[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57750-57762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19875]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R04-OAR-2004-KY-0003-200529; FRL-7979-7A]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Kentucky: 
Inspection and Maintenance Program Removal for Northern Kentucky; New 
Solvent Metal Cleaning Equipment; Commercial Motor Vehicle and Mobile 
Equipment Refinishing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving four related revisions to the Kentucky State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on 
February 9, 2005. These revisions affect the Northern Kentucky area, 
which is comprised of the Kentucky Counties of Boone, Campbell, and 
Kenton, and is part of the Cincinnati-Hamilton Metropolitan Statistical 
Area. EPA is approving the movement of the regulation underlying the 
Northern Kentucky inspection and maintenance (I/M) program from the 
regulatory portion of the Kentucky SIP to the contingency measures 
section of the Northern Kentucky 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. EPA is 
also approving revisions to a Kentucky rule which provides for the 
control of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from new solvent metal 
cleaning equipment. Further, EPA is approving a new rule into the 
Kentucky SIP affecting commercial motor vehicle and mobile equipment 
refinishing operations in Northern Kentucky. Finally, EPA is approving 
updated mobile source category emissions projections with updated, 
state motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for the year 2010. This 
final rule addresses comments made on EPA's proposed rulemaking 
previously published for this action.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be effective November 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Regional 
Material in EDocket (RME) ID No. R04-OAR-2004-KY-0003. All documents in 
the docket are listed in the RME index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Once in the system, select ``quick search,'' then key in the 
appropriate RME Docket identification number. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in RME or in hard copy at the 
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides 
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA 
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be 
reached via telephone number at (404) 562-9031 or electronic mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e48a8b9085968d858a8a8dca898d878c818881a4819485ca838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff91908b9e8d969e919196d192969c979a939abf9a8f9ed1989089">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Today's Action
III. Clarifications Made in the Final SIP Submittal
IV. Responses to Comments
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 57751]]

I. Background

    On April 4, 2005, EPA proposed approval of Kentucky's November 12, 
2004, proposed SIP revision request, submitted for parallel processing, 
to move the I/M regulations underlying the Northern Kentucky Vehicle 
Emissions Testing (VET) Program to the contingency measures section of 
the Kentucky SIP (70 FR 17029). In that action, EPA also proposed 
approval of equivalent emissions reductions of VOCs to replace the VET 
Program from two Kentucky rules. The revisions to Kentucky rule 401 KAR 
59:185, ``New solvent metal cleaning equipment,'' require the use of 
solvents with lower vapor pressures in batch cold cleaning machines 
used in specified facilities located in the Northern Kentucky Counties 
of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton. EPA also proposed to approve new rule, 
401 KAR 59:760, ``Commercial Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment 
Refinishing Operations,'' into the Kentucky SIP. This new regulation 
requires the use of, and equipment training for, high efficiency 
transfer application techniques at autobody repair and refinishing 
operations in the Northern Kentucky Counties, and prescribes operating 
procedures to minimize the emissions of VOCs. The emissions reductions 
from these two rules provide compensating, equivalent emissions 
reductions for the Northern Kentucky VET Program. (See the proposed 
rule published April 4, 2005, at 70 FR 17029 for further background and 
a detailed analysis of the proposed November 12, 2004, SIP revision.) 
EPA received adverse comments on the proposed rule. Also during this 
time, on February 9, 2005, Kentucky submitted a final SIP revision. In 
today's action, EPA is responding to the adverse comments received, 
describing the clarifications made in the final SIP revision, and 
taking final action on the February 9, 2005, SIP revision.

II. Today's Action

    EPA is approving revisions to the Kentucky SIP related to the 
Northern Kentucky I/M program, also known as the Northern Kentucky VET 
Program. Through this final action, EPA is approving the movement of 
401 KAR 65:010, the Kentucky SIP regulation for the Northern Kentucky 
VET Program, from the regulatory portion of the Kentucky SIP to the 
contingency measures section of the Northern Kentucky 1-Hour Ozone 
Maintenance Plan, which is part of the Kentucky SIP. The Northern 
Kentucky VET Program regulation which is subject to today's action is: 
401 KAR 65:010, ``Vehicle emission control programs.'' Also in this 
final action, EPA is approving revisions to 401 KAR 59:185 and adding a 
new rule, 401 KAR 59:760, to the Kentucky SIP. In addition, EPA is 
responding to the adverse comments received on the April 4, 2005, 
rulemaking proposing to approve the aforementioned revisions (70 FR 
17029). Finally, EPA is approving updated mobile source category 
emissions projections using MOBILE6.2, with updated, state MVEBs for 
the year 2010, of 7.68 tons per summer day (tpsd) VOCs and 17.42 tpsd 
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>). In this final action, EPA is also 
correcting references to the former 2010 MVEBs developed using MOBILE5, 
which were stated in the November 12, 2004, proposed SIP submittal and 
on page 17033 of the April 4, 2005, rule (70 FR 17029), as 7.02 tpsd 
VOC and 17.33 tpsd NO<INF>X</INF>. The correct numbers, as reflected in 
the latest SIP revision approved by EPA published on May 30, 2003, (68 
FR 32382), are 7.33 tpsd VOC and 17.13 tpsd NO<INF>X</INF>. (See also 
the associated proposed rule published March 19, 2003, at 68 FR 13247 
for these MVEB values.) Please note that previously the MVEBs for this 
area were referred to as subarea MVEBs. EPA is now referring to 
``subarea'' MVEBs which encompass the entire portion of the 
nonattainment/maintenance area within one state of a multi-state area 
as ``state MVEBs,'' and is reserving the ``subarea MVEB'' label for 
suballocation of MVEBs for portions of 
nonattainment[bs<pound><script-l>]maintenance areas that are contained 
within an individual state.

III. Clarifications Made in the Final SIP Submittal

    EPA's proposed approval published April 4, 2005, (70 FR 17029) was 
made contingent upon Kentucky addressing the requested clarifications 
in EPA's December 29, 2004, comment letter to Kentucky Division for Air 
Quality (KDAQ) on the November 12, 2004, proposed SIP revision. (EPA's 
December 29, 2004, letter is available in the docket for this action on 
EPA's RME website, which is described in the ADDRESSES section of this 
action.) The final February 9, 2005, submittal addresses these 
clarifications as follows.
    Because the VET Program reduces emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) 
in addition to VOC and NO<INF>X</INF>, a demonstration of non-
interference with the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 
pursuant to section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) must be provided. 
The final submittal illustrates with CO values from 1991 to 2001, the 
last year of available CO monitoring data, that ambient CO levels are 
trending downward and have declined significantly in the area. In 2001, 
ambient CO levels were 93 percent below the 1-hour maximum CO NAAQS and 
80 percent below the 8-hour maximum CO NAAQS. Additionally, the 
submittal notes that the Northern Kentucky area has always been 
attainment for the CO NAAQS. Based on this information, EPA upholds its 
preliminary determination stated in the April 4, 2005, (70 FR 17029) 
proposed rule that closure of the VET Program will not interfere with 
continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Northern Kentucky area.
    The KDAQ also clarified references in Appendices B and E to the 
ratio used to determine equivalency of VOC for NO<INF>X</INF>. The 
references are corrected to read as ``VOC/NO<INF>X</INF>'' ratio, which 
is correctly defined in the four-asterisk footnote in Appendix E and in 
Appendix B as the total VOC emissions divided by the total 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from all source categories in the area.
    KDAQ also modified Section 3, ``Operating requirements,'' of 401 
KAR 59:760, which formerly used language which mirrored that of the 
Ozone Transport Commission model rule. EPA explains in its December 29, 
2004, comment letter to KDAQ that to be consistent with current Agency 
policy, this language needed to be revised to include some form of 
public review for determining other coating application methods which 
achieve emissions reductions equivalent to high volume low pressure 
(HVLP) or electrostatic spray application methods. The final version of 
401 KAR 59:760 institutes public review by requiring in Section 3(1)(k) 
that the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (Cabinet) 
hold a public hearing on submitted demonstrations of equivalent coating 
application methods and submit the demonstrations to EPA for approval.
    Other items clarified by KDAQ in the final SIP package include 
making consistent references to the requested effective date to end the 
VET Program, and specifying the regulation underlying the VET Program 
to be moved from the regulatory portion of the Kentucky SIP to the 
contingency measures list. In its February 9, 2005, final SIP 
submittal, the Commonwealth of Kentucky proposed an effective date of 
March 31, 2005, for the repeal of 401 KAR 63:010 ``Vehicle Emissions 
Control Programs.'' EPA clarifies that the correct regulation citation 
is 401 KAR 65:010. Also, EPA affirms that the effective date for the 
repeal of this regulation can be no earlier than the effective date of 
this

[[Page 57752]]

final action. (See Response 6 of Section IV below.)

IV. Responses to Comments

    The following is a summary of the adverse comments received on the 
proposed rule published April 4, 2005, at 70 FR 17029 and EPA's 
responses to these comments.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that EPA's Final Rule to Implement 
the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase I, 
published April 15, 2004, specifically prohibits the shifting of the I/
M program for Northern Kentucky into the contingency category at this 
time. The commenter cites 40 CFR 51.905(a)(2) as applicable to the 
Northern Kentucky area because the area is maintenance for the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A few 
commenters noted that under EPA's 8-hour ozone anti-backsliding 
provisions, 1-hour ozone maintenance measures not needed under the 
area's 8-hour ozone classification must be continued unless shifted to 
the contingency category before designation as 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment. The commenters also note that the exception provided in 
40 CFR 51.905(b) allows an applicable requirement to be shifted to a 
contingency measure for an area like Northern Kentucky once the area 
attains the 8-hour ozone standard, which is currently not the case for 
the Northern Kentucky area. Another commenter asserts that allowing 
states to move basic I/M programs to a contingency measure while they 
are nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS conflicts with section 
172(e) of the Act, and with the stated rationale and intent underlying 
EPA's anti-backsliding rule on pages 69 FR 23970 and 69 FR 23977 
published April 30, 2004.
    Response 1: EPA clarifies that the publication date of the Final 
Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard--Phase I was April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951). EPA concurs that 40 
CFR 51.905(a)(2) is applicable to the Northern Kentucky area because 
the area is maintenance for the 1-hour ozone standard and nonattainment 
for the 8-hour ozone standard, and that I/M programs are listed in 40 
CFR 51.900(f)(2) as an applicable requirement at the time of the area's 
nonattainment designation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA also affirms 
that 40 CFR 51.905(b) requires that an area remains subject to 
obligations at the time of designation to 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
until the area attains the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, at which time the State 
may request such obligations to be shifted to contingency measures, 
consistent with sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA. (See 40 CFR 
51.905(b).) The provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(b) allow movement of 
certain obligations to the contingency measures portion of the SIP 
because the area has shown it does not need these obligations or 
control measures to meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    While the Northern Kentucky area remains subject to 40 CFR 
51.905(b), this action to replace the Northern Kentucky VET Program 
emissions reductions with other control measures fully satisfies the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.905(b). Initially, as described in detail in 
the response to the next comment (i.e., Response 2), this action 
approves revisions to an I/M regulation subject to the provisions of 40 
CFR 51.372(c), which describes approvable I/M requirements for areas 
seeking redesignation. Thus, the Northern Kentucky area remains subject 
to the applicable requirement for an I/M program and will satisfy the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.905(b) through the regulatory revisions 
approved today. This action approves compensating emissions reductions 
to replace the VET Program which are contemporaneous to the Program's 
closing to ensure no net change to the air quality in the area at a 
time when it is not known what control measures are needed for the 
Northern Kentucky area to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition to 
the provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c) discussed below in Response 2, this 
action also differs from other cases involving 40 CFR 51.905(b) because 
the VET Program emissions of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> are being replaced 
with compensating emissions reductions to ensure under section 110(l) 
of the CAA that doing so will not interfere with any applicable 
requirement of the CAA, including attainment or maintenance of the 
NAAQS. (See Response 2 below and the May 11, 2004, letter from EPA to 
the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District available in the 
docket for this action.)
    Concerns raised regarding section 172(e) of the CAA are not 
applicable to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS since EPA strengthened the ozone 
NAAQS and made it more protective of public health by replacing the 1-
hour ozone standard with the 8-hour ozone standard. The CAA section 
172(e) applies in cases where the EPA relaxes a primary NAAQS.
    Comment 2a: The commenters challenge the EPA's interpretation of 40 
CFR 51.372(c) described in a May 12, 2004, EPA memorandum from Tom 
Helms and Leila Cook to all Air Program Managers at EPA on ``1-Hour 
Ozone Maintenance Plans Containing Basic I/M Programs.'' One commenter 
believes that the memorandum creates a new, unfounded exception to the 
anti-backsliding provisions promulgated April 15, 2004, in 40 CFR 
51.905 based on provisions found in 40 CFR 51.372(c) that were 
published January 5, 1995 (60 FR 1735). This commenter states that 
whatever flexibility might have existed by rulemaking in 1995 was 
constrained in the 2004 rule, which limits the flexibility to shift an 
applicable requirement to the contingency category by requiring that 
first an area attain the 8-hour ozone standard.
    Response 2a: EPA disagrees with the commenters' allegations that 
the May 12, 2004, memorandum created a new exception to the anti-
backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 51.905. As the memorandum points out, 
section 51.905 of the anti-backsliding regulations provides only that 
applicable requirements must be maintained until an area attains the 8-
hour ozone standard. In the preamble to those regulations, EPA clearly 
stated that so long as the statutory requirements for an applicable 
requirement were met, a State was free to change the details of a state 
program from those that applied in the SIP on the date that a 
requirement was determined to be applicable. See 69 FR 23972, 1st col. 
The May 12, 2004, letter simply points out that in order for basic I/M 
areas to qualify for redesignation, the statutory requirement to submit 
a basic I/M SIP can be satisfied through a submission of the 
legislative authority to develop an I/M program, along with a 
commitment to adopt or consider adopting regulations to implement an I/
M program as a contingency measure should the need arise, and a 
schedule for program adoption if necessary. It is true that another 
section of the preamble to the anti-backsliding regulations indicates 
that in general, applicable requirements should not be transferred to 
contingency measures until the area attains the 8-hour standard. 
However, the May 12, 2004, letter clarifies that in light of the 
existing redesignation rules for basic I/M areas which allow such areas 
to satisfy the applicable requirement for an I/M program through 
compliance with section 51.372(c), moving the basic I/M program to a 
contingency measure coupled with the legislative authority to adopt a 
regulatory program, constitutes compliance with the applicable basic I/
M requirement.
    EPA also clarifies that the promulgation date into the Code of 
Federal Regulations of the anti-backsliding provisions contained in 
EPA's Final Rule to Implement the 8-

[[Page 57753]]

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase I was June 15, 
2004, as indicated in the final rule published April 30, 2004 (69 FR 
23951). This final rule was signed by the EPA Administrator April 15, 
2004.
    Comment 2b: Another commenter declares that what matters for anti-
backsliding purposes for the transition from the 1-hour to the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS is the area's I/M obligations at the time of the 8-hour 
nonattainment designation. A commenter indicates that 40 CFR 51.372(c) 
relates to 1-hour redesignation requests prior to the development of 
the 8-hour ozone rule, and states that 40 CFR 51.372(c) does not 
address the applicability of control measures where the ozone NAAQS is 
tightened and an area is redesignated under the new, more stringent 
ozone standard.
    Response 2b: Although it is true that the determination of which 
requirements remain applicable is determined based upon the area's 1-
hour ozone designation and classification at the time the area is 
designated for the 8-hour ozone standard, as noted above, areas remain 
free to change their programs as desired so long as they continue to 
meet the applicable requirement until they attain the 8-hour ozone 
standard. In issuing the May 12, 2004, letter, EPA had concluded that 
nothing in the anti-backsliding regulations indicated that areas were 
prohibited from meeting applicable requirements with programs that were 
appropriate based upon a future change to their 1-hour attainment 
status. Section 51.372(c) by its own terms applies to any area 
otherwise eligible for redesignation and nothing in the provision 
indicates that it should not apply to areas that may also be designated 
nonattainment for another standard. Of course, such areas must meet 
whatever I/M provisions would apply based on their 8-hour ozone 
classification, so that some areas may not be able to take advantage of 
the I/M redesignation rules if they must also submit basic I/M programs 
under their 8-hour ozone classification. This is not the case for the 
Northern Kentucky area. Finally, the Northern Kentucky area is not 
seeking redesignation under the 8-hour standard so the issue of whether 
section 51.372(c) might apply in such cases does not arise in this 
rulemaking, although EPA believes that it would continue to apply.
    Comment 2c: In addition, the commenters believe that 40 CFR 
51.372(c) is a questionable interpretation of the CAA, and that 
application to this proposed SIP revision is legally unfounded. One 
commenter specifically purports that 40 CFR 51.372(c) violates the Act 
and is therefore, illegal.
    Response 2c: The commenter appears to be attempting to challenge 
the provisions of section 51.372(c), to which challenges were required 
to be brought within 60 days of EPA's final action adopting such 
regulations, and no such challenges were ever brought. Thus, as no one 
challenged these regulations when they were initially promulgated, the 
provisions have been the governing law since 1995. Since, as noted 
above, EPA clearly indicated in the anti-backsliding regulations that 
any program which satisfied the requirements for an applicable 
requirement would be satisfactory, these provisions describe a valid 
means of satisfying the applicable basic I/M requirement in areas 
eligible for redesignation under the anti-backsliding regulations.
    Comment 2d: Another commenter questions EPA's interpretation since 
40 CFR 51.372(c) created a distinction without basis concerning the 
requirement for a basic I/M program based on whether an area was in 
attainment or nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, even though 
the CAA makes no such distinction. This commenter cites the 1990 CAA 
Amendments, section 182.
    Response 2d: As noted above, it is too late to challenge the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c), however, EPA believes the regulation 
constituted a proper interpretation of the statutory provisions of CAA 
section 182(b)(4). The rationale behind the I/M redesignation rule 
rested on the specific language in section 182(b)(4) requiring 
provisions to provide for a basic I/M program and EPA's interpretation 
that states otherwise eligible for redesignation could meet the 
obligation to provide such provisions through legislative authority 
coupled with a commitment and schedule to develop contingency measures 
as needed. In that respect, the regulation did consider the attainment 
status of the area, as EPA determined that only in areas eligible for 
redesignation could the obligation to develop provisions to provide for 
a basic I/M program be satisfied without an adopted regulatory program.
    Comment 3: The commenters believe that only the ``strict'' 
interpretation of section 110(l) of the CAA explained in a May 11, 
2004, letter from the EPA to the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control 
District, and in the proposed action published January 3, 2005, at 70 
FR 57, is valid. Until EPA completes the guidance on what constitutes 
``interference'' under section 110(l) of the Act, the commenters 
question how the EPA could defend a finding of ``non-interference.'' 
One commenter asserts that EPA's reasoning is considered unlawful and 
arbitrary, noting that EPA has re-written the law as it applies to non-
interference and in doing so, has used the transition from the 1-hour 
to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as a basis for weakening air quality 
standards. Another commenter states that prior to removing the I/M 
program from the array of available control measures, the attainment 
demonstration for the new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) NAAQS should first be developed and the I/M program be shown to 
be truly surplus to those measures (either in place or to be adopted) 
needed to meet and maintain these NAAQS. The commenters state that 
removing the I/M program prior to these attainment demonstrations is of 
questionable legality; the attainment demonstrations are needed to show 
noninterference with section 110(l) of the CAA.
    Response 3: The Northern Kentucky area is designated nonattainment 
for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Control strategy SIP revisions 
showing how the area will attain these NAAQS are due June 15, 2007, for 
the 8-hour ozone standard and April 5, 2008, for the PM2.5 standard, 
unless the area attains the standards prior to these due dates. These 
control strategy SIPs will identify the control measures that will be 
used to help the area attain the NAAQS. The control measures will be 
selected by the Commonwealth of Kentucky after public notice and 
comment.
    In a letter dated May 11, 2004, from EPA to Louisville's Assistant 
County Attorney, EPA provided its interpretation of section 110(l) of 
the CAA as guidance in relation to an area such as Northern Kentucky 
that does not yet have an attainment demonstration for the 8-hour ozone 
nor for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Prior to the time when the control strategy 
SIP revisions are due, to demonstrate no interference with any 
applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under section 110(l), EPA 
has interpreted this section such that States can substitute equivalent 
(or greater) emissions reductions to compensate for the control measure 
being moved from the regulatory portion of the SIP to the contingency 
provisions. As long as actual emissions in the air are not increased, 
EPA believes that equivalent (or greater) emissions reductions will be 
acceptable to demonstrate non-interference. EPA does not believe that 
areas must wait to produce a complete

[[Page 57754]]

attainment demonstration to make any revisions to the SIP, provided the 
status quo air quality is preserved. EPA believes this will not 
interfere with an area's ability to develop a timely attainment 
demonstration. This interpretation has been applied in another 
rulemaking after undergoing public notice and comment. (May 18, 2005, 
at 70 FR 28429.)
    As an acceptable means to demonstrate no interference in order to 
satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA, the submittal provides for 
equivalent emissions reductions from two Kentucky rules in the form of 
VOCs to replace the NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions reductions 
previously gained from the VET Program to ensure actual emissions in 
the air are not increased pending development of a complete attainment 
demonstration for the new 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards. (For 
further information on EPA's analysis of equivalency, see proposed rule 
published April 4, 2005, at 70 FR 17029.) Even if the area ultimately 
determines that an I/M program should be re-instituted as part of those 
future attainment demonstrations, since air quality has not been 
adversely affected in the interim, EPA believes that section 110(l) 
will be satisfied.
    Comment 4: A commenter writes that it is not enough to be in 
attainment. We must strive for optimum performance until we are way 
under the thresholds of attainment. The commenter suggests that all 
methods of accomplishing cleaner air that are cheap and easy be 
maintained.
    Response 4: EPA acknowledges this comment and notes that except for 
required control measures pursuant to the CAA based upon a 
nonattainment area's classification, states have the option to 
establish additional control measures beyond those required by Federal 
law. In addition, the Agency supports numerous regulatory and voluntary 
federal programs to reduce and prevent air emissions that complement 
existing control strategies to bring an area into attainment. However, 
the CAA does not require states to implement measures beyond those 
needed for attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Comment 5: A commenter states that both a plain reading of the CAA 
section 110(l) and the Commonwealth of Kentucky Senate Joint Resolution 
(SJR) 3 Section 4 appear to require that the Cabinet first determine 
whether the I/M program will be necessary for achievement of the 8-hour 
ozone standard prior to approval of removal of the measure from the 
current SIP. Whether the VET Program is ``necessary'' as defined in 
Section 4 of SJR 3 requires that the Cabinet undertake an attainment 
demonstration to determine both the necessity and availability of 
additional control measures to achieve the newer 8-hour ozone standard.
    Response 5: The comment that an attainment demonstration is 
required to address section 110(l) of the CAA is addressed in this 
action under Response 3. Interpretation and enforcement of state 
legislation and other state legal requirements such as Kentucky SJR 3 
is not in EPA's purview in the first instance. The Kentucky Natural 
Resources and Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet addresses the 
comment regarding SJR3 in the February 9, 2005, SIP submittal under 
Response 9(b) of Appendix G, ``Response to Comments Received During 
Public Comment Period.'' The Cabinet states it does not agree with the 
comment, and does not read SJR 3 to indicate that the Cabinet must 
determine if the I/M program will be necessary to achieve the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS prior to removal of the program from the current SIP. EPA 
agrees with the Commonwealth's conclusions on this matter.
    Comment 6: The commenter notes that unless and until the EPA 
approves a revision to the Kentucky SIP to remove the VET Program, the 
SIP, including the VET Program, must continue to be maintained and 
enforced as a matter of federal law.
    Response 6: EPA concurs with this comment, and affirms that the VET 
Program in Northern Kentucky must remain in operation up until the 
effective date of this final action.
    Comment 7: The commenter asserts that even if there was legal 
justification for moving an I/M program to a contingency measure, a 
State must maintain the legal authority to implement an I/M program as 
a prerequisite to redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS and as an anti-backsliding requirement. The commenter cites 40 
CFR 51.372(c) and a portion of section 175A(d) of the Act.
    Response 7: The Commonwealth of Kentucky maintains the legal 
authority to adopt implementing regulations for a basic I/M program 
without requiring further legislation as required pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.372(c)(1). In a letter dated June 14, 2005, from John G. Horne, II, 
General Counsel of the KDAQ, to Kay Prince of the EPA, KDAQ confirms 
and clarifies that this statutory authority is maintained in Kentucky 
Revised Statues 224.20-710 through 224.20-765. (The June 14, 2005, 
letter is in the RME docket for this action.)
    Comment 8: The commenter asserts that the proposed emissions 
reductions from the current form of 401 KAR 59:185 are not new or 
surplus because of testimony that the anticipated compliance with the 
rule has already been achieved to some extent prior to the rule's 
adoption when the area was nonattainment (for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
    Response 8: The proposed revisions to 401 KAR 59:185, ``New solvent 
metal cleaning equipment,'' garner additional emissions reductions 
beyond those gained from the regulation as it was approved into the 
Kentucky SIP on June 23, 1994 (59 FR 32343). In the February 9, 2005, 
submittal, Kentucky presents data showing that in 2005, 0.71 tpsd of 
VOC is projected to be reduced through these revisions to 401 KAR 
59:185.
    The proposed revisions that EPA is approving in this action 
establish a vapor pressure limit for solvents used in cold cleaning 
degreasing operations in the Northern Kentucky Counties of Boone, 
Campbell, and Kenton. Section 4(3)(a) of the regulation requires that 
vendors provide, in these counties only, solvents with a vapor pressure 
at or below one millimeter of mercury measured at 20 degrees Celsius 
for solvents sold in units greater than five gallons for use in cold 
cleaners. Section 4(3)(b) prohibits, in the Northern Kentucky counties, 
operations of a cold cleaner using a solvent exceeding the vapor 
pressure limit described for Section 4(3)(a). In addition, Section 4(4) 
of the regulation requires users to keep records of their solvent 
purchases. Section 4(2) is revised to include additional operating 
requirements to minimize VOC emissions.
    The revisions contained in the February 9, 2005, submittal became 
state effective January 4, 2005. No record was found of public 
testimony in Appendix G of the submittal to suggest that applicable 
facilities in Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties voluntarily followed 
a lower vapor pressure limit such as the one prescribed in Section 
4(3)(a) during the time Northern Kentucky was nonattainment for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 9: The commenter states that there has been no inventory 
provided to the public for review of facilities that are actually 
currently using solvent-based degreasing processes, whether those 
facilities are operating at higher vapor pressures, nor of facilities 
selling such solvents for use by facilities in the area. The commenter 
also asserts that the following is missing from the SIP submittal 
documentation: any detail on the number of sources, the

[[Page 57755]]

number of gallons of cold solvent used in the processes for the 
sources, and which sources are currently using the storage, use, and 
recovery procedures required by the regulation, and how long those 
procedures have been in use.
    Response 9: Appendix E of the February 9, 2005, submittal lists, 
for 2005, a projected amount of 1.34 tpsd VOC emissions from facilities 
with cold cleaning degreasing operations in Northern Kentucky. This 
2005 emissions projection is based on actual 1996 emission inventory 
data from the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan for the area, which was 
approved by EPA into Kentucky's SIP effective August 30, 2002. (See 67 
FR 49600, July 31, 2002.) KDAQ used 1996 emission inventory data 
because 1996 is the year used for the Northern Kentucky area to 
demonstrate attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Kentucky used 
emissions factors and methodologies from the May 1991 EPA document, 
Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon 
Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, EPA-450/4-91-016. (This document is 
accessible in RME under the same docket ID number for this action.)
    EPA's Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR), published June 
10, 2002, at 67 FR 39602, requires emissions inventories for area 
sources, such as cold cleaning degreasing operations, statewide every 
three years, beginning in 2002. The 2005 inventory is due 17 months 
after the end of the 2005 calendar year, i.e., June 1, 2007. These 
emissions inventories of area sources are required to be based on 
emissions factors and growth projections in accordance with EPA 
guidance. The detailed data suggested by the commenter to be provided 
for each affected source is not required for the purpose of this SIP 
revision nor to satisfy EPA's emissions inventory reporting 
requirements in the CERR for this type of source. In the February 9, 
2005, submittal, Kentucky appropriately applied EPA-approved rule 
effectiveness and control efficiency factors which reflect the level of 
emissions reductions expected from this type of rule to estimate the 
VOC emissions reductions from the revisions to 401 KAR 59:185. EPA has 
determined that Kentucky's emissions projection methodology is 
consistent with EPA guidance. (For EPA's complete analysis of the 
methodology, see proposed rule at 70 FR 17029, April 4, 2005.)
    Comment 10: The commenter challenges the reliance on an emission 
reduction rate of 67 percent for the amendments to 401 KAR 59:185, 
based on the rate applied in the rulemakings approved for Illinois, 
Indiana and Maryland's cold cleaning degreasing regulations. The 
commenter states that the same 67 percent factor may not be appropriate 
for Kentucky's regulation due to differing regulatory obligations from 
the other states. The commenter notes that Maryland's regulation 
appears to prohibit sales of solvents with vapor pressures higher than 
one millimeter of mercury in all sizes, yet Kentucky prohibits only 
sales of such solvents in units larger than five gallons. The commenter 
writes that EPA has incorporated the 67 percent figure by reference 
without including into the docket for review any of the supporting 
documentation justifying the choice of emissions factor.
    Response 10: In the February 9, 2005, SIP package, KDAQ explains 
that a 67 percent control efficiency factor was applied to estimate the 
amount of VOC emissions reductions expected from the revisions made to 
401 KAR 59:185. KDAQ notes that this 67 percent control efficiency was 
also used by the States of Maryland, Indiana, and Illinois in similar 
regulations addressing cold cleaning degreasing operations. The Agency 
approved these regulations into the SIPs for these States.
    To evaluate the applicability of the 67 percent control efficiency 
factor to the revisions to 401 KAR 59:185, the Agency reviewed the 
March 31, 2001, document titled, ``Control Measure Development Support 
Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules,'' prepared for the 
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (A 
copy of this document is now available in the docket for this action.) 
Chapter II.F., ``Solvent Cleaning Operations Rule,'' highlights 
elements of the OTC model rule for this source category, including a 
vapor pressure limit of one millimeter of mercury. Additionally, 
Chapter II.F. notes that cold cleaner solvent volatility provisions are 
based on regulatory programs in place in several States, including 
Maryland and Illinois. An incremental control effectiveness of 66 
percent was estimated for the OTC model rule, which reflects a previous 
estimate made by the State of Maryland and claimed in the Maryland SIP, 
and an assessment of the impacts of lower vapor pressure limits in 
reducing the use of petroleum distillate solvents. Chapter II.F. states 
on page 20 that 66 percent appears to be a reasonable estimate for an 
overall control efficiency for the model rule. The Agency notes as 
additional assurance for reliance on the 67 percent factor, the actual 
effectiveness of the rule revisions may be assessed by reviewing future 
year actual emissions inventories.
    Regarding the commenter's concerns on sale of cold cleaning 
solvent, EPA notes that the March 31, 2001, document estimates rule 
penetration and rule effectiveness at 100 percent for this source 
category because there are a small number of firms that supply the 
affected solvents, and thus, a high level of compliance is expected. 
KDAQ applied a more conservative rule effectiveness value of 80 percent 
for the revisions to 401 KAR 59:185 that is consistent with Agency 
policy. (For more detail on rule effectiveness, see the April 4, 2005, 
proposed rule at 70 FR 17029.)
    EPA has evaluated the consistency of the revisions to 401 KAR 
59:185 regarding the solvent vapor pressure limit and operating 
requirements with the OTC model rule and has determined that the 
revisions (described in Response 8 above) are consistent with the OTC 
model rule. Further, the Agency believes that it is reasonable that 
Kentucky would get comparable emissions reductions from a one 
millimeter of mercury vapor pressure restriction for cold cleaning 
solvents as other States which have adopted such a vapor pressure 
restriction.
    Regarding the comment that Kentucky's regulation restricts the sale 
of solvents with a vapor pressure that exceeds one millimeter of 
mercury to units greater than five gallons for use in cold cleaners, 
while Maryland applies the prohibition to sales of all sizes, it 
appears reasonable that industrial users would buy solvents in larger 
quantities. Furthermore, 401 KAR 59:185 also prohibits in the Northern 
Kentucky Counties the operation of cold cleaners using a solvent with a 
vapor pressure that exceeds one millimeter of mercury at 20 degrees 
Celsius. Thus, regardless whether cold cleaner solvents which exceed 
this vapor pressure limit may be purchased in units less than or equal 
to five gallons, no exemption is provided in Kentucky's regulation to 
allow use of solvents with vapor pressures exceeding one millimeter of 
mercury at 20 degrees Celsius in cold cleaners operated in the Northern 
Kentucky Counties.
    Comment 11: The commenter writes that the proposed amendments to 
401 KAR 59:185 lack enforceability because the Cabinet has not adopted 
a permitting or licensing process for the affected facilities, nor has 
any indication been given of the resources needed to inspect these 
facilities.
    Response 11: According to the provisions of Section 4(4) of 401 KAR 
59:185, records of solvent sales and solvent purchases must be 
maintained

[[Page 57756]]

for a minimum of five years by affected sources. A permitting or 
licensing process for the affected facilities in Northern Kentucky is 
not required to implement the rule revisions according to any federal 
permitting programs unless an affected source otherwise falls within 
federal permitting thresholds. Similarly, affected facilities may be 
required to obtain a permit if they meet any existing state or local 
permitting thresholds.
    As noted under Response 21(b) of Appendix G of the February 9, 
2005, submittal, KDAQ plans to enforce the regulation through on-site 
inspections. EPA regularly conducts audits of states' compliance and 
enforcement programs to ensure that these programs are adequate. EPA's 
most recent program evaluation of KDAQ's compliance and enforcement 
program was conducted in FY 2000. (EPA's 2000 evaluation is included in 
the docket for this action.) Based upon the findings of this program 
evaluation, EPA has determined that Kentucky maintains the necessary 
resources to enforce the SIP pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the 
CAA. Kentucky is not required to detail the resources needed for the 
Commonwealth to inspect the affected facilities subject to 401 KAR 
59:185. EPA has reviewed the revisions to 401 KAR 59:185 and believes 
that these provisions are practicably enforceable, i.e., they are 
clearly written such that compliance can easily be determined.
    Comment 12: The commenter asserts that no offsetting reductions for 
ending the VET Program at the end of 2004 are provided by the 
amendments to 401 KAR 59:185 because compliance with the new vapor 
pressure limits will not be required until December 15, 2007, for 
sources that become subject to the regulation.
    Response 12: EPA first clarifies that the VET Program cannot be 
ended until on or after the effective date of this final action. (See 
Response 6.) In its February 9, 2005, final SIP submittal, the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky proposed an effective date of March 31, 2005, 
for the repeal of 401 KAR 65:010 ``Vehicle Emissions Control 
Programs.'' However, it is EPA's understanding that KDAQ will not 
terminate the VET Program's operation until EPA approves the SIP 
revision, pursuant to Section 3 of SJR 3, that moves 401 KAR 65:010 to 
a contingency measure in the SIP. (To view SJR 3, see Appendix A of the 
February 9, 2005, SIP submittal.)
    Section 7(2)(f) of 401 KAR 59:185 provides that final compliance 
for facilities located in a county previously designated nonattainment 
or redesignated in 401 KAR 51:010 after June 15, 2004, may be extended 
until December 15, 2007. The comment pertaining to the December 2007 
compliance date is not relevant for two reasons. First, KDAQ has 
reiterated that such an extension would not be automatic and will be 
issued on a case-by-case basis. (See KDAQ response under Item 23 of 
Appendix G in the February 9, 2005, submittal.) Second, KDAQ confirmed 
in a December 29, 2004, e-mail to EPA that Section 7(2)(f) does not 
apply to facilities that now become subject to 401 KAR 59:185 due to 
their cold cleaning operations and their location in Boone, Campbell, 
and Kenton Counties. (This document is accessible in RME under the same 
docket ID number for this action.)
    The compliance date for the affected Northern Kentucky facilities 
subject to the revisions to 401 KAR 59:185 which are prohibited from 
selling and using solvents as specified in Section 4(3) is 60 days 
after the effective date of the regulation, which is January 4, 2005. 
EPA also clarifies that the correct effective date is January 4, 2005, 
not December 8, 2004, as stated in the December 29, 2004, e-mail from 
KDAQ to EPA.
    Comment 13: The commenter states that EPA, in its August 31, 2004, 
letter, provided no comments concerning the adoption of 401 KAR 59:185 
or whether the proposed reductions would be considered acceptable to 
offset, in part, the loss of the VET program, and whether the 
reductions would satisfy section 110(l). The commenter writes that it 
is assumed EPA will provide such comments during the formal federal 
review process, since EPA will be obligated to respond to these and 
other comments in determining whether to approve the state submittal. 
The commenter cites 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Response 13: The Agency affirmed in a August 31, 2004, letter from 
EPA to KDAQ that the EPA had no comments on the proposed revisions to 
401 KAR 59:185, nor on Kentucky's analysis predicting 0.71 tpsd VOC 
from the proposed changes to 401 KAR 59:185. While not expressly stated 
in the letter, the Agency conducted a thorough review of the proposed 
revisions prior to issuing the August 31, 2004, letter confirming that 
the Agency had no further suggested changes to the proposed revisions 
out for public comment in Kentucky. Further, EPA's April 4, 2005, 
rulemaking (70 FR 17029) proposing to approve these emissions 
reductions indicates that the Agency has determined these reductions 
satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. (A copy of the August 31, 2004, 
letter is provided in the docket for this action.)
    Comment 14: A commenter states that the proposal must also 
demonstrate through appropriate modeling that the substitution of 
amendments to 401 KAR 59:185 and new rule 401 KAR 59:760 which seek to 
control VOCs and to substitute those reductions for the lost VOC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> controls from the VET Program, will result in equivalent 
reductions in ozone formation.
    Response 14: Modeling is not required to demonstrate equivalency of 
the VOC emissions reductions from 401 KAR 59:185 and 401 KAR 59:760. As 
discussed in the April 4, 2005, proposed rule on pages 70 FR 17034 and 
70 FR 17035, this equivalency demonstration was performed in accordance 
with EPA guidance documents as described in Section IV.B.2.b., 
``Methodology for substituting VOC for NO<INF>X</INF> to determine all 
`VOC-equivalent' needed to replace the VET Program.'' One of these 
guidance documents is EPA's December 1993 NO<INF>X</INF> Substitution 
guidance, which was written for purposes of reasonable further progress 
requirements under the CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) and equivalency 
demonstration requirements under the CAA section 182(c)(2)(C) for 
serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. As stated in this guidance on 
page 2, section 182(c) of the CAA requires a demonstration of 
attainment with gridded photochemical modeling for 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment areas classified serious or above under the CAA Title I, 
part D, subpart 2. Thus, since Northern Kentucky is not a subpart 2 
serious or above area, this type of modeling as part of their 
equivalency demonstration is not required.
    The equivalency demonstration in the February 9, 2005, submittal is 
to satisfy the CAA section 110(l) demonstration for the 8-hour ozone 
and PM2.5 NAAQS. The Northern Kentucky area (i.e., Boone, Campbell, and 
Kenton Counties) is designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 
under the CAA title I, part D, subpart 1, and consequently an 
attainment demonstration with modeling is required to be submitted by 
June 15, 2007. By applying the December 1993 guidance to the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS, which did not exist in 1993, a basic subpart 1 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment area is not required to model for equivalency 
demonstrations, similar to 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified 
under subpart 1. EPA concludes that until the modeled 8-hour ozone 
attainment demonstration is due, Kentucky can meet 110(l) by providing 
equivalent emissions reductions such that ambient air quality levels 
remain the same, and thus no emissions

