50428 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson 

County governments merged and the ‘‘Jefferson 

County Air Pollution Control District’’ was renamed 

the ‘‘Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control 

District.’’ However, each of the regulations in the 

Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP still 

has the subheading ‘‘Air Pollution Control District 

of Jefferson County.’’ Thus, to be consistent with 

the terminology used in the SIP, EPA refers 

throughout this notice to regulations contained in 

Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP as the 

‘‘Jefferson County’’ regulations. 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: YaTing (Sheila) Tsai, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3328, Tsai.Ya-Ting@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rules: 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, and 2.10. In the Rules 

and Regulations section of this Federal 

Register, we are approving these local 

rules in a direct final action without 

prior proposal because we believe these 

SIP revisions are not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on a 

particular rule, we may adopt as final 

those rules that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: June 15, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18010 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0521; FRL–9949–92– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; 

Revisions to Louisville Definitions and 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On March 22, 2011, and May 

3, 2012, the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky, through the Kentucky 

Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), 

submitted revisions to the Kentucky 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) on 

behalf of the Louisville Metro Air 

Pollution Control District (District). At 

this time, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

several portions of the submissions that 

modify the District’s air quality 

regulations as incorporated into the SIP. 

The revisions to the regulatory portion 

of the SIP that EPA is proposing to 

approve pertain to changes to the 

District’s air quality standards for lead 

(Pb), particulate matter (both PM2.5 and 

PM10), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) to 

reflect the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), definitional 

changes, and regulatory consolidation. 

EPA is proposing to approve these 

portions of the SIP revisions because the 

Commonwealth has demonstrated that 

these changes are consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA will 

act on the other portions of KDAQ’s 

March 22, 2011, and May 3, 2012, 

submittals in a separate action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 31, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0521 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Wong, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–8726. 

Mr. Wong can be reached via electronic 

mail at wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA 

govern the establishment, review, and 

revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS 

to protect public health and welfare. 

The CAA requires periodic review of the 

air quality criteria—the science upon 

which the standards are based—and the 

standards themselves. EPA’s regulatory 

provisions that govern the NAAQS are 

found at 40 CFR 50—National Primary 

and Secondary Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. In this rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing to approve portions of the 

revisions to the Jefferson County air 

quality regulations 1 in the Kentucky 

SIP, submitted by the Commonwealth 

on March 22, 2011, and May 3, 2012. 

The March 22, 2011, submission revises 

Jefferson County Regulation 1.02— 

Definitions and consolidates 

Regulations 3.02—Applicability of 

Ambient Air Quality Standards; 3.03— 

Definitions; 3.04—Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; and 3.05—Methods of 

Measurement into Regulation 3.01— 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(currently entitled Purpose of Standards 

and Expression of Non-Degradation 

Intention in the SIP) by removing 

Regulations 3.02 through 3.05 and 

expanding and retitling Regulation 3.01. 

This submission also seeks to revise 

Regulation 1.06—Source SelfMonitoring and Reporting and 

Regulation 1.07—Emissions During 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 50429 

2Among the changes to Regulation 1.02 which 

EPA is proposing to approve are changes that the 

District adopted in 2001 and 2005. The District 

refers to the version of Regulation 1.02 which it 

adopted in 2001 as ‘‘Version 10.’’ The District refers 

to the version of Regulation 1.02 which it adopted 

in 2005 as ‘‘Version 11.’’ If EPA’s proposed 

approval of changes to Regulation 1.02 is finalized, 

the text of the regulation in the SIP will reflect 

Version 11. 

3The District refers to the revised version of 

Regulation 3.01 in its March 22, 2011, submittal as 

‘‘Version 4’’ and the revised version of Regulation 

3.01 in its May 3, 2012, submittal as ‘‘Version 5.’’ 

If EPA’s proposed approval of changes to 

Regulation 3.01 is finalized, the text of the 

regulation in the SIP will reflect Version 5. 

Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions and 

Emergencies. EPA is not taking action 

on the proposed changes to Regulation 

1.06 at this time. EPA approved the 

revision to Regulation 1.07 on June 10, 

2014. See 79 FR 33101. The May 3, 

2012, submission builds on the 

revisions to Regulation 3.01 proposed in 

the March 22, 2011, submission by 

updating the Jefferson County air 

quality standards for Pb, PM2.5, PM10, 

O3, NO2, and SO2 to reflect the NAAQS, 

reordering the sections within the 

regulation, and making several textual 

modifications. The May 3, 2012, 

submission also seeks to remove the 

Ford Motor Company NOX Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

permit from the SIP and replace it with 

a Title V permit; EPA is not taking 

action on the proposed permit 

substitution at this time. The 2011 and 

2012 SIP submittals can be found in the 

Docket for this proposed rulemaking at 

www.regulations.gov and are 

summarized below. 

II. EPA’s Analysis of Kentucky’s SIP 

Revisions 

a. Definitions and Regulatory 

Consolidation—March 22, 2011, 

Submittal 

The March 22, 2011, SIP submission 

revises Regulation 1.02 by adding, 

removing, and modifying definitions 

and consolidates Regulations 3.02, 3.03, 

3.04, and 3.05 into Regulation 3.01 by 

removing Regulations 3.02 through 3.05 

and expanding Regulation 3.01. 

EPA is proposing to approve all of the 

changes to Regulation 1.02 2 except for 

the addition of definitions for the terms 

‘‘acute noncancer effect,’’ ‘‘cancer,’’ 

‘‘carcinogen,’’ and ‘‘chronic noncancer 

effect,’’ because EPA approves only 

definitions that relate to the attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

remainder of the changes to Regulation 

1.02 consist of updates to the definitions 

to make them consistent with 

definitions used by EPA; removal of 

definitions that are no longer used in 

the District’s regulations; clarification of 

the definitions of ‘‘ambient air,’’ 

‘‘emission standard,’’ and 

‘‘malfunction’’; and addition of 

definitions for ‘‘bypass,’’ ‘‘excess 

emissions,’’ ‘‘preventable upset 

condition,’’ ‘‘toxic air contaminant,’’ 

‘‘upset condition,’’ and ‘‘welfare.’’ 

Specifically, an additional sentence 

has been added to the definition of 

‘‘ambient air’’ to reflect computer 

dispersion modeling guidance provided 

by EPA regarding public access to 

private property that is not under the 

control of the stationary source from 

which emissions under study originate. 

The definition of ‘‘emission standard’’ 

was modified to provide examples of 

what makes an emission standard 

legally enforceable (namely, federal, 

state, or local law or regulation, District 

permit, or Board Order) and to recognize 

that an opacity limit is an emission 

standard. The definition of 

‘‘malfunction’’ has been revised to add 

the qualification that the equipment 

failure causes, or is likely to cause, 

emissions that exceed an applicable 

emission standard. Definitions have 

been added for the terms ‘‘bypass,’’ 

‘‘preventable upset condition,’’ and 

‘‘upset condition,’’ which are used in 

Regulation 1.07, a part of the federallyapproved SIP. The definition of ‘‘excess 

emissions’’ was added to provide clarity 

as to the requirements in 401 KAR 

63:020. The definition of ‘‘welfare,’’ 

taken from section 302(h) of the CAA, 

has been added to clarify which types 

of harmful effects from the emissions of 

toxic air contaminants are prohibited. 

The definition of ‘‘toxic air 

contaminant’’ has been added to 

differentiate between the specific 

‘‘hazardous air pollutant’’ (HAP) list 

pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air 

Act and the specific ‘‘toxic air 

pollutant’’ lists pursuant to Kentucky 

regulations 401 KAR 63:021 (11–11–86) 

and 401 KAR 63:022 (11–11–86). The 

District has also exempted from the 

definition of ‘‘volatile organic 

compound’’ five additional organic 

compounds that the EPA, on November 

29, 2004, exempted from its 

corresponding definition at 40 CFR 

51.100(s). See 69 FR 69290, 69 FR 

69298. Minor clarifications were also 

made to the definitions of ‘‘new affected 

facility’’ and ‘‘process.’’ Several other 

definitions were modified for clarity or 

for consistency with EPA definitions or 

were simply renumbered. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

changes to Regulation 3.01 (to the extent 

that they are not superseded by changes 

in the May 3, 2012, submittal) 3 and the 

removal of Regulations 3.02 through 

3.05. Regulations 3.02 through 3.05 

were incorporated into Regulation 3.01. 

EPA believes that these proposed 

changes to the regulatory portion of the 

SIP are consistent with section 110 of 

the CAA and meet the regulatory 

requirements pertaining to SIPs. 

Pursuant to CAA section 110(l), the 

Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in CAA section 171), or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. With 

respect to the District’s addition of 

exemptions from the definition of 

‘‘volatile organic compound,’’ the 

change is approvable under section 

110(l) because it reflects changes to 

federal regulations based on findings 

that the exempted compounds are 

negligibly reactive. 

EPA is not taking action on the 

changes to Regulations 1.06 identified 

in the March 22, 2011, SIP submission. 

b. Updated NAAQS—May 3, 2012, 

Submittal 

The May 3, 2012, submission builds 

on the revisions to Regulation 3.01 

proposed in the March 22, 2011, 

submission by updating the District’s 

ambient air quality standards to reflect 

the NAAQS for Pb, PM2.5, PM10, O3, 

NO2, and SO2, reordering the sections 

within the regulation, and making 

several textual modifications. The 

updates to the air quality standards are 

discussed in further detail below. 

i. Pb 

On November 12, 2008, EPA 

promulgated a new 1-hour primary and 

secondary NAAQS for Pb at a level of 

0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/

m3), based on a rolling 3-month average. 

See 73 FR 66964. Accordingly, in the 

May 3, 2012, SIP submission, Jefferson 

County revised Regulation 3.01 to 

update its air quality standards for Pb to 

be consistent with the NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA in 2008. 

ii. Particulate Matter 

On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the 

24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5

NAAQS to 35 mg/m3, based on the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations averaged over three 

years, and revoked the annual PM10

NAAQS. See 71 FR 61144. Accordingly, 

in the May 3, 2012, SIP submission, 

Jefferson County revised Regulation 3.01 

to update its primary air quality 

standard for particulate matter to be 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50430 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the primary 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 mg/m3, based on annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations averaged over three 

years. See 78 FR 3086. Since Jefferson County’s May 

3, 2012, submission preceded EPA’s promulgation 

of the new annual standard, an update reflecting the 

new NAAQS was not included as part of SIP 

revision. 

consistent with the NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA in 2006.4

iii. O3

On July 18, 1997, EPA revoked the 1- 

hour primary NAAQS for O3. See 62 FR 

38856. On March 27, 2008, EPA 

promulgated a new 8-hour primary and 

secondary NAAQS for O3 at a level of 

0.075 parts per million (ppm), based on 

an annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hr concentration averaged 

over three years. See 73 FR 16483. 

Accordingly, in the May 3, 2012, SIP 

submission, Jefferson County revised 

Regulation 3.01 to update its air quality 

standards for O3 to be consistent with 

the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 

2008. 

iv. NO2

On February 9, 2010, EPA 

promulgated a new 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts 

per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of the 

yearly distribution of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 

6474. Accordingly, in the May 3, 2012, 

SIP submission, Jefferson County 

revised Regulation 3.01 to update its 

primary air quality standard for NO2 to 

be consistent with the NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA in 2010. 

v. SO2

On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a 

revised primary SO2 NAAQS to an 

hourly standard of 75 ppb, based on a 

3-year average of the annual 99th 

percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, and revoked the 24-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. See 75 FR 35520. 

Accordingly, in the May 3, 2012, SIP 

submission, Jefferson County revised 

Regulation 3.01 to update its primary air 

quality standards for SO2 to be 

consistent with the NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA in 2010. 

EPA has reviewed the revisions to 

Regulation 3.01 in the May 3, 2012, SIP 

submission, including the NAAQS 

updates for Pb, particulate matter, O3, 

NO2, and SO2, and has made the 

preliminary determination that these 

changes are consistent with the CAA. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Jefferson County Regulation 1.02— 

Definitions (except for the definitions of 

‘‘Acute noncancer effect,’’ ‘‘Cancer,’’ 

‘‘Carcinogen,’’ and ‘‘Chronic noncancer 

effect’’) and Regulation 3.01—Ambient 

Air Quality Standards. EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the Region 4 office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky’s March 22, 2011, and May 3, 

2012, SIP revisions identified in section 

II, above, because they are consistent 

with the CAA. 

V. 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. 

See 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 proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is 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.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is 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 

• does 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 20, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18011 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0107; FRL–9949–98– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Interstate Transport for Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to take 

action on portions of six submissions 

from the State of Utah that are intended 

to demonstrate that the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain 

interstate transport requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These 

submissions address the 2006 and 2012 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS