[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33505-33519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15748]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[KY-126-200113; IN-121-2; FRL-7001-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; KY and IN

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On March 30, 2001, the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Natural 
Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet submitted: a request to 
redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Louisville moderate ozone 
nonattainment area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), a plan to maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
for at least the next 10 years, and the regional motor vehicle emission 
budgets (MVEBs) for transportation conformity purposes. In addition, on 
November 12, 1999, and May 23, 2001, Kentucky submitted source-specific 
Board Orders adopted by the Air Pollution Control Board of Jefferson 
County to control sources of nitrogen oxides ( NO<INF>X</INF>) at 
eleven sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky. On April 11, 2001, the 
State of Indiana's Department of Environmental Management submitted: a 
request to redesignate the Indiana portion of the Louisville moderate 
ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 
regional MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes, and a plan to 
maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for at least the next 10 years. The 
Louisville moderate ozone nonattainment area (Louisville area) includes 
Jefferson County and portions of Bullitt and Oldham Counties, Kentucky, 
and Clark and Floyd Counties, Indiana.
    Since Kentucky and Indiana had not completed public participation 
requirements for the submittals of March 30, 2001 and April 11, 2001, 
they requested that the EPA parallel process the redesignation 
requests, maintenance plans, and associated regional MVEBs.
    EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's and Indiana's requests to 
redesignate the Louisville area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS. In proposing to approve this request, the EPA is also proposing 
to approve the States' plans for maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
through 2012, as revisions to the Kentucky and Indiana State 
Implementation Plans (SIPs). EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs 
for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> in the submitted maintenance plans for 
conformity purposes. Finally, the EPA is proposing to approve the 
source-specific Board Orders to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from 
eleven sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky.

DATES: Comments on the EPA's proposed action must be received by July 
23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Richard A. Schutt, 
Acting Chief, Regulatory Planning Section, Air Planning Branch, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303. J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section, 
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of Kentucky's submittals, as well as other information, are 
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following 
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents 
should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day 
and reference files KY-126. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, Air Planning Branch, Regulatory Planning Section, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Division 
for Air Quality, 803 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1403. Air 
Pollution Control District of Jefferson County, 850 Barret Avenue, 
Louisville, Kentucky 40204.
    Copies of Indiana's submittals, as well as other information, are 
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following 
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents 
should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day 
and reference files IN-121-2. Regulation Development Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Indiana 
Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, 100 
North Senate Avenue, P.O. Box 6015, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Humphris, Environmental 
Scientist, or Raymond Gregory, Environmental Engineer, Regulatory 
Planning Section, Air Planning Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 
562-9030, (404) 562-9116, (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0f8c5ddc0d8c2d9c39ef1dcdcd9c3dfdef0d5c0d19ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85cdf0e8f5edf7ecf6abc4e9e9ecf6eaebc5e0f5e4abe2eaf3">[email protected]</span></a>) 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f182d3a38302d26710d3e261f3a2f3e71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="22655047454d505b0c70435b624752430c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>). Ryan Bahr, Environmental Engineer, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4366, 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6301020b114d111a020d230613024d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="096b68617b277b706867496c7968276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Determination of Attainment

[[Page 33506]]

II. Redesignation Request
    A. What action is EPA proposing to take?
    B. What would be the effect of the redesignation?
    C. What is the background for this action?
    D. What are the redesignation review criteria?
    E. What is the EPA's analysis of the request?
    F. Where is the public record and where do I send comments?
III. Administrative Requirements

I. Determination of Attainment

    On May 17, 2001, (66 FR 27483) EPA proposed to determine that the 
Louisville moderate ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this determination, EPA also proposed to 
determine that certain attainment demonstration requirements (section 
172(c)(1)), along with certain other related requirements of part D of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA), specifically the section 172(c)(9) 
contingency measure requirement, the section 182(b)(1) attainment 
demonstration requirement, and the section 182(j) multi-state 
attainment demonstration requirement, are not applicable to the 
Louisville area, as long as it continues to attain the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS. EPA did not propose to determine, however, that the regulations 
submitted by Kentucky with its 15 percent plan were inapplicable, since 
these regulations were adopted by Kentucky or the Air Pollution Control 
District of Jefferson County (APCDJC) prior to 1998 and provided 
permanent and enforceable reductions for the Louisville area during the 
1998 to 2000 ozone seasons. EPA intends to approve these regulations in 
a separate action. Likewise, the May 17, 2001, Federal Register action 
also noted that previously-approved SIP revisions must continue to be 
implemented and enforced, and are not affected by this action.
    EPA based this proposed determination upon three years of complete, 
quality-assured, ambient air monitoring data for the 1998, 1999, and 
2000 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has 
been attained in the entire Louisville area. This data is summarized in 
Table 1. A complete discussion of the data and background that provides 
the basis for this proposed action can be found in the above-cited May 
17, 2001, Federal Register action.

       Table 1.--1-hour Ozone NAAQS Exceedances in the Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana Area from 1998 to 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Exceedances    Expected
                 Site                               County                  Year        measured     exceedances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlestown..........................  Clark, IN......................          1998             3           3.1
                                                                                1999             0           0.0
                                                                                2000             0           0.0
New Albany...........................  Floyd, IN......................          1998             2           2.0
                                                                                1999             0           0.0
                                                                                2000             0           0.0
Bates................................  Jefferson, KY..................          1998             1           1.2
                                                                                1999             0           0.0
                                                                                2000             0           0.0
Buckner..............................  Oldham, KY.....................          1998             1           1.1
                                                                                1999             1           1.2
                                                                                2000             0           0.0
Sheperdsville........................  Bullitt, KY....................          1998             0           0.0
                                                                                1999             0           0.0
                                                                                2000             0           0.0
Watson...............................  Jefferson, KY..................          1998             1           1.2
                                                                                1999             0           0.0
                                                                                2000             0           0.0
WLKY-TV..............................  Jefferson, KY..................          1998             1           1.1
                                                                                1999             0           0.0
                                                                                2000             0           0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated in the May 17, 2001, Federal Register action, the 
States must continue to operate appropriate air quality monitoring 
networks, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment 
status of the area. The air quality data relied upon to determine that 
the area is attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS must be consistent with 40 
CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and recorded 
in the EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).
    As further indicated in the May 17, 2001, Federal Register action, 
the proposed determination is not equivalent to redesignation of this 
area to attainment. Attainment of the ozone 1-hour ozone NAAQS is only 
one of the criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) that must be 
satisfied for an area to be redesignated to attainment. To be 
redesignated, the State must submit and receive full approval of a 
redesignation request for the area that satisfies all of the remaining 
criteria of section 107(d)(3)(E), including a demonstration that: the 
improvement in the area's air quality is due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions; the area has a fully approved SIP under 110(k); 
the State has met the applicable requirements under section 110 and 
part D; and the area has a fully-approved maintenance plan.

II. Redesignation Request

A. What Action is EPA Proposing to Take?

    EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's and Indiana's requests to 
redesignate the Louisville area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS, provided both States revise their maintenance plans to include 
an enforceable commitment to revise the MVEBs using MOBILE6 (once it 
becomes available) and to revise the VOC MVEB so that the area's 2012 
projected emissions do not exceed the 1999 attainment year emissions. 
In proposing to approve these requests, EPA is also proposing to 
approve Kentucky's and Indiana's plans for maintaining the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS through 2012, as revisions to the

[[Page 33507]]

Kentucky and Indiana SIPs. The EPA is also proposing to approve the 
MVEBs for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> in the submitted maintenance plan as 
adequate for conformity purposes. Final EPA approval of the maintenance 
plan, including the MVEBs, is contingent on Kentucky's and Indiana's 
final submittal of the above-cited revisions. Finally, the EPA is 
proposing to approve the source-specific Board Orders submitted by 
Kentucky to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from eleven sources in 
Jefferson County, Kentucky, as fulfilling the remaining NO<INF>X</INF> 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements of section 
182(f) of the CAA for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville area.

B. What Would be the Effect of the Redesignation?

    The redesignation would change the official designation under 40 
CFR 81.315 of the Louisville area, including the Kentucky Counties of 
Jefferson, Bullitt and Oldham, and the Indiana Counties of Clark and 
Floyd, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. It 
would also put into place plans for maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
through 2012. These plans include contingency measures to remedy any 
future violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. These plans also include 
the following MVEBs for 2012, which must be revised as indicated in 
Table 2, before the EPA can take final action to approve the MVEBs, the 
maintenance plans and redesignation requests.

     Table 2.--Proposed 2012 MVEBs for Louisville Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2012 MVEB
                                                               proposed
                                                                 for
                                                               approval
                                                               provided
                                                 2012 MVEB      States
                                                     as         revise
                   Pollutant                     submitted      their
                                                 by States   maintenance
                                                 (Tons/day)      plan
                                                              submittal
                                                                 (see
                                                               analysis
                                                               for more
                                                               detail)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC...........................................        50.93        48.17
NO<INF>X</INF>...........................................        92.93        92.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Under section 107(d) of the 1977 CAA, EPA promulgated the ozone 
attainment status for each geographic area of the country. The 
Louisville area was designated as an ozone nonattainment area in March 
1978 (43 FR 8962). On November 15, 1990, the CAA Amendments of 1990 
were enacted. Under section 107(d)(4)(A), on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 
56694), the Kentucky Counties of Jefferson, Bullitt and Oldham, and the 
Indiana Counties of Clark and Floyd were designated as the Louisville 
moderate ozone nonattainment area, as a result of monitored violations 
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the 1987-1989 time frame. On September 
20, 1995, in response to a request by Kentucky, EPA published (60 FR 
48653) corrections to the boundaries of the Louisville area for Bullitt 
and Oldham Counties to include additional sources which contributed to 
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Since that time, Kentucky, Indiana and the APCDJC have adopted and 
implemented programs required under the CAA for a moderate 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area to reduce emissions of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF>. These 
programs include stationary source RACT, vehicle inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) programs, mobile source conformity and other measures 
(See EPA's analysis for specific measures in section II.E., below). As 
a result of these programs, monitors in the Louisville area have 
recorded three years of complete, quality-assured, ambient air quality 
monitoring data for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 ozone seasons, thereby 
demonstrating that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On 
March 30, 2001, Kentucky submitted: a request to redesignate the 
Kentucky portion of the Louisville area to attainment for the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS, a plan to maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 2012, 
and the regional MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. On 
November 12, 1999, and May 23, 2001, Kentucky submitted source-specific 
Board Orders specifying NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements for eleven 
sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky. On April 11, 2001, Indiana 
submitted: a request to redesignate the Indiana portion of the 
Louisville area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, a plan to 
maintain the 1-hour NAAQS through 2012, and the regional MVEBs for 
transportation conformity purposes.
    Both Kentucky and Indiana requested that EPA parallel process the 
submittals. Since Kentucky and Indiana had not completed public 
participation requirements at the time of submittal of the March 30, 
2001, and April 11, 2001, redesignation requests, these submittals were 
considered to be drafts. Kentucky and Indiana therefore requested that 
the EPA parallel process the redesignation request, maintenance plans, 
and associated regional MVEBs. The parallel processing provision of 40 
CFR part 51, appendix V, allows EPA to propose action on the draft 
revisions prior to submission of State-adopted SIP revisions. At the 
time of final EPA action, the completed revisions must have been 
submitted to EPA.

D. What Are the Redesignation Review Criteria?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for 
redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the 
area has attained the 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 
175(A); and, (5) The State containing such area has met all 
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    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. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Mary D. Nichols, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. (Nichols, 
October 1994)
    2. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for 
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' D. Kent Berry, 
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993.
    3. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas 
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and 
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on 
or after November 15, 1992,'' Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.
    4. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response 
to Clean Air Act Deadlines,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management

[[Page 33508]]

Division, October 28, 1992. (Calcagni, October 1992)
    5. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992.
    6. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations,'' G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 
Branch, June 1, 1992.
    7. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 
FR 13498), April 16, 1992.

E. What is the EPA's Analysis of the Request?

Criterion (1): The Area Must be Attaining the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS
    For ozone, an area may be considered attaining the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 
CFR 50.9 and Appendix H, based on three complete, consecutive calendar 
years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. A violation of 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the annual average number of 
expected daily exceedances is equal to or greater than 1.05 per year at 
a monitoring site. A daily exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly 
ozone concentration during a given day is 0.125 parts per million (ppm) 
or higher. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in AIRS. The monitors should have 
remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period 
required for demonstrating attainment.
    EPA published a proposal on May 17, 2001 (66 FR 27483), to make a 
Determination of Attainment for the Louisville area. This determination 
is based on ozone air quality data for 1998, 1999, and 2000 which were 
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in 
AIRS, and which showed attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the 
Louisville area.
Criteria (2) and (5): The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under 
Section 110(k); and the Area Must Have met all Applicable Requirements 
Under Section 110 and Part D.
    Before the Louisville area may be redesignated to attainment for 
ozone, Kentucky and Indiana must have fulfilled the applicable 
requirements of section 110 and part D. The Calcagni memorandum dated 
September 4, 1992, provides that States requesting that areas be 
redesignated to attainment have to fully adopt rules and programs that 
come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. 
However, based on the Seitz memorandum (see ``Reasonable Further 
Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards,'' John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Standards, May 
10, 1995.), and the May 17, 2001 (66 FR 27483), proposed determination 
that the Louisville area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, SIP 
revisions to address some of these requirements need not be submitted 
for EPA to approve the request for redesignation of the Louisville 
area, since they would no longer be considered applicable requirements 
under section 107(d)(3)(E) for so long as the area continues to attain 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. These requirements include reasonable further 
progress (RFP) (see the general requirement of section 172(c)(2) and 
the more specific requirement of section 182(b)(1) for a plan that 
reduces VOC emissions by 15 percent), attainment demonstration (see the 
general requirement of section 172(c)(1) and the specific requirement 
of section 182(j) for a multi-state attainment demonstration) and 
contingency measures (see the general requirement of section 
172(c)(9)).
    Since these elements are no longer required, EPA will not need to 
act on the following: Indiana's Attainment Demonstration for the 
Indiana Portion of the Louisville Nonattainment Area submitted November 
15, 1999; the 3 percent contingency requirement associated with 
Indiana's 15 percent Rate of Progress (ROP) requirements, submitted 
December 20, 1993; Kentucky's Attainment Demonstration for the Kentucky 
Portion of the Louisville Nonattainment Area submitted November 12, 
1999; and the Kentucky 15 percent ROP planning SIP submitted on 
November 12, 1993, and amended on April 5, 1994, June 30, 1997, and 
March 21, 2000. A final redesignation action would permanently make 
these requirements no longer applicable. However, all previously-
approved SIP revisions must continue to be implemented and enforced and 
are not affected by this action. In addition, EPA will continue to 
process any submittals that have not yet been approved and revise the 
SIP to incorporate State- and locally-adopted rules and other legally-
enforceable requirements which have helped the area come into 
attainment prior to the effective date for this rule. This will ensure 
that the rules the area has depended on for attainment are permanent 
and enforceable as part of the SIP.
    If the area violates the 1-hour ozone NAAQS prior to final action 
on the redesignation request, however, not only would the requirements 
again become applicable, but the redesignation request could not be 
approved because the area would no longer meet the criterion of having 
attained the 1-hour NAAQS. (Seitz memorandum dated May 10, 1995)
    Furthermore, requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to 
the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request would continue 
to be applicable to the area until a redesignation is approved, but are 
not required as a prerequisite for redesignation (see section 175A(c)). 
If the redesignation were to be disapproved, the States remain 
obligated to fulfill those requirements.
Section 110 Requirements
    General SIP elements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of Title 
I, part A. These requirements include but are not limited to the 
following: submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after 
reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and 
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures 
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit 
program; provisions for part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD); and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria 
for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and 
reporting; provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local 
agency participation. For purposes of redesignation, the Kentucky and 
the Indiana SIPs were reviewed to ensure that all requirements under 
the amended CAA were satisfied through previously-approved SIP 
provisions or SIP revisions that are in the process of being reviewed 
or on which the EPA is in the process of taking action. The EPA must 
take final action on the required SIP revisions presently in the 
process of EPA review or action, before this redesignation can be 
approved.
    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions submitted by Kentucky to 
address the NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements of section 182(f) of the 
CAA for the Jefferson County portion of the Louisville area in this 
Federal Register action. These revisions are source-specific Board 
Orders that establish NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements for eleven 
sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky.

[[Page 33509]]

In a future Federal Register action, the EPA intends to propose action 
on regulations submitted by Kentucky to address outstanding VOC RACT 
requirements of section 182(b)(2) of the CAA for a specific source 
category and a specific source. These regulations include a regulation 
to address sources, located in Jefferson County, subject to the EPA's 
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) published May 1993 ``Control of 
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and 
Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry'' (SOCMI) and source-specific requirements for a 
lithographic printing operation, Publisher's Printing, Inc., located in 
Bullitt County, Kentucky. EPA also intends to take final action on the 
underlying regulations that were a part of the Kentucky 15 percent plan 
and propose action on other miscellaneous revisions to update the 
Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP.
Transport of Ozone Precursors to Downwind Areas
    Modeling results utilizing the EPA's regional oxidant model 
indicate that ozone precursor emissions from various States west and 
southeast of the ozone transport region (OTR) in the Northeastern 
United States contribute to increases in ozone concentrations in the 
OTR. EPA issued a NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call on October 27, 1998 (63 FR 
57356), requiring the District of Columbia and 22 States, including 
Indiana and Kentucky, to reduce their emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> in 
order to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone precursors. EPA's 
initial NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call submittal date of September 1999, was 
stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit Court. The Court lifted this stay on June 22, 2000, 
and established an October 30, 2000, date for the submittal of State 
SIPs to address the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call requirements. Due to the 
length of Kentucky's regulation promulgation process, the Commonwealth 
of Kentucky was unable to meet this deadline, but submitted a 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call SIP for parallel processing on February 20, 
2001. Similarly, while Indiana has been working on a rule in response 
to the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call since July 1999, Indiana was unable to 
submit a SIP to meet the deadline; however, Indiana submitted a draft 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP and requested parallel processing on March 30, 2001.
    The States are in the process of finalizing NO<INF>X</INF> SIPs and 
intend to submit final, adopted NO<INF>X</INF> SIPs by August 2001. 
However, given that affected States are not required to implement the 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call until 2004 (i.e., well after the date on which 
Kentucky and Indiana submitted redesignation requests), the EPA 
believes that the requirement to submit a NO<INF>X</INF> SIP cannot 
reasonably be considered a prerequisite for redesignation of the 
Louisville area. NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call controls have not yet been 
implemented in this area. The fact that Louisville is monitoring 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, even though NO<INF>X</INF> SIP 
Call controls have not been implemented, does not imply that 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call controls are not needed to allow other, 
downwind areas to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, this 
analysis does not address to what extent the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call 
controls may be needed to attain the new 8-hour ozone, promulgated July 
18, 1997 (62 FR 38855), in any areas that may be designated 
nonattainment under that standard. Therefore, EPA believes that 
Kentucky and Indiana need not have final NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call 
regulations in place to qualify for redesignation.
    EPA has determined that the Kentucky and Indiana SIPs for the 
Louisville 1-hour ozone nonattainment area satisfy all of the section 
110 SIP requirements of the CAA.

Part D: General Provisions for Nonattainment Areas

    Before the Louisville area may be redesignated to attainment, it 
must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D of the CAA. 
Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements to 
which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic 
nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. 
Subpart 2 of part D establishes additional requirements for 
nonattainment areas classified under Table 1 of section 181(a). As 
described in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I, 
specific requirements of subpart 2 may override subpart 1's general 
provisions (57 FR 13501, April 16, 1992). The Louisville area was 
classified as moderate ozone nonattainment. Therefore, in order to be 
redesignated, Kentucky and Indiana must meet the applicable 
requirements of subpart 1 of part D--specifically sections 172(c) and 
176, as well as the applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D.
Section 172(c) Requirements
    EPA has determined that the redesignation requests received from 
Kentucky and Indiana for the Louisville area have satisfied all of the 
relevant submittal requirements under section 172(c) necessary for the 
area to be redesignated to attainment. On May 17, 2001 (66 FR 27483), 
the EPA proposed to determine that certain CAA requirements were no 
longer needed because the area was attaining the ozone NAAQS. These 
included a SIP revision providing a 15 percent VOC emission reduction 
plan, an ozone attainment demonstration and the requirements of section 
172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for RFP or attainment to meet 
the requirements of section 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1) and 182(j). 
Kentucky has submitted an RFP plan. EPA intends to take final action on 
the underlying regulations that were submitted with the RFP plan before 
taking final action on this proposal, since emission reductions 
resulting from implementation of these regulations occurred during the 
1998 through 2000 period. Indiana submitted an RFP plan on December 20, 
1993, and supplemented the submittal on July 12, 1995, for Clark and 
Floyd Counties which the EPA approved on May 7, 1997 (62 FR 24815). 
Since new submittals of these elements would no longer be required if 
this action is finalized, a final approval action would mean that EPA 
would not require Indiana to submit the 3 percent contingency 
requirement associated with Indiana's 15 percent ROP requirements, 
submitted December 20, 1993, and July 12, 1995. Furthermore, since the 
area would be redesignated to attainment, the EPA approval of the 
Kentucky 15 percent ROP planning SIP, which was submitted on November 
12, 1993, and amended on April 5, 1994, June 30, 1997, and March 21, 
2000, would also no longer be required.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. 
Kentucky submitted, on November 12, 1993 (amended April 5, 1994, and 
June 30, 1997), an actual emission inventory under section 182(a)(1) 
for the Kentucky counties of Jefferson, Bullitt and Oldham. The EPA 
intends to take final action on this inventory in the same Federal 
Register that addresses the underlying regulations submitted with the 
RFP plan. Indiana submitted, on January 15, 1994, the 1990 base year 
inventory for the Indiana Counties of Clark and Floyd, and EPA approved 
the submittal on June 20, 1994 (59 FR 31544). EPA has determined that 
upon final approval of Kentucky's actual emission inventory, the 
requirement of 172(c)(3) for Kentucky and Indiana will be satisfied.
    Section 172(c)(5) mandates that SIPs require permits for the 
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources 
anywhere in the nonattainment area. Section 182(b)(5)

[[Page 33510]]

requires all major new sources or modifications in a moderate 
nonattainment area to achieve offsetting reductions of VOCs at a ratio 
of at least 1.15 to 1.0. EPA has determined that areas being 
redesignated to attainment do not need to comply with the requirement 
that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that 
the area demonstrates maintenance of the applicable NAAQS without part 
D NSR in effect. The rationale for this decision is described in a 
memorandum from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994. See also the 
discussion in the Grand Rapids, Michigan, action published on June 21, 
1996 (61 FR 31834). The States have demonstrated that the Louisville 
area will be able to maintain the 1-hour NAAQS without part D NSR in 
effect, and, therefore, need not have fully-approved part D NSR 
programs prior to approval of the redesignation request for the 
Louisville area. Kentucky's and Indiana's PSD requirements will remain 
enforceable after the redesignation of the Louisville area.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and 
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects 
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The 
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, 
programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 
U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity''), as 
well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (``general 
conformity''). Section 176 further provides that State conformity 
revisions must be consistent with federal conformity regulations that 
the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. The EPA believes it is 
reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for 
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d). 
The rationale for this is based on a combination of two factors. First, 
the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity 
provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation 
to attainment, since such areas would be subject to a section 175A 
maintenance plan. Second, the EPA's federal conformity rules require 
the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of federally 
approved State rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the 
conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to 
attainment and must implement conformity under federal rules if State 
rules are not yet approved, the EPA believes it is reasonable to view 
these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a 
redesignation request. Consequently, the EPA may approve the ozone 
redesignation request for the Kentucky and Indiana portions of the 
Louisville area without a fully-approved conformity SIP. See Detroit, 
Michigan, carbon monoxide redesignation published on June 30, 1999 (64 
FR 35017), Cleveland-Akron-Lorain ozone redesignation published on May 
7, 1996 (61 FR 20458), and Tampa, Florida ozone redesignation published 
on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62748).
Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements
    The Louisville area is classified moderate nonattainment: 
therefore, part D, subpart 2, section 182(b) requirements apply. In 
accordance with the September 17, 1993, EPA guidance memorandum, the 
requirements which came due prior to the submission of the request to 
redesignate the area must be fully approved into the SIP before or at 
the time of the request to redesignate the area to attainment. Those 
requirements are discussed below.
1990 Base Year Inventory
    The 1990 base year emissions inventory, as required by sections 
172(c)(3) and 182(b)(1)(B), was due on November 15, 1992. Kentucky 
submitted its 1990 base year emissions inventory on November 12, 1993, 
and submitted revisions on April 5, 1994, and June 30, 1997. The EPA is 
processing and intends to publish a final Federal Register action on 
this inventory before taking final action approving today's proposal. 
Indiana submitted its 1990 base year inventory on June 20, 1994 (59 FR 
31544). The EPA approved this inventory, including the baseline for the 
Indiana portion of the Louisville area, on January 4, 1995 (60 FR 375). 
The EPA approved revisions to the 1990 base year inventory for the 
Indiana portion of the Louisville area as part of its May 7, 1997, 
approval of the 15 percent plan (62 FR 24815).
Periodic Emissions Inventory
    Periodic inventories, as required by section 182(a)(3)(A), were due 
on November 15, 1995, and November 15, 1998, providing an estimate of 
emissions for 1993 and 1996, respectively. These inventories are not 
considered SIP requirements, and therefore they do not need to be 
approved into the SIP. Kentucky provided the EPA with periodic 
emissions for 1993 and 1996 on November 3, 1996, and November 13, 1998, 
respectively. Indiana also provided its estimates of periodic emissions 
for 1996 on February 18, 1999.
Emission Statements
    The emission statement SIP, as required by section 182(a)(3)(B), 
was due on November 15, 1992. An emission statement SIP requires source 
owners to submit information annually to the State concerning actual 
emissions. Kentucky submitted its emission statement SIP on January 15, 
1993, and supplemented the submittal on December 29, 1994, to satisfy 
the federal requirements. The EPA published approval of the Kentucky 
emission statement SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21445). Kentucky submitted 
the emission statement SIP for Jefferson County on March 4, 1993, to 
satisfy the same requirements. The EPA published approval of the 
Jefferson County emission statement SIP on June 23, 1994 (59 FR 32343). 
Indiana submitted its emission statement SIP on January 6, 1994, and 
the EPA approved it on June 10, 1994 (59 FR 29953).
15 Percent Plan
    As discussed above, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret 
certain provisions of the CAA, including section 182(b)(1)(A), as not 
being required if an area is monitoring attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS (i.e., attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is demonstrated with 
three consecutive years of complete, quality-assured, air quality 
monitoring data). Since it has now attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 
15 percent VOC emission reduction plan is one of these requirements 
that will not be applicable to the Louisville area. Indiana submitted 
the Clark and Floyd County 15 percent plan on December 20, 1993. EPA 
approved it as part of the SIP on May 7, 1997 (62 FR 24815). Kentucky 
submitted its 15 percent plan on November 12, 1993, and amended this 
plan on April 5, 1994, June 30, 1997, and March 21, 2000. For so long 
as the area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, however, EPA 
will not take action on the Kentucky submittals.
VOC RACT Requirements
    SIP revisions requiring RACT for three classes of VOC sources are 
required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are: (1) all sources 
covered by a CTG document issued between November 15, 1990, and the 
date of attainment; (2) all sources covered by a CTG issued prior to 
November 15, 1990; and (3) all other major non-CTG stationary sources. 
The non-CTG rules were due by November 15, 1992, and

[[Page 33511]]

apply to the Kentucky and Indiana submittals.
    Section 183 of the CAA required EPA to issue CTGs for 13 source 
categories by November 15, 1993. EPA published a CTG by this date for 
the following source categories: Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactors and Distillation, aerospace 
manufacturing coating operation, shipbuilding and ship repair coating 
operations, and wood furniture coating operation; however, EPA has not 
completed the CTGs for the remaining source categories. The CAA 
requires States to submit rules for sources covered by a post-enactment 
CTG in accordance with a schedule specified in a CTG document. EPA 
created a CTG document as appendix E to the General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. (57 
FR 18070, 18077, April 28, 1992). In appendix E, EPA interpreted the 
CAA to allow a State to submit a non-CTG rule by November 15, 1992, or 
to defer submittal of a RACT rule for sources that the State 
anticipated would be covered by a post-enactment CTG, based on the list 
of CTGs EPA expected to issue to meet the requirement in section 183. 
Appendix E states that if EPA fails to issue a CTG by November 15, 1993 
(which it failed to do for 11 source categories), the responsibility 
shifts to the State to submit a non-CTG RACT rule or negative 
declaration for those sources by November 15, 1994.
    EPA approved certain VOC RACT rules as part of the Kentucky SIP on 
January 25, 1980 (45 FR 6092), August 7, 1981 (46 FR 40188), February 
7, 1990 (55 FR 4169), June 23, 1994, (59 FR 32344), and June 28, 1996 
(61 FR 33674). EPA approved certain VOC RACT rules as part of the 
Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP on January 25, 1980 (45 FR 
6092), June 9, 1982 (47 FR 25010), January 11, 1984 (49 FR 1341), April 
27, 1989 (54 FR 18103), and October 22, 1993 (58 FR 54516). EPA is 
processing and intends to take final action on certain revisions to 
Jefferson County VOC RACT rules prior to taking final action on today's 
proposal. For the Kentucky portion of the Louisville area, these 
actions fulfilled the RACT ``fix up'' and ``catch up'' requirements 
such that identified deficiencies in their pre-1990 RACT program were 
addressed, satisfying requirement (2) above that RACT be established 
for all sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990. EPA 
intends to propose action on a source-specific non-CTG RACT 
determination for Publisher's Printing, Inc., submitted by Kentucky on 
April 16, 2001, and supplemented on May 4, 2001. This RACT 
determination must receive final approval before today's action on this 
redesignation can be finally approved by the EPA. Final approval of 
this action will satisfy requirement (3) above for the Kentucky portion 
of the Louisville area.
    To satisfy the requirement of (1) above, Kentucky submitted a 
negative declaration on December 14, 1999, for the CTG categories of 
aerospace, SOCMI reactor and distillation processes, shipbuilding, and 
wood furniture. The APCDJC submitted a negative declaration for 
Jefferson County for all four CTG categories on February 26, 2001. The 
APCDJC withdrew the negative declaration for the SOCMI category on May 
1, 2001, and submitted a SOCMI regulation for parallel processing on 
May 10, 2001. Before the EPA can take final action on today's proposal, 
the APCDJC's SOCMI regulation must be approved by EPA.
    Regarding the Indiana portion of the nonattainment area, EPA has 
likewise taken numerous actions since the 1990 CAA Amendments approving 
Indiana VOC RACT rules including March 6, 1992 (57 FR 8082), July 5, 
1995 (60 FR 34857), and June 29, 1998 (63 FR 35141). For the Indiana 
portion of the Louisville area, these actions fulfilled the RACT ``fix 
up'' and ``catch up'' requirements such that identified deficiencies in 
their pre-1990 RACT program were addressed, satisfying requirement (2) 
above that RACT be established for all sources covered by a CTG issued 
prior to November 15, 1990. The July 5, 1995, action also approved a 
non-CTG RACT rule, partially fulfilling requirement (3) above. However, 
Indiana's non-CTG RACT rule exempted the 13 categories for which EPA 
had intended to develop CTGs (per section 183). Indiana subsequently 
submitted rules for four of these categories: autobody refinishing, 
shipbuilding, wood furniture, and volatile organic storage tanks. EPA 
approved these rules as revisions to the SIP on June 13, 1996 (61 FR 
29965), October 30, 1996 (61 FR 55889), January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2593), 
and January 22, 1997 (62 FR 3216), respectively. For the remaining RACT 
categories, Indiana submitted negative declarations on November 8, 
1999. On June 8, 2000 (65 FR 36346), EPA approved these negative 
declarations recognizing that, for the nine source categories 
identified, there were no sources with the potential to emit 100 tons 
or more of VOC on an annual basis.
    As a result of these approved rules, rules on which EPA is in the 
process of taking action, and negative declarations, Kentucky and 
Indiana have addressed all sources covered by a CTG since November 15, 
1990 (Requirement 1 above), all sources covered by a CTG issued prior 
to November 15, 1990 (Requirement 2 above), and all other major non-CTG 
stationary sources (requirement 3 above), thus fully satisfying the VOC 
RACT requirements. Upon redesignation of the area, all new major VOC 
sources locating in the Louisville area, and all major modifications to 
existing major VOC sources in the Louisville area, will continue to be 
subject to the RACT requirements.
Stage II Vapor Recovery
    Section 182(b)(3) requires States to submit Stage II vapor recovery 
rules no later than November 15, 1992. EPA originally approved Stage II 
requirements for Jefferson County, Kentucky, on March 6, 1996 (61 FR 
8875). EPA is currently reviewing and intends to take action on minor 
revisions to Jefferson County's Stage II regulations prior to taking 
final action on today's proposal. Indiana submitted Stage II vapor 
recovery rules as a SIP revision on February 25, 1994. EPA approved 
those rules on April 28, 1994 (59 FR 21942). Indiana submitted 
amendments to its Stage II rules on April 6, 1999. EPA approved these 
amendments as revisions to the SIP on November 3, 1999 (64 FR 59642). 
The September 17, 1993, ``Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle 
Refueling Control Programs,'' guidance memorandum states that once 
onboard vapor recovery regulations are promulgated, the Stage II 
regulations are no longer applicable for moderate ozone nonattainment 
areas. EPA promulgated onboard vapor recovery rules in February 1994. 
Therefore, under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, Stage II would no longer 
be required. However, both Kentucky and Indiana have opted to include 
reductions in VOCs from the Stage II program as part of the submitted 
maintenance plan.
Vehicle I/M
    EPA's final I/M regulations in 40 CFR part 85 require the States to 
submit a fully adopted I/M program by November 15, 1993. On September 
11, 1998, Kentucky submitted its I/M program and the EPA approved the 
program rule on December 8, 1998 (63 FR 67586). Kentucky also submitted 
the Jefferson County I/M regulation for approval on November 12, 1993. 
EPA approved this regulation on July 28, 1995 (60 FR 38700). EPA has 
approved several additional revisions to the Jefferson County I/M 
program, including actions taken on January 5, 1999 (64 FR 415),

[[Page 33512]]

and March 15, 1999 (64 FR 12749); and is in the process of taking 
action on several additional minor revisions. Indiana submitted rules 
for its improved basic I/M program on September 28, 1995, and EPA 
published approval of the rules on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11142).
 NO<INF>X</INF> Requirements
    Section 182(f) establishes NO<INF>X</INF> requirements for ozone 
nonattainment areas which require the same provisions for major 
stationary sources of NO<INF>X</INF> as apply to major stationary 
sources of VOCs. One of the requirements for major sources of VOCs is 
RACT. Therefore, pursuant to section 182(f) of the CAA, RACT is a 
requirement for major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> in an ozone 
nonattainment area.
    On May 21, 1999, Kentucky submitted to EPA for approval APCDJC 
Regulation 6.42, Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements 
for Major Volatile Organic Compound and Nitrogen Oxides-Emitting 
Facilities. EPA is reviewing and intends to take a separate action on 
Regulation 6.42 before taking final action on this proposal. Regulation 
6.42 requires the establishment and implementation of RACT for the 
major stationary sources of NO<INF>X</INF> in Jefferson County, 
Kentucky. For the 11 major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> in Jefferson 
County, Regulation 6.42 has been implemented by means of Board Orders 
adopted by the Air Pollution Control Board of Jefferson County. A Board 
Order is a regulatory instrument adopted by an air pollution control 
board which specifies air pollution control limits or requirements for 
a specific source or company. The following is a summary of the 
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements for each of the 11 Board Orders.
    1. American Synthetic Rubber Company, LLC (ASRC): The Board Order 
submitted to the EPA on May 23, 2001, contains the following 
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements:
    (a) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Boiler #1 and Boiler #2 are 
not to exceed 0.50 pound per million Btu of heat input, based upon a 
30-day rolling average.
    (b) The ASRC is required to have continuous emission monitoring 
system (CEMS) for measuring NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Boiler #1 and 
Boiler #2.
    (c) The ASRC is required to maintain the records listed in 40 CFR 
60.49b (g) for Boiler #1 and Boiler #2.
    (d) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from each of Boiler #3 and Boiler 
#4 are not to exceed 0.20 pound per million Btu of heat input. Neither 
boiler is to combust a fuel other than natural gas except that Boiler 
#4 may also combust No. 2 fuel oil.
    (e) The ASRC is required to conduct a periodic performance test for 
NO<INF>X</INF> for each of Boiler #3 and Boiler #4.
    (f) The ASRC is required to keep a record identifying all 
deviations from the requirements of the NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Plan and is 
required to submit to the APCDJC a written report of all deviations 
that occurred during the preceding semi-annual period.
    2. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont): The Board Order 
submitted on November 12, 1999, contains the following NO<INF>X</INF> 
RACT requirements:
    (a) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Boiler #4 and Boiler #5 are 
not to exceed 0.20 pound per million Btu of heat input, based upon a 
30-day rolling average.
    (b) DuPont is required to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 
a CEMS, and record the output of the system, for measuring 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from each boiler.
    (c) DuPont is required to maintain records listed in 40 CFR 
Sec. 60.49b(g).
    (d) DuPont is required to submit to the APCDJC excess emission 
reports for any excess emissions that occurred during the reporting 
period.
    3. Ford Louisville Assembly Plant (Ford LAP): The Board Order 
originally submitted on November 12, 1999, amended and resubmitted on 
May 23, 2001, contains the following NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements:
    (a) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from each of Boiler #4 and Boiler 
#5 are not to exceed 0.20 pound per million Btu of heat input.
    (b) Ford LAP is required to conduct a periodic performance test for 
NO<INF>X</INF> for each of Boiler #4 and Boiler #5.
    (c) Ford LAP is required each year to perform and make a record of 
the following non-routine boiler maintenance activities for Boiler #4 
and Boiler #5: inspect the fuel combustion system, adjust the system to 
minimize total emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and carbon monoxide (CO), 
minimize excess air and maximize boiler efficiency, and make any needed 
adjustments or repairs to improve boiler efficiency.
    (d) Ford LAP was required to submit to the APCDJC a one-time 
written description of daily activities and procedures that may be 
conducted by the boiler operators to ensure optimum operating 
efficiency of Boiler #4 and Boiler #5.
    (e) Ford LAP is required to ensure that Boiler #1, Boiler #2, and 
Boiler #3 comply with the following requirements: No boiler is to have 
a monthly capacity factor greater than 10.0 percent for any month 
during the period March 1 to October 31, and no boiler is to combust a 
fuel other than natural gas, distillate oil, or residual oil.
    (f) Ford LAP is required to make a record of the type and amount of 
fuel combusted during each day of operation of Boiler #1, Boiler #2, or 
Boiler #3 during the period March 1 to October 31.
    (g) Ford LAP is required to keep a record identifying all 
deviations from the requirements of the NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Plan and is 
required to submit to the APCDJC a written report of all deviations 
that occurred during the preceding semi-annual period as well as a 
summary of the non-routine boiler maintenance activities for Boiler #4 
and Boiler #5.
    4. General Electric Company (GE Appliances): The Board Order 
originally submitted on November 12, 1999, amended and resubmitted on 
May 23, 2001, contains the following NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements:
    (a) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from each of Boiler #6 and Boiler 
#7 are not to exceed 0.20 pound per million Btu of heat input.
    (b) If either of Boiler #6 or Boiler #7 has a seasonal capacity 
factor greater than 15.0 percent, then GE Appliances is required, prior 
to operating that boiler during any subsequent ozone control season, to 
conduct a performance test for NO<INF>X</INF> for that boiler.
    (c) Each boiler of the group Boiler #1, Boiler #2, Boiler #3, 
Boiler #4, and Boiler #5 shall comply with one of the following 
options: Option 1: The boiler shall not have a seasonal capacity factor 
greater than 10.0 percent, or Option 2: The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
from the boiler are not to exceed 0.70 pound per million Btu of heat 
input. If one of these boilers has a seasonal capacity factor greater 
than 10.0 percent, then GE Appliances is required, prior to operating 
that boiler during any subsequent ozone control season, to conduct a 
performance test for NO<INF>X</INF>.
    (d) GE Appliances was required to submit to the APCDJC a written 
description of daily activities and procedures that may be conducted by 
the boiler operators to ensure optimum operating efficiency of the 
boilers used during the ozone control season.
    (e) GE Appliances is required to make a record of the type, heat 
content, and amount of fuel combusted during each day of operation 
during the ozone control season of each boiler identified above. GE 
Appliances is required to keep a record identifying all deviations from 
the requirements of this NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Plan and is required to 
submit to the APCDJC a written report of all deviations that occurred 
during the preceding semi-annual period as well as a summary of the 
non-routine boiler

[[Page 33513]]

maintenance activities for Boiler #6 and the designated primary backup 
boiler.
    5. Kosmos Cement Company (Kosmos): The Board Order originally 
submitted on November 12, 1999, amended and resubmitted on May 23, 
2001, contains the following NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements:
    (a) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the cement kiln shall not 
exceed 6.6 pounds per ton of clinker produced by the kiln, based upon a 
rolling 30-day average.
    (b) Kosmos is required to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 
a NO<INF>X</INF> CEMS for the cement kiln. Kosmos is required to keep 
records and submit required CEMS reports.
    (c) Kosmos is required to keep a record identifying all deviations 
from these requirements and is required to submit a written report of 
all deviations to the APCDJC.
    6. Louisville Gas and Electric Company, Cane Run Generating Station 
(LG&E/CRGS): The Board Order originally submitted on November 12, 1999, 
amended and resubmitted on May 23, 2001, contains the following 
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements:
    (a) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from each utility boiler are 
required to be below the rate as specified in the following, based upon 
a rolling 30-day average: Unit 4, 0.52 lb/mmBtu of heat input; Unit 5, 
0.52 lb/mmBtu of heat input; and Unit 6, 0.47 lb/mmBtu of heat input.
    (b) LG&E/CRGS is required to install, maintain, and operate a 
NO<INF>X</INF> CEMS for each utility boiler and is required to keep 
records and submit reports and other notifications as specified in the 
approved Board Order.
    (c) The GT-11 turbine is not to be operated for more than 500 hours 
per calendar year. LG&E/CRGS is required to make a record of the hours 
of operation during each day of operation and submit a quarterly report 
summarizing the monthly and calendar-year-to-date hours of operation.
    (d) LG&E/CRGS is required to keep a record identifying all 
deviations and submit to the APCDJC a written report of all deviations 
that occurred during the preceding calendar quarter.
    7. Louisville Gas and Electric Company, Mill Creek Generating 
Station (LG&E/MCGS): The Board Order originally submitted on November 
12, 1999, amended and resubmitted on May 23, 2001, contains the 
following NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements:
    (a) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from each utility boiler are 
required to be below the rate as specified in the following, based upon 
a rolling 30-day average: Unit 1, 0.47 lb/mmBtu of heat input; Unit 2, 
0.47 lb/mmBtu of heat input; Unit 3, 0.52 lb/mmBtu of heat input; and 
Unit 4, 0.52 lb/mmBtu of heat input.
    (b) LG&E/MCGS is required to install, maintain, and operate a 
NO<INF>X</INF> CEMS for each utility boiler and shall keep records and 
submit reports and other notifications as specified in the approved 
Board Order.
    (c) LG&E/MCGS is required to keep a record identifying all 
deviations and submit to the APCDJC a written report of all deviations 
that occurred during the preceding calendar quarter.
    8. Louisville Medical Center Steam Plant (Medical Center): The 
Board Order submitted on November 12, 1999, amended and resubmitted on 
May 23, 2001, contains the following NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements:
    (a) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from each of Boiler #2, Boiler #4, 
and Boiler #5 while natural gas is combusted in that boiler are not to 
exceed 0.20 pound per million Btu of heat input.
    (b) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from each of Boiler #4, Boiler #5, 
and Boiler #6 while coal is combusted in that boiler are not to exceed 
0.50 pound per million Btu of heat input.
    (c) The Medical Center is required to conduct a periodic 
performance test for NO<INF>X</INF> for each of Boiler #2, Boiler #4, 
Boiler #5, and Boiler #6.
    (d) The Medical Center is required annually to perform and make a 
record of non-routine boiler maintenance activities for Boiler #2, 
Boiler #4, Boiler #5, and Boiler #6. Also, the Medical Center was 
required to submit to the APCDJC a one-time written description of 
daily activities and procedures that may be conducted by the boiler 
operators to ensure optimum operating efficiency of Boiler #2, Boiler 
#4, Boiler #5, and Boiler #6.
    (e) Neither Boiler #1 nor Boiler #3 is to have a seasonal capacity 
factor greater than 10.0 percent. Also, the Medical Center is required 
to make a record of the type and amount of fuel combusted during each 
day of operation of Boiler #1 or Boiler #3 during the period April 1 
through October 31.
    (f) The Medical Center is required to keep a record identifying all 
deviations from the requirements of these NO<INF>X</INF> RACT 
requirements and is required to submit to the District a written report 
of all deviations.
    9. Oxy Vinyls, LP (Oxy Vinyls): The Board Order originally 
submitted on November 12, 1999, amended and resubmitted on May 23, 
2001, contains the following NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements:
    (a) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Boiler #4 are not to exceed 
0.60 pound per million Btu of heat input.
    (b) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Boiler #6 are not to exceed 
0.70 pound per million Btu of heat input.
    (c) Oxy Vinyls is required to conduct a periodic performance test 
for NO<INF>X</INF> for each of Boiler #4 and Boiler #6.
    (d) Oxy Vinyls is required to include in each related report to the 
APCDJC a summary of non-routine boiler maintenance activities for 
Boiler #4 and Boiler #6, and submit a one-time written description of 
daily activities and procedures conducted by the boiler operators to 
ensure optimum operating efficiency of Boiler #4 and Boiler #6.
    (e) Boiler #1 is required to comply with the following 
requirements: Boiler #1 is not to have an annual capacity factor 
greater than 10.0 percent for any consecutive 12-month period, and 
Boiler #1 is not to combust a fuel other than natural gas, distillate 
oil, or residual oil.
    (f) Oxy Vinyls is required to make a record of the type, heat 
content, and amount of fuel combusted during each day of operation of 
Boiler #1.
    (g) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Boiler #5 are not to exceed 
0.20 pound per million Btu of heat input. Oxy Vinyls is required to 
make a record of the type, heat content, and amount of fuel combusted 
during each day of operation of Boiler #5.
    (h) Oxy Vinyls is required to keep a record identifying all 
deviations from the requirements of the NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Plan and is 
required to submit to the APCDJC a written report of all deviations 
that occurred during the preceding semi-annual period.
    10. Rohm and Haas Company (Rohm & Haas): The Board Order submitted 
on November 12, 1999, contains the following NO<INF>X</INF> RACT 
requirements:
    (a) When fossil fuel (natural gas or distillate fuel oil) alone is 
combusted, the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Boiler No. 100 are not to 
exceed 0.20 pounds per million Btu of heat input, based upon a 30-day 
rolling average.
    (b) When fossil fuel (natural gas or distillate fuel oil) and 
chemical by-product waste are simultaneously combusted in Boiler No. 
100, NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the boiler are not to exceed 1.1 
pounds per million Btu of heat input, based upon a 30-day rolling 
average.
    (c) Rohm & Haas was required to install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a CEMS, and record the output of the system, for measuring 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Boiler No. 100 and submit the performance 
evaluation of the CEMS for Boiler No. 100.
    (d) Boiler No. 500 is required to either have an annual capacity 
factor not greater than 10.0 percent for any

[[Page 33514]]

consecutive 12-month period and keep a record of the type and amount of 
fuel combusted during each day of operation, or to not have the 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions exceed 0.20 pound per million Btu of heat 
input, based upon a 30-day rolling average.
    (e) Rohm & Haas is required to submit excess emission reports to 
the APCDJC.
    11. Texas Gas Transmission (Texas Gas): The Board Order submitted 
on November 12, 1999, amended and resubmitted on May 23, 2001, contains 
the following NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements:
    (a) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from each of Internal Combustion 
(IC) Engines #1 through #9 are not to exceed 3 grams per brake-
horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), according to the following schedule: four 
IC engines by no later than November 15, 2001, and the other five IC 
engines by no later than November 15, 2002. Until an individual IC 
engine is subject to the 3 g/bhp-hr NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limit, 
Texas Gas is required to restrict the operation of that IC engine to 
less than or equal to 1350 brake horsepower during the time period of 
May 1 through September 30 each year.
    (b) Until October 1, 2004, the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from 
Turbine T-1 are not to exceed 100 pounds per hour, and the exhaust 
temperature is not to exceed 1006  deg.F. On and after October 1, 2004, 
the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Turbine T-1 is not to exceed 75 parts 
per million by volume on a dry gas basis (ppmvd) corrected to 15 
percent O<INF>2</INF>. Additionally, Texas Gas is required to submit a 
construction permit application for Turbine T-1 by March 1, 2003, for 
Dry Low NO<INF>X</INF> (DLN) controls and begin operation of DLN 
controls by October 1, 2004.
    (c) The NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the Emergency Generator 
Engine are not to exceed 2.6 grams per brake horsepower-hour.
    (d) Texas Gas is required to monitor and record the operational 
parameters for each IC engine, the Emergency Generator Engine, and 
Turbine T-1, and conduct NO<INF>X</INF> performance tests as follows: 
annually one IC engine from the group of IC Engines #1 through #6 
(alternating such that each IC engine in this group has been tested in 
a six-year period), annually one IC engine from the group of IC Engines 
#7 through #9 (alternating such that each IC engine in this group has 
been tested in a three-year period), and periodically, starting in 
2005, Turbine T-1.
    (e) Texas Gas is required to keep a record identifying all 
deviations from the requirements of the NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Plan and is 
required to submit to the APCDJC a written report of all deviations 
that occurred during the preceding semi-annual period.
    The EPA is proposing today to approve the eleven Board Orders 
discussed above. These Board Orders are necessary to satisfy the 
requirements of section 182(f) for the Kentucky's portion of the 
Louisville area. Kentucky made a negative declaration in the 
redesignation request that there were no major sources of 
NO<INF>X</INF> in the nonattainment portions of Bullitt and Oldham 
Counties.
    Indiana submitted the required NO<INF>X</INF> RACT rules on August 
26, 1996. In addition, on April 30, 1997, Indiana submitted a negative 
declaration that there were no remaining major sources of 
NO<INF>X</INF> in Clark and Floyd Counties. The EPA approved Indiana's 
NO<INF>X</INF> revisions as meeting the requirements of section 182(f) 
for the Indiana portion of the Louisville area on June 3, 1997 (62 FR 
30253).
    Final action approving all items needed to satisfy the requirements 
identified above will enable Kentucky and Indiana to have a fully-
approved SIP under section 110(k), and to meet met all applicable 
requirements under section 110 and part D.
Criterion (3): The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent 
and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the SIP, federal 
measures, and other State-adopted measures. VOC emissions in the 
Kentucky portion of the Louisville area were reduced by 4.93 tons per 
day between 1996 and 1999. Regulatory programs which contributed to 
these emission reductions include: rule effectiveness (APCDJC 
Regulation 1.18); stage II gasoline vapor recovery and control (APCDJC 
Regulation 6.40), VOC emission reduction (APCDJC Regulation 6.43), 
performance standards for existing solid waste land fills (APCDJC 
Regulation 6.45), an improved vehicle I/M program (APCDJC Regulations 
8.01, 802, and 8.03), a ban on most types of open burning (401 KAR 
63:005), federal rules for Architectural Coatings, Traffic Paints, Auto 
Body Refinishing, and Commercial/Consumer Products; Kentucky and APCDJC 
opt-in to the federally-enforceable reformulated gasoline program, 
federal rules establishing maximum allowable Reid Vapor Pressure, and 
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP).
    In the Indiana portion of the nonattainment area, VOC emissions 
were reduced by 4.4 tons per day between 1996 and 1999. Regulatory 
programs contributing to the reductions in emissions in the Indiana 
portion of the Louisville area include the volatile organic storage 
tanks rule (326 IAC 8-9), the shipbuilding and ship repair rule (326 
IAC 8-12), the wood furniture coating rule (326 IAC 8-11), the 
automobile refinishing rule (326 IAC 8-10), the stage II gasoline vapor 
recovery rule (326 IAC 8-4-6), lower Reid Vapor Pressure gasoline rule 
(326 IAC 13-3), a ban on residential open burning (326 IAC 4-1), 
installation of gas collection and combustion equipment at municipal 
solid waste landfills (326 IAC 8-8), an improved vehicle I/M program 
(326 IAC 13-1), a ridesharing program and, the installation of thermal 
incinerators at a printing facility in Clark County. The 15 percent 
plan and all of the reductions in the above list have been approved 
into the SIP. Federal programs contributing to reductions include: the 
FMVCP, the federal architectural and industrial maintenance coatings 
rule, and VOC (326 IAC 8-7) and NO<INF>X</INF> RACT (326 IAC 10-1) 
regulations.
    Based on the listed programs, Kentucky and Indiana have shown that 
the improvement in air quality is based on permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions, thus meeting this requirement.
    Criterion (4): The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 
Meeting the Requirements of Section 175A
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
The maintenance plan is a SIP revision that provides for maintenance of 
the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after 
redesignation. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, 
provides additional guidance on the required content of a maintenance 
plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five 
areas: the attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, 
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a 
contingency plan. The attainment emissions inventory identifies the 
emissions level in the area that is sufficient to attain the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS, based on emissions during a three year period which had no 
monitored violations. Maintenance is demonstrated by showing that 
future emissions will not exceed the level established by the 
attainment inventory. Provisions for continued operation of an 
appropriate air quality monitoring network are to be included in the 
maintenance plan. The State must show how it will track and verify the 
progress

[[Page 33515]]

of the maintenance plan. Finally, the maintenance plan must include a 
list of potential contingency measures which ensure prompt correction 
of any violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Kentucky and Indiana, in their submittals, included their 1999 
emissions inventories as their attainment year inventories. Both 
Kentucky's and Indiana's maintenance plans provided emissions estimates 
from 1999 to 2012 for VOCs and NO<INF>X</INF>, and indicate that these 
emissions in the Louisville area are projected to decrease from 1999 
levels. Considering only the projected emissions, the results of this 
analysis show that the area is expected to maintain the air quality 
standard for at least 10 years into the future after redesignation. 
However, as shown in tables 7 and 8, Kentucky and Indiana also chose to 
include a safety margin, in addition to projected emissions, for both 
the VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> MVEBs.
    The transportation conformity regulations allow for a safety margin 
to be allocated to a MVEB to the extent that the projected emissions 
are less than the attainment year emissions. However, when the VOC 
safety margin calculated by the States is included in the 2012 
projections in these draft plans, the 2012 projected VOC emissions will 
exceed the 1999 emissions by 2.76 tons/day. The total projected 2012 
emissions, taking the safety margin into account, total 148.40 tons/
day, or 2.76 tons/day more than the 1999 emissions. Therefore, the 
draft maintenance plans must be revised to control VOC emissions such 
that the 2012 projected inventories, including the safety margin being 
used for the VOC MVEB, are 2.76 tons/day less than shown in the draft 
maintenance plans. To remedy this issue, Indiana submitted a letter on 
May 29, 2001, and Kentucky submitted a letter on May 17, 2001, 
indicating their intent to revise the draft maintenance plans so that 
the final maintenance plans will include a VOC MVEB of 48.17 tons/day, 
2.76 tons/day less than the MVEB included in the draft. For a more 
detailed discussion of the revision to the VOC MVEB, please see the 
following section on MVEBs. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance 
plan as long as the final plan is revised so that the projected 2012 
VOC emissions, including the VOC MVEB safety margin, do not exceed the 
1999 attainment year emissions.
    Table 3 and Table 4 provide the emissions summary for VOCs and 
NO<INF>X</INF> for the Indiana portion and Table 5 and Table 6 provide 
the emission summary for VOCs and NO<INF>X</INF> for the Kentucky 
portion of the Louisville area. Table 7 and Table 8, respectively, 
provide the emissions summary for VOCs and NO<INF>X</INF> for the 
entire Louisville area.

   Table 3.--VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day for Indiana Counties
                            (Clark and Floyd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           1999        2005       2012
                                        attainment  projected  projected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................................       4.16        4.49       4.88
Area..................................      17.67       17.11      18.12
Mobile................................       9.80        8.58       8.81
Non-Highway...........................       7.36        7.70       8.09
                                       ---------------------------------
  Totals..............................      38.99       37.88      39.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 4.--NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day for Indiana Counties
                            (Clark and Floyd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           1999        2005       2012
                                        attainment  projected  projected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................................      26.04       12.35      12.38
Area..................................       8.39        8.78       9.23
Mobile................................      19.33       16.66      12.82
Non-Highway...........................       6.25        6.46       6.71
                                       ---------------------------------
  Totals..............................      60.01       44.25      41.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 5.--VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day for Kentucky Counties (Jefferson, and Nonattainment Portions of Bullitt and Oldham)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1999 attainment     2002 projected     2005 projected     2008 projected     2012 projected
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................................................              31.52              31.93              31.93              31.83              31.52
Area.....................................................              18.94              19.10              19.27              19.47              19.64
Mobile...................................................              41.13              36.38              30.50              28.02              27.23
Non-Highway..............................................              15.07              15.12              15.15              15.20              15.22
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals.............................................             106.66             102.53              96.85              94.52              93.61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 6.--NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day for Kentucky Counties (Jefferson, and Nonattainment Portions of Bullitt and Oldham)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1999 attainment     2002 projected     2005 projected     2008 projected     2012 projected
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................................................             116.86              99.08              46.37              47.78              47.99
Area.....................................................               0.81               0.81               0.82               0.82               0.82
Mobile...................................................              73.60              67.70              59.22              52.64              44.19
Non-Highway..............................................              19.95              19.87              19.74              19.63              19.41
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals.............................................             211.22             187.46             126.15             120.87             112.41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table 7.--VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day for the Entire Louisville Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 2012 projected
                                                                                                   (including
                                                                                                    States'
        Total VOC (tons/day)           1999 attainment     2005 projected     2012 projected    calculated 14.89
                                                                                                 mobile source
                                                                                                    ``safety
                                                                                                   margin'')
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...............................              35.68              36.42              36.40              36.40
Area................................              36.61              36.38              37.76              37.76
Mobile..............................              50.93              39.08              36.04              50.93

[[Page 33516]]

 
Non-Highway.........................              22.43              22.85              23.31              23.31
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals........................             145.65             134.73             133.51             148.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table 8.--NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day for the Entire Louisville area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 2012 projected
                                                                                                   (including
                                                                                                    States'
        Total NO<INF>X</INF> (tons/day)           1999 attainment     2005 projected     2012 projected    calculated 35.92
                                                                                                 mobile source
                                                                                                    ``safety
                                                                                                   margin'')
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...............................             142.90              58.72              60.37              60.37
Area................................               9.20               9.60              10.05              10.05
Mobile..............................              92.93              75.88              57.01              92.93
Non-Highway.........................              26.20              26.20              26.12              26.12
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals........................             271.23             170.40         \1\ 153.56         \1\ 189.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Slight differences due to rounding.

    Kentucky and Indiana have addressed the maintenance plan 
requirements for monitoring and emissions inventories. Both have 
committed to continue the operation of the monitors in the area in 
accordance with 40 CFR Part 58. Kentucky and Indiana will accomplish 
verification of continued attainment by regularly updating the 
emissions inventory for the area.
    The contingency plan for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville 
area contains four major components: a commitment to submit a revised 
plan eight years after redesignation, attainment tracking, triggers to 
start the implementation of the contingency measures, and contingency 
measures to be implemented in the event that a trigger is activated. 
Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires States to submit a revision of the 
SIP eight years after the original redesignation request is approved to 
provide for maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for an additional ten 
years following the first ten-year period. Kentucky and Indiana have 
committed to submit the revision to the SIP eight years after 
redesignation of the Louisville area. Attainment tracking will include 
triennial reviews of actual emissions for the redesignated areas which 
will be performed using the latest emission factors, models, and 
methodologies. Kentucky will begin the triennial assessments in 2003 
for calendar year 2002. At the time of this periodic inventory, 
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 the emissions.
    In the event of a monitored violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 
the Louisville area, Kentucky commits to adopt within nine months, and 
implement the regulatory programs within 18 months, one or more of the 
following contingency measures to re-attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS:
    1. A program to require additional emission reductions at 
stationary sources, either for specific types of processes or an 
across-the-board reduction for the larger stationary sources.
    2. More restrictive new source review requirements.
    3. A more rigorous vehicle emissions testing program or an increase 
the area subject to the current programs.
    4. Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of 
such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high-occupancy 
vehicles.
    5. Trip-reduction ordinances.
    6. Employer-based transportation management plans, including 
incentives.
    7. Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas, or 
other areas of emission concentration, particularly during periods of 
peak use.
    8. Programs for new construction and major reconstructions of paths 
or tracks for use by pedestrians or by non-motorized vehicles when 
economically feasible and in the public interest.
    Kentucky also reserves the right to implement other contingency 
measures if new control programs should be developed and deemed more 
advantageous for the area. In addition, the occurrence of either of the 
following two events will trigger Kentucky to evaluate existing control 
measures to see if any further emission reduction measures should be 
implemented: (1) if exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are measured 
in any portion of the Louisville area, or (2) if a periodic emission 
inventory update reveals excessive or unanticipated growth greater than 
10 percent in ozone precursor emissions.
    The contingency plan for the Indiana portion of the Louisville area 
contains four major components: a commitment to submit a revised plan 
eight years after redesignation, attainment tracking, triggers to start 
the implementation of the contingency measures, and contingency 
measures to be implemented in the event that a trigger is activated. 
Attainment tracking will include triennial reviews of actual emissions 
for the redesignated areas which will be performed using the latest 
emission factors, models, and methodologies. Indiana will begin the 
triennial assessments in 2003 for calendar year 2002. At the time of 
this periodic inventory, Indiana 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, then emissions will be re-projected.
    Indiana used a two-tiered approach in its maintenance plan to 
determine the appropriate level of response to ensure

[[Page 33517]]

maintenance of the NAAQS. As specified in the submittal, a ``Level 
Two'' response is implemented in the event that an ozone monitor 
records an ozone concentration of 0.12 ppm or more, or the level of VOC 
or NO<INF>X</INF> for the entire Louisville area increases above the 
1999 baseline. In the case of one of these triggers, a Level Two 
response would consist of a study to determine whether the noted trends 
are likely to continue and, if so, the control measures necessary to 
reverse the trend. Implementation of these Level Two controls would 
take place as expeditiously as possible, and in no case later than 18 
months after Indiana is aware of a trigger being exceeded. A Level One 
response is activated in the event of a monitored violation of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS in the Louisville area. With a violation, Indiana 
commits to implement measures within 18 months. Indiana will select 
contingency measures from the following list, or any other measure 
deemed appropriate and effective at that time:
    1. Reformulated gasoline program.
    2. Broader geographic applicability of existing measures.
    3. Tightening of RACT on existing sources covered by EPA Control 
Techniques Guidelines issued in response to the CAA.
    4. Application of RACT to smaller existing sources.
    5. A fully-enhanced I/M program.
    6. One or more transportation control measures sufficient to 
achieve at least 0.5 percent reduction in actual area-wide VOC 
emissions. Transportation measures will be selected from the following, 
based upon the factors listed above after consultation with affected 
local governments:
    (a) Trip reduction programs, including, but not limited to, 
employer-based transportation management plans, area-wide rideshare 
programs, work schedule changes, and telecommuting.
    (b) Transit improvements.
    (c) Traffic flow improvements.
    (d) Other heretofore ``undiscovered'' transportation measures not 
yet in widespread use.
    7. Alternative fuels programs for fleet vehicle operations.
    8. Controls on consumer products consistent with those adopted 
elsewhere in the United States.
    9. VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> emission offsets for new and modified 
major sources.
    10. VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> emission offsets for new and modified 
minor sources.
    11. An increase in the ratio of emission offsets required for new 
sources.
    12. VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> controls on new minor sources (less than 
100 tons).
    Kentucky's and Indiana's submittals adequately address the five 
basic components which comprise a maintenance plan (attainment 
inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification 
of continued attainment, and a contingency plan) and, therefore, 
satisfy the maintenance plan requirement.
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
    In addition to meeting the criteria for redesignation, as a control 
strategy SIP, the maintenance plans must contain motor vehicle 
emissions budgets that, in conjunction with emissions from all other 
sources, are consistent with attainment and maintenance. Kentucky, 
Indiana, and APCDJC developed MVEBs for the maintenance plan year of 
2012. The MVEBs are for both VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> as precursors to 
ozone formation and would be applicable for the entire Louisville area 
upon the effective date of a final approval or a MVEB adequacy finding.
    In order to develop the MVEBs, motor vehicle emissions were 
projected to 2012 using the MOBILE5b emission factor model and 
associated modeling tools. The transportation conformity regulations 
also allow for a safety margin to be allocated to a MVEB to the extent 
that the total projected emissions are less than the total attainment 
year emissions. The States calculated draft safety margins for both 
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC using a slightly different methodology than 
indicated in the definition of a safety margin in the conformity rule. 
The States calculated the difference between the 1999 attainment year 
on-road mobile source inventory and the 2012 projected on-road mobile 
source emissions. This methodology produces an acceptable 
NO<INF>X</INF> MVEB. However, as discussed above, the 2012 projected 
VOC emissions, including the draft VOC MVEB, exceed the 1999 attainment 
year VOC emissions. The States' draft maintenance plan provides for a 
VOC MVEB of 50.93 tons/day (the 2012 projected motor vehicle emissions, 
36.04 tons/day, plus a safety margin of 14.89 tons/day). Since this 
MVEB, along with the other emissions projected for 2012, would exceed 
the 1999 emissions, the maintenance plans must be revised prior to 
final submission. In response to this concern, Kentucky and Indiana 
submitted letters indicating their intent to revise the draft 
maintenance plans so that the final maintenance plans will include a 
VOC MVEB of 48.17 tons/day, 2.76 tons/day less than the MVEB included 
in the draft. This MVEB is comprised of the 2012 projected motor 
vehicle emissions, 36.04 tons/day, and a safety margin of 12.13 tons/
day (2.76 tons/day less than the draft safety margin). Based on this 
change that the States intend to make in their final submittals, EPA is 
proposing to approve the maintenance plans and MVEBs as long as the 
final plan is revised to include a VOC MVEB of no more than 48.17 tons/
day.

                                           Table 9.--Proposed 2012 MVEB for the Louisville Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2012 projected      State draft      State draft 2012
                        Pollutant                           emissions (tons/    safety margin      projected MVEB    Allowable safety    Allowable 2012
                                                                  day)            (tons/day)         (tons/day)     margin (tons/day)   MVEB (tons/day)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC......................................................              36.04              14.89              50.93              12.13              48.17
NO<INF>X</INF>......................................................              57.01              35.92              92.93              35.92              92.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the control programs the States considered in developing 
their MVEBs is the Tier II emission standards for vehicles and the low 
sulfur gasoline (Tier II/Low Sulfur) reductions that will be 
implemented beginning in 2004. The Tier II/Low Sulfur standards were 
promulgated as federal rules February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6697). The rules 
require more stringent emission limitations for vehicles on a grams per 
mile of NO<INF>X</INF> basis. The rules also require that the sulfur 
levels in gasoline be significantly less than current levels.
    The States estimated the reduction provided by the Tier II/Low 
Sulfur gasoline program by using ``Information Sheet #8 Tier II 
Benefits Using MOBILE 5b'', an EPA-supplied information sheet, to 
adjust the MOBILE5b emission factors for 2012. This information sheet 
notes that users need to be aware of the serious limitations of the 
information in certain situations. The model used to derive the 
estimates of Tier II reductions incorporates changes proposed for 
MOBILE6 that are unrelated to the Tier

[[Page 33518]]

II program and, as a result, produces baseline emissions estimates that 
are different from those produced by MOBILE5. In the absence of 
MOBILE6, users will apply these reductions to baseline emissions 
calculated using versions of MOBILE5. As a result, the final 
inventories estimated using this method may be substantially different 
from what will be estimated once MOBILE6 becomes available.
    For this reason, when this information sheet is used to estimate 
the reductions achieved by the Tier II/Low Sulfur program, EPA has 
required a commitment from affected areas that the MVEBs will be 
recalculated after the release of MOBILE6. This commitment is discussed 
in more detail in a November 8, 1999, memorandum entitled ``1-Hour 
Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking'' from 
Lydia N. Wegman, Director, Air Quality Strategies and Standards 
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Merrylin 
Zaw-Mon, Director, Fuels and Energy Division, Office of Mobile Sources 
to EPA Regions I--VI Air Directors. This memorandum requires areas that 
rely in whole or in part on the Tier II/Low Sulfur program emission 
reductions to help demonstrate attainment to commit to recalculate and 
resubmit MVEBs, as a formal SIP revision, within 1 year after the 
release of MOBILE6. Subsequently, in a July 28, 2000 Federal Register 
action (65 FR 46383), EPA proposed to provide 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as serious and severe an option, under 
which States could commit to revise their MVEBs 2 years following the 
release of MOBILE6, provided that conformity is not determined without 
adequate MOBILE6 SIP MVEBs during the second year.
    While this memorandum and Federal Register proposal specifically 
address attainment demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone nonattainment 
areas classified as serious and severe, EPA believes that the 
commitment is applicable to any area that has estimated the reductions 
from the Tier II/Low Sulfur program and is depending on those 
reductions for attainment or maintenance. Indiana and Kentucky did not 
include this commitment in their draft submittal but have submitted 
letters stating their intent to include, in their final documents, a 
commitment to revise their MVEBs 2 years following the release of 
MOBILE6, recognizing that conformity may not be determined without 
adequate MOBILE6 SIP MVEBs during the second year. EPA can only take 
final approval action on this redesignation request if the States make 
this commitment in their final submittals. If this commitment is made, 
but either State fails to meet it, the EPA could make a finding of 
failure to implement the SIP, which would start a sanctions clock under 
CAA section 179.
    Indiana's and Kentucky's letters also indicate that they intend to 
revise the VOC MVEB, reducing the safety margin, so that the 2012 
projected emission inventory is less than the 1999 attainment year. 
Provided the States appropriately revise the VOC MVEB and submit 
enforceable commitments to revise their MVEBs using MOBILE6, the EPA is 
proposing to approve their maintenance plans, redesignation requests 
and MVEBs.
    EPA is also proposing to clarify what will occur if the EPA 
finalizes approval of these MVEBs based on the States' commitments to 
revise the budgets in the future. If this occurs, the approved SIP 
MVEBs will apply for conformity purposes only until the revised MVEBs 
have been submitted and the EPA has found the submitted MVEBs to be 
adequate for conformity purposes.
    In other words, when the States fulfill their commitment to submit 
revised MVEBs, if the EPA finds those MVEBs to be adequate for 
conformity purposes, those revised MVEBs will apply for conformity 
purposes as soon as affirmative adequacy findings are effective. 
Provided these revised MVEBs are submitted as revisions to the 
maintenance plans' 2012 MVEBs, they would also replace the MVEBs in the 
approved maintenance plans at the time that the affirmative adequacy 
findings are effective.
    Since the EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs that were submitted 
with their redesignation request only because the States have committed 
to revise these MVEBs, EPA wants its approval of these MVEBs to last 
only until adequate revised MVEBs are submitted pursuant to the 
commitments. EPA believes the revised MVEBs should apply as soon as 
they are found adequate. EPA does not believe it is necessary to wait 
until they have been approved as revisions to the maintenance plan. 
This is because EPA knows now that if the revised MVEBs are found 
adequate, they will be more appropriate than the originally approved 
budgets for conformity purposes.
    EPA also recognizes that an accurate estimate of the benefits of 
the Tier II/Low Sulfur program cannot be made until the MOBILE6 model 
is released. EPA is proposing to approve MVEBs based on interim 
approximations of Tier II/Low Sulfur benefits only because the States 
are committing to recalculate the MVEBs using MOBILE6 in a timely 
fashion. According to this proposal, revised MVEBs could be used for 
conformity after the EPA has completed the adequacy review process, 
provided the submitted MVEBs are deemed adequate.
    If revised MVEBs raise issues about the sufficiency of the 
maintenance demonstration, EPA will work with the States on a case-by-
case basis. If the revised MVEBs show that MVEBs are lower than EPA is 
proposing to approve today, a reassessment of the maintenance plans 
must be done before the States can reallocate any of the emission 
reductions or assign them to an MVEB as a safety margin. In other 
words, the States must assess how their original maintenance plan is 
impacted by using MOBILE6 vs. MOBILE5 before they reallocate any 
apparent motor vehicle emission reductions resulting from the use of 
MOBILE6.
    This Federal Register action does not propose any change to the 
existing transportation conformity rule or to the way it is normally 
implemented with respect to other submitted and approved SIPs, which do 
not contain commitments to revise the MVEBs.

F. Where Is the Public Record and Where Do I Send Comments?

    The official record for this proposed rule has been established 
under SIP submittal numbers KY-126 and IN-121-2 and is located at the 
addresses in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. 
The addresses for sending comments are also provided in the ADDRESSES 
section at the beginning of this document.
    Public comments are solicited on the EPA's proposed rulemaking 
action. Public comments received in writing by July 23, 2001 will be 
considered in the development of the EPA's final rulemaking action.

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 proposed rule to approve pre-existing requirements 
under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty 
beyond that required by State law,

[[Page 33519]]

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, the 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), the EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for the 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, the 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: June 7, 2001.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    Dated: June 14, 2001.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 01-15748 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>