[[Page 57757]]

increase will result that could interfere with plans to develop timely 
attainment demonstrations.
    Comment 15: The commenter writes that 401 KAR 59:760 lacks 
enforceability because the Cabinet has not adopted a permitting or 
licensing process for the affected facilities, nor has an explanation 
been given of the resources needed to conduct compliance inspections of 
the affected facilities.
    Response 15: According to the provisions of Section 5 of 401 KAR 
59:760, sources subject to the regulation shall submit documentation to 
KDAQ sufficient to substantiate that high efficiency transfer 
application techniques of coatings are in use at these facilities. This 
documentation must also verify that all employees applying coatings are 
properly trained in the use of a HVLP sprayer or equivalent 
application, and the handling of a regulated coating and any solvents 
used to clean the sprayer.
    A permitting or licensing process for these affected sources is not 
required to implement 401 KAR 59:760 according to any federal 
permitting programs unless an affected source otherwise falls within 
federal permitting thresholds. Similarly, affected facilities may be 
required to obtain a permit if they meet any existing state or local 
permitting thresholds.
    As noted under Response 27(b) of Appendix G of the February 9, 
2005, submittal, KDAQ plans to enforce the regulation through on-site 
inspections. As explained in Response 11 of this action, Kentucky has 
previously demonstrated that it maintains the necessary resources to 
enforce the SIP pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA and is thus 
not required to detail the resources needed for the Commonwealth to 
inspect the affected facilities subject to 401 KAR 59:760. EPA has 
reviewed 401 KAR 59:760 and believes that these provisions are 
practicably enforceable.
    Comment 16: Several commenters state that high transfer efficiency 
spray gun technology for mobile equipment refinishing operations has 
been in use in Northern Kentucky for a number of years, and that shop 
owners with this technology have been using it in accordance with 
manufacturers' recommendations. The commenters reference a number of 
sources for this assertion, including: testimony provided at Kentucky's 
public hearing, a May 2005 automotive paint survey, and 401 KAR 59:760 
Compliance Forms reflecting training information for HVLP spray gun 
operators. One commenter states that the May 2005 automotive paint 
survey indicated that 89 percent of the 38 sources (i.e., 34 of 38) 
surveyed were using high transfer efficiency spray guns, and that 98 
percent of these sources had been using high transfer efficiency paint 
spray guns for over one year, and thus, the emissions reductions cannot 
be claimed as contemporaneous. This commenter also asserts that based 
on 401 KAR 59:760 Compliance Forms for 26 facilities in Northern 
Kentucky, the training for many of the HVLP spray gun operators (and 
presumably the adoption of HVLP at the facility) occurred, in many 
cases, years before adoption of 401 KAR 59:760 and before the end date 
of the Northern Kentucky VET Program.
    Response 16: KDAQ indicates in Response 38(b) located in Appendix G 
of the February 9, 2005, submittal that requiring use of HVLP or 
equivalent coating application equipment, training on proper use of 
this equipment, and work practice standards will reduce VOC emissions 
from all subject facilities in the Northern Kentucky area. KDAQ 
estimates there are approximately 150 potentially impacted sources in 
the Northern Kentucky area.
    The survey referenced and submitted by the commenters was performed 
by Market Research Services, Inc. (MRSI) dated May 2005. The commenters 
provided two sets of materials, a power point presentation and a 
database printout, which summarize answers to four questions. The 
questions ask whether the facility is currently using a high transfer 
efficiency paint spray gun, the length of time using a high transfer 
efficiency paint spray gun, whether the facility follows manufacturers' 
recommended instructions for using HVLP nozzles, and whether the 
facility is saving money in paint costs. The results indicate 34 of the 
38 sources surveyed in an unspecified geographic area use high transfer 
efficiency spray guns and 100 percent of these 34 sources follow 
manufacturers' recommended instructions. The survey shows of these 34 
facilities, high transfer efficiency spray guns have been in use by 21 
facilities for five or more years, eight facilities for three to four 
years, and four facilities for one to two years.
    Although one of the commenters submitted materials stating that the 
data relates to the current use of HVLP spray nozzles in the Kentucky 
Counties of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton, the survey materials submitted 
do not indicate the survey area. While the database printout includes 
the words ``Cincinnati, Ohio'' as part of the descriptor title, it is 
unclear what the relationship of Cincinnati is to the survey results. 
For example, Cincinnati may be the location for MRSI or the sources 
surveyed could be located in Cincinnati. Further, it remains unclear 
whether any of the 38 facilities surveyed are located in Boone, 
Campbell, or Kenton County. These counties are part of the Cincinnati-
Hamilton Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), but located in Kentucky 
outside of the City of Cincinnati. Even if all 38 facilities are 
located in Northern Kentucky, the survey results cannot be considered 
representative of the potentially 150 sources in the area subject to 
401 KAR 59:760 without further documentation to show how the survey was 
conducted. For example, no documentation is provided as to how the 
recipients of the survey were chosen, nor was the response rate for the 
survey identified. Without further information, the Agency is unable to 
draw any conclusions on the use of HVLP in the Northern Kentucky area 
on the basis of the May 2005 MRSI survey.
    EPA acknowledges that high transfer efficiency spray guns may have 
been in use by the autobody repair and refinishing sector for a number 
of years. However, in the Northern Kentucky area, there has previously 
been no requirement for facilities to use these efficient spray guns 
and thus, their proper and consistent use is highly questionable. Given 
the previous status of HVLP spray gun use in the Northern Kentucky 
area, it is not feasible to quantify the VOC reductions, if any, that 
resulted from the use of such equipment before the regulation was 
adopted. For example, if the equipment was broken, a source might opt 
for another coating application method that is not of high transfer 
efficiency to save time since high transfer efficiency was not 
required.
    Additionally, following instructions for the equipment is not 
commensurate to obtaining formal training on the equipment as required 
under 401 KAR 59:760. Section 5 of 401 KAR 59:760 requires that 
documentation must be submitted to KDAQ that high transfer efficiency 
coating application techniques are in use at the facility and that all 
employees applying coatings are properly trained in the use of the 
application equipment, and the handling of a regulated coating and any 
solvents used to clean the spray gun. This documentation provides added 
assurance that the equipment is being consistently and properly used in 
a way that maximizes efficiency and reduces VOC emissions, and is more 
reliable than survey data.
    Also, the material storage requirements in Section 3(3) of 401 KAR 
59:760 will reduce VOC emissions.

[[Page 57758]]

Materials subject to these provisions include fresh and used coatings, 
solvents, VOC-containing additives and materials and waste materials, 
and cloth, paper, or absorbent applicators moistened with any of these 
items. These materials must be stored in nonabsorbent, non-leaking 
containers and the containers must be kept closed at all times when not 
in use.
    In an e-mail to EPA dated August 12, 2005, KDAQ provided 
supplemental information to further support the additional emissions 
reductions expected from the training requirements of 401 KAR 59:760. 
KDAQ highlighted results of the Spray Techniques Analysis and Research 
(STAR) Program at the Iowa Waste Reduction Center as reported by EPA's 
Design for the Environment (DfE) Program. These results are summarized 
on EPA's DfE Web site for HVLP spray guns (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/pubs/auto/trainers/sprayandsave.htm) as follows. On average, an 
HVLP gun will improve paint transfer from 40 percent to 49 percent over 
a conventional gun, and if recommended HVLP spraying techniques are 
adopted and applied properly, transfer efficiency will increase up to 
61 percent. KDAQ also notes that the STAR Program begun by the 
University of Iowa has estimated proper training in the use of HVLP 
equipment can provide up to a 22 percent increase in transfer 
efficiency. According to an October 4, 2001, article in Products 
Finishing magazine on the STAR Program, the average increase in 
transfer efficiency for trained STAR Program students is cited in 
Figure 2 of the article as 27 percent, with a corresponding average 
decrease of VOC emissions and paint usage both by 22 percent. (Although 
the article elsewhere uses a figure of 22 percent average increase in 
transfer efficiency for trained STAR students, the data in Figure 2 
appears to support the 27 percent figure.) The STAR Program Web site 
(http://www.iwrc.org/programs/star.cfm) provides a link to this 
magazine article (http://www.pfonline.com/articles/100401.html). The 
data previously described regarding increases in paint transfer 
efficiency resulting from HVLP use and formal training on HVLP 
techniques further supports the estimated emissions reductions from 
requirements of 401 KAR 59:760. (Kentucky's August 12, 2005 e-mail, the 
referenced EPA DfE Web site information, and the Products Finishing 
magazine article are available in the docket for this action.)
    Another commenter submitted a summary of the number of HVLP guns 
and number of operators trained (including dates of training where 
available) for 26 facilities in Northern Kentucky. This data was taken 
from a review of compliance forms required pursuant to Section 5(1) of 
401 KAR 59:760 provided by the KDAQ. The information submitted by the 
commenter indicates training occurred for HVLP operators at 14 
facilities prior to 2005 (except for two operators at one facility) 
whereas approximately five facilities had their operators trained in 
2005 (with the exception of two operators at one facility). The 
training dates could not be discerned for the remaining seven 
facilities. The commenter also notes that there are several Compliance 
Forms in addition to the 26 summarized for which the employment 
locations of the listed individuals is not provided and thus, were not 
included. EPA has reviewed this partial summary information of HVLP 
training dates for a number of facilities in Northern Kentucky which 
submitted 401 KAR 59:760 Compliance Forms. The information submitted by 
the commenter does not indicate, in most cases, the length of time the 
HVLP spray guns have been in use by the 26 reporting facilities in 
Northern Kentucky. Furthermore, since the information is, as the 
commenter noted, not complete, it is unclear what the status of HVLP 
use and training is at the other (unspecified number of) facilities 
subject to 401 KAR 59:760. Also, as noted in the preceding paragraph, 
without a regulatory requirement to use HVLP spray guns (or other 
equivalent technology) in Northern Kentucky, their consistent use prior 
to the state effective date of 401 KAR 59:760 remains questionable.
    EPA has reviewed the comments, supplemental information provided by 
KDAQ on paint transfer efficiency increases due to HVLP use and 
training, and Agency guidance for this source type described in 
Response 17, and believes that consistent use of high transfer 
efficiency equipment by trained technicians and proper cleaning and 
material storage as required by 401 KAR 59:760 will result in the 
estimated reductions of VOC emissions.
    Comment 17: A commenter suggests that estimates of projected 
baseline emissions are not accurate and are grounded in pure 
conjecture. The commenter believes without an inventory of the affected 
facilities and the current regulatory and emissions status of those 
facilities, substituting 401 KAR 59:760 for VET Program emissions 
reductions does not provide real, contemporaneous reductions.
    Response 17: See also Response 9 of this action regarding the 
emissions projection methodology approved by EPA for area sources.
    Appendix E of the February 9, 2005, submittal lists, for 2005, that 
a projected amount of 0.96 tpsd VOC emissions from mobile equipment 
refinishing operations in Northern Kentucky is available for reduction 
after accounting for 37 percent VOC emissions reductions for autobody 
refinishing allowed by EPA under the conditions specified in a 1994 EPA 
guidance memorandum. This memorandum, dated (at the bottom) November 
21, 1994, is from John Seitz, Director, to the EPA Regional Air 
Division Directors titled, ``Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress 
Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance 
(AIM) Coating Rule and the Autobody Refinishing Rule.'' (The November 
21, 1994, EPA memorandum is accessible in RME under the same docket ID 
number for this action.) The 2005 emissions projection of 0.96 tpsd VOC 
is based on actual 1996 emission inventory data from the 1-hour ozone 
maintenance plan for the area. As stated in Response 9 of this action, 
Kentucky is not required (nor is the data available) to provide a 
current (i.e., 2005) emissions inventory of mobile equipment 
refinishing facilities in Northern Kentucky for the purpose of this SIP 
revision. Kentucky appropriately applied EPA-approved rule 
effectiveness and control efficiency factors which reflect the level of 
emissions reductions expected from this type of rule to estimate the 
VOC emissions reductions from 401 KAR 59:760. EPA has determined that 
Kentucky's emissions projection methodology is consistent with EPA 
guidance. (For EPA's complete analysis of the methodology, see proposed 
rule at 70 FR 17029, April 4, 2005.)
    Comment 18: The commenter believes that proposed regulation 401 KAR 
59:760 is unclear as to what aspects of the application of VOC-
containing compounds to mobile equipment is intended to be regulated. 
The commenter notes clarification of the scope and certain terms in 
Sections 3 and 5 of 401 KAR 59:760 are needed. Specifically, the 
commenter requests clarification to the scope in Section 3 of the term 
``finish'' applied to mobile equipment subject to the rule, and in 
Section 5 regarding exemptions to the term, ``application of automotive 
touch-up repair and refinishing materials.'' Also in Section 5, the 
commenter notes that the term, ``high efficiency transfer application 
techniques,'' appears confusing.

[[Page 57759]]

    Response 18: To address what aspects of the application of VOC-
containing compounds to mobile equipment is intended to be regulated, 
KDAQ clarifies in Response 25(b) of Appendix G of the final February 9, 
2005, SIP package that when applying VOC-containing coatings on mobile 
equipment, the use of a high efficiency transfer application method is 
required for an applicable source. Section 4 of 401 KAR 59:760 
addresses the exemptions for an applicable source.
    Regarding the comment that the term, ``high efficiency transfer 
application techniques,'' in Section 5 of the regulation appears 
confusing, KDAQ notes in Response 26(b) of Appendix G of the final SIP 
package that this section was revised in response to the comment. 
Specifically, a reference to the techniques described in Section 3 was 
added to Section 5 to more fully explain the term in question.
    In response to the clarifications requested for the term ``finish'' 
applied to mobile equipment subject to the rule in Section 3, KDAQ 
amended Section 3(1) of 401 KAR 59:760 by replacing ``finish'' with the 
more specific phrase, ``coating containing a VOC as a pretreatment, 
primer, sealant, basecoat, clear coat, or topcoat to mobile equipment 
for commercial purposes.''
    The commenter expresses concerns that use of the term, 
``application of automotive touch-up repair and refinishing 
materials,'' as exempt from the Section 3 requirements of the rule can 
be read to exclude all application of automotive refinishing materials. 
EPA first clarifies that this term was used in Section 4(3), not 
Section 5, of the proposed version of 401 KAR 59:760 submitted in the 
November 12, 2004, proposed SIP package. To address the commenter's 
concerns, KDAQ replaced the term with ``application of a coating to 
mobile equipment solely for repair of small areas of surface damage or 
minor imperfections.'' Additionally, KDAQ, in response to this comment, 
affirms the purpose of the Section 4 exemptions in Response 28(b) of 
Appendix G of the February 9, 2005, final SIP package. Specifically, 
KDAQ states that the intent of the exclusions listed in Section 4 is to 
allow facilities the ability to conduct their work properly and affirms 
that the exemptions are not intended for applicable facilities to 
circumvent the regulatory requirements.
    EPA concurs with the clarifications made to 401 KAR 59:760, state 
effective March 11, 2005, and the explanatory statements provided by 
KDAQ in Appendix G of the February 9, 2005, SIP package in response to 
the commenter's concerns.
    Comment 19: The commenter questions the reasoning of Kentucky's 
political leaders for terminating the VET Program in light of a 2004 
study of ambient air data ranking Greater Cincinnati and the Northern 
Kentucky region as eleventh worst in both ozone and fine particulate 
pollution according to 2003 data.
    Response 19: This comment regarding the Commonwealth's basis for 
its selection of air pollution control strategies in the Northern 
Kentucky area is beyond the scope of this action and will not be 
addressed. Kentucky has the discretion to select the emissions 
reduction programs it will use to reach attainment of applicable air 
quality standards and EPA must approve those selections as long as all 
provisions of the CAA are met. See CAA section 116.
    Comment 20: A few commenters claim that if the VET Program is 
eliminated, fewer vehicle owners will pursue maintenance and thus, 
vehicles will operate less optimally, further exacerbating pollution in 
the area. One commenter affirms that this will result in decreased 
demand for vehicle maintenance providers, causing business loss and job 
loss within this sector. A commenter questions why it is more 
appropriate to have small businesses adopt new controls to offset the 
additional emissions that will result from lack of vehicle maintenance 
after termination of the I/M program, rather than to test the cars to 
assure proper maintenance. Another commenter notes that by improving 
and keeping the VET Program, the stress on the small businesses may be 
stretched over a longer period of time, as these gradual reductions 
will be desired to offset increased pollution from the Brent Spence 
Bridge congestion. This commenter claims that the Brent Spence Bridge 
is the most significant factor in motor vehicle pollution generation 
and that over the next decade, pollution will worsen as a result.
    Response 20: In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve 
state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. (See 
Section VI. of this action.) It is the Commonwealth's discretion to 
choose to propose replacement, rather than modification, of the VET 
Program for the purposes of this specific action. The comments related 
to the Brent Spence Bridge are not specific to the issues contained in 
the April 4, 2005, proposed rule (70 FR 17029) and thus, will not be 
addressed here. Any emissions increases resulting from that action will 
be addressed in appropriate forums relating to approval of such 
activities, such as the transportation conformity program.
    Comment 21: The commenter states that the values for pollution 
magnitude on which the proposed SIP revision is based derive from 
models which depend on data measured at a monitoring location. 
Currently, across the three-county Northern Kentucky area, the 
commenter notes that there is an average of one monitor per pollutant 
measured. It is therefore likely that we under-estimate current 
pollution magnitude.
    Response 21: The Northern Kentucky monitoring network consists of 
the following monitors to address the NAAQS which are currently 
operating in 2005. Three of the eight ozone monitors in the Cincinnati-
Hamilton MSA are located in Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties (one 
monitor per county). Two of the eight PM2.5 monitors in the Cincinnati-
Hamilton MSA are located in the Northern Kentucky area in Kenton and 
Campbell Counties. The Northern Kentucky area also has three monitors, 
one for each of the following pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 
dioxide, and coarse particulate matter (i.e., PM10). EPA has approved 
the siting and design of this monitoring network as adequate for this 
area, and to support the entire MSA monitoring network, and has 
determined it meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. EPA thus 
believes that ambient levels of pollutants for which the Agency has 
established NAAQS are adequately monitored for in the Northern Kentucky 
area.
    Comment 22: One commenter requested extensions to the public 
comment period. Another commenter states that it is entirely 
inappropriate to curtail the public comment period before the summer 
period during which citizens may best evaluate the burden of under-
maintained vehicular emissions.
    Response 22: EPA extended the public comment period on the proposed 
rule (on April 4, 2005, EPA opened a 30 day period for comments on our 
proposed action) as requested from May 4, 2005 to May 18, 2005. (May 2, 
2005, 70 FR 22623) EPA also accepted comments received in the next few 
weeks following the May 18, 2005, date. The comment regarding the need 
to extend the public comment period until the end of the 2005 summer 
period to evaluate any changes in vehicle emissions is not valid for 
two main reasons. First, the Northern Kentucky VET Program will 
continue to be in operation until on or after the effective date of 
EPA's final action on the February 9, 2005, submittal. If the public 
comment period were extended on this action, EPA would not be able to 
take final action and thus, the VET

[[Page 57760]]

Program would still be operating, which would invalidate the purpose of 
the comment period extension. Second, cessation of the VET Program will 
not yield an immediate change in vehicle emissions. The Program's 
benefits will continue for a period of time after its cessation, as 
vehicles inspected and/or repaired up until that time would continue to 
operate in a manner that meets the emissions specification of the 
program. Additionally, fleet turnover would continue to occur during 
this time period, thereby removing older cars from use and replacing 
them with newer, cleaner cars.
    Comment 23: The commenter states that the Commonwealth's earlier 
proposal to take emissions reduction credit for the shutdown of the 
electric arc furnace from the Newport Steel Wilder facility was 
inappropriate because the reductions were not contemporaneous with the 
cessation of the VET Program and historical emissions numbers were 
inappropriate to use to determine emissions reductions credit in light 
of the terms of a pending enforcement order at the time. The commenter 
urges the EPA to maintain its position concerning the use of the 
proposed Newport Steel emissions reductions to replace the VET 
Program's emissions reductions.
    Response 23: This comment is not relevant to either the April 4, 
2005, (70 FR 17029) proposed rule or the February 9, 2005, SIP 
submittal since neither the proposed nor the final SIP packages rely on 
equivalent emissions reductions from the Newport Steel facility. Thus, 
this comment will not be addressed.
    Comment 24: The commenter writes that any reliance by Kentucky or 
EPA on NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions that will occur due to 
controls being installed by utilities in response to the NO<INF>X</INF> 
SIP Call would be inappropriate for several reasons. These reasons 
include the reductions are not surplus, would require appropriate 
modeling and analysis to demonstrate equivalent or better air quality 
benefit in ozone formation, and are not considered permanent nor 
enforceable without an Order and permanent retirement of equivalent 
NO<INF>X</INF> allowances.
    Response 24: This comment is not relevant to either the April 4, 
2005, (70 FR 17029) proposed rule or the February 9, 2005, SIP 
submittal since neither the proposed nor the final SIP packages rely on 
equivalent emissions reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> achieved in response 
to the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP call. Thus, this comment will not be 
addressed.
    Comment 25: Several comments were submitted in support of the 
Agency's April 4, 2005, proposed rulemaking (70 FR 17029). Many 
commenters stated that the present VET Program is not an effective 
means of reducing air pollution. Some commenters urged the Agency to 
consider other ways to clean up the air and the environment. Other 
commenters requested to stop the VET Program due to the burden imposed 
on the Northern Kentucky residents in terms of expense and 
inconvenience. Several commenters suggested ways to revise the VET 
Program to improve effectiveness and to make the program less costly.
    Response 25: Comments related to the obligations, effectiveness, 
and cost of the VET Program, and to other methods to clean the air are 
not specific to the issues contained in the April 4, 2005, proposed 
rule (70 FR 17029) and thus, will not be addressed. EPA notes that the 
existing Northern Kentucky VET Program meets the I/M program 
requirements applicable to the Northern Kentucky area. For the purposes 
of this specific action, it is the Commonwealth's discretion to choose 
to propose replacement, rather than modification, of the VET Program.
    Comment 26: Some commenters suggested that the EPA identify where 
to make public comments, as the newspaper article highlighting that the 
public comment period was open did not mention this.
    Response 26: The EPA is not responsible for managing the content of 
news articles, and was not involved in the newspaper article 
referenced. The EPA's April 4, 2005, (70 FR 17029) proposed approval of 
Kentucky's proposed November 12, 2004, SIP revision request provides a 
number of ways for submitting comments under the ADDRESSES section of 
the proposed action.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving a revision to the Kentucky SIP which moves 
regulation 401 KAR 65:010 from the regulatory portion of the Kentucky 
SIP to the contingency measures section of the Kentucky portion of the 
Northern Kentucky 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. EPA is also approving 
revisions to 401 KAR 59:185 with a state effective date of January 4, 
2005, and adding a new rule, 401 KAR 59:760, to the SIP, with a state 
effective date of March 11, 2005. Further, EPA is approving updated 
mobile source category emissions projections using MOBILE6.2 with 
updated, state MVEBs for the year 2010 of 7.68 tpsd VOCs and 17.42 tpsd 
NO<INF>X</INF>. In this final action, EPA is also correcting references 
to the former 2010 MVEBs developed using MOBILE 5, which were stated in 
the November 12, 2004, proposed SIP submittal and on page 17033 of the 
April 4, 2005, rule (70 FR 17029), as 7.02 tpsd VOC and 17.33 tpsd 
NO<INF>X</INF>. The correct numbers, as reflected in the latest SIP 
revision approved by EPA published on May 30, 2003, (68 FR 32382), are 
7.33 tpsd VOC and 17.13 tpsd NO<INF>X</INF>.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves 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 rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885,

[[Page 57761]]

April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 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.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 5, 2005. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Dated: September 27, 2005.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 52.920 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (c) by removing from Table 1, 401 KAR 65:010 titled, 
``Vehicle emission control programs.''
0
b. In paragraph (c) by revising the entry in Table 1 for 401 KAR 59:185 
titled ``New solvent metal cleaning equipment.'' and adding a new 
entry, 401 KAR 59:760 titled ``Commercial Motor Vehicle and Mobile 
Equipment Refinishing Operations.'' and
0
c. In paragraph (e) by revising the entire entry for ``Northern 
Kentucky Maintenance Plan revisions,'' including the entry name to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                       Table 1.--EPA-Approved Kentucky Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     State
          Name of source                   Title/subject        effective date           EPA approval date                       Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
401 KAR 59:185....................  New solvent metal cleaning        01/04/05  10/04/05 [Insert first page number
                                     equipment.                                  of publication]
401 KAR 59:760....................  Commercial Motor Vehicle          03/11/05  10/04/05 [Insert first page number
                                     and Mobile Equipment                        of publication]
                                     Refinishing Operations.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                                     EPA-Approved Kentucky Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP       Applicable geographic or   submittal date/             EPA approval                         Explanation
             provision                  nonattainment area      effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Northern Kentucky 1-Hour Ozone      Boone, Campbell, and              02/09/05  10/04/05 [Insert first page number
 Maintenance Plan.                   Kenton Counties.                            of publication]

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57762]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-19875 Filed 10-3-05; 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>