33216 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the Code of Federal Regulations in other

than a reserved capacity for over ten

years. Even in these two specific

comment references, the ‘‘new

§ 91.205(g)(2)’’ has long since

disappeared from the Code of Federal

Regulations. Issues have likewise

disappeared, or evolved to find

relevance in today’s new technologies.

The passage of time, along with its

accompanying growth in technology,

has transformed once valid concerns

into obsolete issues. The remaining

issues addressed in the ANPRM that

have retained their relevance will be

encompassed within an NPRM currently

being drafted by FAA.

In that NPRM, the FAA will propose

to update not only 14 CFR part 91, but

also parts 1, 95, 97, 121, 129, and 135,

to allow for the use of the additional

capabilities and developing

technologies of navigation systems that

are other than ground-based. The use of

ground-based navigation systems often

results in less than optimal routes or

instrument procedures and an

inefficient use of airspace. The proposal,

under development in a separate action,

would allow for the use of Area

Navigation (RNAV) systems to provide

greater flexibility in defining routes,

instrument procedures, and airspace

design, along with an associated

increase in flight safety.

Reason for Withdrawal

A considerable amount of time has

elapsed since the ANPRM was

published. Issues set forth in the

ANPRM have been supersede by new

technology and the development of

operating concepts that are being

addressed in joint FAA/industry

working groups. The Flight Standards

Service of FAA is drafting in NPRM that

will update the terminology in 14 CFR

part 91 to address, among other things,

the issue of satellite-based navigation

systems.

Conclusion

The FAA has determined that this

regulatory course of action is no longer

necessary. Accordingly, Notice No. 90–

2, published at 55 FR 2206 on January

22, 1990, is withdrawn.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 24,

2001.

Nicholas Sabatini,

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 01–15607 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[KY–103–; KY–107–; KY–110–; KY–114–;

KY–115–; KY–122–9817(b); FRL–6999–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Kentucky; Approval of Revisions to

State Implementation Plan; Revised

Format for Materials Being

Incorporated by Reference for

Jefferson County, KY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the Jefferson County portion

of the Kentucky State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The revisions were

submitted to EPA on February 3, 1998;

September 22, 1998; February 11, 1999;

May 21, 1999; July 20, 1999; and

September 22, 2000 by the

Commonwealth of Kentucky through

the Kentucky Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet.

These submittals include miscellaneous

rule revisions and the recodification of

Jefferson County regulations.

EPA is also proposing to revise the

format of 40 CFR part 52 for materials

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Kentucky that are incorporated by

reference (IBR) into the Jefferson County

portion of the Kentucky SIP. The

regulations affected by this format

change have all been previously

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Kentucky pursuant to revisions to the

Jefferson County SIP and either

previously approved by EPA or

proposed for approval in this Federal

Register. This format revision will

primarily affect the ‘‘Identification of

plan’’ section of CFR part 52, as well as

the format of the SIP materials that will

be available for public inspection at the

Office of the Federal Register (OFR), the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center located in Waterside

Mall, Washington, D.C., and the

Regional Office. The sections of 40 CFR

part 52 pertaining to provisions

promulgated by EPA or State-submitted

materials that are not subject to IBR

remain unchanged.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received by July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

proposed action should be addressed to

Allison Humphris, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.

Copies of documents relative to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

Region 4 Air Planning Branch; 61

Forsyth Street, SW; Atlanta, Georgia

30303–8960

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural

Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet; Division for Air

Quality; 803 Schenkel Lane;

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601–1403

Air Pollution Control District of

Jefferson County; 850 Barrett Avenue;

Louisville, Kentucky 40204

The interested persons wanting to

examine these documents should make

an appointment with the appropriate

office at least 24 hours before the

visiting day and reference files KY–103,

KY–107, KY–110, KY–114, KY–115,

KY–122. The Region 4 office may have

additional background documents not

available at the other locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison Humphris, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960, 404/562–

9030, (humphris.allison@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

supplemental information is organized

in the following order.

I. Rule Revisions Being Proposed for

Approval By EPA in This Action.

A. February 3, 1998 and September 22,

1998 Submittals

B. February 11, 1999 Submittal

C. May 21, 1999 Submittal

D. July 20, 1999 Submittal

E. September 22, 2000 Submittal

II. Revised IBR Format Being Proposed for

Approval By EPA in This Action.

A. Background

B. Content of Revised IBR Document

C. Revised Format of the ‘‘Identification of

plan’’ Sections in Each Subpart

D. Enforceability and Legal Effect

III. Administrative Requirements

I. Rule Revisions Being Proposed for

Approval By EPA in This Action

The Commonwealth of Kentucky,

through the Kentucky Natural Resources

and Environmental Protection Cabinet,

submitted to EPA revisions to the

Jefferson County portion of the SIP on

February 3, 1998, September 22, 1998,

February 11, 1999, May 21, 1999, July

20, 1999 and September 22, 2000. The

revisions include updates and

modifications of the Jefferson County

regulations. The recodification

renumbers Jefferson County rule

sections to make the SIP less complex

and corrects typographical errors,

capitalization, spelling, and

punctuation.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33217

A. February 3, 1998 and September 22,

1998 Submittals

On February 3, 1998 and September

22, 1999, the Commonwealth of

Kentucky submitted revisions to the

Jefferson County portion of the

Kentucky SIP. EPA is proposing to

approve the following changes to the

rules listed below which also include a

recodification of the rules.

Regulation 1.02 Definitions—This

revision adds definitions of the terms:

‘‘Act;’’ ‘‘Cabinet;’’ ‘‘Department;’’

‘‘Division;’’ ‘‘Federally enforceable

District origin operating permit;’’

‘‘Fugitive emissions;’’ ‘‘Generally

Achievable Control Technology;’’

‘‘Hazardous air pollutant;’’ ‘‘Maximum

Achievable Control Technology;’’

‘‘Potential Hazardous Emission;’’

‘‘Reasonable available control

technology;’’ ‘‘Toxic Air Pollutant.’’ The

revision amends the following

definitions ‘‘Major Source;’’ ‘‘Organic

Material;’and ‘‘Potential to emit.’’ The

revision also amends the definition of

‘‘Volatile organic compounds’’ to

include additional exempted organic

compounds to be consistent with the

federal definition. The revised

definition states that the following

organic compounds have been

determined to have negligible

photochemical reactivity: Methane;

ethane; methylene chloride

(dichloromethane); 1,1,1-trichloroethane

(methyl chloroform); 1,1,2-trichloro1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113);

trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11);

dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12);

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22);

trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 1,2-

dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC114); chloropentafluoroethane (CFC115); 1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-dichloroethane

(HCFC-123); 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane

(HFC-134a); 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane

(HCFC-141b); 1-chloro-1,1-

difluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-chloro1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124);

pentafluoroethane (HFC-125); 1,1,2,2-

tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 1,1,1-

trifluoroethane (HFC-143a); 1,1-

difluoroethane (HFC-152a);

parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF);

cyclic, branched, or linear completely

methylated siloxanes; acetone;

perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene);

3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-

pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca); 1,3-

dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane

(HCFC-225cb); 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-

decafluoropentane (HFC 43-10mee);

difluoromethane (HFC-32); ethylfluoride

(HFC-161); 1,1,1,3,3,3-

hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa);

1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane

(HFC-245ea); 1,1,1,2,3-

pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb);

1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC245fa); 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane

(HFC-236ea); 1,1,1,3,3-

pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc);

chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31); 1-

chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a); 1,2-

dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC123a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-

methoxy-butane (C4F9OCH3); 2-

(difluoromethoxymethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-

heptafluoropropane ((CF3)2CFCF2OCH3);

1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-

nonafluorobutane (C4F9OC2H5); 2-

(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-

heptafluoropropane

((CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5); and

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall

into these classes: (1) Cyclic, branched,

or linear, completely fluorinated

alkanes, (2) Cyclic, branched, or linear,

completely fluorinated ethers with no

unsaturations, (3) Cyclic, branched, or

linear, completely fluorinated tertiary

amines with no unsaturations, and (4)

Sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with

no unsaturations and with sulfur bonds

only to carbon and fluorine. The

revision also makes various word

structure changes to add clarity.

Regulation 1.04 Performance

Tests—This revision identifies the

appropriate citations for the federal

performance standards and test methods

that Jefferson County must satisfy which

include 40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR part 61,

40 CFR part 63, 40 CFR part 61,

appendix B, and 40 CFR part 63,

appendix A. The revision includes the

requirement for a facility to notify the

Air Pollution Control District of

Jefferson County (District) at least 25

working days prior to the projected

starting date and 10 working days prior

to the scheduled starting date for a

performance test. The revision also adds

language that allows the District to

waive the advance notice requirement if

certification of a continuous emission

monitoring system is needed, and grants

the District authority to waive the

following in the event of an emergency

or malfunction: notice of intent to test,

the pre-test survey and conference, and

the prior notice of the scheduled

starting date for the performance test.

The revision also makes various

sentence and word structure changes to

add clarity.

B. February 11, 1999 Submittal

On February 11, 1999, the

Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted

miscellaneous revisions to the Jefferson

County portion of the Kentucky SIP.

EPA is proposing to approve the

following changes to the rules listed

below which also include a

recodification of the rules.

Regulation 1.03 Abbreviations and

Acronyms—This revision makes various

revisions to distinguish between

abbreviations and acronyms.

Regulation 1.07 Emissions During

Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions and

Emergencies—This revision adds the

definition of ‘‘Emergency.’’ The District

regulation will not take precedence over

federal rule requirements, thus an

exceedance during startups, shutdowns,

malfunctions, or emergencies would be

a violation. The rule states that a

company must meet the revised

applicable reporting requirements

prescribed in this regulation to meet the

requirements of an affirmative defense.

If there is an exceedance episode and

the reporting requirements are met but

the federal regulation is violated,

compliance with the District regulation

can be used as an affirmative defense if

legal action is taken against the

company as a result of the violation.

Regulation 1.08 Administrative

Procedures—This revision establishes

the procedures for the adoption or

amendment of a regulation in order to

meet statutory requirements;

Regulation 1.09 Prohibition of Air

Pollution—This revision adds language

to strengthen the District’s regulatory

enforcement against harmful emission

discharges and nuisances of the criteria

pollutants that can potentially endanger

health and safety.

Regulation 1.11 Control of Open

Burning—This revision allows limited

open burning for debris removal

necessitated by acts of God and general

agricultural burning. It replaces

Regulations 6.06 Control of Open

Burning and Regulation 7.05 Control of

Open Burning.

Regulation 1.14 Control of Fugitive

Particulate Emissions—This revision

requires District approval of a fugitive

dust plan for unpaved roads and grants

the District authority to request a traffic

count on unpaved roads to determine if

preventative measures are necessary.

The revision adds the requirement that

a person planning to take part in open

burning activities must notify the

District in writing prior to operation and

shall not disturb more total surface area

than one acre of land in the aggregate

unless fugitive dust abatement and

preventative measures are implemented.

The revision also adds the requirement

for District notification of any

demolition, wrecking or moving of

structures and replaces Regulation 6.05

Control of Fugitive Particulate

Emissions and Regulation 7.04 Control

of Fugitive Particulate Emissions.

33218 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Regulation 2.02 Air Pollution

Regulation Requirements and

Exemptions—The amendments to this

regulation exempt specific emission

units from permit requirements which

comprise the insignificant list of the

Title V operating permit program.

Examples of the added exempted

emission units include, but are not

limited to: facilities using only peanut

oil, sunflower oil, cottenseed oil, or

canola oil; passive soil or ground water

contamination remediation projects;

indoor dust or particulate collectors;

cold solvent parts cleaners that are

equipped with a functional secondary

reservoir; portable diesel or gasoline

storage tanks with a maximum capacity

of less than 500 gallons; storage vessels

for VOCs with a maximum capacity of

250 gallons or less; diesel or fuel oil

storage tanks not used for distribution or

sale that have less than two times the

capacity of the vessel in annual fluid

turnoverall; pressurized VOC storage

vessels; and Research and Development

facilities. For a complete list of

exempted facilities refer to Regulation

2.02.

Regulation 2.06 Permit

Requirements—Other Sources—The

revision makes minor word structure

changes to add clarity.

Regulation 2.07 Public Notification

for Title V, PSD, and Offset Permits; SIP

Revisions; and Use of Emission

Reduction Credits—The amendments to

Regulation 2.07 establish the

requirements for the District to provide

public notice, opportunity for public

comment, review by EPA and affected

states, and a public hearing on Title V

permit actions and the issuance of

permits; and these revisions are

pursuant compliance of CAA section

502(b)(6) and 40 CFR 70.7–8.

Regulation 2.10 Stack Height

Considerations—The revision amends

the definitions of ‘‘Dispersion

technique,’’ ‘‘Excessive concentration,’’

‘‘Good engineering practice,’’ and

‘‘Stack in existence’’ to be consistent

with Federal definitions. The revision

also adds the definitions of ‘‘Emission

limitation or emission standard,’’

‘‘Nearby,’’ and ‘‘Stack.’’ The revision

amends the procedures for which stack

heights shall be considered in

determining compliance of an affected

source. The revision makes minor word

and sentence structure changes to add

clarity and consistency with EPA

definitions.

Regulation 3.04 Ambient Air Quality

Standards—This amendment

implements the 0.12 part per million

federal ozone standard in accordance

with 40 CFR part 50, appendix H. It also

revises Particulate Matter (PM) to define

PM10 for both primary and secondary

standards in accordance with 40 CFR

part 50, appendix K.

Regulation 4.07 Episode Reporting

Requirements—The revision makes

minor word structure changes to add

clarity.

Regulation 6.01 General

Provisions—The revisions establish the

general provisions for the application of

standards of performance for existing

affected facilities and the requirement

for performance tests according to

Regulation 1.04 Performance Tests.

Regulation 6.02 Emission

Monitoring for Existing Sources—This

revision adds ‘‘petroleum refinery’’ to

the list of source categories that are

subject to continuous emission

monitoring and removes ‘‘fluid bed

catalytic cracking unit catalyst

regenerators’’ because there are no

operating refineries with a fluid bed

catalytic cracking unit catalyst

regenerator in the District. This revision

also adds the requirement for additional

monitoring equipment for petroleum

refineries and makes minor sentence

and word structure changes to add

clarity.

Regulation 6.17 Standard of

Performance for Existing Automobile

and Truck Surface Coating

Operations—This revision adds the

definition of ‘‘Truck’’ to clarify the

meaning used in the regulation.

Regulation 7.25 Standard of

Performance for New Sources Using

Volatile Organic Compounds—This

revision amends the definitions of

‘‘Affected facility,’’ ‘‘Potential

emissions,’’ and ‘‘Volatile organic

compound.’’ The revision requires

affected facilities to be equipped with

and utilize best available control

technology (BACT) as determined at the

time of the District review of the

construction permit and makes minor

word and sentence structure changes to

add clarity.

This action proposes to remove the

Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards

(HAPS) listed below from the federallyapproved SIP because these regulations

were incorrectly approved into the SIP.

EPA enforces HAPS pursuant to 40 CFR

parts 61 and 63, therefore the rules

should not be included in the federallyapproved SIP.

Regulation 5.01 Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants—General

Provisions,

Regulation 5.02 Definitions,

Regulation 5.03 Potential Hazardous

Emissions,

Regulation 5.04 Emission Standards

for Asbestos,

Regulation 5.05 Emission Standard for

Beryllium,

Regulation 5.06 Emission Standard for

Mercury,

Regulation 5.07 Emission Standard for

Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing, and

Regulation 5.08 Emission Standards

for Vinyl Chloride.

Jefferson County requested EPA to

remove the following regulations.

Therefore, this action proposes to

remove these regulations from the

federally-approved SIP.

Regulation 2.08 Emission Fees,

Permit Fees, and Permit Renewal

Procedures—The regulation was

incorrectly approved into the SIP. EPA

has determined that the Agency does

not enforce the collection of emission

and permit fees, therefore the rule

should not have been approved into the

SIP.

Regulation 6.03 Control of

Nuisances—The regulation was

incorrectly approved into the SIP. EPA

has determined that the Agency does

not enforce the control of nuisances,

therefore the rule should not have been

approved into the SIP. The District has

moved the requirements of this

regulation to Regulation 1.12 Control of

Nuisances and subsequently, EPA is

proposing to remove Regulation 6.03

from the federally-approved SIP.

Regulation 1.12 is not included in the

federally-approved SIP because it is not

related to the District’s compliance with

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS).

Regulation 6.04 Control of

Objectionable Odors in the Ambient

Air—The regulation was incorrectly

approved into the SIP. EPA has

determined that the Agency does not

enforce the control of odors, therefore

the rule should not have been approved

into the SIP. The District has moved the

requirements of this regulation to

Regulation 1.13 Control of Objectionable

Odors in the Ambient Air and

subsequently, EPA is proposing to

remove Regulation 6.04 from the

federally-approved SIP. Regulation 1.13

is not included in the federallyapproved SIP because it is not related to

the District’s compliance with the

NAAQS.

Regulation 6.05 Control of Fugitive

Particulate Emissions—The District has

moved the requirements of this

regulation to Regulation 1.14 Control of

Fugitive Particulate Emissions and

subsequently, EPA is proposing to

remove this regulation from the

federally-approved SIP.

Regulation 6.06 Control of Open

Burning—The District has moved the

requirements of this regulation to

Regulation 1.11 Control of Open

Burning and subsequently, EPA is

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33219

proposing to remove Regulation 6.06

from the federally-approved SIP.

Regulation 6.23 Standard of

Performance for Existing Dry Cleaning

Facilities—The District has removed the

requirements of this regulation from the

SIP pursuant to the publication of a

Federal Register notice on February 7,

1996, (61 FR 4588) in which EPA adds

perchloroethylene, also known as

tetrachloroethylene, to the list of

compounds excluded from the

definition of VOC. The effective date of

this rule was March 6, 1996.

Perchloroethylene continues to be

regulated as a hazardous air pollutant

(HAP) under section 112 of the CAA.

Therefore EPA is proposing to remove

Regulation 6.23 from the federallyapproved SIP.

Regulation 7.04 Control of Fugitive

Particulate Emissions—The District has

moved the requirements of this

regulation to Regulation 1.14 Control of

Fugitive Particulate Emissions and

subsequently, EPA is proposing to

remove Regulation 7.04 from the

federally-approved SIP.

Regulation 7.05 Control of Open

Burning—The District has moved the

requirements of this regulation to

Regulation 1.11 Control of Open

Burning and subsequently, EPA is

proposing to remove Regulation 7.05

from the federally-approved SIP.

C. May 21, 1999 Submittal

On May 21, 1999, the Commonwealth

of Kentucky submitted the following

revisions to the Jefferson County portion

of the Kentucky SIP. EPA is proposing

to approve the following changes to the

rules listed below which also include a

recodification of the rules.

Regulation 1.01 General Application

of Regulations and Standards—This

revision makes various sentence and

word structure changes to add clarity.

Regulation 1.06 Source SelfMonitoring and Reporting—This

amendment requires a formal

certification by a prescribed

‘‘responsible official’’ of the required

reporting information submitted to the

District pursuant to this regulation and

makes various sentence and word

structure changes to add clarity.

Regulation 2.03 Permit

Requirements—Non-Title V

Construction and Operating Permits and

Demolition/Renovation Permits—This

revision adds the requirement for an

asbestos demolition or renovation

abatement project permit to be issued by

Jefferson County before a facility is

allowed to proceed with destruction.

This revision grants the District the

option of choosing whether or not to

hold a hearing and allows an aggrieved

person to request a hearing for a nonTitle V permit proposal (e.g.

construction of new equipment,

operation of facilities, and demolition

and renovation of asbestos containing

materials).

Regulation 6.09 Standards of

Performance for Existing Process

Operations—This revision adds the

definition ‘‘Reasonably Available

Control Technology.’’ The revision

rectifies the date gap between an

existing source (July 2, 1975) and a new

source (September 1, 1976). The

amendment also adds the opacity

standard and mass emission standard

and makes language simplifications and

technical corrections to add clarity.

Regulation 6.10 Standard of

Performance for Existing Process Gas

Streams—This amendment includes the

performance tests required to be used to

demonstrate compliance and the

requirement that performance tests shall

be conducted according to 40 CFR part

60 Reference Method 11 for hydrogen

sulfide and Reference Method 6 for

sulfur dioxide. The revision also makes

various sentence and word structure

changes to add clarity.

Regulation 6.14 Standard of

Performance for Selected Existing

Petroleum Refining Processes and

Equipment—This revision makes

various word structure changes to add

clarity.

Regulation 6.20 Standard of

Performance for Existing Bulk Gasoline

Plants—This amendment adds

mandatory provisions to permit loading

of a tank truck or trailer at bulk gasoline

plants in Jefferson County which

include the following: a vapor balance

system, a pressure tap, an emission

monitor during loading operations, and

a valid Kentucky pressure-vacuum test

sticker. The revision also makes various

word structure changes to add clarity.

Regulation 6.21 Standard of

Performance for Existing Gasoline

Loading Facilities at Bulk Terminals—

This amendment adds mandatory

provisions to permit loading of a tank

truck or trailer at bulk gasoline

terminals in Jefferson County which

include the following: a vapor balance

system, a pressure tap, an emission

monitor during loading operations, and

a valid Kentucky pressure-vacuum test

sticker. The revision adds test procedure

requirements as defined in EPA’s

documents ‘‘Control of Hydrocarbons

from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading

Terminals’’ and ‘‘Control of Volatile

Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline

Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection

Systems.’’ The revision also makes

various word structure changes to add

clarity.

Regulation 6.22 Standard of

Performance for Existing Volatile

Organic Materials Loading Facilities—

This revision makes various sentence

and word structure changes to add

clarity.

Regulation 6.24 Standard of

Performance for Existing Sources Using

Organic Materials—This revision makes

various sentence and word structure

changes to add clarity.

Regulation 6.31 Standard of

Performance for Existing Miscellaneous

Metal Parts and Products SurfaceCoating Operations—The amendments

to the rule replaces the 85 percent

efficiency requirement and bases the

new standard on mass of VOC per unit

volume of coating applied for various

coating types. The revision also adds the

definition ‘‘Extreme performance

coating’’ and the revision makes various

sentence and word structure changes to

add clarity.

Regulation 6.39 Standard of

Performance for Equipment Leaks of

Volatile Organic Compounds in Existing

Synthetic Organic Chemical and

Polymer Manufacturing Plants—This

revision adds the exemption of facilities

that are also subject to 40 CFR part 63,

subpart H to eliminate duplication of

requirements and makes various

sentence and word structure changes to

add clarity.

Regulation 6.42 Reasonably

Available Control Technology

Requirements for Major Volatile Organic

Compound-and Nitrogen OxidesEmitting Facilities—This revision adds

the requirement that District-approved

site-specific NOX RACT plans pursuant

to this regulation must be submitted to

EPA as a site-specific SIP revision. The

revision includes the reference to

pertinent District and federal

regulations intended to establish RACT

requirements for VOC emitting sources

and makes various sentence and word

structure changes to add clarity.

Regulation 6.44 Standards of

Performance for Existing Commercial

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment

Refinishing Operations—This revision

amends the definition of ‘‘Group I

vehicles and equipment’’ to include

camper shells, pick-up truck toppers,

and light and medium duty trailers that

require special color-matched coatings

and adds the definitions of ‘‘Large-sized

truck’’ and ‘‘Small-sized truck.’’ The

revision establishes the VOC content of

surface cleaners and the proper usage

and dispensing techniques. The

amendment revises the equipment

standards and operation requirements

for all coating operators that use more

than 25 gallons of coatings per year to

include proper ventilation of coating

33220 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

operation areas. The revision also makes

various sentence and word structure

changes to add clarity.

Regulation 6.46 Standards of

Performance for Existing Ferroalloy and

Calcium Carbide Production Facilities—

This revision adds a new regulation

which establishes the provisions for the

control of emissions from existing

ferroalloy and calcium carbide

production facilities.

Regulation 7.06 Standards of

Performance for New Indirect Heat

Exchangers—This revision makes

various sentence and word structure

changes to add clarity.

Regulation 7.07 Standard of

Performance for New Incinerators—This

amendment clarifies that this regulation

does not apply to any medical waste

incinerator, existing or new, as defined

in Jefferson County local Regulations

6.41 or 7.78 and any new municipal

solid waste incinerator as defined in

Regulation 7.76. The amendment

includes a provision that no owner or

operator of an affected facility up to 499

lbs/hr capacity shall cause any gases to

be discharged into the atmosphere

which contain particulate matter in

excess of 0.45 g/dscm (0.20 gr/dscf)

corrected to 12% carbon dioxide

excluding the contribution of carbon

dioxide from auxiliary fuel. The

revision also makes various sentence

and word structure changes to add

clarity.

Regulation 7.08 Standards of

Performance for New Process

Operations—This revision rectifies the

date gap between an existing source

(July 2, 1975) and a new source

(September 1, 1976) and makes language

simplifications and technical

corrections to add clarity.

Regulation 7.09 Standards of

Performance for New Process Gas

Streams—This revision amends the

standard for hydrogen sulfide to

prohibit the combustion of a process gas

stream containing hydrogen sulfide with

a concentration greater than 10 grains

per 100 dscf at zero percent excess

oxygen unless the resulting emission of

sulfur dioxide is less than 40 tons per

year and a modeling demonstration is

made showing attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS for sulfur

dioxide. The existing standard for

hydrogen sulfide is based on

preliminary inlet hydrogen sulfide

concentrations. This revision amends

the rule to base the standard on the

actual outlet emission concentration of

sulfur dioxide and maintaining

compliance. The revision also allows a

higher concentration of sulfur dioxide

emissions if the total sulfur dioxide

emission is less than 40 tons per year

and a modeling demonstration is made

that shows attainment and maintenance

of the sulfur dioxide NAAQS. The

revision also makes various sentence

and word structure changes to add

clarity.

Regulation 7.15 Standards of

Performance for Gasoline Transfer To

New Service Station Storage Tanks

(Stage I Vapor Recovery)—This revision

adds the definition of ‘‘Submerged fill

pipe’’ and amends the definition of

‘‘Affected facilities’’ to specify gasoline

storage tanks at service stations with a

capacity greater than 250 gallons each.

The revision includes additional

provisions to require a vapor return

hose connection between the tank of the

delivery truck and the storage tank

receiving the product and a one minute

time restriction to open the truck tank

hatch for visual inspection. It also

requires that all above ground lines

must be equipped with dry breaks to

prevent spillage and all other lines must

be gravity drained for no spillage and

adds the requirement for operation and

maintenance of applicable equipment

with no defects. The revision includes

the requirement that affected facilities

must obtain a construction or

reconstruction permit before

commencing a project and must notify

Jefferson County of the replacement,

addition, or change of any required

equipment except for the routine

replacement of gaskets. The revision

also makes various sentence and word

structure changes to add clarity.

Regulation 7.20 Standard of

Performance for New Gasoline Loading

Facilities at Bulk Plants—This

amendment includes mandatory

provisions to permit loading of a tank

truck or trailer at affected facilities in

Jefferson County which include the

following: a vapor balance system, a

pressure tap, an emission monitor

during loading operations, and a valid

Kentucky pressure-vacuum test sticker.

The revision also makes various word

structure changes to add clarity.

Regulation 7.22 Standard of

Performance for New Volatile Organic

Materials Loading Facilities—This

revision adds a new regulation which

provides for the control of emissions

from new volatile organic materials

loading facilities and applies to facilities

that load more than 200 gallons per day

of volatile organic materials. It

establishes the provisions for the control

of volatile organic materials. Gasoline

loading facilities are exempt from this

regulation but are subject to the

requirements of Regulation 6.21 and

Regulation 7.20.

Regulation 7.51 Standard of

Performance for New Liquid Waste

Incinerators—This revision adds the

definition ‘‘Halogenated liquid wastes’’

and establishes the VOC standard,

equipment standards and expands the

recordkeeping requirements to include

provisions for performance tests. The

amendment includes mandatory

provisions to permit loading of a tank

truck or trailer at bulk gasoline plants in

Jefferson County which include the

following: a vapor balance system, a

pressure tap, an emission monitor

during loading operations, and a valid

Kentucky pressure-vacuum test sticker.

The revision also makes various word

structure changes to add clarity.

Regulation 7.55 Standard of

Performance for New Insulation of

Magnet Wire—The revision makes

various sentence and word structure

changes to add clarity.

Regulation 7.59 Standard of

Performance for New Miscellaneous

Metal Parts and Products Surface

Coating Operations—This revision

amends and clarifies the VOC standards

for surface coating operations and adds

the definition of ‘‘Extreme performance

coating.’’ The revision also makes

various sentence and word structure

changes to add clarity.

Regulation 7.77 Standards of

Performance for New Blast Furnace

Casthouses—This revision adds a new

regulation that provides for the control

of emissions from new blast furnace

casthouses, establishes the standard for

particulate matter and references test

methods and procedures in 40 CFR part

60, appendix A to be used in

compliance with the standards.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky also

submitted amendments to Regulation

2.04 Construction or Modification of

Major Sources in or Impacting upon

Non-Attainment Areas (Emission Offset

Requirements) of the Jefferson County

portion of the Kentucky SIP. EPA is

proposing to partially approve this

revision of Regulation 2.04. The

regulation as revised establishes

applicability and requirements for the

construction of new stationary sources

and major modifications located within,

or impacting, areas designated as

nonattainment. The revision amends the

definition of ‘‘Major modification’’ to be

consistent with CAA and EPA

requirements, and adds the following

definitions to this regulation: ‘‘Major

stationary source,’’ ‘‘Net emission

increase,’’ ‘‘Potential to emit,’’

‘‘Stationary source,’’ ‘‘Building,

structure, facility or installation,’’

‘‘Emission unit,’’ ‘‘Construction,’’

‘‘Commence,’’ ‘‘Necessary

preconstruction approvals or permits,’’

‘‘Allowable emissions,’’ ‘‘Federally

enforceable,’’ ‘‘Secondary emissions,’’

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33221

‘‘Actual emissions,’’ ‘‘Fugitive

emissions,’’ ‘‘Significant,’’ ‘‘Lowest

Achievable Emission Rate,’’

‘‘Reasonable further progress,’’ ‘‘Begin

actual construction,’’ ‘‘Class I area,’’

‘‘Adverse impact on visibility,’’ ‘‘State

Implementation Plan,’’ ‘‘Mandatory

Class I federal area,’’ ‘‘Natural

conditions,’’ and ‘‘Visibility

impairment.’’ The revision establishes

procedures for the initial screening

analysis and determination of

applicable requirements. The revision

also establishes applicable requirements

for new major sources or major

modifications located in designated

attainment or unclassifiable areas that

may cause significant impact on the

area’s attainment of the NAAQS.

Finally, the revision establishes the

baseline for determining credit for

emission reductions or offsets. EPA has

determined that all of Regulation 2.04 as

amended is approvable with the

exception of subsection 3.2. The first

sentence in subsection 3.2 requires the

District to determine if a major

stationary source or major modification

is being constructed in a designated

non-attainment area. The second and

final sentence states that the

applicability of the requirement to

obtain offsets will be determined based

on the projected attainment status of the

area as of the new source start-up date.

EPA cannot approve subsection 3.2

because this final sentence conflicts

with existing EPA policy, which

requires that the applicability of the

offset requirement be based on the

actual attainment status of the area as of

the construction permit issuance date.

EPA is therefore proposing to take no

action on this subsection. Subsection

3.2 constitutes a completely separable

portion of Regulation 2.04, since

subsection 1.1 of this regulation

effectively requires a determination of

whether a source or major modification

is being constructed in a non-attainment

area for purposes of establishing

applicability. Thus, the omission of

subsection 3.2 does not affect the

completeness or approvability of

Regulation 2.04.

Jefferson County requested the

following regulations to be removed

from the SIP and supplemented the May

21, 1999, submittal with a negative

declaration to guarantee there are no

existing sources located in Jefferson

County that are subject to the following

rules. This action proposes to remove

the following regulations from the

federally-approved SIP.

Regulation 6.11 Standards of

Performance for Existing Iron and

Steel Plants,

Regulation 6.25 Standard of

Performance for Existing Sanitary

Landfills,

Regulation 7.10 Standards of

Performance for New Steel Plants

Using Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces,

Regulation 7.13 Standards of

Performance for New Petroleum

Refineries,

Regulation 7.16 Standard of

Performance for New Large Appliance

Surface Coating Operations,

Regulation 7.17 Standard of

Performance for New Automobile and

Light Duty Truck Surface Coating

Operations,

Regulation 7.19 Standard of

Performance for New Metal Furniture

Surface Coating Operations,

Regulation 7.21 Standards of

Performance for New Gasoline

Loading Facilities at Bulk Terminals,

Regulation 7.24 Standards of

Performance for New General Surface

Coating Operations,

Regulation 7.26 Standard of

Performance for New Sanitary

Landfills,

Regulation 7.27 Standards of

Performance for New Portland

Cement Plants,

Regulation 7.28 Standard of

Performance for New Nitric Acid

Plants,

Regulation 7.29 Standard of

Performance for New Sulfuric Acid

Plants,

Regulation 7.30 Standard of

Performance for New Secondary Lead

Smelters,

Regulation 7.31 Standards of

Performance for New Secondary Brass

and Bronze Ingot Production Plants,

Regulation 7.32 Standard of

Performance for New Sewage

Treatment Plants,

Regulation 7.33 Standard of

Performance for New Kraft Paper

Mills,

Regulation 7.37 Standard of

Performance for New Primary Copper

Smelters,

Regulation 7.38 Standard of

Performance for New Primary Zinc

Smelters,

Regulation 7.39 Standard of

Performance for New Primary Lead

Smelters,

Regulation 7.40 Standard of

Performance for New Primary

Aluminum Reduction Plants,

Regulation 7.41 Standard of

Performance for New Wet Process

Phosphoric Acid Plants,

Regulation 7.42 Standard of

Performance for New

Superphosphoric Acid Plants,

Regulation 7.43 Standard of

Performance for New Diammonium

Phosphate Plants,

Regulation 7.44 Standard of

Performance for New Triple

Superphosphate Plants,

Regulation 7.45 Standard of

Performance for New Granular Triple

Superphosphate Storage Facilities,

Regulation 7.46 Standard of

Performance for New Coal

Preparation Plants,

Regulation 7.47 Standard of

Performance for New Ferroalloy

Production Plants,

Regulation 7.48 Standard of

Performance for Steel Plants and

Foundries Using New Electric Arc

Furnaces,

Regulation 7.49 Standard of

Performance for New Grain Elevators,

Regulation 7.50 Standard of

Performance for New Lime

Manufacturing Plants,

Regulation 7.53 Standard of

Performance for New Can Surface

Coating Operations,

Regulation 7.54 Standard of

Performance for New Coil Surface

Coating Operations,

Regulation 7.61 Standard of

Performance for New Pneumatic

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Plants,

Regulation 7.62 Standard of

Performance for Stationary Gas

Turbine,

Regulation 7.63 Standard of

Performance for New Electric Utility

Steam Generating Units, and

Regulation 7.64 Standard of

Performance for New Ammonium

Sulfate Manufacturing Units. 

Jefferson County requested that EPA

remove Regulation 7.02 Control of

Nuisances from the federally-approved

SIP. This regulation was incorrectly

approved into the SIP. EPA has

determined that the Agency does not

enforce the control of nuisances,

therefore the rule should not have been

approved into the SIP. The District has

moved the requirements of this

regulation to Regulation 1.12 Control of

Nuisances and subsequently, EPA is

proposing to remove Regulation 7.02

Control of Nuisances from the federallyapproved SIP. Regulation 1.12 Control

of Nuisances is not approved into the

federally-approved SIP because it is not

related to the District’s compliance with

the NAAQS.

Jefferson County requested that EPA

remove Regulation 7.23 Standard of

Performance for New Perchloroethylene

Dry Cleaning Systems from the

federally-approved SIP. This revision is

pursuant to the publication of a Federal

Register document on February 7, 1996,

(61 FR 4588) in which EPA adds

perchloroethylene, also known as

tetrachloroethylene, to the list of

33222 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

compounds excluded from the

definition of VOC. The effective date of

this rule was March 6, 1996.

Perchloroethylene continues to be

regulated as a hazardous air pollutant

(HAP) under section 112 of the CAA.

This action proposes to remove

Regulation 7.23 Standard of

Performance for New Perchloroethylene

Dry Cleaning Systems from the

federally-approved SIP.

D. July 20, 1999 Submittal

On July 20, 1999, the Commonwealth

of Kentucky submitted the following

revisions to the Jefferson County portion

of the Kentucky SIP. EPA is proposing

to approve these changes to the rules

listed below which also include a

recodification of the rules.

Regulation 2.11 Air Quality Model

Usage—This amendment removes all

sections except Section 1 which adds a

reference to 40 CFR part 51, appendix

W to Guideline on Air Quality Models

for guidance regarding the use of air

quality modeling to support the use of

emission reduction credits; and

Jefferson County maintains authority to

review and approve, on a case-by-case

basis, the use of alternative or modified

models performed for non-regulatory

programs.

Regulation 6.48 Standard of

Performance for Existing Bakery Oven

Operations—This amendment adds a

new rule to establish the procedure for

calculating VOC emissions for existing

bakery oven operations, defines

applicable terms, includes the method

for calculating the VOC emissions from

bakery ovens, and includes record

keeping requirements. Sources with a

daily production rate of less than one

ton of yeast-leavened bread are exempt

from this regulation.

The following regulation revisions

make administrative changes that do not

alter the sense, meaning, or effect of the

rule. Examples of these administrative

changes include recodification,

rewording of headnotes, changing

capitalization, spelling, punctuation,

and typographical errors. The

administrative revisions to the following

regulations make various sentence and

word structure changes to add clarity.

Regulation 1.05 Compliance with

Emission Standards and Maintenance

Requirements, 

Regulation 1.10 Circumvention, 

Regulation 2.01 General Application, 

Regulation 2.09 Causes for Permit

Suspension, 

Regulation 3.01 Purpose of Standards

and Expression of Non-Degradation

Intention, 

Regulation 3.02 Applicability of

Ambient Air Quality Standards,

Regulation 3.03 Definitions,

Regulation 3.05 Methods of

Measurement,

Regulation 4.01 General Provisions for

Emergency Episodes,

Regulation 4.02 Episode Criteria,

Regulation 4.03 General Abatement

Requirements,

Regulation 4.04 Particulate and Sulfur

Dioxide Reduction Requirements,

Regulation 4.05 Hydrocarbon and

Nitrogen Oxides Reduction

Requirements,

Regulation 4.06 Carbon Monoxide

Reduction Requirements,

Regulation 6.07 Standards of

Performance for Existing Indirect Heat

Exchangers,

Regulation 6.08 Standard of

Performance for Existing Incinerators,

Regulation 6.12 Standard of

Performance for Existing Asphalt

Paving Operations,

Regulation 6.13 Standard of

Performance for Existing Storage

Vessels for Volatile Organic

Compounds,

Regulation 6.16 Standard of

Performance for Existing Large

Appliance Surface Coating

Operations,

Regulation 6.18 Standards of

Performance for Existing Solvent

Metal Cleaning Equipment,

Regulation 6.19 Standard of

Performance for Existing Metal

Furniture Surface Coating Operations,

Regulation 6.26 Standards of

Performance for Existing Volatile

Organic Compound Water Separators,

Regulation 6.27 Standards of

Performance for Existing Liquid Waste

Incinerators,

Regulation 6.28 Standard of

Performance for Existing Hot Air

Aluminum Atomization Processes,

Regulation 6.29 Standard of

Performance for Existing Graphic Arts

Facilities Using Rotogravure and

Flexography,

Regulation 6.30 Standard of

Performance Existing Factory Surface

Coating Operations of Flat Wood

Paneling,

Regulation 6.32 Standard of

Performance for Leaks from Existing

Petroleum Refinery Equipment,

Regulation 6.33 Standard of

Performance for Existing Synthesized

Pharmaceutical Product

Manufacturing Operations,

Regulation 6.34 Standard of

Performance for Existing Pneumatic

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Plants,

Regulation 6.35 Standard of

Performance for Existing Fabric,

Vinyl, and Paper Surface Coating

Operations,

Regulation 6.38 Standard of

Performance for Existing Air

Oxidation Processes in Synthetic

Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industries,

Regulation 6.40 Standards of

Performance for Gasoline Transfer to

Motor Vehicles (Stage II Vapor

Recovery and Control),

Regulation 7.11 Standard of

Performance for New Asphalt Paving

Operations,

Regulation 7.12 Standard of

Performance for New Storage Vessels

for Volatile Organic Compounds,

Regulation 7.14 Standard of

Performance for Selected New

Petroleum Refining Processes and

Equipment,

Regulation 7.18 Standards of

Performance for New Solvent Metal

Cleaning Equipment,

Regulation 7.34 Standard of

Performance for New Sulfite Pulp

Mills,

Regulation 7.35 Standard of

Performance for New Ethylene

Producing Plants,

Regulation 7.36 Standard of

Performance for New Volatile Organic

Compound Water Separators,

Regulation 7.52 Standard of

Performance for New Fabric, Vinyl,

and Paper Surface Coating

Operations,

Regulation 7.56 Standard of

Performance for Leaks from New

Petroleum Refinery Equipment,

Regulation 7.57 Standard of

Performance for New Graphic Arts

Facilities Using Rotogravure and

Flexography,

Regulation 7.58 Standard of

Performance for New Factory Surface

Coating Operations of Flat Wood

Paneling, and

Regulation 7.60 Standard of

Performance for New Synthesized

Pharmaceutical Product

Manufacturing Operations.

E. September 22, 2000 Submittal

On September 22, 2000, the

Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted

the following revisions to the Jefferson

County portion of the Kentucky SIP.

EPA is proposing to approve these

changes to the rules listed below.

Regulation 7.01 General

Provisions—This revision makes various

sentence and word structure changes to

add clarity to this regulation regarding

standards of performance for new

affected facilities. The revision also

amends this regulation to require

subject sources to comply with

Regulation 6.16 Standard of

Performance for Existing Large

Appliance Surface Coating Operations

and Regulation 6.17 Standard of

Performance for Existing Automobile

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33223

and Truck Surface Coating Operations

on the basis of a calendar-day averaging

period. This amendment ensures that

the removal of Regulation 7.16 Standard

of Performance for New Large

Appliance Surface Coating Operations

and Regulation 7.17 Standard of

Performance for New Automobile and

Light Duty Truck Surface from the SIP,

as requested by Jefferson County on May

21, 1999, will not result in a relaxation

of the compliance requirements for

these sources. The revision also requires

subject sources to demonstrate

compliance with Regulation 6.17 using

capture efficiency as measured in

accordance with Regulation 1.05

Compliance with Emission Standards

and Maintenance Requirements.

Regulation 7.81 Standard of

Performance for New or Modified

Bakery Oven Operations—This revision

adds a new regulation that provides for

the quantification and control of VOC

emissions from new or modified bakery

oven operations that exceed 150 pounds

of VOC emissions per day. The

regulation applies to bakeries that

produce bread, rolls, buns, and similar

products, but not to those that produce

non-yeast-leavened products. The

regulation also establishes the standards

and methods for control of VOC

emissions, testing requirements, method

for calculating VOC emissions,

exemptions, and recordkeeping

requirements.

Regulation 8.01 Mobile Source

Emissions Control Requirements—This

revision makes various sentence and

word structure changes to add clarity,

and to increase the vehicle test fee to

$11.00 in order to fully fund the District

Vehicle Emissions Testing (VET)

program. Three revisions were also

made to comply with Kentucky

legislative changes that were enacted

during the 2000 session that require

local vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/

M) programs to more closely follow the

format of the state I/M program. First,

the fleet subject to VET was redefined

to exclude motorcycles, vehicles older

than 1968 model year and trucks over

18,000 pounds. Second, the existing

enforcement mechanism used against

noncompliant vehicle owners, which

relied on computer matching of records

and civil court action, was replaced

with a registration revocation process

that is implemented by the

Commonwealth. Third, some of the

requirements for issuance of certain

types of certificates were modified;

minor changes were made to the

reciprocal testing requirement and to

the allowable exemptions for military

personnel living outside of the area. The

District provided documentation that

the above changes were estimated to

have a de minimus impact on the

emission reduction capability of the

program.

Regulation 8.02 Vehicle Emissions

Testing Procedure—This regulation was

revised to remove all testing

requirements for motorcycles and

vehicles older than 1968 model year.

The regulation was also revised to

remove the outdated idle mode exhaust

gas emissions test procedure, which is

no longer used.

II. Revised IBR Format Being Proposed

for Approval By EPA in This Action

A. Background

Each State is required to have a SIP

which contains the control measures

and strategies which will be used to

attain and maintain the NAAQS. The

SIP is extensive, containing such

elements as emission inventories,

monitoring network, attainment

demonstrations, and enforcement

mechanisms. The control measures and

strategies must be formally adopted by

each state after the public has had an

opportunity to comment on them. They

are then submitted to EPA as SIP

revisions on which EPA must take

formal action to approve or disapprove.

Once these control measures are

approved by EPA after notice and

comment, they are incorporated into the

SIP and are identified in part 52

(Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans), Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR

part 52). The actual state regulations

which are approved by EPA are not

reproduced in their entirety in 40 CFR

part 52, but are ‘‘incorporated by

reference,’’ which means that the

citation of a given state regulation with

a specific effective date has been

approved by EPA. This format allows

both EPA and the public to know which

measures are contained in a given SIP

and insures that the state is enforcing

the regulations. It also allows EPA and

the public to take enforcement action,

should a state not enforce its SIPapproved regulations.

The SIP is a living document which

can be revised by a state as necessary to

address the unique air pollution

problems in the state. Therefore, EPA

from time to time must take action on

SIP revisions which may contain new

and/or revised regulations. On May 22,

1997, (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the

procedures for incorporating by

reference federally-approved SIP

regulations, as a result of consultations

between EPA and Office of Federal

Register. EPA began the process of

developing (1) a revised SIP document

for each state that would be IBR under

the provisions of 1 CFR part 51; (2) a

revised mechanism for announcing EPA

approval of revisions to an applicable

SIP and updating both the IBR

document and the CFR, and (3) a

revised format of the ‘‘Identification of

plan’’ sections for each applicable

subpart to reflect these revised IBR

procedures. The description of the

revised SIP document, IBR procedures

and ‘‘Identification of plan’’ format are

discussed in further detail in the May

22, 1997, (62 FR 27968) Federal

Register. On May 27, 1999 (64 FR

28748), EPA revised the format of 40

CFR part 52 for materials submitted by

the Commonwealth of Kentucky that are

IBR into the Kentucky SIP. This action

is proposing to revise the format for

materials that are IBR into the Jefferson

County portion of the Kentucky SIP.

B. Content of Revised IBR Document

The new SIP compilations contain the

federally-approved portion of

regulations and source specific SIP

revisions submitted by each state

agency. These regulations and source

specific SIP revisions have all been

approved by EPA through previous rule

making actions in the Federal Register

or are being proposed for approval in

this Federal Register.

Each compilation consists of two

parts. Part 1 contains the regulations

and part 2 contains the source specific

SIP revisions that have been approved

as part of the SIP. Each part has a table

of contents identifying each regulation

or each source specific SIP revision. The

table of contents in the compilation

corresponds to the table of contents

published in 40 CFR part 52 for these

states. The Regional EPA Offices have

the primary responsibility for ensuring

accuracy and updating the compilations

on an annual basis. The Region 4 EPA

Office developed and will maintain the

compilation for Jefferson County,

Kentucky. A copy of the full text of a

state’s current compilation will also be

maintained at the Office of Federal

Register and EPA’s Air Docket and

Information Center. This revised format

is consistent with the SIP compilation

requirements of section 110(h)(1) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA).

C. Revised Format of the ‘‘Identification

of Plan’’ Sections in Each Subpart

In order to better serve the public,

EPA is proposing to revise the

organization of the ‘‘Identification of

plan’’ section and including additional

information which will make it clearer

as to what provisions constitute the

enforceable elements of the SIP.

33224 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

The revised Identification of plan

section will contain five subsections: (a)

Purpose and scope, (b) Incorporation by

reference, (c) EPA-approved regulations,

(d) EPA-approved source-specific SIP

revisions, and (e) EPA-approved

nonregulatory provisions such as

transportation control measures,

statutory provisions, control strategies,

monitoring networks, etc.

D. Enforceability and Legal Effect

All revisions to the applicable SIP

become federally enforceable as of the

effective date of the revisions to

paragraphs (c), (d) or (e) of the

applicable identification of plan found

in each subpart of 40 CFR part 52. To

facilitate enforcement of previouslyapproved SIP provisions and provide a

smooth transition to the new SIP

processing system, EPA is retaining the

original ‘‘Identification of Plan’’ section,

previously appearing in the CFR as the

first or second section of part 52 for

each State subpart. After an initial two

year period, EPA will review its

experience with the new system and

enforceability of previously-approved

SIP measures, and will decide whether

or not to retain the ‘‘Identification of

plan’’ appendices for some further

period.

III. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely proposes to approve state

law as meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

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 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), nor

will it 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), because it merely

proposes to approve a state rule

implementing a federal standard, 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 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

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

State 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. 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. As required by section 3 of

Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,

February 7, 1996), in issuing this

proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: June 7, 2001.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 01–15616 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6999–8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance

Pollution Contingency Plan; National

Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

Tomah Fairgrounds Landfill Superfund

Site from the National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region V is issuing a

notice of intent to delete the Tomah

Fairgrounds Landfill Superfund Site

(Site) located in Tomah, Wisconsin,

from the National Priorities List (NPL)

and requests public comments on this

notice of intent. The NPL, promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is

found at Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300

of the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP). The EPA and the State of

Wisconsin, through the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources, have

determined that all appropriate

response actions under CERCLA, other

than operation and maintenance and

five-year reviews, have been completed.

However, this deletion does not

preclude future actions under

Superfund. In the ‘‘Rules and

Regulations’’ Section of today’s Federal

Register, we are publishing a direct final

notice of deletion of the Tomah

Fairgrounds Landfill Superfund Site

without prior notice of intent to delete

because we view this as a

noncontroversial revision and anticipate

no adverse comment. We have

explained our reasons for this deletion

in the preamble to the direct final

deletion. If we receive no adverse

comment(s) on the direct final notice of

deletion, we will not take further action

on this notice of intent to delete. If we

receive adverse comment(s), we will

withdraw the direct final notice of

deletion and it will not take effect. We

will, as appropriate, address all public

comments in a subsequent final deletion

notice based on this notice of intent to

delete. We will not institute a second