’’ They further 

complain that EPA’s proposal ignored 

the science of climate change and 

contravened statutory language. 

Response 1. EPA disagrees with the 

Commenters’ characterization of the 

content of the Federal Register notice. 

The Commenters’ contention that 

because the complete text of the SIP 

revisions is not included in the Federal 

Register notice, EPA has failed to 

adhere to certain principles espoused by 

EPA Administrator Jackson is simply 

unsupported. EPA’s rulemaking here 

has fulfilled the goals of transparency, 

sound science, and respect for the law. 

With regard to transparency, neither the 

CAA nor the Administrative Procedure 

Act mandates that the Federal Register 

notice of proposed rulemaking, or final 

rulemaking action, include the complete 

text of the proposed SIP revisions. 

EPA’s notice of proposed rulemaking 

satisfied the notice requirements by 

providing citations to the rules at issue, 

offering the SIP revisions for public 

review, and describing the subjects and 

issues involved in the SIP revisions. 

Because publication in the Federal 

Register is costly and resource 

intensive, EPA makes every effort to 

provide key information in proposal 

notices while at the same time using 

Agency resources efficiently. EPA drafts 

rulemaking notices to enable public 

understanding of the subjects and issues 

at hand. All documents related to this 

rulemaking were available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov under the docket 

number EPA–R04–OAR–2007–1186, 

during the comment period for the 

proposed rulemaking actions. For a 

member of the public wishing to review 

the complete text of the SIP revisions, 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

included instructions for obtaining 

access to the complete SIP revision. In 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

20856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2The Commenters allege that East Kentucky 

Power Cooperative (EKPC) is ‘‘taking advantage’’ of 

the SIP not including NOX as a precursor for ozone 

for a proposed J.K. Smith power plant. Comments 

at pg. 3. This issue, among others, is part of a 

lawsuit filed by Sierra Club against EPA which is 

now pending before the DC Circuit Court of 

Appeals. Notably, in briefs filed by the United 

States in that action, it was explained that EKPC 

announced its intentions to cancel plans for the 

Smith facility and the permit at issue in the 

comments was subsequently withdrawn (the 

withdrawal document is included in the docket for 

today’s rulemaking). Because Kentucky’s SIP now 

includes NOX as a precursor for ozone, the 

Commenters’ concern has been addressed. 

addition, the public could also contact 

the EPA representative designated in the 

notice to obtain further information or 

answers to questions. Thus, the 

Commenters’ contention that, because 

the complete text of the SIP revision 

was not included in the Federal 

Register notice, EPA failed to adhere to 

EPA Administrator Jackson’s three 

principles is simply unsupported. 

EPA also rejects the Commenters’ 

assertion that the rulemaking violates 

any of the three principles that have 

been espoused by EPA Administrator 

Jackson. EPA’s adherence to 

Administrator Jackson’s three principles 

(transparency, use of sound science, and 

respect for rule of law) is clearly 

reflected in the detailed information and 

explanations set forth in the proposals, 

direct final actions, and this final action, 

including the substantive responses to 

comments. As was discussed earlier in 

this notice, and is also discussed later 

in this response to comments section, 

EPA’s approvals of the maintenance 

plans are supported by the CAA, its 

implementing regulations, and 

applicable guidance. 

Comment 2. The Commenters assert 

that Kentucky DAQ has indicated that 

Greenup County, in the HuntingtonAshland Area, Jessamine County in the 

Lexington Area, and Edmonson County 

are violating the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Therefore, the Commenters 

state, that the public interest mandates 

that EPA quickly act to ensure that at 

the very least, the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is maintained. 

Response 2. The present rulemaking 

action addresses solely the maintenance 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

the Edmonson County, Greenup County, 

Lexington, and Owensboro Areas. EPA 

is approving, pursuant to CAA section 

110(a), Kentucky’s plans to assure 

continued maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Four 

Kentucky Areas. Attainment or 

maintenance of any subsequently 

adopted ozone NAAQS is not relevant 

to this rulemaking action, and therefore 

the issue raised by the Commenters is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

promulgated on March 12, 2008, is 

irrelevant to this rulemaking. EPA is 

currently reconsidering the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and has not yet 

designated areas for any subsequent 

NAAQS. Actions that EPA may take 

with regard to the 2008 (or a 

reconsidered) ozone NAAQS are 

separate from and independent of the 

actions now being taken to approve the 

110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 

Four Kentucky Areas in this 

rulemaking. 

Comment 3. The Commenters assert 

that the maintenance plans do not 

ensure maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS because there is no 

requirement that major stationary 

sources demonstrate that they do not 

cause or contribute to new violations of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

basis for this assertion appears to be the 

Commenters’ view that Kentucky’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program does not require new or 

modified sources that trigger major PSD 

review due to an increase in emissions 

of nitrogen oxides (NOX) to demonstrate 

that they will not cause or contribute to 

a violation of the ozone NAAQS. The 

Commenters point to a specific facility 

and cite to a portion of the PSD 

application for that facility where 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are 

considered for the ozone analysis, but 

not NOX. 

Response 3. On September 15, 2009, 

the Kentucky DAQ filed an emergency 

rule to immediately address the issue of 

NOX as a precursor for ozone for PSD 

purposes (which EPA required as part of 

a November 29, 2005, rulemaking for 

ozone implementation—70 FR 71612). 

Kentucky’s emergency rule provides 

explicit requirements for major new 

sources and major modifications of 

existing sources of NOX to demonstrate 

that they will not cause or contribute to 

a violation of the ozone NAAQS. The 

emergency rule became effective 

immediately in Kentucky and was 

subsequently submitted to EPA for 

approval as a SIP revision. On April 1, 

2010, EPA proposed approval of 

Kentucky’s rule to address NOX as a 

precursor to ozone for PSD (75 FR 

16388, April 1, 2010). EPA received 

adverse comments from the Sierra 

Club.2 On September 15, 2010 (75 FR 

55988), EPA issued a final action 

responding to the adverse comments 

and approving the Commonwealth’s 

rule to address NOX as a precursor to 

ozone for PSD as a revision to the 

Kentucky SIP. EPA thus believes that 

the concerns voiced by the Commenters 

in this rulemaking about alleged 

deficiencies in Kentucky’s PSD program 

and the regulation of NOX as a precursor 

to ozone have been satisfactorily 

addressed and resolved. 

Comment 4. The Commenters contend 

that the maintenance plans are 

inadequate because there is no 

consideration of the impacts that 

climate change will have on ozone 

levels. The comment makes reference to 

several publications, provides a 

discussion on the impact of weather on 

climate change and ozone, and 

concludes that failure to consider this 

important aspect of the problem would 

lead to an arbitrary result. The 

Commenters request that EPA evaluate 

the maintenance plans in light of the 

‘‘increasing danger climate change will 

cause from ozone.’’ 

Response 4. With regard to the 

comment that Kentucky’s analysis 

improperly omits consideration of the 

affect of climate change on ambient 

ozone levels, EPA agrees that climate 

change is a serious environmental issue; 

however, EPA does not agree that the 

maintenance plans at issue in today’s 

action cannot be approved without the 

climate change analysis outlined by the 

Commenters. One of the reports cited to 

by the Commenters (April 2009 

‘‘Assessment of the Impacts of Global 

Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A 

synthesis of climate change impacts on 

ground-level ozone,’’ page xxiv) 

concludes that, ‘‘[t]hese studies suggest 

that EPA’s Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards should begin to 

consider climate change, for example, in 

the next update of EPA’s ozone 

modeling guidance, especially for 

planning horizons in 2020 and beyond.’’ 

Although the EPA report cited in the 

comment indicates that climate change 

increases ozone concentrations in 

‘‘substantial regions of the country,’’ the 

report also states that there are 

‘‘pronounced differences in the broad 

spatial patterns of change’’ among the 

various modeling groups. While ozone 

concentrations may be affected as early 

as the 2020s (already after the date— 

2014—required to be addressed by these 

section 110(a) maintenance plans), most 

of the modeling groups did not simulate 

ozone concentration changes prior to 

the 2050s. Furthermore, the report itself 

states that ‘‘modeling uncertainties 

persist, and further research is needed.’’ 

More specifically, the report further 

states that ‘‘[c]urrent modeling 

uncertainties lead to disagreements 

about the spatial patterns of future 

changes in meteorological variables and, 

hence, the specific regional 

distributions of future ozone changes 

across the United States.’’ Several of the 

projected models, in fact, provide 

conflicting projections for the area in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20857 

which Kentucky is located (see e.g., Fig. 

3–1of the above mentioned EPA report). 

The report concludes ‘‘[t]hese studies 

suggest that EPA’s Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards should begin to 

consider climate change, for example, in 

the next update of EPA’s ozone 

modeling guidance, especially for 

planning horizons in 2020 and beyond.’’ 

(Emphasis added.) Thus, the report 

acknowledges that modeling guidance is 

not yet available for the type of areaspecific analysis of effects of climate 

change on ozone concentrations 

required for SIP planning. EPA therefore 

believes it is premature to require a 

precise mathematical accounting in the 

SIP process for the effect of higher 

ambient temperatures due to climate 

change on ozone concentrations. EPA 

stands ready to reevaluate this position 

when the state of science and 

confidence in projection improve. Given 

the above, however, at this time, EPA 

cannot say Kentucky was in error when 

it did not model the potential impact of 

climate change on ozone in the Greenup 

County, Edmonson County, Lexington 

and Owensboro Areas as it developed 

maintenance plans for those areas. 

Comment 5. The Commenters contend 

that Kentucky’s maintenance plans 

ignore the possibility of changes in 

weather and emissions outside the 

covered counties. The Commenters also 

contend that the 2002 emissions 

inventory are not based on any actual 

emissions data gathered with 

continuous emissions monitors or 

verified with actual emissions from 

2005 and 2008. Thus, the Commenters 

conclude that EPA’s approval is 

arbitrary because the emissions forecasts 

are flawed. The Commenters claim that 

there are several reasons for the flaws, 

including alleged failures to properly 

consider the role of ozone and ozone 

precursor transport and of weather. 

Response 5. Under 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(4) section 110(a)(1), 

maintenance plans, like the one at issue 

here, must demonstrate maintenance of 

the 1997 8-hour NAAQS through 2014. 

Kentucky has voluntarily extended the 

coverage of its maintenance plans for 

the Four Kentucky Areas for an 

additional six years beyond the required 

maintenance period (through 2020). 

EPA has reviewed these plans and 

determined that they satisfy applicable 

requirements. The demonstrations are 

based upon actual emissions 

inventories, and projected emissions 

through 2020. These projections take 

into consideration population, state, 

local and federal emission controls, and 

other relevant factors. Unlike 

maintenance plans for nonattainment 

areas that are redesignated to 

attainment, for which section 175A of 

the CAA specifies express requirements, 

section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for 

areas designated attainment are not 

subject to specific statutory 

maintenance plan requirements. In 

accordance with EPA guidance, 

however, Kentucky did undertake an 

analysis, summarized as follows, for 

certain emissions groups such as 

stationary sources, area sources and 

some mobile sources. Response 5, 

below, contains additional information 

responsive to Comment 4. 

Utilizing Standard Industrial Codes 

(SIC), all point source emissions were 

projected based on growth factors 

calculated using Bureau of Economic 

Analysis (BEA) projection data for 

employment, as suggested by EPA and 

utilized for previous point source 

projections in similar contexts. The 

point source data provided SIC codes 

used to determine a short title 

description that matched the 

corresponding description found in the 

BEA data. The application of growth 

factors for each projection was then 

used for point sources. Appendix E to 

Kentucky’s May 27, 2008, SIP revisions 

provide information on how point 

source projections were determined. 

Area sources can be defined as those 

sources that are generally too small and/ 

or too numerous to be handled 

individually in the point source 

inventory. Area source emissions were 

estimated by multiplying an emission 

factor by a known indicator of collective 

activity such as number of employees or 

population. For area source emission 

projections, population growth factors 

for each chosen year were calculated 

using an exponential formula in the 

EXCEL software. The application of 

these growth factors for each projection 

was then used for area sources. 

Information used to calculate growth 

factors, including population 

information used to project area sources, 

was provided by the University of 

Louisville Urban Data Center and can be 

found in Appendix F of Kentucky’s May 

27, 2008, SIP revisions. 

The non-highway mobile category is 

broken down into three groups that 

include two- and four-cycle gasoline 

engines and diesel engines (other nonhighway engines), railroad locomotives, 

and aircraft. Emissions are estimated by 

multiplying the base year inventory by 

a known indicator of collective activity 

such as fuel consumed or landing/ 

takeoff operations. For locomotive and 

aircraft emission projections, population 

growth factors for each chosen year 

were calculated using the before 

mentioned formula. The application of 

these growth factors for each projection 

was then used for each of these nonhighway categories. For other nonhighway categories (e.g., industrial 

equipment, tractors, leaf blowers), EPA’s 

nonroad model was used to determine 

the future year projections. Nonroad 

model and non-highway projection 

information can be found in Appendix 

G of Kentucky’s May 27, 2008, SIP 

revisions. Updated minimum and 

maximum summer temperatures and 

ambient temperatures were utilized for 

input into the nonroad model. EPA 

Volume IV mobile source guidance was 

followed in determining the updated 

temperature data. Please see Appendix 

C of Kentucky’s May 27, 2008, SIP 

revisions for specific temperature 

documentation. 

The use of emissions inventories and 

emissions forecasts has long been an 

accepted method for evaluating 

maintenance of the NAAQS under 

section 175A for nonattainment areas 

and EPA’s guidance advises its use for 

purposes of maintenance plans under 

CAA section 110(a)(1). The Courts have 

agreed with EPA’s longstanding view 

that a maintenance demonstration for a 

nonattainment area, and a fortiori an 

attainment area, need not be based on 

modeling. Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 

53094, 53099–53100 (October 19, 2001); 

68 FR 25430–25431 (May 12, 2003). 

In its guidance issued May 20, 2005, 

EPA explained that, ‘‘[t]he typical 

method that areas have used in the past 

to demonstrate that an area will 

maintain the 1-hour standard has been 

to identify the level of ozone precursor 

emissions in the area which is sufficient 

to attain the NAAQS and to show that 

future emissions of ozone precursors 

will not exceed the attainment levels.’’ 

Wegman Memorandum at pg. 4. The 

inventory and projections Kentucky 

provided in the maintenance plans at 

issue here use this method to 

demonstrate that the Areas will 

maintain the 8-hour ozone standards. 

Complete, quality-assured air quality 

monitoring data through the year 2009 

for all of these Areas showed 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and data available for 2010 

indicate continued maintenance. 

Maintenance is demonstrated by 

showing that during the maintenance 

period the level of precursor emissions 

remains at or below the attainment 

level. Variations in weather are 

accounted for by the 3-year averaging 

required for finding of attainment (see 

e.g., the 2004 attainment designation). 

The requirement that there be three 

years of quality-assured monitoring data 

to demonstrate attainment is the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

20858 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

3Actual emissions were used for base year 

analyses. Projections were used for future year 

inventories which, at the time, were for 2005 and 

2008. Since then, Kentucky has used the 2005 and 

2008 actual inventories that were submitted to EPA 

per their Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule 

(CERR) requirement for the development of the EPA 

National Emission Inventory (NEI) in order to 

compare to the previously submitted projected 

emissions in the maintenance plan submissions. 

established mechanism by which EPA 

takes meteorological variability into 

account for purposes of determining 

attainment and maintenance. These 

issues have been addressed multiple 

times in a variety of EPA rulemakings 

and court decisions. Today’s actions are 

consistent with EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of the maintenance plan 

requirements of the CAA. See e.g., 69 FR 

21719 (April 22, 2004) (redesignation of 

the San Francisco area); 66 FR 53094, 

53099 (October 19, 2001) (redesignation 

of the Pittsburgh-Beaver area); 68 FR 

25418, 25430 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of the St. Louis area); 40 

CFR 50.9 and Appendix H (method for 

determining attainment of 1-hour 

standard; Appendix H states that three 

years of data is required); Appendix I 

(method for 8-hour standard; Appendix 

I contain similar statement); Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 539–543 (7th Cir. 

2004) (discussing the modeling required 

for maintenance plans). Similarly, the 

Commenters’ concerns about potential 

modifications of sources or new sources 

that may affect ambient levels are 

addressed by the New Source Review 

(NSR) and PSD programs, as well as by 

the NOx SIP call requirements and other 

programs designed to regulate 

pollutants both inside and outside the 

covered counties. As a result, and 

contrary to the Commenters’ contention, 

EPA’s review of the maintenance 

demonstrations considered the role of 

emissions from outside the area in 

maintenance of the standard in the Four 

Kentucky Areas. EPA took into account 

the relevant federal and state 

requirements that will help ensure that 

emissions from outside the area will not 

interfere with continued maintenance in 

the area. These include, among others, 

the NOx SIP Call, NSR/PSD 

requirements, and other regulations that 

control emissions from outside the Four 

Kentucky Areas. (See also Response 8, 

below.) 

The inventory and projections 

Kentucky provided in the maintenance 

plans use this method to demonstrate 

the Four Kentucky Areas will continue 

to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The inventory and emissions 

analyses performed by Kentucky were 

conservative, and reviewed by EPA, to 

ensure that they reasonably establish 

maintenance of the NAAQS pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1). EPA’s review of 

Kentucky initial attainment inventories 

and inventory projections of future 

maintenance inventories confirms that 

maintenance will continue through the 

requisite period. Moreover, as is 

explained further below, the 

contingency measures portion of the 

maintenance plan provides a backstop 

for maintenance, functioning to correct 

a violation if, despite the projections, 

one should occur. 

With regard to the analyses performed 

by Kentucky, the emissions inventory 

includes four components: Point, area, 

highway mobile and non-highway 

mobile sources. The Four Kentucky 

Areas were designated attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2004 

using 2001–2003 data. They had an 

option to choose one of the three 

attaining years to use as a base year for 

emission inventory purposes. For these 

SIP revisions, Kentucky chose to use 

2002, an attainment year (for both the 8- 

hour and 1-hour ozone NAAQS), as the 

year for developing a new 

comprehensive ozone precursor 

emissions inventory from which 

projected emissions could be developed 

for 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 

2020. Maintenance is demonstrated by 

comparing the attainment year 

emissions to the emissions in the years 

listed above. The following is a 

summary of the emission projection 

methodology that was used to forecast 

emissions over the maintenance period; 

the docket includes a more detailed 

description of this methodology. 

Point sources are defined as stationary 

sources that emit 10 or more tons per 

year (tpy) of VOC or 100 tpy or more of 

NOx or carbon monoxide (CO). Annual 

point source emissions data were used.3

Point source information is collected by 

Kentucky from a number of sources 

(including permitting information) and 

point source information was provided 

for utilizing SIC (Response 4, above, 

discusses the various sources of 

emissions information used by 

Kentucky). See also Appendix E of 

Kentucky SIP Revisions (specifically 

discussion regarding point source 

projections). Point source emission 

projections were based on growth 

factors calculated using BEA projection 

data for employment. The point source 

data provided SIC codes used to 

determine a title description that 

matched the corresponding description 

found in the BEA data. The application 

of growth factors for each projection was 

then used for point sources. 

As mentioned above, area sources are 

those that are generally too small and/ 

or too numerous to be handled 

individually in the point source 

inventory. The University of Louisville 

Urban Data Center provided information 

used to calculate growth factors, 

including population information used 

to project emissions from area sources. 

Two and four-cycle gasoline engines 

and diesel engines (non-highway 

engines), railroad locomotives and 

aircraft make up the non-highway 

mobile category. Emissions were 

estimated by multiplying the base year 

inventory by a known indictor of 

collective activity such as fuel 

consumed or landing/takeoff operations. 

For locomotive aircraft emission 

projections, population growth factors 

for each chosen year were calculated. 

For other non-highway categories such 

as industrial equipment and tractors, 

EPA’s nonroad model was used to 

determine future year projections. 

Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT) 

and speeds for 2002 and the projection 

years were obtained from the Kentucky 

Transportation Cabinet and used to 

calculate highway mobile source 

emissions. EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model was 

used to derive appropriate projection 

year emission factors that were 

multiplied by the corresponding DVMT 

to determine the projected highway 

mobile source emissions. The 1990 

mobile emissions were recalculated 

using the updated MOBILE6.2 

emissions model in order to standardize 

the comparison of the 1990 numbers 

with the 2002 and 2020 mobile 

emissions developed using this model. 

EPA agrees with the methodology used 

to develop the 2005 and 2008 on-road 

emissions as projected from the 2002 

actual emissions and submitted in the 

SIP revisions. The projection 

methodology used to develop future 

year on-road mobile emissions found in 

the SIP revisions, combined with the 

fact that later determined actual 

emissions were considerably lower than 

already projected emissions, provides a 

strong basis for approval of these 

maintenance plans. 

With respect to the Commenters’ 

contention that attainment inventories 

were not based on actual emissions, in 

fact the 2002 emission inventories for 

the Greenup County, Owensboro, and 

Lexington Areas were based on actual 

point source emissions. There are no 

point sources in the Edmonson Area. 

(See page 2.1 of Appendix C of each 

Area’s 110(a)(1) maintenance plan 

submittal.) At the time of the initial 

submission of these 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans in 2008, the actual 

emissions for some source categories for 

2005 and 2008 were not required to be 

submitted. The Consolidated Emissions 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20859 

4The CERR is discussed in greater detail in 

Response 14. 

Reporting Rule (CERR) 4 (40 CFR part 

51, subpart A) requires states to submit 

to EPA an emissions inventory for all 

source categories every three years and 

at the time the SIP revisions were due, 

only the 2002 emissions were available 

for states to use. See 40 CFR 51.30. Not 

every source is subject to continuous 

emissions monitoring, so the 

information on actual emissions may 

vary between source categories. 

Kentucky has since reviewed the data 

and compared the actual emissions for 

2005 and 2008 with the projected 

emissions for 2005 and 2008 which 

were contained in the maintenance plan 

submittals. This analysis is available in 

the docket for this final rulemaking. 

EPA reviewed Kentucky’s analysis and 

found it reliable and compelling. The 

comparisons revealed that the emissions 

projected in Kentucky’s maintenance 

plans for the Four Kentucky Areas were 

higher than the actual emissions by an 

average of 19 percent for VOC and 11 

percent for NOx for 2005; they were 

higher by an average of 26 percent for 

VOC and 47 percent for NOx for 2008. 

Kentucky’s maintenance plans 

demonstrated that, even using 

projections of emissions that were 

greater than those that actually occurred 

in these years, those projections 

remained below the attainment baseyear inventories. Of course, the fact that 

the actual emissions that occurred in 

these Areas were substantially less than 

those that were projected provides 

further demonstration of continued 

maintenance. Thus, actual emissions 

data during the maintenance period 

have proven that Kentucky’s projected 

emissions were very conservative, and 

confirm EPA’s view that the plans 

provide adequate assurance of 

maintenance during the requisite 

period. In the future, EPA anticipates 

even further reductions of these ozone 

precursors. This information supports 

the position that Kentucky’s emissions 

projections provided with the 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans were conservative. 

In addition to the assurance provided 

by the information above, which 

demonstrates the conservative nature of 

the emissions forecasts (which were 

supported by actual emissions data as 

explained in the previous paragraph), 

the contingency measures portion of 

maintenance plans serves as a backstop 

in the event that any of these Areas 

requires supplemental measures to 

maintain air quality. These contingency 

measures help to ensure that the Areas 

continue to maintain the NAAQS of 

concern and can quickly correct a 

violation should one occur. Kentucky’s 

maintenance plans contain two types of 

such contingency measures for each of 

the Four Kentucky Areas. In the event 

that exceedances (as contrasted with 

actual violations) of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS are monitored in any portion of 

the maintenance area, or if periodic 

emission inventory updates reveal 

excessive or unanticipated growth 

greater than 10 percent in ozone 

precursor emissions, Kentucky will 

evaluate existing control measures to 

see if additional control measures 

should be implemented at that time. If 

a monitored violation occurs, Kentucky 

has committed to a contingency 

measure schedule where one or more 

contingency measures will be adopted 

within nine months and implemented 

within 18 months to bring the area back 

into attainment. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Commenters have failed to identify a 

deficiency in the 110(a)(1) maintenance 

plans that warrants any action other 

than approval. 

Comment 6. The Commenters state 

that the maintenance plans rely both on 

assuming that measures will be 

implemented in the future to decrease 

emissions and assuming that Kentucky 

will implement contingency measures if 

the maintenance plans do not achieve 

their objectives. Specifically, the 

Commenters argue that Kentucky used a 

Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in gasoline 

of 8.6 pounds per square inch (psi) in 

developing future emission levels even 

though an RVP of only 9.0 psi is legally 

required. The Commenters believe that 

the maintenance demonstration should 

be based on legal requirements rather 

than assumptions of over-compliance. 

Response 6. The forecasting of 

emissions in a maintenance plan 

involves the use of reasonable, 

scientifically-based premises that form 

the basis for expectations of future 

emissions, the maintenance projections, 

and contingency measure requirements. 

It is not necessary here for EPA to 

accept or reject the Commenters’ 

contentions regarding historically-based 

over-compliance with legal 

requirements. Even if EPA assumes, as 

the Commenters insist, that EPA 

evaluates maintenance using the less 

stringent RVP level of 9.0 psi, the Four 

Kentucky Areas all demonstrate 

continued maintenance. First, the 

Commenters’ concern with the 

stringency of RVP levels does not 

pertain to the Greenup County Area, 

since Kentucky modeled only 9.0 psi for 

RVP for this Area, and did not assume 

a lower RVP. Thus, the Commenters’ 

assertion regarding RVP levels more 

stringent than 9.0 psi applies only to the 

110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 

Edmonson County, Lexington and 

Owensboro Areas. For these Areas, EPA 

has received and evaluated additional 

information that responds to the 

Commenters’ concern. Kentucky has 

demonstrated that the Edmonson 

County, Lexington and Owensboro 

Areas are projected to demonstrate 

continued maintenance of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS with fuel modeled 

at either 9.0 psi (the statutory level) or 

at 8.6 psi (the level indicated by 

historical surveys that these Areas 

typically receive). This provides a 

modeled analysis showing a comparison 

of VOC and NOx emissions using both 

the 8.6 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline. Table 

2 below shows the difference in 

emissions for the Edmonson County, 

Lexington and Owensboro Areas at RVP 

levels model at both 8.6 psi and 9.0 psi. 

TABLE 2—EDMONSON COUNTY, LEXINGTON AND OWENSBORO AREAS HIGHWAY MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS

[Tons per day (tpd)] 

County 

8.6 psi 9.0 psi Difference between 8.6 psi & 

9.0 psi 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

2002: 

Edmonson ......................................... 0.55 0.96 0.56 0.97 0.01 0.01 

Greenup ............................................ N/A N/A 1.09 1.56 N/A N/A 

Fayette .............................................. 14.14 23.43 14.66 23.45 0.52 0.02 

Scott .................................................. 2.95 5.71 3.05 5.71 0.1 0 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

20860 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—EDMONSON COUNTY, LEXINGTON AND OWENSBORO AREAS HIGHWAY MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS—Continued 

[Tons per day (tpd)] 

County 

8.6 psi 9.0 psi Difference between 8.6 psi & 

9.0 psi 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Hancock ............................................ 0.1 0.18 0.11 0.18 0.01 0 

Daviess ............................................. 3.98 5.97 4.12 5.97 0.14 0 

2005: 

Edmonson ......................................... 0.42 0.79 0.43 0.79 0.01 0 

Greenup ............................................ N/A N/A 0.87 1.33 N/A N/A 

Fayette .............................................. 10.24 18.14 10.64 18.16 0.4 0.02 

Scott .................................................. 2.23 4.58 2.32 4.59 0.09 0.01 

Hancock ............................................ 0.07 0.13 0.07 0.13 0 0 

Daviess ............................................. 2.9 4.64 3.01 4.64 0.11 0 

2008: 

Edmonson ......................................... 0.39 0.72 0.4 0.72 0.01 0 

Greenup ............................................ N/A N/A 0.75 1.12 N/A N/A 

Fayette .............................................. 9.34 16.27 9.7 16.29 0.36 0.02 

Scott .................................................. 2.13 4.26 2.21 4.27 0.08 0.01 

Hancock ............................................ 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.12 0 0 

Daviess ............................................. 2.6 4.1 2.7 4.1 0.1 0 

2011: 

Edmonson ......................................... 0.36 0.6 0.36 0.6 0 0 

Greenup ............................................ N/A N/A 0.64 0.9 N/A N/A 

Fayette .............................................. 8.39 13.54 8.7 13.56 0.31 0.02 

Scott .................................................. 2 3.66 2.07 3.67 0.07 0.01 

Hancock ............................................ 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0 0 

Daviess ............................................. 2.29 3.37 2.38 3.38 0.09 0.01 

2014: 

Edmonson ......................................... 0.3 0.46 0.31 0.46 0.01 0 

Greenup ............................................ N/A N/A 0.54 0.68 N/A N/A 

Fayette .............................................. 7.3 10.44 7.55 10.45 0.25 0.01 

Scott .................................................. 1.84 2.93 1.9 2.93 0.06 0 

Hancock ............................................ 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0 0 

Daviess ............................................. 1.95 2.56 2.02 2.56 0.07 0 

2017: 

Edmonson ......................................... 0.27 0.38 0.28 0.36 0.01 ¥0.02 

Greenup ............................................ N/A N/A 0.48 0.53 N/A N/A 

Fayette .............................................. 6.62 8.36 6.84 8.37 0.22 0.01 

Scott .................................................. 1.74 2.43 1.8 2.43 0.06 0 

Hancock ............................................ 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0 0 

Daviess ............................................. 1.74 2.02 1.8 2.02 0.06 0 

2020: 

Edmonson ......................................... 0.24 0.3 0.25 0.3 0.01 0 

Greenup ............................................ N/A N/A 0.42 0.44 N/A N/A 

Fayette .............................................. 6.04 7.03 6.23 7.05 0.19 0.02 

Scott .................................................. 1.85 2.1 1.7 2.11 ¥0.15 0.01 

Hancock ............................................ 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0 0 

Daviess ............................................. 1.56 1.68 1.61 1.68 0.05 0 

The overall effect on VOC emissions 

of the difference between 8.6 and 9.0 psi 

RVP gasoline is 0.52 tpd or less for each 

of the projection years for the Edmonson 

County, Lexington, and Owensboro 

Areas. Further, each of the projected 

VOC emission inventories using 9.0 psi 

RVP gasoline is less than the baseline 

VOC emission inventory for the 2002 

attainment year. Based upon these data, 

EPA concludes that the Edmonson 

County, Lexington, and Owensboro 

Areas’ 1997 8-hour maintenance plans 

demonstrate continued maintenance 

with the use of either 8.6 or 9.0 psi RVP 

gasoline in these Areas. See also 

Approval Grant Parish 110(a)(1) 

Maintenance Plan, 72 FR 62579 

(November 6, 2007) and 73 FR 8202 

(February 13, 1008). 

Comment 7. The Commenters state 

that Kentucky’s maintenance plans 

included unidentified maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards as sources of reductions of 

VOC. The Commenters assert that this 

analysis failed to consider that the 

MACT standards could result in the 

increase of NOX, VOC, and CO 

emissions due to the ‘‘energy penalty’’ 

from new emission control devices. 

Response 7. The Commenters do not 

identify the specific impact of any 

‘‘energy penalty’’ on maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Four 

Kentucky Areas. Energy inefficiencies, 

as explained by the Commenters, may 

apply to any number of pollutants and 

the Commenters did not provide 

information specifically addressing how 

an energy penalty would affect 

emissions reductions relevant to today’s 

action. For purposes of responding to 

this comment, EPA considered the term 

‘‘energy penalty’’ to refer to a reduction 

in energy output that might result in the 

increase of emissions. 

In the 110(a)(1) maintenance plans at 

issue, Kentucky stated, ‘‘[t]he continued 

improvement and maintenance of the 

air quality in the [areas], as verified by 

the lack of violations of the 8-hour 

ozone standard, is due to the 

implementation of permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions * * *. 

The following information outlines 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20861 

5On September 10, 2010, Jane Spann, Regional 

Ground-Level Ozone Contact for Region 4, spoke 

with John Gowins of Kentucky DAQ 

(Environmental Control Supervisor) regarding this 

issue. Mr. Gowins confirmed that Kentucky had not 

numerically quantified any specific MACT 

reductions, but was simply recognizing that the 

existence of federal regulations in effect at the time 

were ‘‘permanent and enforceable reductions’’ with 

regard to VOCs. 

6On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued 

a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX in order 

to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone 

precursors. In compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP Call, 

Kentucky developed rules governing the control of 

NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units 

(EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, major 

cement kilns, and internal combustion engines. 

EPA approved Kentucky’s rules as fulfilling Phase 

I and Phase II of the NOX SIP Call on October 23, 

2009 (74 FR 54755). Implementation of the NOX SIP 

Call was phased with the Kentucky programs being 

effective in 2002 and 2006 at the state level. Id; see 

also 67 FR 17624 (April 11, 2002). 

emission reduction measures that have 

occurred from 1990 through 2002, and 

those implemented after 2002 and 

projected to 2020.’’ Kentucky then lists 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT)—promulgated 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (commonly 

referred to as ‘‘MACT standards’’)— 

controls in this list of measures. With 

specific regard to that issue, Kentucky 

explained, ‘‘* * * (m)any of the 

[Hazardous Air Pollutants] HAPs under 

these industrial categories of controls 

are also VOCs and compliance with 

these new MACT standards as they are 

being promulgated will decrease VOC 

emissions from the affected industries 

***’’. Based on discussions with 

Kentucky, EPA concludes that 

Kentucky’s maintenance analyses do not 

rely on quantified reductions from 

MACT standards. Rather, the analyses 

simply recognize that implementation of 

MACT standards may result in collateral 

reductions of VOCs.5 For that reason, 

Kentucky listed ‘‘MACT’’ generally as 

part of the permanent and enforceable 

reductions in place in the Areas; 

however, Kentucky did not quantify 

those reductions numerically with 

regard to the maintenance plans at issue 

today and does not rely on them to 

demonstrate maintenance. EPA further 

notes that even if Kentucky had claimed 

reductions from MACT standards, the 

Commenters simply claim without any 

supporting information that an energy 

penalty will occur and will result in 

increased VOC emissions. Without 

additional specific information, EPA 

cannot conclude that there will be any 

energy penalty whatsoever. 

In terms of the environmental benefit 

of the MACT standards, Kentucky’s 

expectation that the implementation of 

the MACT standards will have an 

environmental benefit for ozone is 

reasonable. The Commenters do not 

provide information supporting the 

comment that installation of control 

technology will require more fuel to be 

burned such that emissions will 

increase. Additionally, the Commenters 

provide the example of the installation 

of carbon injection or a baghouse to 

control mercury; however, no emissions 

calculation based on a specific facility is 

provided. As a result, the Commenters 

have not demonstrated that a source 

will necessarily become less efficient 

because of these control technologies (as 

was stated in the comment); nor that 

Kentucky’s maintenance plans are 

deficient for this reason. EPA believes 

that Kentucky’s consideration of MACT 

standards was reasonable. 

In the future, any collateral emission 

increases associated with a specific 

MACT standard control will be 

addressed during the actual 

implementation and permitting of 

sources. If for some reason the 

maintenance of the Areas appear 

compromised by any specific MACT 

standard in the future, the permitting 

and implementation process, as well as 

the triggers and measures in the 

contingency portion of the maintenance 

plans, should prevent or resolve any 

problem as expeditiously as practicable. 

Comment 8. In further support of the 

comment regarding use of projected 

future emissions reductions, the 

Commenters assert that Kentucky 

appears to be relying upon reductions in 

NOX emissions from the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). The Commenters 

state that because CAIR is a cap and 

trade program, it is arbitrary to assume 

that sources will reduce emissions in 

every year between 2008 and 2020. 

Response 8. CAIR was remanded to 

EPA, (North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 

896 modified on reh’g, 550 F.3d 1176 

(D.C. Cir. 2008)), and the process of 

developing a replacement rule is 

ongoing. As a point of clarification, 

neither CAIR nor the remand of CAIR 

altered the requirements of the NOX SIP 

Call,6 which requires states to make 

significant, specific emissions 

reductions. See 63 FR 57356 (October 

27, 1998). 

All four of the Kentucky Areas 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

by 2002, without any reliance on 

reductions from CAIR, and before 

requirements under CAIR were 

implemented. Kentucky has 

demonstrated that the Four Kentucky 

Areas can maintain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS without these 

requirements. Therefore, EPA believes 

that the Commenters’ expressed 

concerns about Kentucky’s reliance on 

NOX reductions from CAIR are 

misplaced, and Kentucky’s 

demonstrations of maintenance under 

section 110(a)(1) do not depend upon 

them. 

Although Kentucky did not rely on 

the remanded CAIR rule for either 

attainment or maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, the NOX SIP Call 

requirements provide additional 

assurance of maintenance in the Four 

Kentucky Areas. In addition, the antibacksliding provisions of 40 CFR 

51.905(f) specifically provide that the 

provisions of the NOX SIP Call, 

including the statewide NOX emission 

budgets, continue to apply after 

revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

For the maintenance plans that are the 

subject of today’s actions, Kentucky 

appropriately does not rely on the 

remanded CAIR requirements. 

Comment 9. Again, as support for the 

contention that Kentucky considered 

over-compliance in its maintenance 

plans, the Commenters explain that 

Kentucky included vehicle turnover in 

its consideration of maintenance, but 

state that there is no requirement for 

vehicle turnover in the counties covered 

by the maintenance plans. Thus, it is the 

Commenters’ contention that there is no 

justification for including this factor in 

the projected future emissions. 

Response 9. For the reasons described 

below, EPA disagrees that there is no 

justification for considering fleet 

turnover in emissions forecasts. Fleet 

turnover, the gradual, continuing 

process of new vehicles certified to 

tighter emissions standards replacing 

older vehicles, is a historic fact that has 

been central to estimating the benefits of 

federal and state emission control 

programs in SIPs and maintenance 

plans since the earliest motor vehicle 

emission controls were implemented. 

Fleet turnover will occur in the future 

as long as people continue to replace 

older vehicles with newer ones, and 

there is no reason to expect this historic 

practice to change. 

The emission impacts of fleet 

turnover have been incorporated in 

every EPA-approved emission model 

including MOBILE6.2, the approved 

model for estimating motor vehicle 

emissions in SIPs and maintenance 

plans at the time of this analysis. 

Generally, the calculation of emissions 

in MOBILE6.2 is based upon the 

reasonable expectation that each year, 

the model year composition of the local 

motor vehicle fleet changes as new 

vehicles are purchased and enter the 

fleet and old vehicles are scrapped. This 

results in a decrease in fleet average 

NOx and VOC emissions each year 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

20862 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

because older model year vehicles 

certified to less stringent emission 

standards leave the fleet and are 

replaced by newer vehicles certified to 

more stringent standards. The phase-in 

of new vehicle standards and the change 

in the average emissions of the vehicle 

fleet due to the replacement of older 

vehicles with newer ones are included 

in MOBILE6.2 for both past and future 

years. 

Specific inputs for MOBILE6.2 can 

affect the rate of fleet turnover that the 

model calculates in future years. EPA 

has included language in the guidance 

document ‘‘Technical Guidance on the 

Use of MOBILE6.2 for Emission 

Inventory Preparation’’ (dated August 

2004) to ensure that states make 

reasonable assumptions about the rate of 

fleet turnover in the future. As 

described in this guidance, projected 

rates of fleet turnover in the future 

should take into account historic fleet 

turnover in the area. That guidance 

states that it would not be reasonable for 

a state to assume that the rate of new 

vehicle purchases and fleet turnover in 

the future is higher than historic rates. 

However, EPA expects that states will 

make the reasonable assumption that 

residents will continue to purchase or 

lease new vehicles to replace old ones, 

at rates similar to historic rates, and that 

the average emissions of the fleet will 

decline as a result. 

Comment 10. The Commenters 

complain that the contingency measures 

in the Kentucky maintenance plans are 

not automatically effective upon a 

triggering event. Specifically, the 

Commenters contend that in order to 

comply with the standards set out in the 

CAA and in the Wegman Memorandum, 

maintenance plans must require that a 

violation of the NAAQS, or a 10 percent 

increase in the emission inventory, or 

another triggering event that EPA 

develops, must result in automatically 

effective contingency measures. The 

Commenters appear concerned that the 

contingency measures outlined by 

Kentucky are ‘‘vague’’ and not 

automatically effective upon a triggering 

event. In support of the contention that 

the CAA requires that the contingency 

measures be in the SIP and 

automatically effective upon a trigger 

event, the Commenters cite two court 

cases: Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296 

(D.C. Cir. 2004) and Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 22 F.3d 

1125, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

Response 10. The CAA sets no 

specific requirements for section 

110(a)(1) maintenance plans, not even 

that they contain contingency measures. 

EPA, in its implementing regulation, 

provides simply that a section 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plan ‘‘must include 

contingency measures.’’ EPA guidance 

in the Wegman memorandum, p. 7, 

states that contingency provisions 

should be aimed at promptly correcting 

violation of the NAAQS, and explains 

that the SIP should contain an 

enforceable commitment to adopt and 

implement contingency measures in a 

timely fashion once they are triggered. 

Consistent with this guidance, 

Kentucky’s 110(a)(1) maintenance plans 

provide that in the event of a monitored 

violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

Kentucky commits to adopt, within a 

specific amount of time (i.e., nine 

months), one or more of the 8 specific 

contingency measures listed in the plan. 

Kentucky’s maintenance plan commits 

to implementing the contingency 

measures within 18 months. The 

Wegman Memorandum states ‘‘[t]he 

schedule for adoption and 

implementation should be as 

expeditious as practicable, but no longer 

than 24 months.’’ Kentucky’s 18-month 

timeframe is consistent with the 

Wegman Memorandum. 

The Wegman Memorandum goes on 

to explain that, in addition to the 

minimum trigger upon violation of the 

NAAQS, EPA recommends additional 

triggers could be used such as 

exceedance of the precursor emission 

levels upon which maintenance is 

based. This type of trigger is beneficial 

because it occurs prior to a violation. 

Kentucky has also included this type of 

additional trigger in its 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans. If periodic 

emissions inventory updates reveal 

excessive or unanticipated growth 

greater than 10 percent in ozone 

precursor emissions, Kentucky has 

committed to evaluating existing control 

measures to see if any further emission 

reduction measures should be 

implemented at that time. By meeting 

the minimum requirement of adopting 

and implementing specific contingency 

measures upon a violation of the 

NAAQS and including additional 

triggers, Kentucky has sufficiently 

provided for contingency measures in 

its maintenance planning for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Four 

Kentucky Areas that are the subject of 

this notice. 

The CAA itself does not expressly 

address contingency measures in 

section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans, 

much less require that any contingency 

measures be automatically effective, and 

the flexibility afforded to Kentucky 

ensures that the correct measure can be 

adopted in order to respond to the 

particular air quality issues causing the 

triggering event. While the triggering 

event directs the state to launch the 

process to adopt and implement a 

contingency measure, the state is also 

given some flexibility to determine 

which of the identified measures is best 

suited to address the particular air 

quality issue that must be corrected. 

This is reasonable, desirable, and 

consistent with how EPA and the states 

have addressed section 175A 

contingency measures in nonattainment 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. 

The Commenters’ contention that the 

CAA requires something more than is 

being required by EPA in the 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans at issue in today’s 

action, finds no support in the statute 

itself. The maintenance plans at issue in 

this notice are 110(a)(1) maintenance 

plans for areas in attainment with the 

NAAQS at issue. Section 110(a)(1) 

contains no express requirement for 

maintenance plans for attainment areas 

to contain contingency measures, much 

less detail their content. Even where the 

CAA does require maintenance plans to 

have contingency measures—section 

175A for nonattainment areas being 

redesignated to attainment—the CAA 

and its implementing regulations do not 

require that these measures be 

automatically effective upon a triggering 

event. Thus, neither a section 110 or 

175A maintenance plan for an area that 

is attaining the NAAQS (attainment area 

or a redesignated maintenance area) is 

required to have fully adopted 

contingency measures that will take 

effect without further action by the state 

in order for the maintenance plan to be 

approved. 

The Memorandum from John Calcagni 

to Air Division Directors, Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment, September 4, 

1992—hereafter referred to as ‘‘Calcagni 

Memorandum,’’ and the Wegman 

Memorandum, are consistent with the 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements. The Calcagni 

Memorandum states ‘‘[t]hese 

contingency measures are distinguished 

from those generally required for 

nonattainment areas under section 

172(c)(9) and those specifically required 

for ozone and CO nonattainment areas 

under sections 182(c)(9) and 187(a)(3), 

respectively.’’ While contingency 

measures that are required for 

nonattainment areas under sections 

172(c)(9) and section 182(c)(9) must be 

already adopted so that they can be 

effective upon a triggering event for a 

nonattainment area that fails to meet its 

reasonable further progress (RFP) or 

attainment deadlines, this is not 

required for section 110(a)(1) or 175A 

maintenance plans. The Commenters do 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20863 

7As a point of clarification, Greenup County was 

included in the 1-hour ozone designations as a 

partial county, as part of the 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area for the Huntington-Ashland 

Area. This Area was initially designated as 

nonattainment and later as attainment for the 1- 

hour NAAQS. Thus, the portion of Greenup County 

affected was ultimately a 175A maintenance area 

for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. When the 8-hour 

ozone designations were completed, all of Greenup 

County was designated as attainment, as its own 

attainment area—just the one county. It was not 

included in what was later known as the 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area for the HuntingtonAshland Area. As a result, Greenup County is 

currently and has always been a 110(a)(1) 

maintenance area for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

purposes. 

not provide any statutory or regulatory 

citations for their positions. 

Even for maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas that are being 

redesignated to attainment, section 

175A requires only that the state 

include contingency measures, as EPA 

deems necessary, to promptly correct 

any violation of the NAAQS that occurs 

after redesignation of the area. 42 U.S.C. 

7505a(d) (Emphasis added.) EPA’s 

interpretation that maintenance plan 

contingency measures need not be fully 

adopted has been followed since 1992. 

The Sixth Circuit in Greenbaum v. EPA, 

endorsed the Calcagni Memorandum’s 

statements regarding contingency 

measures for 175A maintenance plans. 

Specifically, the Court stated that under 

175A, EPA ‘‘has been granted broad 

discretion by Congress in determining 

what is ‘necessary to assure’ prompt 

correction.’’ 370 F.3d at 540. Given the 

latitude provided maintenance plan 

contingency measures for 

nonattainment areas being redesignated, 

EPA’s treatment of section 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans for attainment areas 

is eminently justified and reasonable. 

In support of their contention that 

contingency measures be automatically 

effective, the Commenters cite to two 

cases and not any statutory or regulatory 

provisions. In the first, Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 356 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the 

D.C. Circuit evaluated a conditional 

approval for nonattainment area SIPs— 

the case did not concern maintenance 

plans for attainment areas and did not 

address contingency measures for 

attainment areas. In the second, NRDC 

v. EPA, 22 F. 3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994), 

the Court was also evaluating a 

conditional approval as well as various 

EPA rules regarding, in part, vehicle 

inspection and maintenance programs 

promulgated pursuant to the 1990 

amendments to the CAA. The pinpoint 

citation provided by the Commenters 

leads to a discussion on interim 

milestones to satisfy the conditional 

approval (under CAA section 110(k)(4)). 

Id. at 1134. 

With regard to the Commenters’ 

contention that the contingency 

measures are ‘‘vague,’’ below is a 

summary of the contingency measures 

included in the maintenance plans. In 

the event of a monitored violation of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, Kentucky 

commits to adopt, within nine months, 

one or more of the following 

contingency measures to re-attain the 

NAAQS. 

• Stage I Vapor Recovery; 

• Stage II Vapor Recovery; 

• Basic Vehicle Emissions Testing 

Program; 

• Open burning ban during summer 

ozone season; 

• Restriction of certain roads or lanes 

to, or construction of such roads or 

lanes for use by, passenger buses or 

high-occupancy vehicles; 

• Trip-reduction ordinances; 

• Employer based transportation 

management plans, including 

incentives; 

• Programs to limit or restrict vehicle 

use in downtown areas, or other areas 

of emission concentration, particularly 

during periods of peak use; 

• Programs for new construction and 

major reconstructions of paths or tracks 

for use by pedestrians or by nonmotorized vehicles when economically 

feasible and in the public interest. 

Further, all regulatory programs will be 

implemented within 18 months. While 

the Commonwealth also reserves the 

right to implement other contingency 

measures if new control programs 

should be developed and deemed more 

advantageous for the Area, this list 

provides sufficient information 

regarding the types of contingency 

measures that will be considered. As 

explained above, Kentucky’s 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans for the Four 

Kentucky Areas are consistent with 

applicable requirements. 

Comment 11. The Commenters assert 

that EPA has not demonstrated that the 

Greenup maintenance plan, without 

contingency measures, ‘‘will not 

interfere with attainment and reasonable 

further progress in the other portion of 

Greenup County’’ or in Boyd County, 

Kentucky. 

Response 11. The Commenters 

provide no explanation of the basis for 

their concern that Greenup County’s 

maintenance plan might somehow 

interfere with attainment in the other 

portion of Greenup County or in Boyd 

County, and thus EPA is uncertain of 

the basis for the Commenters’ 

statements. Nonetheless, EPA reviews 

below the relationship between Greenup 

County and Boyd County with respect 

to the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone 

standards. With regard to the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, in 1992, Boyd County 

and a portion of Greenup County 7 were 

designated nonattainment as the 

Kentucky portion of the HuntingtonAshland 1-hour ozone Area. In 1995, the 

Kentucky portion of the HuntingtonAshland Area was redesignated to 

attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and under CAA section 175A, 

EPA approved Kentucky’s 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Area. In 2004, 

during a national designations process, 

EPA evaluated the Huntington-Ashland 

Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA designated Boyd County 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Further, EPA, and designated 

attainment the portion of Greenup 

County that was formerly part of the 

Huntington-Ashland 1-hour ozone Area. 

As part of that designations process, 

EPA made the determination that the 

portion of Greenup County that was in 

the former 1-hour ozone area did not 

contribute to violations of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the HuntingtonAshland 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment Area (including Boyd 

County). 69 FR 23858, 23906 (April 30, 

2004). The portion of Greenup County 

that was designated attainment for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS was never subject 

to the 175A maintenance plan because 

it was never designated nonattainment. 

EPA has no information indicating that 

Greenup County Area’s maintenance of 

both the 1-hour and 8-hour NAAQS will 

interfere with attainment and RFP of 

Boyd County. 

Moreover, based on monitoring data 

for 2004–2006, EPA determined that the 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

for Huntington-Ashland attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and in 

2007, EPA redesignated the Area to 

attainment. (72 FR 43172, August 3, 

2007). EPA is not aware of any 

subsequent 8-hour ozone violations in 

Boyd County (as part of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance area for HuntingtonAshland) which is subject to an 

approved section 175A 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan. There is no 

evidence that any portion of Greenup 

County has interfered with or will 

interfere with 8-hour ozone attainment 

in the Huntington-Ashland Area 

(including Boyd County). Today’s final 

approval of the Greenup County Area’s 

section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan will 

do nothing to increase emissions or 

interfere with attainment in other areas. 

Further, the Greenup County Area’s 

110(a)(1) maintenance plan projects 

2020 out-year emissions for Greenup 

County are expected to decrease by 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

20864 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

8The Commenters state that 40 CFR 52.920(e) is 

the appropriate provision. This provision is for 

EPA-approved Kentucky non-regulatory provisions 

twenty-six percent for VOCs and by 

fifty-one percent for NOX, compared to 

the base year 2002. The Greenup County 

Area was attaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in 2002 based on 

measured ambient air quality 

monitoring data, and the emissions 

inventory future years is shown to 

remain below the 2002 baseline. Boyd 

County, as part of the HuntingtonAshland Area, has now been 

redesignated to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. There is no 

indication that Greenup County is 

interfering or will interfere with 

continued maintenance in Boyd County. 

EPA believes that the emissions 

reductions expected to continue in 

Greenup County establish that Greenup 

County will not interfere with 

attainment throughout the County or in 

the Huntington-Ashland Area (Boyd 

County). Thus, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenters’ contentions regarding 

Greenup County. 

Comment 12. The Commenters 

incorporated by reference comments 

previously submitted to EPA regarding 

the Edmonson County maintenance 

plan by the Karst Environmental 

Education and Protection, Inc. (KEEP). 

Additionally, the Commenters state that 

EPA must consider the KEEP comments. 

The KEEP comments, which are 

directed specifically to the Edmonson 

County maintenance plan only, 

expressed concerns about: whether 

emissions inventories and projections 

properly considered Mammoth Cave 

National Park and the Nolin River Lake 

area; highway emissions inventories and 

projections not including unique traffic 

generators (again identifying specific 

areas); emissions inventories and 

projections not including gasoline and 

other fuel handling activities associated 

with Nolin Lake and Mammoth Cave 

National Park; non-highway emissions 

inventories and projections not 

considering watercraft at Nolin Lake; 

points source emission inventories and 

projections not appearing complete 

(certain sources identified); and that the 

contingency measures should be 

implemented immediately or no later 

than three months. 

Response 12. On August 24, 2004, 

Kentucky submitted an update to its 

original maintenance plan for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the Edmonson 

County Area as required by section 

175A(b) of the CAA. EPA published a 

proposed and direct final rule on 

December 17, 2004 (69 FR 75473), to 

approve Kentucky’s updated 

maintenance plan for the Edmonson 

County Area. During the public 

comment period on these rulemakings, 

EPA received adverse comments from 

KEEP. In response to these comments, 

EPA withdrew its direct final 

rulemaking and Kentucky subsequently 

withdrew its submitted update to its 

1-hour ozone maintenance plan for 

Edmonson County. 

The KEEP comments related to 

emissions inventories and projections 

submitted in 2004 for the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan and are not relevant 

to the 110(a)(1) maintenance plan that 

Kentucky submitted for the Edmonson 

County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. For the development of the 

110(a)(1) maintenance plan, Kentucky 

was required to use the most up-to-date 

information. Thus the data used to 

develop the 110(a)(1) maintenance plan 

in 2007 are not equivalent to the data 

used in 2003 to develop the 175A 

maintenance plan. The KEEP comments, 

as a result, do not address the data in 

the current 8-hour maintenance plan, 

and thus do not apply to today’s action. 

Nor are they ‘‘adverse’’ to the instant 

action because they are not relevant to 

this action. 

The only issue that might even 

conceivably be deemed to relate to 

today’s action is KEEP’s comment 

regarding the 18-month period for 

implementation of the 1-hour 

contingency measures. KEEP argued 

that section 175A contingency measures 

for nonattainment areas being 

redesignated should be implemented in 

no less than three months based upon 

the fragile and unique terrestrial and 

subterranean resources of Mammoth 

Cave National Park. Response 10 above 

discusses implementation timeframes 

for contingency measures under 

sections 175A and 110(a)(1). As noted 

above, the CAA does not prescribe 

contingency measures for attainment 

area maintenance plans, and the EPA 

regulation that requires them does not 

specify any deadlines, much less a three 

month deadline. EPA’s guidance in the 

Wegman Memorandum is consistent 

with longstanding EPA practice with 

respect to implementation of 

contingency measures. Moreover, the 

State and EPA may at any time 

determine that additional measures are 

necessary to assure correction of a 

violation; however, at this time, there is 

no such violation and the proposed 

contingency measures timeframe is 

consistent with the applicable 

requirements. EPA notes that the 

Edmonson Area has consistently 

attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS since 

1994 and has been attaining the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS since 2004. Thus, EPA 

sees no reason to require more stringent 

contingency measure deadlines than 

those in the submitted maintenance 

plan. 

Comment 13. The Commenters state 

that EPA must include contingency 

measures that are triggered based on 

ambient monitoring and not just 

emission inventories. The Commenters 

reference other maintenance plans in 

Kansas and Missouri; however, no 

citations were provided. The 

Commenters also state that the 

requirements must be written into the 

CFR at 52.920(e) in order for this to be 

a clear requirement. 

Response 13. The Commenters’ 

concerns are misplaced. The Wegman 

Memorandum states that a section 

110(a)(1) maintenance plan should, 

‘‘include contingency provisions, as 

necessary, to promptly correct any 

violation of the NAAQS that occurs 

(51.905(a)(3)(iii) and (4) (ii)).’’ Wegman 

Memorandum at pg. 7. In the 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans, Kentucky in fact 

commits to taking action based on both 

ambient monitoring data and emission 

inventory data. Thus, the Commenters 

are incorrect in contending that 

contingency measures are not triggered 

by the results of ambient monitoring. In 

the event that exceedances of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS are measured in 

any portion of the maintenance areas 

(ambient monitoring data of greater than 

0.084 ppm ozone), or if periodic 

emission inventory updates reveal 

excessive or unanticipated growth 

greater than 10 percent in ozone 

precursor emissions, Kentucky commits 

to evaluate existing control measures to 

see if any further emission reduction 

measures should be implemented at that 

time. In the event of a monitored 

violation of the NAAQS, Kentucky 

commits to adopting, within nine 

months, one or more of a number of 

measures listed in the maintenance plan 

and states that all regulatory programs 

will be implemented within 18 months. 

The measures listed in the maintenance 

plans include but are not limited to 

such measures as Stage 1 Vapor 

Recovery, Stage II Vapor Recovery, open 

burning bans during ozone season, and 

road restrictions. Kentucky also states 

that it reserves the right to implement 

other contingency measures if new 

control programs should be developed 

or deemed more advantageous. The 

maintenance plans thus require 

contingency measures to be triggered 

upon either ambient monitoring or 

changes in the emissions inventory 

projections. The maintenance plans 

being approved today will be referenced 

in the appropriate provisions of 40 CFR 

52.920.8 These provisions do not 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20865 

of the SIP. The Commenter does not explain why 

reference in 52.920(e) is of particular importance. 

The legal effect of the requirement is the same so 

long as it is SIP-approved and referenced in 52.920. 

explicitly state all the requirements of 

the plan, but rather, cite to the existence 

of that plan and note, among other 

information, the date of approval by 

EPA. Copies of Kentucky’s plan can be 

obtained at the EPA Region 4 Office or 

at http://www.regulations.gov under the 

docket number: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2007– 

1186.’’ 

Comment 14. The Commenters argue 

that Kentucky must be required to 

update the emission inventories and 

that the maintenance plans should 

include mandatory language requiring 

Kentucky to prepare emission 

inventories every three years using a 

defined methodology. The Commenters 

state that these requirements should 

appear in 40 CFR 52.920(e). 

Response 14. Section 110(a)(2)(F) of 

the CAA provides that SIPs are to 

require ‘‘as may be prescribed by the 

Administrator * * * (ii) periodic 

reports on the nature and amounts of 

emissions and emissions-related data 

from such sources.’’ Emission 

inventories are important for the efforts 

of state, local, and federal agencies to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS for 

criteria pollutants. Pursuant to its 

authority under section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA has long required SIPs to provide 

for the submission, by states to EPA, of 

emission inventories containing 

information regarding the emissions of 

criteria pollutants and their precursors. 

EPA codified these requirements in 40 

CFR part 51, subpart Q in 1979 and 

amended them in 1987. The 1990 

Amendments to the CAA revised many 

of the provisions of the CAA related to 

the attainment of the NAAQS and the 

protection of visibility in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas (certain national 

parks and wilderness areas). These 

revisions established new periodic 

emission inventory requirements 

applicable to certain areas that were 

designated nonattainment for certain 

pollutants. 

The Commonwealth of Kentucky 

stated that it would use the actual 

emissions developed through its 

submittal to EPA per the CERR. The 

CERR was published in the Federal 

Register on Monday, June 10, 2002 (67 

FR 39602) (found in 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart A). Emissions inventory 

guidance for the preparation of these 

inventories is located in the EPA 

website (http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ 

publications.html). The purpose of the 

CERR is to simplify reporting, offer 

options for data collection and 

exchange, and unify reporting dates for 

various categories of criteria pollutant 

emission inventories. The rule applies 

to state and local agencies and 

consolidates the emission inventory 

reporting requirements found in various 

parts of the CAA. States are required to 

prepare a comprehensive state-wide 

inventory every three years. See 40 CFR 

51.30. The first three-year inventory was 

for the year 2002. The latest CERR 

inventories were developed for 2005 

and 2008 (which were used by 

Kentucky as was discussed previously). 

Due to the CERR and Kentucky’s 

commitments in the maintenance plans, 

there is no need for additional 

mandatory language or commitments 

requiring the preparation of emission 

inventories every three years using a 

defined methodology. Kentucky will be 

updating its emission inventories every 

three years, pursuant to the 

methodology outlined in the CERR. 

Comment 15. The Commenters assert 

that the maintenance plans should 

require a monitor in Scott County, in the 

Lexington Area. The Commenters 

contend that a monitor operated in Scott 

County until 2005, and that in 2005 it 

monitored violations of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The Commenters 

questioned the rationale for removing 

the Scott County monitor and stated that 

40 CFR 52.920(e) should require that an 

additional monitor be placed in Scott 

County. 

Response 15. EPA addresses this 

comment in the context of today’s 

approval of the maintenance plan for 

the Lexington Area. The Commenters’ 

expressed concerns about the Scott 

County monitor are without foundation. 

First, contrary to the Commenters’ 

contention, at the time it ceased 

operation, the Scott County monitor at 

issue was not violating the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Moreover, the monitor 

was shut down because it no longer met 

siting criteria requirements. Finally, the 

monitor was an additional special 

purpose monitor (SPM), that was 

supplemental to the State’s monitoring 

network, and therefore its continued 

operation was not required to maintain 

an adequate monitoring network. These 

points are discussed in greater detail 

below. 

First, contrary to the Commenters’ 

contention, the Scott County monitoring 

site was not violating, but in fact had 

the lowest design value of the four sites 

in the metropolitan statistical area 

(MSA) at the time it ceased operation. 

The 2002–2004 design value for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS was 0.066 parts per 

million, far below the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Thus the Commenters 

are in error when they assert that the 

Scott monitor was violating the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS prior to the time it 

ceased monitoring. The last time the 

Scott Monitor registered a violation of 

the 8-hour ozone standard was in 1996. 

Second, the last siting inspection at 

the Sadieville site in 2004 revealed that 

the site no longer met the siting 

requirements for ozone, as per 40 CFR 

part 58, Appendices D and E. For 

example, one applicable siting criteria is 

that the monitor be set back a certain 

amount from a tree or tree line to ensure 

proper air flow. See, e.g., 40 CFR part 

58, Appendix E. Monitors that fail to 

meet applicable siting requirements are 

not appropriate for use in determining 

compliance with the NAAQS. Because it 

was an optional SPM, and not a monitor 

required for the network to be approved, 

it was not moved to a new site, but 

ceased operating at the end of the 2004 

ozone season. 

Third, for the Lexington-Fayette, 

Kentucky MSA, the Commonwealth 

operates two State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) ozone 

monitors: one in Lexington and one in 

Nicholasville. From April 1993 until 

October 2004, Kentucky operated an 

ozone monitor in Sadieville, Scott 

County. The Sadieville ozone air 

monitoring station was located off KY 

Hwy 32 at the Scott County #2 Fire 

Station (AQS number 21–209–0001). It 

was designated as a SPM. A SPM is one 

that allows the capability of providing 

monitoring for complaint studies, 

modeling verification, and compliance 

status for short-term studies. The 

monitoring data may be reported to 

EPA, provided that the monitor(s) and 

station(s) meet the requirements of the 

SLAMS network. The Sadieville site 

represented population exposure on an 

urban scale; its main objective was to 

evaluate compliance with and/or 

progress made towards meeting the 

ozone NAAQS. Because Kentucky’s 

SLAMS network already met all federal 

requirements for siting and design, this 

SPM in Sadieville reflected Kentucky’s 

effort to exceed the EPA’s siting 

requirements for ozone. 

EPA has determined that Kentucky 

currently meets the monitoring 

requirements for ozone as required in 40 

CFR part 58, Appendices A, C, D, E, and 

G. The Kentucky SLAMS consist of a 

network of monitoring stations whose 

size and distribution are largely 

determined by the monitoring 

requirements for NAAQS comparison 

and the needs of monitoring 

organizations to meet their respective 

SIP requirements. The SLAMS stations 

must meet requirements that relate to 

four major areas: Quality assurance, 

monitoring methodology, sampling 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

20866 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

interval, and siting of instruments/ 

instrument probes. The Areas affected 

by today’s action include five monitors 

in locations consistent with federal 

requirements. Thus, at this time, there 

does not appear to be any rationale for 

placing a new monitor in Scott County. 

Every year, Kentucky is required to 

evaluate its current monitoring network 

consistent with 40 CFR 58.10. This 

process is subject to public notice and 

comment. For today’s action, the 

monitoring network meets applicable 

requirements. 

V. Final Action 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, EPA is taking final action to 

approve as revisions to Kentucky’s SIP 

the maintenance plans for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS for the Edmonson 

County, Greenup County, Lexington and 

Owensboro Areas, which were 

submitted by Kentucky on May 27, 

2008. These maintenance plans ensure 

continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for these Areas through 

the year 2020. After evaluating the 

Commonwealth’s submittals and the 

comments received on the proposed 

rulemaking with respect to these plans, 

EPA has determined that each of these 

maintenance plans meets the applicable 

requirements of the CAA and EPA 

regulations, and is consistent with EPA 

policy. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, these rules do not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 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 action 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. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 13, 2011. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 6, 2011. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart S—Kentucky 

■ 2. Section 52.920(e), is amended by 

adding new entries for the Huntington— 

Ashland 8-Hour Ozone Section 110(a)(1) 

Maintenance Plan, Lexington 8-Hour 

Ozone Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance 

Plan, Edmonson County 8-Hour Ozone 

Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan, and 

Owensboro 8-Hour Ozone Section 

110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.920 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20867 

EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Huntington—Ashland 8- 

Hour Ozone Section 

110(a)(1) Maintenance 

Plan.

A portion of Greenup 

County.

May 27, 2008 .................... 4/14/11 [Insert citation of 

publication].

For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Lexington 8-Hour Ozone 

Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan Section 

110(a)(1).

Fayette and Scott Counties.May 27, 2008 .................... 4/14/11 [Insert citation of 

publication].

For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Edmonson County 8-Hour 

Ozone Section 110(a)(1) 

Maintenance Plan.

Edmonson County ............ May 27, 2008 .................... 4/14/11 [Insert citation of 

publication].

For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Owensboro 8-Hour Ozone 

Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan.

Daviess County and a portion of Hancock County.May 27, 2008 .................... 4/14/11 [Insert citation of 

publication].

For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9092 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 5 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on 

Designation of Medically Underserved 

Populations and Health Professional 

Shortage Areas; Notice of Meeting 

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 

Administration, HHS. 

ACTION: Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice 

is hereby given of the following meeting 

of the Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee on Designation of Medically 

Underserved Populations and Health 

Professional Shortage Areas. 

DATES: Meetings will be held on May 18, 

2011, 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.; May 19, 2011, 

9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and May 20, 2011, 

9 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Meetings will be held at the 

Legacy Hotel and Meeting Centre, 1775 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, (301) 881–2300. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

more information, please contact Nicole 

Patterson, Office of Shortage 

Designation, Bureau of Health 

Professions, Health Resources and 

Services Administration, Room 9A–18, 

Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone 

(301) 443–9027, E-mail: 

npatterson@hrsa.gov or visit http:// 

www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/ 

shortage/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Status: The meeting will be open to 

the public. 

Purpose: The purpose of the 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on 

Designation of Medically Underserved 

Populations and Health Professional 

Shortage Areas (Committee) is to 

establish criteria and a comprehensive 

methodology for Designation of 

Medically Underserved Populations and 

Primary Care Health Professional 

Shortage Areas, using a Negotiated 

Rulemaking (NR) process. It is hoped 

that use of the NR process will yield a 

consensus among technical experts and 

stakeholders on a new rule for 

designation of medically underserved 

populations and primary care health 

professions shortage areas, which would 

be published as an Interim Final Rule in 

accordance with Section 5602 of the 

Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111– 

148. 

Agenda: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, May 18; Thursday, May 19; 

and Friday, May 20. It will include a 

discussion of various components of a 

possible methodology for identifying 

areas of shortage and underservice, 

based on the recommendations of the 

Committee in the previous meeting. The 

Friday meeting will also include 

development of the agenda for the next 

meeting. Members of the public will 

have the opportunity to provide 

comments during the meeting on Friday 

afternoon. 

Requests from the public to make oral 

comments or to provide written 

comments to the Committee should be 

sent to Nicole Patterson at the contact 

address above at least 10 days prior to 

the first day of the meeting, Wednesday, 

May 18. The meetings will be open to 

the public as indicated above, with 

attendance limited to space available. 

Individuals who plan to attend and 

need special assistance, such as sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodations, should 

notify the contact person listed above at 

least 10 days prior to the meeting. 

Dated: April 8, 2011. 

Reva Harris, 

Acting Director, Division of Policy and 

Information Coordination. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9081 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4165–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 393 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0177] 

Parts and Accessories Necessary for 

Safe Operation; Grant of Exemption for 

Flatbed Carrier Safety Group 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) grants 

an exemption from certain commodityspecific cargo securement rules 

applicable to motor carriers transporting 

metal coils. The Flatbed Carrier Safety 

Group (FCSG) applied for an exemption 

to allow motor carriers transporting 

metal coils to secure them in a manner 

not provided for in current regulations, 

specifically to secure coils grouped in 

rows with eyes crosswise and the coils 

in contact with each other in the 

longitudinal direction. FCSG requested 

the exemption so all commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV) operators will be able to 

use FMCSA’s pre-January 1, 2004 cargo 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES