3630 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Estimated average annual burden

hours per respondent: 4 hours, 15

minutes.

Estimated number of respondents: 20

Estimated annual frequency of

responses: once

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a valid control

number assigned by the Office of

Management and Budget.

Books or records relating to a

collection of information must be

retained as long as their contents may

become material in the administration

of any internal revenue law. Generally,

tax returns and tax return information

are confidential, as required by 26

U.S.C. 6103.

Background

Temporary regulations in the Rules

and Regulations section of this issue of

the Federal Register amend the Income

Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating

to section 367(b). The temporary

regulations contain rules that provide an

election for certain taxpayers engaged in

certain exchanges described in section

367(b).

The text of those temporary

regulations also serves as the text of

these proposed regulations. The

preamble to the temporary regulations

explains the proposed regulations.

Proposed Effective Date

Except as otherwise specified, these

regulations are proposed to apply to

section 367(b) exchanges that occur on

or after the date final regulations are

published in the Federal Register.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that these

regulations are not a significant

regulatory action as defined in

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a

regulatory assessment is not required. It

is hereby certified that the collection of

information contained in these

regulations will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This

certification is based upon the fact that

the number of section 367(b) exchanges

that require reporting under these

regulations is estimated to be only 20

per year. Therefore, a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

chapter 6) is not required.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the

Code, these proposed regulations will be

submitted to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration for comment on their

impact.

Comments and Public Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are

adopted as final regulations,

consideration will be given to any

written comments (preferably a signed

original and eight (8) copies) that are

submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS

and Treasury request comments on the

clarity of the proposed regulation and

how it may be made easier to

understand. All comments will be

available for public inspection and

copying.

A public hearing has been scheduled

for April 20, 2000, beginning at 10 a.m.,

in room 2615, Internal Revenue

Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue

NW., Washington, DC. Because of access

restrictions, visitors will not be

admitted beyond the Internal Revenue

Building lobby more than 15 minutes

before the hearing starts.

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3)

apply to the hearing.

Persons that wish to present oral

comments at the hearing must submit

timely written comments and an outline

of the topics to be discussed and the

time to be devoted to each topic by

(preferably a signed original and eight

(8) copies) March 31, 2000. However,

comments not to be presented at the

hearing must be submitted by April 24,

2000.

A period of 10 minutes will be

allotted to each person for making

comments.

An agenda showing the scheduling of

the speakers will be prepared after the

deadline for receiving outlines has

passed. Copies of the agenda will be

available free of charge at the hearing.

Drafting Information: The principal

author of these regulations is Mark

Harris of the Office of Associate Chief

Counsel (International). However, other

personnel from the IRS and Treasury

Department participated in their

development.

Proposed Amendments to the

Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

Income taxes, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for

part 1 continues to read in part as

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.367(b)–3 is amended

by adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 1.367(b)–3 Repatriation of foreign

corporate assets in certain nonrecognition

transactions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) [The text of this proposed addition

is the same as the text of § 1.367(b)–

3T(b)(4) published elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register].

John M. Dalrymple,

Acting Deputy Commissioner of Internal

Revenue.

[FR Doc. 00–1378 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH–132; KY–116; KY–84; FRL–6527–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Ohio and Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to

determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton

moderate ozone nonattainment area

(Cincinnati-Hamilton area) has attained

the public health-based 1-hour ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS). If EPA takes final action on

this proposal, the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area will be redesignated to attainment

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The

Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes the

Ohio Counties of Hamilton, Butler,

Clermont, and Warren and the Kentucky

Counties of Boone, Campbell, and

Kenton. This proposed determination is

based on three years of complete,

quality-assured, ambient air monitoring

data for the 1996 to 1998 ozone seasons

that demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS

has been attained in the area.

Preliminary ozone monitoring data for

1999 continue to show the area attaining

the ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this

determination, EPA is also determining

that certain attainment demonstration

requirements, along with certain other

related requirements, of part D of Title

1 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are not

applicable to the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area.

The EPA is also proposing to approve

the State of Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency’s (OEPA) and the

Commonwealth of Kentucky Natural

Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet (Cabinet) requests to

redesignate the Cincinnati-Hamilton

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3631

area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS. The redesignation request from

OEPA was received on July 2, 1999 and

completed on December 22, 1999. The

Cabinet sent the redesignation request to

EPA on October 29, 1999. Approval of

these redesignation requests would put

into place a plan for maintaining the 1-

hour ozone standard for the next 10

years.

The EPA is also re-proposing to

approve an exemption from the nitrogen

oxides (NOX) requirements as provided

for in section 182(f) for the Kentucky

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.

Section 182(f) establishes NOX

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas. However, it provides that these

requirements do not apply to an area if

the Administrator determines that NOX

reductions would not contribute to

attainment. On November 11, 1994, the

Cabinet submitted a request for a 182(f)

NOX exemption and on May 10, 1995,

EPA proposed approval for the

exemption. Subsequently, since the area

monitored an exceedance that

constituted a violation of the ozone

NAAQS, EPA did not publish a final

notice approving the NOX exemption.

Because the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is

currently attaining the ozone NAAQS,

EPA is proposing to grant the Kentucky

portion a NOX exemption. If final action

is taken, then the Kentucky portion of

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area would no

longer be subject to NOX requirements,

however, all controls previously

approved by the Cabinet must continue

to be implemented.

DATES: Comments on EPA’s proposed

action must be received by February 23,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Kay Prince, Chief, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Copies of the OEPA’s and the

Cabinet’s submittals and other

information are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations. The interested

persons wanting to examine these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Reference file OH 132, KY–116 and KY

84. Regulation Development Section,

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air Planning Branch,

Regulatory Planning Section, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Jones, Environmental Scientist,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 886–6058,

(jones.william@epa.gov). Karla L.

McCorkle, Environmental Scientist,

Regulatory Planning Section, Air

Planning Branch, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303,

404–562–9043,

(mccorkle.karla@epa.gov).

Table of Contents

I. Determination of Attainment

A. What action is EPA proposing to take?

B. Why is EPA taking this action?

C. What would be the effect of this action?

D. What is the background for this action?

E. Where is the public record and where

do I send comments?

II. Redesignation Request

A. What action is EPA proposing to take?

B. Why is EPA taking this action?

C. What would be the effect of the

redesignation?

D. What is the background for this action?

E. What are the redesignation review

criteria?

F. What is EPA’s analysis of the request?

G. Where is the public record and where

do I send comments?

III. 182(f) NOX Exemption for Kentucky

A. What action is EPA proposing to take?

B. Where is the public record and where

do I send comments?

IV. Disclaimer Language Approving SIP

Revisions in Audit Law States

V. What administrative requirements were

considered?

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13132

C. Executive Order 13045

D. Executive Order 13084

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates Act

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Determination of Attainment

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing To

Take?

The EPA is proposing to determine

that the Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate

ozone nonattainment area has attained

the NAAQS for ozone. The CincinnatiHamilton area includes the Ohio

Counties of Hamilton, Butler, Clermont,

and Warren and the Kentucky Counties

of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton. On the

basis of this determination, EPA is also

determining that certain attainment

demonstration requirements (section

172(c)(1)), along with certain other

related requirements, of Part D of Title

1 of the CAA, specifically the section

172(c)(9) contingency measure

requirement, the section 182(b)(1)

attainment demonstration requirement

and the 182(j) multi-state attainment

demonstration requirement are not

applicable to the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area as long as it continues to attain the

ozone NAAQS.

B. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

The EPA proposes to redesignate the

area because three years of ambient air

monitoring data demonstrate that the

ozone NAAQS has been attained and

the area has satisfied the other

requirements for redesignation. The

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret

provisions regarding attainment

demonstrations, along with certain other

related provisions, so as not to require

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

submissions, as described further below,

if an ozone nonattainment area subject

to those requirements is monitoring

attainment of the ozone standard (i.e.,

attainment of the NAAQS is

demonstrated with three consecutive

years of complete, quality-assured, air

quality monitoring data). The EPA is

basing this determination upon three

years of complete, quality-assured,

ambient air monitoring data for the 1996

to 1998 ozone seasons that demonstrate

that the ozone NAAQS has been

attained in the entire CincinnatiHamilton area. Preliminary ozone

monitoring data for 1999 continue to

show that the area is attaining the ozone

NAAQS.

C. What Would Be the Effect of This

Action?

The requirements of section 172(c)(1),

182(b)(1) and 182(j) concerning the

submission of the ozone attainment

demonstration and the requirements of

section 172(c)(9) concerning

contingency measures for reasonable

further progress (RFP) or attainment will

not be applicable to the area. This

proposal does not revoke the 1-hour

standard (see discussion in II (A) of this

document.)

D. What Is the Background for This

Action?

Subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the

CAA contains various air quality

planning and SIP submission

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas. The EPA believes it is reasonable

to interpret provisions regarding RFP

and attainment demonstrations, along

with certain other related provisions, so

as not to require SIP submissions if an

3632 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ozone nonattainment area subject to

those requirements is monitoring

attainment of the ozone standard (i.e.,

attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated

with three consecutive years of

complete, quality-assured, air quality

monitoring data). EPA has interpreted

the general provisions of subpart 1 of

part D of Title I (sections 171 and 172)

so as not to require the submission of

SIP revisions concerning RFP,

attainment demonstrations, or

contingency measures. As explained in

a memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, entitled ‘‘Reasonable

Further Progress, Attainment

Demonstration, and Related

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas Meeting the Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ dated

May 10, 1995, EPA believes it is

appropriate to interpret the more

specific attainment demonstration and

related provisions of subpart 2 in the

same manner. (See Sierra Club v. EPA,

99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996))

The attainment demonstration

requirements of section 182(b)(1) are

that the plan provide for ‘‘such specific

annual reductions in emissions * * * as

necessary to attain the national primary

ambient air quality standard by the

attainment date applicable under the

CAA.’’ If an area has in fact monitored

attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA

believes there is no need for an area to

make a further submission containing

additional measures to achieve

attainment. This is also consistent with

the interpretation of certain section

172(c) requirements provided by EPA in

the General Preamble to Title I. As EPA

stated in the Preamble, no other

measures to provide for attainment

would be needed by areas seeking

redesignation to attainment since

‘‘attainment will have been reached’’ (57

FR 13564). Upon attainment of the

NAAQS, the focus of state planning

efforts shifts to the maintenance of the

NAAQS and the development of a

maintenance plan under section 175A.

Similar reasoning applies to other

related provisions of subpart 2. The first

of these are the contingency measure

requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the

CAA. The EPA has previously

interpreted the contingency measure

requirement of section 172(c)(9) as no

longer being applicable once an area has

attained the standard since those

‘‘contingency measures are directed at

ensuring RFP and attainment by the

applicable date’’ (57 FR 13564).

The state must continue to operate an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network, in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58, to verify the attainment status

of the area. The air quality data relied

upon to determine that the area is

attaining the ozone standard must be

consistent with 40 CFR part 58

requirements and other relevant EPA

guidance and recorded in EPA’s

Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS).

The determinations made in this

notice do not shield an area from future

EPA action to require emissions

reductions from sources in the area

where there is evidence, such as

photochemical grid modeling, showing

that emissions from sources in the area

contribute significantly to

nonattainment in, or interfere with

maintenance by, any other states with

respect to the NAAQS (see section

110(a)(2)(D)). The EPA has authority

under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and

110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA to require such

emission reductions if necessary and

appropriate to deal with transport

situations.

The EPA has reviewed the ambient air

monitoring data for ozone (consistent

with the requirements contained in 40

CFR part 58 and recorded in AIRS) for

the Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate

ozone nonattainment area from the 1996

through 1998 ozone seasons. This data

is summarized in Table 1 covering

EPA’s analysis of the redesignation

request. Preliminary monitoring data for

1999 show the area continues to attain

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On the basis

of this review, EPA determines that the

area has attained the 1-hour ozone

standard during the 1996–98 period,

which is the most recent three-year time

period of air quality monitoring data,

and therefore is not required to submit

an attainment demonstration, and a

section 172(c)(9) contingency measure

plan.

E. Where Is the Public Record and

Where Do I Send Comments?

The official record for this proposed

rule is located at the addresses in the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of

this document. The addresses for

sending comments are also provided in

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning

of this document. Public comments are

solicited on EPA’s proposed rulemaking

action. Public comments received by

February 23, 2000, will be considered in

the development of EPA’s final

rulemaking action.

II. Redesignation Request

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing To

Take?

The EPA is proposing approval of the

maintenance plan submitted by the

OEPA and the Cabinet and

redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton moderate ozone

nonattainment area to attainment of the

1-hour ozone NAAQS. The CincinnatiHamilton area consists of the Ohio

Counties of Butler, Warren, Clermont,

and Hamilton and the Kentucky

Counties of Boone, Campbell, and

Kenton.

B. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

The Cincinnati-Hamilton area meets

the redesignation and maintenance plan

requirements of the CAA.

EPA issued a proposal to determine

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS inapplicable

to the Cincinnati-Hamilton area in light

of the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS on

June 10, 1999 (64 FR 110), when the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit issued its opinion in American

Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d

1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999) and modified in

rehearing on October 29, 1999, WL

979463, which created uncertainty

regarding the 8-hour ozone standard.

Thus, EPA proposed to rescind findings

of inapplicability of the 1-hour ozone

standard on October 25, 1999 (64 FR

57424). Therefore, the 1-hour ozone

standard remains applicable in the

Cincinnati-Hamilton area.

C. What Would Be the Effect of the

Redesignation?

The redesignation would change the

official designation of the Ohio Counties

of Butler, Warren, Clermont, and

Hamilton and the Kentucky Counties of

Boone, Campbell, and Kenton from

nonattainment to attainment for the 1-

hour ozone standard. It would also put

into place a plan for maintaining the 1-

hour ozone standard for the next 10

years. This plan includes contingency

measures to correct any future

violations of the 1-hour ozone standard.

D. What Is the Background for This

Action?

The OEPA and the Cabinet submitted

requests on August 16, 1999 and

October 29, 1999, respectively, to

redesignate the Ohio and Kentucky

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

from nonattainment to attainment for

ozone.

Under section 107(d) of the 1977

amended CAA, the EPA promulgated

the ozone attainment status for each

geographic area of the country. All

counties in the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area were designated as an ozone

nonattainment area in March 1978 (43

FR 8962). On November 15, 1990, the

CAA Amendments of 1990 were

enacted. Pursuant to section

107(d)(4)(A), on November 6, 1991 (56

FR 56694), the Ohio Counties of Butler,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3633

Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren and

the Kentucky Counties of Boone,

Campbell, and Kenton were designated

as the Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate

ozone nonattainment area, as a result of

monitored violations of the ozone

NAAQS during the 1987–1989 time

frame. On November 14, 1994, OEPA

submitted a redesignation request for

the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area and EPA published a

proposed redesignation rulemaking on

May 5, 1995 (60 FR 22337), for the Ohio

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.

On November 11, 1994, the Cabinet

submitted a redesignation request for

the Kentucky portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area and revised the request

on July 19, 1995.

During July of 1995, an ozone monitor

in the area recorded an exceedance of

the ozone standard resulting in a

violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

As a result of the violation the area was

no longer attaining the ozone air quality

standard. On September 27, 1996 (61 FR

50718), EPA disapproved the

redesignation request for the Kentucky

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

and on February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7194),

EPA proposed to disapprove the

redesignation request for the Ohio

portion based on the area’s violation of

the ozone NAAQS. Both Ohio and

Kentucky were not meeting the

requirements for redesignation specified

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA

during the time period when these

actions were taken by EPA. The EPA

will not respond to comments received

on the February 18, 1997, proposed

rulemaking, since that request is now

moot, having been superseded by a new

request. This subsequent request is the

subject of this proposed rulemaking.

The Cincinnati-Hamilton area has

since recorded three years of complete,

quality-assured, ambient air quality

monitoring data for the 1996 to 1998

ozone seasons, thereby demonstrating

that the area has attained the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. Preliminary ozone

monitoring data for 1999 continue to

show the area is attaining the ozone

NAAQS. On July 2, 1999, EPA received

a redesignation request from OEPA

which supersedes its request submitted

on November 14, 1994. On August 16,

1999, OEPA submitted additional

information for the request and on

December 22, 1999, EPA received the

results of OEPA’s public hearing on the

proposed revision which was the final

portion of the initial request. On

October 29, 1999, EPA received a

request from the Cabinet to parallel

process the prehearing redesignation

submittal. On December 13, 1999, the

Cabinet submitted to EPA the final

redesignation request including the

Cabinet’s public hearing results.

E. What Are the Redesignation Review

Criteria?

The CAA provides the requirements

for redesignating a nonattainment area

to attainment. Specifically, section

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation

providing that: (1) The Administrator

determines that the area has attained the

NAAQS; (2) The Administrator has fully

approved the applicable

implementation plan for the area under

Section 110(k); (3) The Administrator

determines that the improvement in air

quality is due to permanent and

enforceable reductions in emissions

resulting from implementation of the

applicable state implementation plan

and applicable Federal air pollutant

control regulations and other permanent

and enforceable reductions; (4) The

Administrator has fully approved a

maintenance plan for the area as

meeting the requirements of section

175(A); and, (5) The State containing

such area has met all requirements

applicable to the area under section 110

and part D.

The EPA provided guidance on

redesignation in the General Preamble

for the Implementation of Title I of the

CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,

1992 (57 FR 13498) and supplemented

on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). The

EPA has provided further guidance on

processing redesignation requests in the

following documents:

1. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (part

D NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment,’’ Mary D. Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation,

October 14, 1994. (Nichols, October

1994)

2. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone

and Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Nonattainment Areas,’’ D. Kent Berry,

Acting Director, Air Quality

Management Division, November 30,

1993.

3. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Requirements for Areas Submitting

Requests for Redesignation to

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after

November 15, 1992,’’ Michael H.

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation, September 17,

1993.

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean

Air Act Deadlines,’’ John Calcagni,

Director, Air Quality Management

Division, October 28, 1992. (Calcagni,

October 1992)

5. ‘‘Procedures for Processing

Requests to Redesignate Areas to

Attainment,’’ John Calcagni, Director,

Air Quality Management Division,

September 4, 1992.

6. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone

and Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Redesignations,’’ G.T. Helms, Chief,

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs

Branch, June 1, 1992.

7. State Implementation Plans;

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR

13498), April 16, 1992.

F. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the

Request?

1. The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-

Hour Ozone NAAQS

For ozone, an area may be considered

attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if

there are no violations, as determined in

accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and

appendix H, based on three complete,

consecutive calendar years of quality

assured monitoring data. A violation of

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs when

the annual average number of expected

daily exceedances is equal to or greater

than 1.05 per year at a monitoring site.

A daily exceedance occurs when the

maximum hourly ozone concentration

during a given day is 0.125 parts per

million (ppm) or higher. The data must

be collected and quality-assured in

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and

recorded in AIRS. The monitors should

have remained at the same location for

the duration of the monitoring period

required for demonstrating attainment.

The OEPA and the Cabinet submitted

ozone monitoring data for the April

through October ozone season from

1996 to 1998. Table 1 below summarizes

the air quality data from 1996–1998.

3634 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—1-HOUR OZONE NAAQS EXCEEDANCES IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON, OHIO—KENTUCKY AREA FROM 1996

TO 1998

Site County Year Exceedances

measured

Expected

exceedances

Middletown .......................................................... Butler ................................................................... 1996 1 1.0

Middletown .......................................................... Butler ................................................................... 1997 1 1.0

Middletown .......................................................... Butler ................................................................... 1998 0 0.0

Hamilton .............................................................. Butler ................................................................... 1996 0 0.0

Hamilton .............................................................. Butler ................................................................... 1997 0 0.0

Hamilton .............................................................. Butler ................................................................... 1998 0 0.0

4430 SR 222 ....................................................... Clermont .............................................................. 1996 0 0.0

4430 SR 222 ....................................................... Clermont .............................................................. 1997 0 0.0

4430 SR 222 ....................................................... Clermont .............................................................. 1998 1 1.0

11590 Grooms Rd. .............................................. Hamilton .............................................................. 1996 0 0.0

11590 Grooms Rd. .............................................. Hamilton .............................................................. 1997 1 1.0

11590 Grooms Rd. .............................................. Hamilton .............................................................. 1998 1 1.0

6950 Ripple Road ............................................... Hamilton .............................................................. 1996 0 0.0

6950 Ripple Road ............................................... Hamilton .............................................................. 1997 0 0.0

6950 Ripple Road ............................................... Hamilton .............................................................. 1998 0 0.0

Cincinnati ............................................................. Hamilton .............................................................. 1996 0 0.0

Cincinnati ............................................................. Hamilton .............................................................. 1997 0 0.0

Cincinnati ............................................................. Hamilton .............................................................. 1998 0 0.0

Lebanon .............................................................. Warren ................................................................. 1996 0 0.0

Lebanon (230 Cook Road) ................................. Warren ................................................................. 1997 1 1.0

Lebanon (230 Cook Road) ................................. Warren ................................................................. 1998 1 1.0

KY 338 ................................................................ Boone .................................................................. 1996 0 0.0

KY 338 ................................................................ Boone .................................................................. 1997 0 0.0

KY 338 ................................................................ Boone .................................................................. 1998 0 0.0

Dayton ................................................................. Campbell ............................................................. 1996 1 1.0

Dayton ................................................................. Campbell ............................................................. 1997 0 0.0

Dayton ................................................................. Campbell ............................................................. 1998 0 0.0

Covington ............................................................ Kenton ................................................................. 1996 1 1.0

Covington ............................................................ Kenton ................................................................. 1997 0 0.0

Covington ............................................................ Kenton ................................................................. 1998 1 1.0

This data has been quality assured

and is recorded in AIRS. During the

1996 to 1998 time period, the

Middletown, Grooms Road, Lebanon,

and Covington monitors each recorded

a total of 2.0 expected exceedances. This

equates to 0.67 average expected

exceedances per year and shows that the

monitoring sites with the most

exceedances are attaining the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. In addition, preliminary

1999 ambient air quality monitoring

data indicate that the area continues to

attain the 1-hour ozone standard. As a

result, the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is

currently meeting the air quality

requirement for redesignation to

attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

2. The Area Must Have a Fully

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k);

and the Area Must Have Met All

Applicable Requirements Under Section

110 and Part D

Before the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

may be redesignated to attainment for

ozone, it must have fulfilled the

applicable requirements of section 110

and part D. The Calcagni memorandum

dated September 4, 1992, states that

areas requesting redesignation to

attainment have to fully adopt rules and

programs that come due prior to the

submittal of a complete redesignation

request. If unimplemented and not

necessary, these rules/programs may be

moved into the area’s maintenance plan

as contingency measures rather than

fully approved into the SIP. As

described below in the section of this

notice addressing Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) reasonably available

control technology (RACT) rules,

however, the EPA is allowing an

exception to this policy. While all

requirements that come due prior to the

submission of the redesignation request

remain applicable requirements, the

EPA believes it is appropriate, in this

instance, to allow an exception to policy

(Calcagni, September 4, 1992) to provide

that the requirement for certain VOC

RACT rules may be complied with

simply through their incorporation

among the contingency measures in the

maintenance plan. For reasons

described later in this action, these

measures need not be fully adopted and

approved prior to redesignation.

Furthermore, requirements of the CAA

that come due subsequent to the area’s

submittal of a complete redesignation

request would continue to be applicable

to the area until a redesignation is

approved, but are not required as a

prerequisite for redesignation (see

section 175A(c)). If the redesignation is

disapproved, the States remain

obligated to fulfill those requirements.

Section 110 Requirements. General

SIP elements are delineated in section

110(a)(2) of Title I, part A. These

requirements include but are not limited

to the following: submittal of a SIP that

has been adopted by the state after

reasonable notice and public hearing,

provisions for establishment and

operation of appropriate apparatus,

methods, systems and procedures

necessary to monitor ambient air

quality, implementation of a permit

program, provisions for part C,

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD), and Part D, New Source Review

(NSR) permit programs, criteria for

stationary source emission control

measures, monitoring and reporting,

provisions for modeling, and provisions

for public and local agency

participation. For purposes of

redesignation, the Ohio and Kentucky

SIPs were reviewed to ensure that all

requirements under the amended CAA

were satisfied through approved SIP

provisions.

Transport of Ozone Precursors to

Downwind Areas. Modeling results

utilizing EPA’s regional oxidant model

(ROM) indicate that ozone precursor

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3635

emissions from various states west of

the ozone transport region (OTR) in the

northeastern United States contribute to

increases in ozone concentrations in the

OTR. The EPA issued a SIP call on

October 27, 1998, (63 FR 57356)

requiring the District of Columbia (DC)

and 22 states, including Ohio and

Kentucky to reduce their emissions of

oxides of nitrogen in order to reduce the

transport of ozone and ozone

precursors. The SIP Call submittal date

of September 1999 has been stayed by

the DC Circuit Court. Because of the stay

of the submittal date, this is not an

applicable requirement and thus, need

not be met for purposes of

redesignation.

EPA has determined that the Ohio

and Kentucky SIPs for the CincinnatiHamilton 1-hour ozone nonattainment

area satisfy all of the section 110 SIP

requirements of the CAA.

Part D: General Provisions for

Nonattainment Areas. Before the

Cincinnati-Hamilton area may be

redesignated to attainment, it must have

fulfilled the applicable requirements of

part D. Under part D, an area’s

classification determines the

requirements to which it is subject.

Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic

nonattainment requirements applicable

to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of

part D establishes additional

requirements for nonattainment areas

classified under Table 1 of section

181(a). As described in the General

Preamble for the Implementation of

Title 1, specific requirements of subpart

2 may override subpart 1’s general

provisions (57 FR 13501, April 16,

1992). The Cincinnati-Hamilton area

was classified as moderate ozone

nonattainment. Therefore, in order to be

redesignated, the State must meet the

applicable requirements of subpart 1 of

part D—specifically sections 172(c) and

176, as well as the applicable

requirements of subpart 2 of part D.

Section 172(c) Requirements. EPA has

determined that the redesignation

request received from the OEPA and the

Cabinet for the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area has satisfied all of the relevant

submittal requirements under section

172(c) necessary for the area to be

redesignated to attainment. In the first

part of this proposed rulemaking, EPA

is proposing to determine that the

requirement for a SIP revision providing

an attainment demonstration to meet

section 172(c)(1), 182(b)(1), and 182(j) is

not applicable. The RFP requirement

under section 172(c)(2) is defined as

progress that must be made toward

attainment. Section 182(b)(1)(A) sets

forth the specific requirements for RFP.

On March 14, 1994, Ohio submitted an

RFP plan for Cincinnati and on January

28, 1998 (63 FR 4188) EPA approved the

RFP plan as meeting the 15 percent RFP

requirements of section 182(b)(1)(A). By

meeting the specific 15% RFP

requirements of section 182(b)(1)(A),

Cincinnati is also meeting the RFP

requirement of section 172(c)(2). Section

172(c)(3) requires submission and

approval of a comprehensive, accurate,

and current inventory of actual

emissions. The OEPA submitted an

actual emission inventory under section

182(a)(1) and EPA approved it on

December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62737). The

Cabinet submitted on September 11,

1998, a 15 Percent VOC Reduction Plan

and the 1990 base year inventory for the

Kentucky Counties of Boone, Campbell,

and Kenton and EPA approved the

submittal on December 8, 1998 (63 FR

67586). EPA has determined that the

RFP and actual emission inventory

requirement for Ohio and Kentucky is

satisfied.

Section 172(c)(5) requires permits for

the construction and operation of new

and modified major stationary sources

anywhere in the nonattainment area.

Section 182(b)(5) requires all major new

sources or modifications in a moderate

nonattainment area to achieve offsetting

reductions of VOCs at a ratio of at least

1.15 to 1.0. The EPA has determined

that areas being redesignated do not

need to comply with the requirement

that a NSR program be approved prior

to redesignation provided that the area

demonstrates maintenance of the

standard without part D NSR in effect.

The rationale for this decision is

described in a memorandum from Mary

Nichols dated October 14, 1994. See

discussion in the Grand Rapids,

Michigan document published on June

21, 1996 (61 FR 31831). The States have

demonstrated that the CincinnatiHamilton area will be able to maintain

the standard without part D NSR in

effect, and, therefore, the States need

not have fully approved part D NSR

programs prior to approval of the

redesignation request for the CincinnatiHamilton area. The OEPA’s federally

delegated PSD program will become

effective in the Cincinnati area upon

redesignation to attainment. The

Cabinet has a statewide NSR rule. EPA

approved the latest version of the NSR

rule on June 23, 1994 (59 FR 32343) and

the latest version of the statewide PSD

rule on June 24, 1998 (63 FR 39741).

Kentucky’s PSD requirements will

remain enforceable after the

redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton area.

Section 176 Conformity

Requirements. Section 176(c) of the

CAA requires states to establish criteria

and procedures to ensure that Federally

supported or funded projects conform to

the air quality planning goals in the

applicable SIP. The requirement to

determine conformity applies to

transportation plans, programs and

projects developed, funded or approved

under title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal

Transit Act (‘‘transportation

conformity’’), as well as to all other

Federally supported or funded projects

(‘‘general conformity’’). Section 176

further provides that state conformity

revisions must be consistent with

Federal conformity regulations that the

CAA required the EPA to promulgate.

The EPA believes it is reasonable to

interpret the conformity requirements as

not applying for purposes of evaluating

the redesignation request under section

107(d). The rationale for this is based on

a combination of two factors. First, the

requirement to submit SIP revisions to

comply with the conformity provisions

of the CAA continues to apply to areas

after redesignation to attainment, since

such areas would be subject to a section

175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s

Federal conformity rules require the

performance of conformity analyses in

the absence of Federally approved state

rules. Therefore, because areas are

subject to the conformity requirements

regardless of whether they are

redesignated to attainment and must

implement conformity under Federal

rules if state rules are not yet approved,

the EPA believes it is reasonable to view

these requirements as not applying for

purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request. Consequently, EPA may

approve the ozone redesignation request

for the Ohio and Kentucky portion of

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area without a

fully approved conformity SIP. See

Detroit, Michigan, carbon monoxide

redesignation published on June 30,

1999 (64 FR 35017), Cleveland-AkronLorain ozone redesignation published

on May 7, 1996 (61 FR 20458), and

Tampa, Florida, published on December

7, 1995 (60 FR 52748).

Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements.

The Cincinnati-Hamilton area is

classified moderate nonattainment;

therefore, part D, subpart 2, section

182(b) requirements apply. In

accordance with the September 17,

1993, EPA guidance memorandum, the

requirements which came due prior to

the submission of the request to

redesignate the area must be fully

approved into the SIP before or at the

time of the request to redesignate the

area to attainment. Those requirements

are discussed below:

1990 Base Year Inventory. The 1990

base year emission inventory was due

on November 15, 1992. OEPA submitted

3636 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the 1990 base year emission inventory

on March 14, 1994, for the Ohio portion

and EPA approved it on December 7,

1995 (60 FR 62737). The Cabinet

submitted the 1990 base year emission

inventory on September 11, 1998, and

EPA approved it on December 8, 1998

(63 FR 67586).

Periodic Emissions Inventory.

Periodic inventories were required to be

submitted on November 15, 1995, and

November 15, 1998, providing an

estimate of emissions for 1993 and 1996,

respectively. This inventory is not

considered a SIP requirement for the

Cincinnati-Hamilton area, therefore they

do not need to be approved into the SIP.

Ohio provided its most recent estimates

of emissions for 1993 and 1996 in its

redesignation request and these

emissions are summarized in the tables

provided in this proposed action.

Kentucky also provided EPA with

periodic emissions for 1993 and 1996.

Emission Statements. The emission

statement SIP was due on November 15,

1992. The OEPA submitted an emission

statement SIP for Ohio on March 18,

1994 and EPA approved it on October

13, 1994 (59 FR 51863). The Cabinet

submitted the emission statement SIP

for Kentucky on January 15, 1993 and

supplemented the submittal on

December 29, 1994 to satisfy the federal

requirements. EPA published approval

of the Kentucky emission statement on

May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21445).

15 Percent Plan. The 15 percent RFP

plan for VOC reductions was required to

be submitted by November 15, 1993,

and, therefore, is applicable to the

Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate ozone

nonattainment area. The OEPA

submitted the 15 percent RFP plan on

March 14, 1994 and EPA approved it on

January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4188). The

Cabinet originally submitted a 15

percent plan in November 1993 and

revised the plan in March 1994. By the

end of the 1994 ozone season, air

quality monitoring data for the entire

Cincinnati area showed attainment of

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, on

June 29, 1995, the Cabinet requested

that EPA take no further action on the

submitted 15 percent plan.

Subsequently, during the 1995 ozone

season the area monitored a violation

making the 15 percent plan again an

applicable requirement for the area. On

September 11, 1998, the Cabinet

submitted a revised 15 percent VOC

Reduction Plan and EPA approved it on

December 8, 1998 (63 FR 67586).

VOC RACT Requirements. SIP

revisions requiring RACT for three

classes of VOC sources are required

under section 182(b)(2). The categories

are: (1) All sources covered by a Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) document

issued between November 15, 1990 and

the date of attainment; (2) All sources

covered by a CTG issued prior to

November 15, 1990; (3) All other major

non-CTG stationary sources. The nonCTG rules were due by November 15,

1992, and apply to the Ohio and

Kentucky submittal. The EPA approved

Ohio’s VOC RACT rules on April 25,

1996 (61 FR 18255), September 7, 1994

(59 FR 46182) and October 23, 1995 (60

FR 54308). EPA approved Kentucky’s

VOC RACT rules on January 25, 1980

(45 FR 6092), August 7, 1981 (46 FR

40188), February 7, 1990 (55 FR 4169),

June 23, 1994, (59 FR 32344), and June

28, 1996 (61 FR 33674). Upon

redesignation of the area, all new major

VOC sources locating in Kentucky and

all major modifications to existing major

VOC sources will continue to be subject

to the RACT requirements. These

actions satisfy requirements (2) and (3)

above for the Ohio and Kentucky

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.

Since November 15, 1990, EPA has

issued CTG documents for the VOC

source categories of aerospace, synthetic

organic compound manufacturing

industry (SOCMI) reactor and

distillation processes, shipbuilding, and

wood furniture. To satisfy the

requirement of (1) above, the Cabinet

submitted a negative declaration on

December 14, 1999 for the CTG

categories of aerospace, SOCMI reactor

and distillation processes, shipbuilding,

and wood furniture. Ohio has satisfied

requirement (1) above by including

these CTG categories as contingency

measures in their maintenance plan.

This is discussed below.

In regards to requirement (1) above,

EPA’s policy on redesignations would

require full adoption, submission and

approval of these rules prior to approval

of the redesignation request. Since the

due date for the CTG RACT rules at

issue preceded the submission of the

redesignation request, EPA believes,

however, that, in the context of the

particular circumstances of this

redesignation, that it is permissible to

depart from that policy and instead

accept a commitment to implement

these RACT rules as contingency

measures in the maintenance plan

rather than require full adoption and

approval of the rules prior to approval

of the redesignation. See Grand Rapids,

Michigan, redesignation (61 FR 31831,

June 21, 1996). The State of Ohio has

included these RACT rules as

contingency measures in its

maintenance plan for Cincinnati. The

reasons justifying this exception to

EPA’s general policy are explained in

the above cited Grand Rapids, Michigan,

redesignation and as explained below.

The EPA believes that several factors in

combination justify this approach with

respect to the Cincinnati-Hamilton

redesignation. First, the RACT rules at

issue in this redesignation were not

needed to bring about attainment of the

standard in Cincinnati. Second, Ohio

has demonstrated continued

maintenance of the ozone standard

through 2010 without the

implementation of these measures.

Third, Ohio has placed other

contingency measures in the

maintenance plan that would bring

about far greater emission reductions

than the RACT rules and would

therefore be substantially more effective

in terms of correcting violations

attributable to local emissions from the

Cincinnati area that may occur after

redesignation. An analysis of emission

reduction estimates, based on

documentation contained in Ohio’s 15

percent RFP Plan, shows that the

implementation of low Reid Vapor

Pressure (RVP) or Reformulated

Gasoline programs would bring about

greater reductions than the CTG VOC

RACT rules issued since 1990. As a

consequence, EPA believes that the

other, more effective contingency

measures, should and would be

implemented first even if the RACT

rules were to be fully adopted prior to

redesignation. The EPA emphasizes that

even under the exception to its policy

proposed herein, the requirement for

these RACT rules remains an applicable

requirement for purposes of evaluating

the redesignation request since it

predated the submission of the request.

The requirement, however, would be

met in the form of the submission and

full approval of a commitment to adopt

and implement these rules as

contingency measures in the

maintenance plan. (Under EPA’s

existing policy, contingency measures

in maintenance plans may consist of

commitments to adopt and implement

measures upon a violation of the

standard (Calcagni, September 1992)).

The EPA further notes that even

without this exception to its general

policy, the State would have been able

to have the RACT rules become a part

of the contingency measures in the

maintenance plan upon approval of the

redesignation. That could have occurred

only after or upon EPA’s full approval

of the adopted RACT rules, however.

Thus, the only difference between EPA’s

general policy and the exception to that

policy described in this proposal is that

a commitment to adopt and implement

the RACT rules in an expeditious

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3637

manner, rather than fully adopted RACT

rules, would be among the contingency

measures in the maintenance plan. In

light of the combination of factors

discussed above, including in particular

the presence of other, significantly more

effective, contingency measures in the

maintenance plan, EPA believes that

this difference has no significant

environmental consequence and that it

is legally permissible to approve the

Cincinnati-Hamilton redesignation on

this basis.

Stage II Vapor Recovery. Section

182(b)(3) requires states to submit Stage

II rules no later than November 15,

1992. The Ohio Stage II rules were

submitted as a SIP revision on June 7,

1993 and on October 20, 1994. The EPA

partially approved and partially

disapproved Ohio’s SIP revision for

implementation of Stage II (58 FR

52911). As stated in that rulemaking

action, with the exception of paragraph

3745–21–09 (DDD)(5), EPA considers

Ohio’s Stage II program to fully satisfy

the criteria set forth in the September

17, 1993, EPA guidance document for

such programs entitled ‘‘Enforcement

Guidance for Stage II Vehicle Refueling

Control Programs.’’ On February 3, 1998

the Cabinet submitted Stage II controls

and EPA approved the rule on

December 8, 1998 (63 FR 67586).

Only those Stage II provisions

previously approved by EPA are part of

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

maintenance plan. The September 17,

1993, guidance memorandum listed

above states that once onboard vapor

recovery regulations are promulgated,

the Stage II regulations are no longer

applicable for moderate ozone

nonattainment areas. The EPA

promulgated onboard vapor recovery

rules in February 1994. Therefore,

pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the

CAA, Stage II would no longer be

required. However, both Ohio and

Kentucky have opted to include

reductions in VOCs from the Stage II

program as part of the submitted

maintenance plan and the previously

approved 15 percent RFP plans (63 FR

4188 and 63 FR 67586).

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

(I/M). The EPA’s final I/M regulations in

40 CFR Part 85 require the States to

submit a fully adopted I/M program by

November 15, 1993. Ohio submitted

rules for an enhanced I/M program (E–

Check), on May 26, 1994 and EPA

published approval of the rules on April

4, 1995 (60 FR 16989). On September

11, 1998, the Cabinet submitted the

Kentucky I/M program and EPA

approved the program rule on December

8, 1998 (63 FR 67586).

NOX Requirement. Section 182(f)

establishes NOX requirements for ozone

nonattainment areas. However, it

provides that these requirements do not

apply to an area if the Administrator

determines that NOX reductions would

not contribute to attainment. The

Administrator made such a

determination for the Ohio portion of

the Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment

area on July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36060).

After this waiver was approved, the

Cincinnati-Hamilton area monitored a

violation of the 1-hour ozone standard.

Since that time the area has returned to

monitoring attainment and continues to

do so. EPA is leaving the NOX waiver

in place based on the area returning to

attainment. Since the NOX waiver is

approved as a final rule, OEPA is not

required to impose NOX control

measures pursuant to section 182(f) for

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to be

redesignated. OEPA has committed to

adopt NOX RACT rules as a contingency

measure to be implemented upon a

violation of the ozone NAAQS which

occurs after initial contingency

measures are in place for the CincinnatiHamilton area.

On May 10, 1995, EPA proposed

approval for an exemption from NOX

requirements for the Kentucky portion

of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.

Subsequently, since the area monitored

an exceedance that constituted a

violation of the ozone NAAQS, EPA did

not publish a final notice approving the

NOX exemption. As discussed below,

EPA is also re-proposing to approve a

request from the Cabinet for a section

182(f) NOX exemption for the Kentucky

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.

This proposal is based on the area

attaining the ozone NAAQS. Therefore,

upon redesignation the Kentucky

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

would no longer be subject to NOX

requirements. However, all controls

previously approved by the Cabinet

must continue to be implemented, but

no additional NOX measures would be

required.

Ohio and Kentucky have satisfied the

requirement that the area must have a

fully approved SIP under section 110(k)

and the area must have met all

applicable requirements under section

110 and part D.

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Must

Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable

Reductions in Emissions

The improvement in air quality must

be due to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions resulting from

the SIP, Federal measures, and other

state adopted measures. The

improvement in air quality in the Ohio

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

is due to emissions reductions from the

Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions

Control Program (FMVECP), Stage II

vapor recovery program, VOC RACT

controls, and the partial implementation

of E-Check. Between 1993 and 1996, the

Ohio area’s VOC emissions were

reduced by 6.7 percent. Kentucky

attributes the improvement in air

quality to emission reductions achieved

prior to the attainment year of 1996

through the following programs:

FMVECP; VOC RACT; fleet turnover of

automobiles; low Reid Vapor Pressure

(RVP) gasoline; reformulated gasoline;

and ceased operation and improved

technology at facilities in the area.

Between 1990 and 1996, the Kentucky

area’s VOC emissions were reduced by

2.93 tons per day. Additional programs

have been implemented in the Kentucky

area since the 1996 attainment year

which have provided substantial

emission reductions for Kentucky.

These programs include: Stage II vapor

recovery; vehicle emission testing

program, increased rule effectiveness of

Stage I vapor control; Architectural

Coatings, Traffic Paints, Auto Body

Refinishing, and Commercial/Consumer

Products rules; and Open Burning

controls. The State control programs

listed above have been approved into

the Ohio and Kentucky SIP. Based on

the listed programs, Ohio and Kentucky

have shown that the improvement in air

quality is based on permanent and

enforceable reductions in emissions and

meets this requirement.

4. The Area Must Have a Fully

Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting

the Requirements of Section 175A

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth

the elements of a maintenance plan for

areas seeking redesignation from

nonattainment to attainment. The

maintenance plan is a SIP revision

which provides for maintenance of the

relevant NAAQS in the area for at least

10 years after redesignation. The

Calcagni memorandum dated September

4, 1992, provides additional guidance

on the required content of a

maintenance plan. An ozone

maintenance plan should address the

following five areas: the attainment

emissions inventory, maintenance

demonstration, monitoring network,

verification of continued attainment

and, a contingency plan. The attainment

emissions inventory identifies the

emissions level in the area which is

sufficient to attain the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS, and includes emissions during

the time period which had no

monitored violations. Maintenance is

demonstrated by showing that future

3638 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

emissions will not exceed the level

established by the attainment inventory.

Provisions for continued operation of an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network are to be included in the

maintenance plan. The state must show

how it will track and verify the progress

of the maintenance plan. Finally, the

maintenance plan must include a list of

potential contingency measures which

ensure prompt correction of any

violation of the ozone standard.

The OEPA and the Cabinet included

a 1996 emissions inventory as the

attainment inventory. Both of the

maintenance plans for Ohio and

Kentucky portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area provide emissions

estimates from 1990 to 2010 for VOCs,

NOX, and carbon monoxide. The

emissions in the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area are projected to decrease from 1996

levels. The results of this analysis show

that the area is expected to maintain the

air quality standard for at least 10 years

into the future after redesignation. Table

2 and Table 3 provide the emissions

summary for VOCs and NOX for the

Ohio portion and Table 4 and Table 5

provide the emission summary for VOCs

and X for the Kentucky portion of the

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Table 6 and

Table 7, respectively provides the

emissions summary for VOCs and NOX

for the entire Cincinnati-Hamilton area.

Although carbon monoxide levels were

provided, there is no requirement to

evaluate these for an ozone area.

TABLE 2.—VOC EMISSIONS IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY FOR OHIO COUNTIES (HAMILTON, BUTLER, CLERMONT, AND

WARREN)

1990 base 1993 1996

attainment

1999

projected

2002

projected

2005

projected

2010

projected

Point ....................................................................... 70.9 72.8 74.9 77.0 79.2 81.4 83.0

Area ........................................................................ 69.0 69.8 70.7 71.4 72.3 73.1 75.0

Mobile ..................................................................... 125.8 85.3 67.1 49.6 41.6 36.8 37.9

Totals .............................................................. 265.7 227.9 212.7 198.0 193.1 191.3 195.9

TABLE 3.—NOX EMISSIONS IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY FOR OHIO COUNTIES (HAMILTON, BUTLER, CLERMONT, AND

WARREN)

1990 base 1993 1996

attainment

1999

projected

2002

projected

2005

projected

2010

projected

Point ....................................................................... 280.0 279.4 279.0 278.6 278.3 277.6 277.4

Area ........................................................................ 29.8 30.3 30.9 31.4 32.1 32.2 34.0

Mobile ..................................................................... 130.7 115.6 101.3 84.4 72.0 65.5 52.3

Totals .............................................................. 440.5 425.3 411.2 394.4 382.4 375.3 363.7

TABLE 4.—VOC EMISSIONS IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY FOR KENTUCKY COUNTIES (BOONE, CAMPBELL, AND KENTON)

1990 base 1996

attainment

1999

projected

2002

projected

2005

projected

2008

projected

2010

projected

Point ....................................................................... 3.9 4.14 3.96 4.07 4.19 4.33 4.4

Area ........................................................................ 12.6 13.57 10.27 10.45 10.76 11.13 11.35

Mobile ..................................................................... 17.54 12.69 12.07 8.25 7.38 6.47 5.83

Non-Highway .......................................................... 8.6 9.31 9.58 9.82 10.23 10.65 10.97

Total ................................................................ 42.64 39.71 35.88 32.59 32.56 32.58 32.55

TABLE 5.—NOX EMISSIONS IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY FOR KENTUCKY COUNTIES (BOONE, CAMPBELL, AND KENTON)

1990 base 1996

attainment

1999

projected

2002

projected

2005

projected

2008

projected

2010

projected

Point ....................................................................... 43.59 29.06 29.47 29.9 30.34 30.77 31.07

Area ........................................................................ 0.42 12.07 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.37

Mobile ..................................................................... 15.4 24.90 25.55 22.73 20.14 16.99 15.13

Non-Highway .......................................................... 9.23 0.51 12.87 13.27 13.95 14.69 15.2

Total ................................................................ 68.64 66.54 68.22 66.24 64.77 62.8 61.77

TABLE 6.—VOC EMISSIONS IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY FOR THE ENTIRE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA

1990 base 1996

attainment

1999

projected

2002

projected

2005

projected

2010

projected

Point ............................................................................................. 74.8 79.04 80.96 83.27 85.59 87.4

Area .............................................................................................. 90.2 93.58 91.25 92.57 94.09 97.32

Mobile ........................................................................................... 143.34 79.79 61.67 49.85 44.18 43.73

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3639

TABLE 6.—VOC EMISSIONS IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY FOR THE ENTIRE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA—Continued

1990 base 1996

attainment

1999

projected

2002

projected

2005

projected

2010

projected

Total ...................................................................................... 308.34 252.41 233.88 225.69 223.86 228.45

TABLE 7.—NOX EMISSIONS IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY FOR THE ENTIRE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA

1990 base 1996

attainment

1999

projected

2002

projected

2005

projected

2010

projected

Point ............................................................................................. 323.59 308.06 308.07 308.2 307.94 308.47

Area .............................................................................................. 39.45 43.48 44.6 45.71 46.49 49.57

Mobile ........................................................................................... 146.1 126.2 109.95 94.73 85.64 67.43

Total ...................................................................................... 509.14 477.74 462.62 448.64 440.07 425.47

The OEPA and the Cabinet commit to

continue the operation of the monitors

in the area in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58. The States will also track

maintenance by regularly updating the

emissions inventory for the area. The

emission projections for 2010 are the

budgets for transportation conformity.

The contingency plan for the

Cincinnati-Hamilton area contains three

major components: Attainment tracking,

contingency measures to be

implemented in the event that a

violation of the ozone NAAQS occurs in

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, and a

mechanism with which to trigger the

implementation of the contingency

measures.

Two methods of attainment tracking

will be utilized in the Ohio portion of

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area: (1) Air

quality monitoring using the existing

ozone monitoring network, and (2)

inventory updates on a regular

schedule. Stationary, mobile, and area

source inventories will be updated at a

minimum of once every three years

beginning with 1996. Area emission

inventories will be updated using

revised census data. Mobile source

emission inventories will be updated

using new vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

estimates and any new EPA mobile

emission models. Annual progress

reports will summarize available VOC

and NOX emissions data.

The contingency measures to be

considered for implementation for the

Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area are listed below.

1. Lower RVP gasoline.

2. Reformulated gasoline.

3. Broader geographic coverage of

existing regulations.

4. Application of RACT on sources

covered by new control technology

guidelines issued in response to the

1990 CAA Amendments.

5. Application of RACT to smaller

existing sources.

6. Implementation of one or more

transportation control measures

sufficient to achieve at least a 0.5

percent reduction in actual area wide

VOC emissions. The transportation

control measures to be considered

would include: (1) Trip reductions

programs, including but not limited to

employer-based transportation

management programs, area wide

rideshare programs, work schedule

change, and telecommuting; (2) transit

improvements; (3) traffic flow

improvements; and, (4) other measures.

7. Alternative fuel programs for fleet

vehicle operations.

8. Controls on consumer products

consistent with those adopted elsewhere

in the United States.

9. VOC offsets for new or modified

major sources.

10. VOC offsets for new or modified

minor sources.

11. Increased ratio of VOC offsets

required for new sources.

12. Requirements of VOC controls on

new minor sources.

Selection of one or more of the

contingency measures will be based on

various considerations including costeffectiveness, VOC reduction potential,

economic and social consideration, and

other factors the State determines to be

appropriate.

Consideration and selection of one or

more of the contingency measures will

take place in the event the ozone

NAAQS is violated. Initially, the State

of Ohio will conduct an analysis to

determine the level of control measures

needed to assure expedient future

attainment. If a subsequent violation of

the ozone NAAQS occurs after

implementation of the VOC controls

measures, NOX RACT will be activated.

Contingency measures on the Ohio

portion of the area will be implemented

according to the following schedule:

TABLE 8.—CONTINGENCY MEASURE SCHEDULE FOR OHIO

Activity—VOC measure implementation Completion time after triggering event

Verify a violation has occurred ................................................................. 1 month.

Identify VOC plan and submit schedule for implementation .................... 3 months.

Implement VOC control program ............................................................. 12 months.

Activity—NOX measure implementation Completion time for second triggering event after implementation of the

VOC contingency measure

Verify a violation has occurred ................................................................. 1 month.

Submit schedule for implementation of NOX RACT ................................ 3 months.

Implement NOX RACT ............................................................................. 18 months.

3640 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Reformulated gasoline and low RVP

gasoline would not be able to be

implemented as contingency measures

by the State of Ohio unless the State

first requested and received from EPA a

waiver of federal preemption under

section 211(c)(4) of the CAA. However,

in light of the State’s listing of other

potential contingency measures and the

State’s commitment to implement

contingency measures within 12 months

of a violation, the identification of

reformulated gasoline and low RVP

gasoline does not detract from the

approvability of the contingency plan.

The Cabinet commits to perform

triennial reviews of actual emissions for

the redesignated area using the latest

emission factors, models, and

methodologies. The Cabinet will begin

the triennial assessments in 2000 for

calendar year 1999. At the time of this

periodic inventory, the Cabinet will

review the assumptions made for the

purpose of the maintenance

demonstration concerning projected

growth in activity levels. If any of these

assumptions appear to have changed

substantially, then the Cabinet will reproject emissions.

In the event that exceedances of the

1-hour ozone standard are measured in

any portion of the nonattainment area,

or if periodic emission inventory

updates reveal excessive or

unanticipated growth greater than 10

percent in ozone precursor emissions,

the Cabinet will evaluate existing

control measures to determine the

further emission reduction measures

that should be implemented at that

time.

In the event of a monitored violation

of the 1-hour ozone standard, the

Cabinet commits to adopt, within nine

months, one or more of the following

contingency measures to achieve

reductions sufficient to bring the area

back into attainment with the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. All regulatory programs

will be implemented within 18 months.

The Cabinet will also evaluate existing

control measures to see if any further

emission reductions should be

implemented at that time.

1. Implementation of a program to

require additional emission reductions

on stationary sources.

2. New Source Review.

3. Implementation of a more frequent,

or more stringent vehicle emissions

testing program.

4. Restriction of certain roads or lanes

to, or construction of such roads or

lanes for use by, passenger buses or

high-occupancy vehicles.

5. Trip-reduction ordinances.

6. Employer based transportation

management plans, including

incentives.

7. Programs to limit or restrict vehicle

use in downtown areas, or other areas

of emission concentration, particularly

during periods of peak use.

8. Programs for new construction and

major construction of paths or tracks for

use by pedestrians or by non-motorized

vehicles when economically feasible

and in the public interest.

The OEPA and the Cabinet submittals

adequately address the five basic

components which comprise a

maintenance plan (attainment

inventory, maintenance demonstration,

monitoring network, verification of

continued attainment, and a

contingency plan) and therefore, satisfy

the maintenance plan requirement.

The CAA section 175A(b) also

requires the OEPA and the Cabinet to

submit a revision of the SIP eight years

after the original redesignation request

is approved to provide for maintenance

of the NAAQS for an additional 10 years

following the first-10 year period. The

Cabinet has committed to submit the

revision to the SIP 8 years after

redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton area. Ohio did not formally

commit to submit this revision in the

redesignation request, however, OEPA

is still required to submit a revision to

the SIP 8 years after this request is

approved.

G. Where Is the Public Record and

Where Do I Send Comments?

The official record for this proposed

rule has been established under OH–132

and KY–116 and is located at the

addresses in the ADDRESSES section at

the beginning of this document. The

addresses for sending comments are also

provided in the ADDRESSES section at

the beginning of this document.

Public comments are solicited on

EPA’s proposed rulemaking action.

Public comments received by February

23, 2000, will be considered in the

development of EPA’s final rulemaking

action. EPA will not respond to

comments received on the February 18,

1997 (62 FR 7194), proposed

rulemaking, since a new request has

been submitted and is the subject of this

proposed rulemaking.

III. 182(f) NOX Exemption for Kentucky

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing To

Take?

EPA is also re-proposing to approve

an exemption from the NOX

requirement as provided for in Section

182(f) for the Kentucky portion of the

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Section 182(f)

establishes NOX requirements for ozone

nonattainment areas which require the

same provisions for major stationary

sources of NOX as apply to major

stationary sources of VOCs. One of the

requirements of major sources of VOCs

is RACT. Therefore, pursuant to section

182 of the CAA, RACT is a requirement

for major sources of NOX in an ozone

nonattainment area. However, it

provides that these requirements do not

apply to a nonattainment area outside

an ozone transport region if the

Administrator determines that NOX

reductions would not contribute to

attainment. A NOX exemption request

must be based upon the most recent

three years of monitoring data, and

demonstrate that additional reductions

of NOX would not contribute to

attainment of the NAAQS.

The EPA memorandum from John S.

Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, dated February

8, 1995, entitled, ‘‘Section 182(f)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) ExemptionsRevised Process Criteria,’’ decouples the

section 182(f) exemptions from NOX

transport issues. The memorandum

states that for an area that did not

implement section 182(f) NOX

requirements, but did attain the ozone

standard as demonstrated by ambient air

monitoring data (consistent with 40 CFR

part 58 and recorded in the AIRS), it is

apparent that additional NOX reductions

required by section 182(f) would not

contribute to attainment of the NAAQS

in the area.

On November 11, 1994, the Cabinet

submitted a request for a 182(f) NOX

RACT exemption for the Kentucky

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

and on May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24813),

EPA proposed approval of the

exemption. Subsequently, since the area

monitored an exceedance that

constituted a violation of the ozone

NAAQS, EPA did not publish a final

notice approving the NOX exemption.

Based on evidence that the area is

currently demonstrating compliance

with the ozone NAAQS, EPA is reproposing approval of Kentucky’s

request to exempt the Kentucky portion

of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from

the 182(f) NOX requirement. Discussed

in detail above, the EPA is also

proposing to determine the CincinnatiHamilton area has attained the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. This proposed

determination of attainment is based on

three years of complete, quality-assured,

ambient air monitoring data for the 1996

to 1998 ozone seasons that demonstrate

that the ozone NAAQS has been

attained in the area. Because the

Cincinnati-Hamilton area has presently

attained the ozone NAAQS, this

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3641

exemption request for the area meets the

applicable requirements. If final action

is taken on this proposal to exempt the

Kentucky portion from 182(f)

requirements, upon redesignation it

would no longer be subject to NOX

requirements for moderate

nonattainment areas. However, all

controls previously approved by the

Cabinet must continue to be

implemented, but no additional NOX

measures would be required. If there is

a violation of the ozone NAAQS in any

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area,

the exemption would no longer be

applicable.

B. Where Is the Public Record and

Where Do I Send Comments?

The official record for this proposed

rule has been established under KY–84

and is located only at the EPA Region

4 address in the ADDRESSES section at

the beginning of this document. The

address for sending comments to EPA

Region 4 is also provided in the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of

this document.

Public comments are solicited on

EPA’s proposed rulemaking action.

Public comments received by February

23, 2000, will be considered in the

development of EPA’s final rulemaking

action.

IV. Disclaimer Language Approving SIP

Revisions in Audit Law States

Nothing in this action should be

construed as making any determination

or expressing any position regarding

Kentucky’s audit privilege and penalty

immunity law Kentucky—‘‘KRS 224.01–

040’’ or its impact upon any approved

provision in the SIP, including the

revision at issue here. The action taken

herein does not express or imply any

viewpoint on the question of whether

there are legal deficiencies in this or any

other Clean Air Act program resulting

from the effect of Kentucky’s audit

privilege and immunity law. A state

audit privilege and immunity law can

affect only state enforcement and cannot

have any impact on federal enforcement

authorities. EPA may at any time invoke

its authority under the Clean Air Act,

including, for example, sections 113,

167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the

requirements or prohibitions of the state

plan, independently of any state

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen

enforcement under section 304 of the

Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by

a state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. What Administrative Requirements

Were Considered?

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Order 12612 (Federalism) and Executive

Order 12875 (Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership).

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

State and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies

that have federalism implications’’ is

defined in the Executive Order to

include regulations that have

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.’’ Under Executive

Order 13132, EPA may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This proposed rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it does

not involve decisions intended to

mitigate environmental health or safety

risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s proposed rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This proposed rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

3642 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because

the Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis

would constitute Federal inquiry into

the economic reasonableness of state

action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Redesignation of an area to attainment

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA

does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Redesignation is an

action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements on sources.

The Administrator certifies that the

approval of the redesignation request

will not affect a substantial number of

small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing new

regulations. To comply with NTTAA,

the EPA must consider and use

‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ (VCS)

if available and applicable when

developing programs and policies

unless doing so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this proposed action.

Today’s action does not require the

public to perform activities conducive

to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: January 12, 2000.

Francis X. Lyons,

Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Dated: January 7, 2000.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 00–1555 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6526–8]

RIN 2060–A177

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Aerospace

Manufacturing and Rework Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to

amend the national emission standards

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)

for Aerospace Manufacturing and

Rework Facilities to include a separate

emission standard for exterior primers

used for large commercial aircraft

components (parts or assemblies) or

fully assembled large commercial

aircraft at existing facilities that produce

fully assembled large commercial

aircraft. We are proposing these

amendments based on review of data

that support significant technical

concerns of an aircraft manufacturer’s

ability to achieve the current 350 grams

per liter (g/L) (2.9 pounds per gallon (lb/

gal)) hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and

volatile organic compound (VOC)

content limit requirements when using

exterior primers.

DATES: Comments: Written comments

must be received by February 23, 2000,

unless a hearing is requested by

February 3, 2000. If a hearing is

requested, written comments must be

received by March 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket Number A–92–20,

Room M–1500, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. The EPA

requests that a separate copy also be

sent to the contact person listed below

in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically by following the

instructions provided in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

Public Hearing: Anyone requesting a

public hearing must contact the EPA by

February 3, 2000. If requested, a public

hearing will be held February 7, 2000.

If a public hearing is requested, the

comment period will end 30 days after

the date of the public hearing, in which

case EPA will publish a document in

the Federal Register announcing the

hearing information and the extended

comment period. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at the EPA’s Office

of Administration Auditorium. Persons

interested in attending the hearing to

present oral testimony should contact

Ms. Dorothy Apple; Policy, Planning,

and Standards Group (MD-13); U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

4487.

Docket: Docket number A–92–20,

containing information relevant to this

proposed rulemaking, is available for

public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and

5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday

(except for Federal holidays) at the

following address: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (MC–

6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460, telephone: (202) 260–7548.

The docket is located at the above

address in Room M–1500, Waterside

Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying.