20966 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0584–200701–; FRL–

8306–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and 

Designations of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Kentucky: 

Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion 

of the Louisville 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment for 

Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky 

(Kentucky), through the Kentucky 

Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), 

submitted a request to redesignate the 

Kentucky portion of the bi-State 

Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area to attainment for the 8-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS); and to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a maintenance plan for the 

Kentucky portion of the bi-State 

Louisville area. The Kentucky portion of 

the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Kentucky Bi-State Louisville 

Area’’) is comprised of three Kentucky 

Counties—Bullitt, Jefferson and 

Oldham. The Indiana portion of the biState Louisville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area is comprised of two 

Indiana Counties—Clark and Floyd. In 

this action, EPA is proposing to approve 

Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone redesignation 

request for the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area. Additionally, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area, including the 

regional motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

This proposed approval of Kentucky’s 

redesignation request is based upon 

EPA’s determination that Kentucky has 

demonstrated that the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area has met the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment specified in 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the 

determination that the entire (both the 

Kentucky and Indiana portions) Bi-State 

Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

standard. In July and September 2006, 

Indiana submitted a redesignation 

request and maintenance plan for the 

Indiana portion of this 8-hour ozone 

area. EPA is taking action on that 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan in a separate action. In this action, 

EPA is also notifying the public that 

EPA is reviewing the 2003 and 2020 

regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs 

submitted by Kentucky as part of its 

maintenance plan, for adequacy. These 

regional MVEBs are identical to those 

contained in the Indiana submittal for 

the bi-State area. During the comment 

period for this proposal, the public may 

also comment on the adequacy of the 

proposed regional MVEBs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–

OAR–2006–0584, by one of the 

following methods: 

(a) www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

(b) E-mail: LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov. 

(c) Fax: 404–562–9019. 

(d) Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0584 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

(e) Hand Delivery or Courier: Heidi 

LeSane, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2006–

0584, EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9074. 

Mrs. LeSane can also be reached via 

electronic mail at 

LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking? 

II. What Is the Background for EPA’s 

Proposed Actions? 

III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? 

IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions? 

V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed 

Actions? 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request? 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20967 

VII. What Are the Proposed Regional MVEBs 

for the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone 

Area? 

VIII. What Is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy 

Determination for the MVEBs for the BiState Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area? 

IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan SIP 

Revision, Including Proposed Approval 

of the 2003 and 2020 MVEBs 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA 

Taking? 

EPA is proposing to take three related 

actions, which are summarized below 

and described in greater detail 

throughout the notice of proposed 

rulemaking: (1) To redesignate the 

Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS; (2) to approve Kentucky’s 8- 

hour ozone maintenance plan, including 

the associated MVEBs; and (3) to notify 

the public that EPA is reviewing 

regional MVEBs for adequacy. 

First, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville 

Area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

standard, and has met the requirements 

for redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The entire biState Louisville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area is comprised of 

three Kentucky Counties—Bullitt, 

Jefferson, and Oldham, and two Indiana 

Counties—Clark and Floyd. Today’s 

proposal addresses only the Kentucky 

portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour 

ozone area. EPA will take action on the 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the Indiana portion of this area 

in a separate action. EPA is now 

proposing to approve a request to 

change the legal designation of Bullitt, 

Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in 

Kentucky from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan for the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area (such approval being 

one of the CAA criteria for redesignation 

to attainment status). The maintenance 

plan is designed to help keep the 

Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area in 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

through 2020. Consistent with the CAA, 

the maintenance plan that EPA is 

proposing to approve today also 

includes 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs 

for NOX and VOCs. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2003 and 2020 

regional MVEBs that are included as 

part of Kentucky’s maintenance plan. 

These regional MVEBs apply to both the 

Kentucky and Indiana portions of this 

bi-State 8-hour ozone area. 

Third, EPA is notifying the public in 

today’s notice of proposed rulemaking 

that EPA is reviewing the 2003 and 2020 

regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs, as 

provided in the Kentucky submittal, for 

adequacy pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2). The public may comment 

at this time on whether the proposed 

MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria 

found in EPA’s conformity regulations, 

40 CFR 93.118(e). 

Today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking is in response to Kentucky’s 

September 29, 2006, SIP submittal 

which supersedes Kentucky’s June 7, 

2006, submittal that included a request 

for parallel processing. The September 

29, 2006, submittal requested 

redesignation of the Kentucky bi-State 

Louisville Area, and included a SIP 

revision addressing the specific issues 

summarized above, and the necessary 

elements for redesignation described in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

II. What Is the Background for EPA’s 

Proposed Actions? 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

NOX and VOCs react in the presence of 

sunlight to form ground-level ozone. 

NOX and VOCs are referred to as 

precursors of ozone. The CAA 

establishes a process for air quality 

management through the NAAQS. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm). This new 

standard is more stringent than the 

previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 

8-hour ozone standard is attained when 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth 

highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ambient air quality ozone 

concentrations is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when 

rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR 

23857 (April 30, 2004) for further 

information). Ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 3-year period 

must meet a data completeness 

requirement. The ambient air quality 

monitoring data completeness 

requirement is met when the average 

percent of days with valid ambient 

monitoring data is greater than 90 

percent, and no single year has less than 

75 percent data completeness as 

determined in Appendix I of part 50. 

Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix I, ‘‘Comparisons with the 

Primary and Secondary Ozone 

Standards’’ states: 

‘‘The primary and secondary ozone 

ambient air quality standards are met at an 

ambient air quality monitoring site when the 

3-year average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 

ppm. The number of significant figures in the 

level of the standard dictates the rounding 

convention for comparing the computed 3- 

year average annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration with the level of the standard. 

The third decimal place of the computed 

value is rounded, with values equal to or 

greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a 

computed 3-year average ozone 

concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest 

value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.’’

The CAA required EPA to designate 

as nonattainment any area that was 

violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on the three most recent years of 

ambient air quality data. The entire biState Louisville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area was designated 

using 2001–2003 ambient air quality 

data. The Federal Register document 

making these designations was signed 

on April 15, 2004, and published on 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). The CAA 

contains two sets of provisions—subpart 

1 and subpart 2—that address planning 

and control requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas. (Both are found in 

title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (which covers 

areas that EPA refers to as ‘‘basic’’

nonattainment) contains general, less 

prescriptive, requirements for 

nonattainment areas for any pollutant—

including ozone—governed by a 

NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which covers areas 

that EPA refers to as ‘‘classified’’

nonattainment) provides more specific 

requirements for certain ozone 

nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas are subject 

only to the provisions of subpart 1. 

Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

are also subject to the provisions of 

subpart 2. Under EPA’s Phase 1 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule (69 FR 

23857) (Phase 1 Rule), signed on April 

15, 2004 and published on April 30, 

2004, an area was classified under 

subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone 

design value (i.e., the 3-year average of 

the annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design 

value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 

1-hour design value in Table 1 of 

subpart 2). All other areas are covered 

under subpart 1, based upon their 8- 

hour ambient air quality design values. 

Various aspects of EPA’s Phase 1 8- 

hour ozone implementation rule were 

challenged in court and on December 

22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit Court) vacated EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule for the 8-hour 

Ozone Standard. South Coast Air 

Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v. 

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

D.C. Circuit Court held that certain 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
20968 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to 

submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain 

federal criteria and procedures for determining 

transportation conformity. Transportation 

conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets that are established in control 

strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. 

provisions of EPA’s Phase I Rule were 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA. The Court rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the 8-hour 

standard in nonattainment areas under 

subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of title I, 

part D of the CAA. The Court also held 

that EPA improperly failed to retain four 

measures required for 1-hour 

nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of EPA’s 

regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements 

based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment 

classification; (2) CAA section 185 

penalty fees for 1-hour severe or 

extreme nonattainment areas; (3) 

measures to be implemented pursuant 

to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the 

CAA, on the contingency of an area not 

making reasonable further progress 

toward attainment of the 1-hour 

NAAQS, or for failure to attain that 

NAAQS; and (4) certain conformity 

requirements for certain types of Federal 

actions. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld 

EPA’s authority to revoke the 1-hour 

standard provided that there were 

adequate anti-backsliding provisions in 

place. 

This section sets forth EPA’s views on 

the potential effect of the Court’s ruling 

on this redesignation action. For the 

reasons described throughout this notice 

of proposed rulemaking, EPA does not 

believe that the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

ruling alters any requirements relevant 

to the redesignation of the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area so as to preclude 

redesignation, and does not prevent 

EPA from proposing to finalize, or 

finalizing, the Louisville redesignation. 

EPA believes that the Court’s decision, 

as it currently stands or as it may be 

modified based upon the petitions for 

rehearing that have been filed, imposes 

no impediment to moving forward with 

redesignation of the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area to attainment, because 

redesignation is appropriate under the 

relevant redesignation provisions of the 

CAA and longstanding policies 

regarding redesignation requests. 

The Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area 

was originally designated as moderate 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard in November 6, 1991 (56 FR 

56694). The Area was redesignated as 

attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard on October 23, 2001 (66 FR 

53665). On April 30, 2004, EPA 

designated the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area as a ‘‘basic’’ 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. (69 FR 

23857). 

The D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in 

2006 also addressed the 8-hour ozone 

classification scheme. The Court 

rejected EPA’s reasons for classifying 

areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour 

standard, and remanded that matter to 

the Agency. Consequently, it is possible 

that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville 

area could, as a result of the remand to 

EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2. 

Although any future decision by EPA to 

classify this area under subpart 2 might 

trigger additional future requirements 

for the area, this does not mean that 

redesignation cannot go forward now. 

EPA’s position is based upon: (1) EPA’s 

longstanding policy of evaluating 

requirements in accordance with the 

requirements due at the time that the 

request is submitted; and (2) 

consideration of the inequity of 

retroactively applying any requirements 

that might be applied in the future. 

In September 2006, when Kentucky 

submitted its final redesignation 

request, the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area was classified under 

subpart 1 of the CAA, and was obligated 

to meet only the subpart 1 requirements. 

Under EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, 

States requesting redesignation to 

attainment must meet only the relevant 

SIP requirements that came due prior to 

the submittal of a complete 

redesignation request. See, ‘‘Procedures 

for Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992; see also, Michael 

Shapiro Memorandum, ‘‘SIP 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide NAAQS On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; and 60 

FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 

1995)(redesignation of Detroit-Ann 

Arbor). See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld 

this interpretation. See also, 68 FR 

25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri). 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to 

retroactively apply any new SIP 

requirements that were not applicable at 

the time the request was submitted. The 

D.C. Circuit Court recognized the 

general inequity in retroactive 

rulemakings in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 

285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which 

the D.C. Circuit Court upheld a district 

court’s refusal to make retroactive an 

EPA determination of nonattainment 

that was past the statutory due date. 

Such a determination would have 

resulted in the imposition of additional 

requirements on the area. In Sierra Club, 

the D.C. Circuit Court stated, 

‘‘[a]lthough EPA failed to make the 

nonattainment determination within the 

statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s 

proposed solution only makes the 

situation worse. Retroactive relief would 

likely impose large costs on the States, 

which would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans in 1997, even though they were 

not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. 

Similarly, with regard to Kentucky’s 

redesignation request, it would be unfair 

to penalize Kentucky by retroactively 

applying to it for purposes of 

redesignation, additional SIP 

requirements under subpart 2 that were 

not in effect at the time it submitted its 

redesignation request, and that are not 

currently in effect, but that might be in 

effect as a result of the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s remand. 

With respect to the requirements 

under the 1-hour standard ozone 

standard, the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area was originally 

designated as moderate nonattainment 

for the 1-hour ozone standard in 

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). The 

Area was redesignated as attainment for 

the 1-hour ozone standard on October 

23, 2001 (66 FR 53665). Therefore, the 

Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area was 

designated to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard prior to its 

nonattainment designation for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. As a result, it is 

considered to be a 1-hour attainment 

area subject to a CAA section 175A 

maintenance plan for the 1-hour 

standard. The D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling 

does not impact redesignation requests 

for these types of areas for two main 

reasons. 

First, there are no conformity 

requirements relevant for the Louisville 

redesignation request, such as a 

transportation conformity SIP.1 It is 

EPA’s longstanding policy position that 

it is reasonable to interpret the 

conformity SIP requirements as not 

applying for purposes of evaluating a 

redesignation request under section 

107(d) because State conformity rules 

are still required after redesignation, 

and Federal conformity rules apply 

where State rules have not been 

approved. See, 40 CFR 51.390; see also, 

Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 

2001) (upholding EPA’s interpretation). 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20969 

See also, 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Tampa, Florida). 

Second, with regard to the three other 

anti-backsliding provisions for the 1- 

hour standard that the D.C. Circuit 

Court found were not properly retained, 

the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area is 

an attainment area subject to a 

maintenance plan for the 1-hour 

standard, and the NSR, contingency 

measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) 

or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision 

requirements no longer apply to this 

area because it was redesignated to 

attainment of the 1-hour standard. As a 

result, the decision in SCAQMD should 

not alter any requirements that would 

preclude EPA from finalizing the 

redesignation of Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

As noted earlier, in 2005, the ambient 

ozone data for the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area indicated no further 

violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

using data from the 3-year period of 

2003–2005 to demonstrate attainment. 

As a result, on September 29, 2006, 

Kentucky requested redesignation of the 

Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The redesignation request 

included three years of complete, 

quality-assured ambient air quality data 

for the ozone seasons (March 1st until 

October 31st) of 2003–2005, indicating 

that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been 

achieved for the entire Bi-State 

Louisville area. Under the CAA, 

nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment if sufficient, 

complete, quality-assured data is 

available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

III. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation providing that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable 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 SIP 

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 

175A; and, (5) the State containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D of the CAA. 

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 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Design Value Calculations,’’

Memorandum from Bill Laxton, 

Director, Technical Support Division, 

June 18, 1990; 

2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for 

Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’

Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, April 30, 1992; 

3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from G. 

T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992; 

4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’); 

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSD’s) for Redesignation of Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ Memorandum from G. T. Helms, 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 

7. ‘‘ 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,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; 

8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 

and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, November 30, 

1993; 

9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part 

D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These 

Actions? 

On September 29, 2006, Kentucky 

requested redesignation of the Kentucky 

Bi-State Louisville Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA’s evaluation 

indicates that Kentucky has 

demonstrated that the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone standard and has met the 

requirements for redesignation set forth 

in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA 

is also notifying the public of its review 

of the adequacy of the proposed regional 

MVEBs, which is relevant to the 

requested redesignation. 

V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed 

Actions? 

EPA’s proposed actions establish the 

basis upon which EPA may take final 

action on the three issues being 

proposed for approval today. Approval 

of Kentucky’s redesignation request 

would change the official designation of 

Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties 

in Kentucky for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. 

Approval of Kentucky’s request would 

also incorporate into the Kentucky SIP, 

a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area through 2020. The 

maintenance plan includes contingency 

measures to remedy future violations of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

maintenance plan also establishes 

regional MVEBs of 40.97 tons per day 

(tpd) for VOC and 95.51 tpd for NOX for 

the year 2003, and MVEBs of 22.92 tpd 

for VOC and 29.46 tpd for NOX for the 

year 2020. Approval of Kentucky’s 

maintenance plan would also result in 

approval of the regional MVEBs. 

Additionally, EPA is notifying the 

public that it is reviewing the adequacy 

of the proposed regional MVEBs 

pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Request? 

EPA is proposing to make the 

determination that the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area has attained the 8- 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
20970 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

hour ozone NAAQS, and that all other 

redesignation criteria have been met. 

The basis for EPA’s determination is 

discussed in greater detail below. 

(1) The Kentucky Bi-State Louisville 

Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area 

has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

For ozone, an area may be considered to 

be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if 

there are no violations, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 

Appendix I of part 50, based on three 

complete, consecutive calendar years of 

quality-assured air quality monitoring 

data. To attain this standard, the 3-year 

average of the fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each 

monitor within an area over each year 

must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the 

rounding convention described in 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard 

is attained if the design value is 0.084 

ppm or below. The data must be 

collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS). The monitors generally should 

have remained at the same location for 

the duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data 

from ambient ozone monitoring stations 

in the bi-State Louisville area for the 

ozone season from 2003–2005. This data 

has been quality assured and is recorded 

in AQS. The fourth high averages for 

2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year 

average of these values (i.e., design 

value), are summarized in Table 1 

below. 

TABLE 1.—ANNUAL 4TH MAX HIGH AND DESIGN VALUE FOR 8-HOUR OZONE FOR BI-STATE LOUISVILLE AREA

[parts per million, ppm] 

Monitor County 2003 2004 2005 Design 

value 

Charleston, IN ................................................................. Clark ................................... 0.090 0.074 0.080 0.081 

New Albany, IN ............................................................... Floyd .................................. 0.086 0.071 0.080 0.079 

WLKY, KY ....................................................................... Jefferson ............................ 0.073 0.068 0.074 0.071 

Watson, KY ..................................................................... Jefferson ............................ 0.075 0.070 0.085 0.076 

Bates, KY ........................................................................ Jefferson ............................ 0.072 0.070 0.079 0.073 

Shepherdsville, KY .......................................................... Bullitt .................................. 0.072 0.068 0.080 0.073 

Buckner, KY .................................................................... Oldham ............................... 0.082 0.076 0.089 0.082 

As discussed above, the design value 

for an area is the highest design value 

recorded at any monitor in the area. 

Therefore, the design value for the 

Kentucky Louisville Bi-State Area is 

0.082 ppm, which meets the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Additionally, 

preliminary air quality data from the 

2006 monitoring season indicates that 

the Kentucky Louisville Bi-State Area is 

continuing to attain the 8-hour ozone 

standard. As is discussed in more detail 

below, KDAQ has indicated a 

commitment to continue monitoring in 

the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The 

data submitted by Kentucky provides an 

adequate demonstration that the 

Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

(2) Kentucky Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) for the Three 

Affected Counties and (5) Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA 

Below is a summary of how these two 

criteria were met. 

EPA has determined that Kentucky 

has met all applicable SIP requirements 

for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham 

Counties under section 110 of the CAA 

(general SIP requirements). EPA has also 

determined that the Kentucky SIP 

satisfies the criterion that it meets 

applicable SIP requirements under part 

D of title I of the CAA (requirements 

specific to subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas), in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, 

EPA has determined that the SIP is fully 

approved with respect to all applicable 

requirements in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these 

determinations, EPA ascertained which 

requirements are applicable to the Area 

and that if applicable, they are fully 

approved under section 110(k). SIPs 

must be fully approved only with 

respect to applicable requirements. 

a. Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham 

Counties in Kentucky Have Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA 

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

Memorandum (‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ September 4, 

1992) describes EPA’s interpretation of 

section 107(d)(3)(E). Consistent with 

this interpretation, to qualify for 

redesignation, States requesting 

redesignation to attainment must meet 

only the relevant CAA requirements that 

come due prior to the submittal of a 

complete redesignation request. See 

also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum 

(‘‘SIP Requirements for Areas 

Submitting Requests for Redesignation 

to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide NAAQS On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ September 17, 

1993), and 60 FR 12459, 12465–66 

(March 7, 1995) (redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan). 

Applicable requirements of the CAA 

that come due subsequent to the area’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not 

required as a prerequisite to 

redesignation. See, section 175A(c) of 

the CAA; Sierra Club, 375 F.3d 537 (7th 

Cir. 2004); see also, 68 FR 25424, 25427 

(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. 

Louis, Missouri). 

General SIP requirements. Section 

110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates 

the general requirements for a SIP, 

which include enforceable emissions 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, techniques, or provisions for the 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices necessary to collect 

data on ambient air quality, and 

programs to enforce the limitations. 

General SIP elements and requirements 

are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of 

title I, part A of the CAA. These 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, the following: submittal of a 

SIP that has been adopted by the State 

after reasonable public notice and 

hearing; provisions for establishment 

and operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)) and provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

(New Source Review (NSR) permit 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20971 

programs); provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and provisions for public and 

local agency participation in planning 

and emission control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs 

contain certain measures to prevent 

sources in a State from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another State. To implement this 

provision, EPA has required certain 

States to establish programs to address 

the transport of air pollutants (NOX SIP 

Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)). 

EPA has also found, generally, that 

States have not submitted SIPs under 

section 110(a)(1) to meet the interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are 

not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification in that State. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classifications are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. The 

transport SIP submittal requirements, 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a State regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area in the State. 

Thus, we do not believe that the CAA’s 

interstate transport requirements should 

be construed to be applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

In addition, EPA believes that the 

other section 110 elements not 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions and not linked with an 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The State will still be 

subject to these requirements after the 

area is redesignated. The section 110 

and part D requirements, which are 

linked with a particular area’s 

designation and classification, are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

approach is consistent with EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability (i.e., for 

redesignations) of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements, as well 

as with section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See, Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 

7, 1995). See also, the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 

50399, October 19, 2001). 

EPA believes that section 110 

elements not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. Any 

section 110 requirements that are linked 

to the part D requirements for 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas are not yet 

due, since, as explained below, no part 

D requirements for the 8-hour standard 

became due prior to submission of the 

redesignation request. Therefore, as 

discussed earlier, for purposes of 

redesignation, they are not considered 

applicable requirements. Nonetheless, 

EPA notes that it has previously 

approved provisions into the Kentucky 

SIP addressing section 110 elements 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (47 FR 

30059, July 12, 1982). EPA believes that 

the section 110 SIP approved for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS is also sufficient to 

meet the requirements under the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (as well as satisfying the 

issues raised by the D.C. Circuit Court 

in the SCAQMD case). 

Part D requirements. EPA has also 

determined that the Kentucky SIP meets 

applicable SIP requirements under part 

D of the CAA since no requirements 

became due prior to the submission of 

the area’s redesignation request. 

Sections 172–176 of the CAA, found in 

subpart 1 of part D, set forth the basic 

nonattainment requirements applicable 

to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 

of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part 

D, establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

nonattainment classification. Subpart 2 

is not applicable to the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area. 

Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP 

requirements. For purposes of 

evaluating Kentucky’s redesignation 

request, the applicable part D, subpart 1 

SIP requirements for all nonattainment 

areas are contained in sections 

172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough discussion of 

the requirements contained in section 

172 can be found in the General 

Preamble for Implementation of Title I 

(57 FR 13498). No requirements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under part D became due prior to the 

submission of the redesignation request, 

and therefore none are applicable to the 

area for purposes of redesignation. For 

example, the requirements for an 

attainment demonstration that meets the 

requirements of section 172(c)(1) are not 

yet applicable, nor are the requirements 

for Reasonably Achievable Control 

Technology (RACT) and Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) 

(section 172(c)(1)), reasonable further 

progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), or 

contingency measures (section 

172(c)(9)). 

In addition to the fact that no part D 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation became due prior to 

submission of the redesignation request, 

and therefore are not applicable, EPA 

believes it is reasonable to interpret the 

conformity and NSR requirements as 

not requiring approval prior to EPA 

final action approving the redesignation. 

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 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act 

(‘‘transportation conformity’’) as well as 

to all other Federally supported or 

funded projects (‘‘general conformity’’). 

State conformity revisions must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations relating to consultation, 

enforcement and enforceability that the 

CAA required the EPA to promulgate. 

EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) because 

State conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and Federal 

conformity rules apply where State 

rules have not been approved. See, Wall, 

265 F.3d 426 (upholding this 

interpretation). See also, 60 FR 62748 

(Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida). 

EPA has also determined that areas 

being redesignated need not comply 

with the requirement that a NSR 

program be approved prior to 

redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

standard without a part D NSR program 

in effect since PSD requirements will 

apply after redesignation. The rationale 

for this view is described in a 

Memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ Kentucky has 

demonstrated that the area will be able 

to maintain the standard without a part 

D NSR program in effect, and therefore, 

Kentucky need not have a fully 

approved part D NSR program prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

EPA most recently approved Kentucky’s 

NSR program (including a 

nonattainment NSR and PSD program) 

into the Kentucky SIP on July 11, 2006 

(71 FR 38990). Kentucky’s PSD program 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
20972 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

will become effective in the Kentucky 

Bi-State Louisville Area upon final 

redesignation to attainment. See, 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). Thus, the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area has satisfied all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation under section 110 and 

part D of the CAA. 

b. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

Kentucky SIP for Bullitt, Jefferson and 

Oldham Counties in Kentucky under 

section 110(k) of the CAA for all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA may rely on prior 

SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request, see Calcagni 

Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (6th Cir. 

1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426; plus any 

additional measures it may approve in 

conjunction with a redesignation action. 

See, 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003), and 

citations contained therein. Following 

the passage of the CAA of 1970 by the 

U.S. Congress, Kentucky adopted and 

submitted, and EPA has fully approved 

at various times, provisions addressing 

the various 1-hour ozone standard SIP 

elements applicable in the Bullitt, 

Jefferson and Oldham Counties in the 

Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area (66 

FR 53665, October 23, 2001). 

As indicated above, EPA believes that 

the section 110 elements not connected 

with nonattainment plan submissions 

and not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA also believes that 

since the part D requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation did not 

become due prior to submission of the 

redesignation request, they also are 

therefore not applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. 

(3) The Air Quality Improvement in the 

Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area Is Due 

to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

EPA believes that Kentucky has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the area is due 

to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

measures, and other State-adopted 

measures. EPA has determined that the 

implementation of the following 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

controls, that occurred from 2002–2005, 

have reduced local NOX and VOC 

emissions and brought the area into 

attainment: 

2002–2005 EMISSION REDUCTION

PROGRAMS

Highway Mobile Source Reductions 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs 

(FMVCP). 

Tier 2 Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards 

Heavy Duty Engine, Vehicle and Fuel 

Standards. 

Point Source Emissions Reductions. 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM). 

Maximum Available Control Technology 

(MACT). 

Area Source Reductions. 

Open burning regulations for former 1-hour 

ozone area. 

Additional Reductions 

NOX SIP Call Reductions 

Notably, no credit specific emission 

reduction is being claimed in the SIP for 

the NOX SIP call reductions although 

this program has resulted in measurable 

emissions reductions. 

Kentucky has demonstrated that the 

implementation of permanent and 

enforceable emissions controls have 

reduced local VOC and NOX emissions. 

Most of the reductions are attributable 

to Federal programs such as EPA’s Tier 

2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and 

other national clean fuel programs that 

began implementation in 2004. 

Additionally, Kentucky has indicated in 

its September 2006 SIP submittal that 

the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area 

has benefited from emissions reductions 

that have been achieved, and will 

continue to be achieved, through the 

implementation of the NOX SIP Call, 

beginning in 2002. Kentucky has further 

demonstrated that year-to-year 

meteorological changes and trends are 

not the likely source of the overall, longterm improvements in ozone levels. In 

addition, the following non-highway 

mobile source reduction programs were 

implemented during the 2002–2004 

period: small spark-ignition engines, 

large-spark ignition engines, 

locomotives and land-base diesel 

engines. EPA believes that permanent 

and enforceable emissions reductions, 

in and surrounding the nonattainment 

area, are the cause of long-term 

improvements in ozone levels, and are 

the cause of the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area achieving attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone standard. 

(4) The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA 

In its request to redesignate Bullitt, 

Jefferson and Oldham Counties in 

Kentucky to attainment, KDAQ 

submitted a SIP revision to provide for 

the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area for at least 10 years after 

the effective date of redesignation to 

attainment. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, Kentucky must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future 8-hour ozone violations. 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the 

elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. The 

Calcagni Memorandum provides 

additional guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The Calcagni 

Memorandum explains that an ozone 

maintenance plan should address five 

requirements: The attainment emissions 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring, verification of continued 

attainment, and a contingency plan. As 

is discussed more fully below, 

Kentucky’s maintenance plan includes 

all the necessary components and is 

approvable as part of the redesignation 

request. 

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

In coordination with Indiana, 

Kentucky selected 2003 as ‘‘the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20973 

attainment year’’ for the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area for the purposes of 

demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This attainment 

inventory identifies the level of 

emissions in the area which is necessary 

to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. The 

2003 VOC and NOX emissions (as well 

as the emissions for other years) for 

Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties 

in Kentucky were developed consistent 

with EPA guidance, and are 

summarized in the table in the 

following subsection. 

c. Maintenance Demonstration 

The September 29, 2006, SIP 

submittal includes a maintenance plan 

for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville 

Area. This demonstration: 

(i) Shows compliance with and 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard by assuring that current and 

future emissions of VOC and NOX will 

remain at or below attainment year 2003 

emissions levels. The year 2003 was 

chosen as the attainment year because it 

is one of the most recent three years 

(i.e., 2003, 2004, and 2005) for which 

the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area 

has clean air quality data for the 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

(ii) Uses 2003 as the attainment year 

and includes actual emissions for 2003 

and 2005, and future emission inventory 

projections for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 

and 2020. 

(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year’’ at least 10 

years after the time necessary for EPA to 

review and approve the maintenance 

plan. In accordance with 40 CFR part 

93, regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs 

were established for the last year of the 

maintenance plan (in addition to 2003). 

(iv) Provides the following actual and 

projected emissions inventories for the 

Kentucky portion of the bi-State 

Louisville nonattainment area. See, 

Tables 2 and 3. For informational 

purposes, a summary of the actual and 

projected emissions inventories for the 

entire bi-State area are also provided. 

See, Tables 4 and 5. 

TABLE 2.—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED VOC EMISSIONS FOR BULLITT, JEFFERSON AND OLDHAM COUNTIES

[Tons per day] 

Categories 2003 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 

Point 

Bullitt ................................................................................................................ 8.10 8.21 8.39 8.58 8.77 8.95 9.16 

Jefferson .......................................................................................................... 23.63 23.62 23.55 23.33 23.15 22.96 22.74 

Oldham ............................................................................................................. 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.81 

Point Subtotal ........................................................................................... 32.45 32.56 32.69 32.67 32.70 32.70 32.71 

Area 

Bullitt ................................................................................................................ 3.34 3.43 3.60 3.75 3.92 4.09 4.26 

Jefferson .......................................................................................................... 17.33 17.41 17.51 17.59 17.67 17.76 17.85 

Oldham ............................................................................................................. 2.46 2.55 2.70 2.82 3.01 3.16 3.32 

Area Subtotal ............................................................................................ 23.13 23.39 23.81 24.16 24.60 25.01 25.43 

Mobile* 

Bullitt ................................................................................................................ 3.74 3.43 2.87 2.52 2.30 2.18 2.05 

Jefferson .......................................................................................................... 25.34 23.04 19.22 15.49 12.24 10.52 9.52 

Oldham ............................................................................................................. 2.29 2.16 1.79 1.56 1.45 1.40 1.34 

Mobile Subtotal ......................................................................................... 31.37 28.63 23.88 19.57 15.99 14.10 12.91 

Nonroad 

Bullitt ................................................................................................................ 1.77 1.91 1.91 1.82 1.69 1.49 1.36 

Jefferson .......................................................................................................... 14.31 13.14 11.50 10.62 10.41 10.45 10.64 

Oldham ............................................................................................................. 1.54 1.38 1.18 1.08 1.06 1.06 1.08 

Nonroad Total ........................................................................................... 17.62 16.43 14.59 13.52 13.16 13.00 13.08 

Total ................................................................................................... 104.57 101.01 94.97 89.92 86.45 84.81 84.13 

TABLE 3.—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED NOX EMISSIONS FOR BULLITT, JEFFERSON AND OLDHAM COUNTIES

[Tons per day] 

Categories 2003 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 

Point 

Bullitt ................................................................................................................ 0.60 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.72 

Jefferson .......................................................................................................... 74.48 53.95 53.63 50.91 51.76 51.24 46.49 

Oldham ............................................................................................................. 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 

Point Subtotal ........................................................................................... 75.47 54.65 54.36 51.66 52.54 52.05 47.31 

Area 

Bullitt ................................................................................................................ 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 

Jefferson .......................................................................................................... 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 

Oldham ............................................................................................................. 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 

Area Subtotal ............................................................................................ 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.99 

Mobile* 

Bullitt ................................................................................................................ 7.52 7.23 5.99 4.83 3.84 3.17 2.73 

Jefferson .......................................................................................................... 63.29 54.96 41.55 29.62 19.76 13.87 11.02 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
20974 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3.—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED NOX EMISSIONS FOR BULLITT, JEFFERSON AND OLDHAM COUNTIES—Continued 

[Tons per day] 

Categories 2003 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 

Oldham ............................................................................................................. 4.43 4.36 3.58 2.88 2.34 1.96 1.72 

Mobile Subtotal ......................................................................................... 75.24 66.55 51.12 37.33 25.94 19.00 15.47 

Nonroad 

Bullitt ................................................................................................................ 1.81 1.78 1.70 1.60 1.47 1.35 1.27 

Jefferson .......................................................................................................... 31.94 31.11 29.36 27.37 25.26 23.44 22.17 

Oldham ............................................................................................................. 1.63 1.59 1.49 1.37 1.22 1.07 0.95 

Nonroad Total ........................................................................................... 35.38 34.48 32.55 30.34 27.95 25.86 24.39 

Total ................................................................................................... 187.02 156.62 138.98 120.29 107.41 97.89 88.16 

TABLE 4.—ATTAINMENT YEAR AND

END-YEAR VOC EMISSIONS FOR BISTATE LOUISVILLE 8-HOUR OZONE

AREA

[Tons per day] * 

2003 2020 

Kentucky ........... 104.57 84.13 

Indiana .............. 29.26 ** 27.91 

Total ........... 133.83 112.04 

Safety Margin ... n/a 21.79 

* Emissions inventories, as provided by Kentucky, for this table and Table 2 may be slightly different due to rounding conventions. 

** This total reflects the VOC emissions for 

Indiana as submitted in the Indiana SIP and is 

an update to the total of 27.65 as provided in 

the Kentucky submittal. 

TABLE 5.—ATTAINMENT YEAR AND

END-YEAR NOX EMISSIONS FOR BISTATE LOUISVILLE 8-HOUR OZONE

AREA

[Tons per day] * 

2003 2020 

Kentucky ........... 187.02 88.16 

Indiana .............. 51.77 ** 38.10 

Total ........... 238.79 126.26 

Safety Margin ... n/a 112.53 

* Emissions inventories, as provided by Kentucky, for this table and Table 3 may be slightly different due to rounding conventions. 

** This total reflects the NOX emissions for 

Indiana as submitted in the Indiana SIP and is 

an update to the total of 38.11 as provided in 

the Kentucky submittal. 

A safety margin is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance area. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

Kentucky and Indiana have collectively 

decided to allocate a portion of the 

available safety margin to the regional 

2020 MVEBs for VOC and NOX. This 

allocation and the remaining available 

safety margin for this bi-State area are 

discussed further in section VII of this 

rulemaking. 

d. Monitoring Network 

There are currently seven monitors 

measuring ozone in the entire bi-State 

Louisville 8-hour ozone area—two in 

Indiana and five in Kentucky. KDAQ 

has committed in the maintenance plan 

to continue operation of the Kentucky 

monitors in compliance with 40 CFR 

part 58, and has addressed the 

requirement for monitoring. Indiana has 

provided a similar commitment for the 

monitors in Clark and Floyd Counties. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Kentucky has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the 

requirements of the ozone maintenance 

plan for the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area. This includes the 

authority to adopt, implement and 

enforce any subsequent emissions 

control contingency measures 

determined to be necessary to correct 

future ozone attainment problems. 

Kentucky will track the progress of 

the maintenance plan by performing 

future reviews of actual emissions for 

the area using the latest emissions 

factors, models and methodologies. For 

these periodic inventories Kentucky 

will review the assumptions made for 

the purpose of the maintenance 

demonstration concerning projected 

growth of activity levels. If any of these 

assumptions appear to have changed 

substantially, Kentucky will re-project 

emissions. Following the redesignation 

of the area, sources are prohibited from 

reducing emission controls already in 

place when attainment is achieved 

unless EPA approves a SIP revision 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

Kentucky and EPA have instituted the 

following programs that will remain 

enforceable and are included as part of 

Kentucky’s September 2006 SIP 

submittal, to maintain air quality which 

meets the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

• All new major VOC or NOX sources 

locating in Kentucky shall, as a 

minimum, apply control procedures 

that are reasonable, available, and 

practical; 

• All major modifications to existing 

major VOC or NOX sources are subject 

to RACT requirements as well as the 

best available control technology 

(BACT) requirement of the KDAQ and 

Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control 

District (LMAPCD) PSD regulations; 

• All new affected facilities with the 

potential to emit more than 5 tons per 

year of VOC are required to comply with 

the Jefferson County Air Pollution 

Control Commission Regulation Number 

7 regarding emissions of VOCs; 

• Continuation of the rule 

effectiveness programs to enhance 

inspection of stationary sources to 

ensure emission control equipment is 

functioning properly and compliance is 

maintained (Jefferson County); 

• Stage I vapor recovery in former 1- 

hour maintenance portions of Bullitt 

and Oldham counties; 

• Stage II vapor recovery (Jefferson 

County); 

• Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Standards; 

• Louisville Metro Air Pollution 

Control District (LMAPCD) Amended 

Board Order with the Kosmos Cement 

Company to comply with an allowed 

emission rate for the cement kiln that is 

more stringent than the previous 

Kentucky SIP NOX RACT limit; 

• Reformulated Gasoline Phase II in 

effect in Jefferson County and the former 

1-Hour Maintenance portions of Bullitt 

and Oldham counties since January 1, 

2000; 

• Transportation conformity 

requirements; 

• PSD requirements; 

• Federal controls on certain nonroad 

engines (e.g. diesel and other Federal 

requirements, industrial diesel 

equipment, locomotives) after 2000; 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20975 

2 Generally, states are preempted from adopting 

fuel controls pursuant to section 211(c)(4)(A) of the 

CAA unless EPA grants a fuel waiver in accordance 

with section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA. Specifically, 

section 211(c)(4)(A) of the CAA states that: ‘‘Except 

as otherwise provided in [the CAA], no State (or 

political subdivision thereof) may prescribe or 

attempt to enforce, for purposes of motor vehicle 

emission control, any control or prohibition 

respecting any characteristic or component of a fuel 

or fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

engine * * * ’’ Thus, any SIP-approved fuel 

program can only be approved if a section 

211(c)(4)(C) waiver is granted. 

• Federal controls on the VOC 

content for architectural and 

maintenance paints, auto body shops 

and consumer products; 

• The Kentucky open burning rule to 

further limit types of burning in the 

former 1-hour Maintenance portions of 

Bullitt and Oldham Counties. 

In addition to these measures, 

Kentucky explains in its submittal that 

further reductions will be achieved 

through the continued implementation 

of new Federal regulations to further 

control the emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants that are VOCs (40 CFR part 

63—NESHAPS). 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions of 

the maintenance plan are designed to 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation 

to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that a 

State will promptly correct a violation 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation, and a time limit for 

action by the State. A State should also 

identify specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be implemented. The 

maintenance plan must include a 

requirement that a State will implement 

all measures with respect to control of 

the pollutant that were contained in the 

SIP before redesignation of the area to 

attainment in accordance with section 

175A(d). This requirement is met 

because all SIP measures are retained 

for maintenance. Kentucky’s submittal 

satisfies all the contingency plan 

requirements described in section 175A 

of the CAA. 

In its September 29, 2006, SIP 

submittal, Kentucky affirms that a 

combination of all programs already 

instituted by Kentucky and EPA have 

resulted in cleaner air in the Kentucky 

Bi-State Louisville Area and the 

anticipated future benefits from these 

programs are expected to result in 

continued maintenance of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in this area. Sources are 

prohibited from terminating emissions 

controls following the redesignation of 

the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area 

unless EPA approves a SIP revision 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

The contingency plan includes tracking 

and triggering mechanisms to determine 

when contingency measures are needed 

and a process of developing and 

adopting appropriate control measures. 

The triggers of the contingency plan are 

(1) If a measured design value of the 

fourth highest maximum at any monitor 

within the maintenance area in a single 

ozone season is .087 ppm or greater, or 

(2) if periodic emission inventory 

updates reveal excessive or 

unanticipated growth greater than 10 

percent in ozone precursor emissions. If 

either of these two triggers are met, 

Kentucky will evaluate existing control 

measures to determine if any further 

emission reduction measures should be 

implemented at that time. If there is a 

measured violation of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area, Kentucky, or as 

appropriate, LMAPCD, commits to 

consider for adoption one or more of the 

following measures within nine months. 

All regulatory programs adopted will be 

implemented within 18 months from a 

measured violation. 

• A program to require additional 

emission reductions on stationary 

sources; 

• A program to enhance inspection of 

stationary sources to ensure emission 

control equipment is functioning 

properly; 

• Fuel programs 2 including 

incentives for alternative fuels; 

• Restriction of certain roads or lanes 

to, or construction of such roads or 

lanes for use by, passenger buses or high 

occupancy vehicles; 

• Trip-reduction ordinances; 

• Employer-based transportation 

management plans, including 

incentives; 

• Programs to limit or restrict vehicle 

use in downtown areas, or other areas 

of emission concentration particularly 

during periods of peak use; 

• Programs for new construction and 

major reconstructions of paths or tracks 

for use by pedestrians or by nonmotorized vehicles when economically 

feasible and in the public interest; and 

• LMAPCD vehicle inspection/ 

maintenance (I/M) program. 

The following milestones are 

applicable to all contingency measures 

and are calculated from the date upon 

which Kentucky is notified of a 

violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS: 

• Proposal of draft regulations and 

promulgation of final regulations—3 

months; 

• Issuance of final specifications and 

procedures—3 months; 

• Issuance of final request for 

proposals (if applicable)—4 months; and 

• Licensing or certifications of 

stations and inspectors—17 months. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. The maintenance 

plan SIP revision submitted by 

Kentucky for Bullitt, Jefferson and 

Oldham Counties therefore meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA and is approvable. 

VII. What Are the Proposed Regional 

MVEBs for the Bi-State Louisville 8- 

Hour Ozone Area? 

Under the CAA, States are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone 

areas. These control strategy SIPs (e.g., 

reasonable further progress SIPs and 

attainment demonstration SIPs) and 

maintenance plans establish MVEBs for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, an 

MVEB is established for the last year of 

the maintenance plan. A State may 

adopt MVEBs for other years as well. 

Additionally, in coordination with 

cooperating States in a multi-State area, 

such States may adopt regional MVEBs 

that include another State. The MVEB is 

the portion of the total allowable 

emissions in the maintenance 

demonstration that is allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use and 

emissions. See, 40 CFR 93.101. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, transportation 

conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The 

preamble also describes how to 

establish the MVEB in the SIP and 

revise the MVEB. In addition to MVEBs 

for the last year of the maintenance 

plan, a State may adopt MVEBs for other 

years as well. 

Kentucky and Indiana developed 

regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs. 

Kentucky used the year 2020, the last 

year of its maintenance plan, and an 

additional year, 2003. Kentucky’s 

maintenance plan being proposed for 

approval today includes the regional 

MVEBs for NOX and VOCs developed 

jointly by Kentucky and Indiana. EPA is 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
20976 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

now proposing to approve the regional 

MVEBs. 

Kentucky’s September 29, 2006, SIP 

submittal included a maintenance plan 

with regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs 

for the entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour 

ozone area for the years 2003 and 2020. 

As part of its rulemaking process, 

Kentucky presented the regional MVEBs 

(for 2020) for public comment on the 

State level, however, the additional 

2003 year was not included in that 

public comment process. The 2003 

mobile emissions projections (the 

partial basis of the 2003 MVEBs) were, 

however, included in Kentucky’s June 7, 

2006, initial SIP submittal that was the 

subject of public comment. At that time, 

the public had an opportunity to 

comment on those projections. In its 

final submittal in September 2006, 

Kentucky included the 2003 MVEBs, 

and addressed the inclusion of the 2003 

MVEBs in a response to comments on 

its June 7, 2006, submittal. MVEBs are 

mandatory for the last year of most 

maintenance plans (2020 for this area), 

and optional for other years (such as 

2003 for this Area). 

Kentucky’s inclusion of 2003 MVEBs 

in its final submittal was made to 

provide consistency between the 

Kentucky and Indiana submittals for the 

regional MVEBs years provided for this 

entire bi-State area. Indiana included 

the 2003 MVEBs in its request for 

redesignation of the 8-hour ozone 

standard and its maintenance plan SIP 

revision. The interstate-Louisville 

transportation and air quality partners 

were consulted on the development of 

the MVEBs for 2003 and 2020, and are 

in agreement with the establishment of 

MVEBs for 2003 and 2020 for the entire 

bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area. In 

the present circumstance, EPA believes 

that the public had adequate notice and 

opportunity to comment on Kentucky’s 

use of the years 2003 and 2020 for the 

regional MVEBs. The regional MVEBs 

for the entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour 

ozone area are defined in the table 

below. 

TABLE 6.—LOUISVILLE KY-IN 8-HOUR

OZONE REGIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSIONS BUDGETS

[Tons per day] 

2003 2020 

VOC .................. 40.97 22.92 

NOX .................. 95.51 29.46 

Kentucky and Indiana have jointly 

chosen to allocate a portion of the 

available safety margin to the 2020 

MVEBs. This allocation is 6.03 tpd for 

VOC and 9.84 tpd for NOX. The 2020 

regional MVEBs are derived as follows 

for VOC: (16.89 tpd for total mobile 

emissions) + (6.03 tpd from available 

safety margin) = 22.92 tpd; and for NOX: 

(19.62 tpd for total mobile emissions) + 

(9.84 tpd from available safety margin) 

= 29.46 tpd. Thus, the remaining safety 

margin for the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area is 15.76 tpd for VOC 

and 102.69 tpd for NOX. 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2003 and 2020 

regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs for 

the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area 

because EPA has determined that the 

Area maintains the 8-hour ozone 

standard with emissions at the levels of 

the budgets. Once the new MVEBs are 

approved or found adequate (whichever 

is done first), they must be used for 

future transportation conformity 

determinations. As is discussed in 

greater detail below, EPA is also 

notifying the public of EPA’s review of 

the adequacy of the proposed 2003 and 

2020 MVEBs for the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2). 

VIII. What Is the Status of EPA’s 

Adequacy Determination for the MVEBs 

for the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone 

Area? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) 

the part of the State’s air quality plan 

that addresses pollution from cars and 

trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means 

that transportation activities will not 

cause new air quality violations, worsen 

existing violations, or delay timely 

attainment of the NAAQS. If a 

transportation plan does not ‘‘conform,’’

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

transportation activities to a SIP. The 

regional emissions analysis is one, but 

not the only, requirement for 

implementing transportation 

conformity. Transportation conformity 

is a requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Maintenance areas 

are areas that were previously 

nonattainment for a particular NAAQS 

but have since been redesignated to 

attainment with a maintenance plan for 

that NAAQS. 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEBs, EPA can make the 

MVEBs available for use for 

transportation conformity finding these 

MVEBs ‘‘adequate’’ for use in 

determining transportation conformity 

through EPA’s Adequacy Process. Once 

EPA affirmatively finds the submitted 

MVEB is adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, that MVEB can be 

used by State and Federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects ‘‘conform’’ to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of an MVEB 

are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e). In 

accordance with the adequacy 

evaluation process outlined in 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2), EPA has the option of using 

a proposed rule to notify the public that 

EPA is reviewing MVEBs for adequacy. 

Today, EPA is making such a 

notification that it is reviewing the 

regional MVEBs included as part of 

Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan, for adequacy. The public has 30 

days in which to comment on the 

adequacy of the regional MVEBs. 

If EPA affirmatively finds the MVEBs 

adequate prior to approval of the 

maintenance plan and redesignation 

request, the applicable budgets for the 

purposes of conducting transportation 

conformity for the required regional 

emissions analysis years that involve 

the year 2020 or beyond, will be the 

2020 MVEBs for the bi-State Louisville 

area. For required analysis years prior to 

2020, the applicable budgets would be 

the 2003 MVEBs. The new regional 2003 

and 2020 MVEBs will be available on 

the effective the date of EPA’s adequacy 

finding, or the date of publication of the 

final rulemaking in which the MVEBs 

are approved into the SIP in the Federal 

Register, whichever is done first. 

IX. Proposed Actions on the 

Redesignation Request and the 

Maintenance Plan SIP Revision 

Including Proposed Approval of the 

2003 and 2020 MVEBs 

Today, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville 

Area has met the criteria for 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Further, EPA is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s redesignation 

request for the Kentucky Bi-State 

Louisville Area. After evaluating 

Kentucky’s SIP submittal requesting 

redesignation, EPA has determined that 

it meets the redesignation criteria set 

forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

EPA believes that the redesignation 

request and monitoring data 

demonstrate that the bi-State Louisville 

area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

September 29, 2006, SIP revision 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20977 

containing Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area. The maintenance 

plan includes regional MVEBs for 2003 

and 2020, among other requirements. 

Further, as part of today’s action, EPA 

is providing notice that it is reviewing 

the adequacy of the regional MVEBs in 

accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). 

Within 24 months from the effective 

date of EPA’s adequacy finding for the 

MVEBs, or the date of publication of the 

final rule for this action, whichever is 

done first, the transportation partners 

will need to demonstrate conformity to 

these new MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e) as effectively amended by new 

section 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added 

by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which 

was signed into law on August 10, 2005. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

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 new regulatory requirements on 

sources. Accordingly, the Administrator 

certifies that this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under State law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by State law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

affects the status of a geographical area, 

does not impose any new requirements 

on sources, or allow a State to avoid 

adopting or implementing other 

requirements and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant and because the Agency does 

not have reason to believe that the rule 

concerns an environmental health risk 

or safety risk that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

Commonwealth to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no 

authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use VCS. It 

would thus be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews 

a SIP submission, to use VCS in place 

of a SIP submission that otherwise 

satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 

Redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area but 

does not impose any new requirements 

on sources. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This proposed rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: April 18, 2007. 

J.I. Palmer, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E7–8114 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 94 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0120; FRL–8306–6] 

RIN 2060–A026 

Change in Deadline for Rulemaking To 

Address the Control of Emissions 

From New Marine CompressionIgnition Engines at or Above 30 Liters 

per Cylinder 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: A January 2003 final rule 

established the first U.S. emission 

standards for new compression-ignition 

Category 3 marine engines, those with a 

displacement at or above 30 liters per 

cylinder displacement. It also 

established a deadline of April 27, 2007 

for EPA to promulgate a new tier of 

emission standards for these engines as 

determined appropriate under Clean Air 

Act (CAA) section 213(a). This 

rulemaking schedule was intended to 

allow EPA time to consider the state of 

technology that may permit deeper 

emission reductions and the status of 

international action for more stringent 

standards. Since 2003, we have 

continued to gain a greater 

understanding of the technical issues 

described in the final rule and to assess 

the continuing efforts of manufacturers 

to apply advanced emission control 

technologies to these very large engines, 

through ongoing discussions with 

various stakeholders. In addition, we 

have continued to work with and 

through the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) toward more 

stringent international emission 

standards that would apply to all new 

marine diesel engines on ships engaged 

in international transportation. IMO is 

an important forum for EPA to gather 

new information and data regarding 

emission control technologies, costs, 

and other information on Category 3 

engines and vessels. IMO is also 

important because the majority of ships 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS