Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky: Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone, 20966-20977 [E7-8114]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20966
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0584–200701–; FRL–
8306–4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Kentucky:
Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion
of the Louisville 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment for
Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky
(Kentucky), through the Kentucky
Division for Air Quality (KDAQ),
submitted a request to redesignate the
Kentucky portion of the bi-State
Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area to attainment for the 8-hour
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS); and to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a maintenance plan for the
Kentucky portion of the bi-State
Louisville area. The Kentucky portion of
the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (hereafter referred to
as the ‘‘Kentucky Bi-State Louisville
Area’’) is comprised of three Kentucky
Counties—Bullitt, Jefferson and
Oldham. The Indiana portion of the biState Louisville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area is comprised of two
Indiana Counties—Clark and Floyd. In
this action, EPA is proposing to approve
Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone redesignation
request for the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area. Additionally, EPA is
proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area, including the
regional motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
This proposed approval of Kentucky’s
redesignation request is based upon
EPA’s determination that Kentucky has
demonstrated that the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in
the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the
determination that the entire (both the
Kentucky and Indiana portions) Bi-State
Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard. In July and September 2006,
Indiana submitted a redesignation
request and maintenance plan for the
Indiana portion of this 8-hour ozone
area. EPA is taking action on that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
redesignation request and maintenance
plan in a separate action. In this action,
EPA is also notifying the public that
EPA is reviewing the 2003 and 2020
regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs
submitted by Kentucky as part of its
maintenance plan, for adequacy. These
regional MVEBs are identical to those
contained in the Indiana submittal for
the bi-State area. During the comment
period for this proposal, the public may
also comment on the adequacy of the
proposed regional MVEBs.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2006–0584, by one of the
following methods:
(a) www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
(b) E-mail: LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.
(c) Fax: 404–562–9019.
(d) Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0584
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
(e) Hand Delivery or Courier: Heidi
LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2006–
0584, EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9074.
Mrs. LeSane can also be reached via
electronic mail at
LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for EPA’s
Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed
Actions?
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request?
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
VII. What Are the Proposed Regional MVEBs
for the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone
Area?
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy
Determination for the MVEBs for the BiState Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area?
IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan SIP
Revision, Including Proposed Approval
of the 2003 and 2020 MVEBs
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA
Taking?
EPA is proposing to take three related
actions, which are summarized below
and described in greater detail
throughout the notice of proposed
rulemaking: (1) To redesignate the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS; (2) to approve Kentucky’s 8hour ozone maintenance plan, including
the associated MVEBs; and (3) to notify
the public that EPA is reviewing
regional MVEBs for adequacy.
First, EPA is proposing to determine
that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard, and has met the requirements
for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The entire biState Louisville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area is comprised of
three Kentucky Counties—Bullitt,
Jefferson, and Oldham, and two Indiana
Counties—Clark and Floyd. Today’s
proposal addresses only the Kentucky
portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour
ozone area. EPA will take action on the
redesignation request and maintenance
plan for the Indiana portion of this area
in a separate action. EPA is now
proposing to approve a request to
change the legal designation of Bullitt,
Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in
Kentucky from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve
Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area (such approval being
one of the CAA criteria for redesignation
to attainment status). The maintenance
plan is designed to help keep the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area in
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2020. Consistent with the CAA,
the maintenance plan that EPA is
proposing to approve today also
includes 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs
for NOX and VOCs. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the 2003 and 2020
regional MVEBs that are included as
part of Kentucky’s maintenance plan.
These regional MVEBs apply to both the
Kentucky and Indiana portions of this
bi-State 8-hour ozone area.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
Third, EPA is notifying the public in
today’s notice of proposed rulemaking
that EPA is reviewing the 2003 and 2020
regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs, as
provided in the Kentucky submittal, for
adequacy pursuant to 40 CFR
93.118(f)(2). The public may comment
at this time on whether the proposed
MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria
found in EPA’s conformity regulations,
40 CFR 93.118(e).
Today’s notice of proposed
rulemaking is in response to Kentucky’s
September 29, 2006, SIP submittal
which supersedes Kentucky’s June 7,
2006, submittal that included a request
for parallel processing. The September
29, 2006, submittal requested
redesignation of the Kentucky bi-State
Louisville Area, and included a SIP
revision addressing the specific issues
summarized above, and the necessary
elements for redesignation described in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
II. What Is the Background for EPA’s
Proposed Actions?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
NOX and VOCs react in the presence of
sunlight to form ground-level ozone.
NOX and VOCs are referred to as
precursors of ozone. The CAA
establishes a process for air quality
management through the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). This new
standard is more stringent than the
previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the
8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth
highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further
information). Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period
must meet a data completeness
requirement. The ambient air quality
monitoring data completeness
requirement is met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90
percent, and no single year has less than
75 percent data completeness as
determined in Appendix I of part 50.
Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part
50, Appendix I, ‘‘Comparisons with the
Primary and Secondary Ozone
Standards’’ states:
‘‘The primary and secondary ozone
ambient air quality standards are met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site when the
3-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20967
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm. The number of significant figures in the
level of the standard dictates the rounding
convention for comparing the computed 3year average annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration with the level of the standard.
The third decimal place of the computed
value is rounded, with values equal to or
greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a
computed 3-year average ozone
concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest
value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.’’
The CAA required EPA to designate
as nonattainment any area that was
violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on the three most recent years of
ambient air quality data. The entire biState Louisville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area was designated
using 2001–2003 ambient air quality
data. The Federal Register document
making these designations was signed
on April 15, 2004, and published on
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). The CAA
contains two sets of provisions—subpart
1 and subpart 2—that address planning
and control requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. (Both are found in
title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (which covers
areas that EPA refers to as ‘‘basic’’
nonattainment) contains general, less
prescriptive, requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant—
including ozone—governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which covers areas
that EPA refers to as ‘‘classified’’
nonattainment) provides more specific
requirements for certain ozone
nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are subject
only to the provisions of subpart 1.
Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas
are also subject to the provisions of
subpart 2. Under EPA’s Phase 1 8-hour
ozone implementation rule (69 FR
23857) (Phase 1 Rule), signed on April
15, 2004 and published on April 30,
2004, an area was classified under
subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone
design value (i.e., the 3-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design
value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest
1-hour design value in Table 1 of
subpart 2). All other areas are covered
under subpart 1, based upon their 8hour ambient air quality design values.
Various aspects of EPA’s Phase 1 8hour ozone implementation rule were
challenged in court and on December
22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit Court) vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
Ozone Standard. South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The
D.C. Circuit Court held that certain
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
20968
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
provisions of EPA’s Phase I Rule were
inconsistent with the requirements of
the CAA. The Court rejected EPA’s
reasons for implementing the 8-hour
standard in nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of title I,
part D of the CAA. The Court also held
that EPA improperly failed to retain four
measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of EPA’s
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) CAA section 185
penalty fees for 1-hour severe or
extreme nonattainment areas; (3)
measures to be implemented pursuant
to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the
CAA, on the contingency of an area not
making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour
NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS; and (4) certain conformity
requirements for certain types of Federal
actions. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld
EPA’s authority to revoke the 1-hour
standard provided that there were
adequate anti-backsliding provisions in
place.
This section sets forth EPA’s views on
the potential effect of the Court’s ruling
on this redesignation action. For the
reasons described throughout this notice
of proposed rulemaking, EPA does not
believe that the D.C. Circuit Court’s
ruling alters any requirements relevant
to the redesignation of the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area so as to preclude
redesignation, and does not prevent
EPA from proposing to finalize, or
finalizing, the Louisville redesignation.
EPA believes that the Court’s decision,
as it currently stands or as it may be
modified based upon the petitions for
rehearing that have been filed, imposes
no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area to attainment, because
redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the
CAA and longstanding policies
regarding redesignation requests.
The Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area
was originally designated as moderate
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard in November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56694). The Area was redesignated as
attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard on October 23, 2001 (66 FR
53665). On April 30, 2004, EPA
designated the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area as a ‘‘basic’’ 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. (69 FR
23857).
The D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in
2006 also addressed the 8-hour ozone
classification scheme. The Court
rejected EPA’s reasons for classifying
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to
the Agency. Consequently, it is possible
that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville
area could, as a result of the remand to
EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2.
Although any future decision by EPA to
classify this area under subpart 2 might
trigger additional future requirements
for the area, this does not mean that
redesignation cannot go forward now.
EPA’s position is based upon: (1) EPA’s
longstanding policy of evaluating
requirements in accordance with the
requirements due at the time that the
request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of
retroactively applying any requirements
that might be applied in the future.
In September 2006, when Kentucky
submitted its final redesignation
request, the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area was classified under
subpart 1 of the CAA, and was obligated
to meet only the subpart 1 requirements.
Under EPA’s longstanding
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA, to qualify for redesignation,
States requesting redesignation to
attainment must meet only the relevant
SIP requirements that came due prior to
the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See, ‘‘Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992; see also, Michael
Shapiro Memorandum, ‘‘SIP
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide NAAQS On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993; and 60
FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7,
1995)(redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor). See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld
this interpretation. See also, 68 FR
25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted. The
D.C. Circuit Court recognized the
general inequity in retroactive
rulemakings in Sierra Club v. Whitman,
285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which
the D.C. Circuit Court upheld a district
court’s refusal to make retroactive an
EPA determination of nonattainment
that was past the statutory due date.
Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. In Sierra Club,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the D.C. Circuit Court stated,
‘‘[a]lthough EPA failed to make the
nonattainment determination within the
statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly, with regard to Kentucky’s
redesignation request, it would be unfair
to penalize Kentucky by retroactively
applying to it for purposes of
redesignation, additional SIP
requirements under subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its
redesignation request, and that are not
currently in effect, but that might be in
effect as a result of the D.C. Circuit
Court’s remand.
With respect to the requirements
under the 1-hour standard ozone
standard, the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area was originally
designated as moderate nonattainment
for the 1-hour ozone standard in
November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). The
Area was redesignated as attainment for
the 1-hour ozone standard on October
23, 2001 (66 FR 53665). Therefore, the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area was
designated to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard prior to its
nonattainment designation for the 8hour ozone standard. As a result, it is
considered to be a 1-hour attainment
area subject to a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan for the 1-hour
standard. The D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling
does not impact redesignation requests
for these types of areas for two main
reasons.
First, there are no conformity
requirements relevant for the Louisville
redesignation request, such as a
transportation conformity SIP.1 It is
EPA’s longstanding policy position that
it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity SIP requirements as not
applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request under section
107(d) because State conformity rules
are still required after redesignation,
and Federal conformity rules apply
where State rules have not been
approved. See, 40 CFR 51.390; see also,
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001) (upholding EPA’s interpretation).
1 CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to
submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain
federal criteria and procedures for determining
transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emissions budgets that are established in control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
See also, 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
Second, with regard to the three other
anti-backsliding provisions for the 1hour standard that the D.C. Circuit
Court found were not properly retained,
the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area is
an attainment area subject to a
maintenance plan for the 1-hour
standard, and the NSR, contingency
measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9)
or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision
requirements no longer apply to this
area because it was redesignated to
attainment of the 1-hour standard. As a
result, the decision in SCAQMD should
not alter any requirements that would
preclude EPA from finalizing the
redesignation of Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard.
As noted earlier, in 2005, the ambient
ozone data for the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area indicated no further
violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
using data from the 3-year period of
2003–2005 to demonstrate attainment.
As a result, on September 29, 2006,
Kentucky requested redesignation of the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The redesignation request
included three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality data
for the ozone seasons (March 1st until
October 31st) of 2003–2005, indicating
that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been
achieved for the entire Bi-State
Louisville area. Under the CAA,
nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient,
complete, quality-assured data is
available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the
standard and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for
redesignation providing that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area
has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)
the Administrator has fully approved
the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions; (4) the
Administrator has fully approved a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the State containing such
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 and part
D of the CAA.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations,’’
Memorandum from Bill Laxton,
Director, Technical Support Division,
June 18, 1990;
2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from G.
T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992 (hereafter referred to as the
‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’);
5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSD’s) for Redesignation of Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G. T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. ‘‘ State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in
Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, November 30,
1993;
9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part
D NSR) Requirements for Areas
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20969
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These
Actions?
On September 29, 2006, Kentucky
requested redesignation of the Kentucky
Bi-State Louisville Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA’s evaluation
indicates that Kentucky has
demonstrated that the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard and has met the
requirements for redesignation set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA
is also notifying the public of its review
of the adequacy of the proposed regional
MVEBs, which is relevant to the
requested redesignation.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed
Actions?
EPA’s proposed actions establish the
basis upon which EPA may take final
action on the three issues being
proposed for approval today. Approval
of Kentucky’s redesignation request
would change the official designation of
Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties
in Kentucky for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81.
Approval of Kentucky’s request would
also incorporate into the Kentucky SIP,
a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area through 2020. The
maintenance plan includes contingency
measures to remedy future violations of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
maintenance plan also establishes
regional MVEBs of 40.97 tons per day
(tpd) for VOC and 95.51 tpd for NOX for
the year 2003, and MVEBs of 22.92 tpd
for VOC and 29.46 tpd for NOX for the
year 2020. Approval of Kentucky’s
maintenance plan would also result in
approval of the regional MVEBs.
Additionally, EPA is notifying the
public that it is reviewing the adequacy
of the proposed regional MVEBs
pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Request?
EPA is proposing to make the
determination that the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area has attained the 8-
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
20970
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
hour ozone NAAQS, and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met.
The basis for EPA’s determination is
discussed in greater detail below.
(1) The Kentucky Bi-State Louisville
Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area
has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
For ozone, an area may be considered to
be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if
there are no violations, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and
Appendix I of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of
quality-assured air quality monitoring
data. To attain this standard, the 3-year
average of the fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations measured at each
monitor within an area over each year
must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the
rounding convention described in 40
CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard
is attained if the design value is 0.084
ppm or below. The data must be
collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS). The monitors generally should
have remained at the same location for
the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data
from ambient ozone monitoring stations
in the bi-State Louisville area for the
ozone season from 2003–2005. This data
has been quality assured and is recorded
in AQS. The fourth high averages for
2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year
average of these values (i.e., design
value), are summarized in Table 1
below.
TABLE 1.—ANNUAL 4TH MAX HIGH AND DESIGN VALUE FOR 8-HOUR OZONE FOR BI-STATE LOUISVILLE AREA
[parts per million, ppm]
Monitor
County
Charleston, IN .................................................................
New Albany, IN ...............................................................
WLKY, KY .......................................................................
Watson, KY .....................................................................
Bates, KY ........................................................................
Shepherdsville, KY ..........................................................
Buckner, KY ....................................................................
Clark ...................................
Floyd ..................................
Jefferson ............................
Jefferson ............................
Jefferson ............................
Bullitt ..................................
Oldham ...............................
As discussed above, the design value
for an area is the highest design value
recorded at any monitor in the area.
Therefore, the design value for the
Kentucky Louisville Bi-State Area is
0.082 ppm, which meets the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Additionally,
preliminary air quality data from the
2006 monitoring season indicates that
the Kentucky Louisville Bi-State Area is
continuing to attain the 8-hour ozone
standard. As is discussed in more detail
below, KDAQ has indicated a
commitment to continue monitoring in
the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The
data submitted by Kentucky provides an
adequate demonstration that the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
(2) Kentucky Has a Fully Approved SIP
Under Section 110(k) for the Three
Affected Counties and (5) Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA
Below is a summary of how these two
criteria were met.
EPA has determined that Kentucky
has met all applicable SIP requirements
for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham
Counties under section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements). EPA has also
determined that the Kentucky SIP
satisfies the criterion that it meets
applicable SIP requirements under part
D of title I of the CAA (requirements
specific to subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
2003
0.090
0.086
0.073
0.075
0.072
0.072
0.082
nonattainment areas), in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition,
EPA has determined that the SIP is fully
approved with respect to all applicable
requirements in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, EPA ascertained which
requirements are applicable to the Area
and that if applicable, they are fully
approved under section 110(k). SIPs
must be fully approved only with
respect to applicable requirements.
a. Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham
Counties in Kentucky Have Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni
Memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ September 4,
1992) describes EPA’s interpretation of
section 107(d)(3)(E). Consistent with
this interpretation, to qualify for
redesignation, States requesting
redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant CAA requirements that
come due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request. See
also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum
(‘‘SIP Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation
to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide NAAQS On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ September 17,
1993), and 60 FR 12459, 12465–66
(March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2004
0.074
0.071
0.068
0.070
0.070
0.068
0.076
2005
0.080
0.080
0.074
0.085
0.079
0.080
0.089
Design
value
0.081
0.079
0.071
0.076
0.073
0.073
0.082
Applicable requirements of the CAA
that come due subsequent to the area’s
submittal of a complete redesignation
request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. See, section 175A(c) of
the CAA; Sierra Club, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004); see also, 68 FR 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St.
Louis, Missouri).
General SIP requirements. Section
110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates
the general requirements for a SIP,
which include enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures,
means, techniques, or provisions for the
establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and
programs to enforce the limitations.
General SIP elements and requirements
are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of
title I, part A of the CAA. These
requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following: submittal of a
SIP that has been adopted by the State
after reasonable public notice and
hearing; provisions for establishment
and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and provisions for the
implementation of part D requirements
(New Source Review (NSR) permit
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
programs); provisions for air pollution
modeling; and provisions for public and
local agency participation in planning
and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a State from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another State. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
States to establish programs to address
the transport of air pollutants (NOX SIP
Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)).
EPA has also found, generally, that
States have not submitted SIPs under
section 110(a)(1) to meet the interstate
transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are
not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classification in that State. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a State regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the State.
Thus, we do not believe that the CAA’s
interstate transport requirements should
be construed to be applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the
other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The State will still be
subject to these requirements after the
area is redesignated. The section 110
and part D requirements, which are
linked with a particular area’s
designation and classification, are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA’s
existing policy on applicability (i.e., for
redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well
as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See, Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also, the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR
50399, October 19, 2001).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
EPA believes that section 110
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. Any
section 110 requirements that are linked
to the part D requirements for 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are not yet
due, since, as explained below, no part
D requirements for the 8-hour standard
became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request. Therefore, as
discussed earlier, for purposes of
redesignation, they are not considered
applicable requirements. Nonetheless,
EPA notes that it has previously
approved provisions into the Kentucky
SIP addressing section 110 elements
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (47 FR
30059, July 12, 1982). EPA believes that
the section 110 SIP approved for the 1hour ozone NAAQS is also sufficient to
meet the requirements under the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (as well as satisfying the
issues raised by the D.C. Circuit Court
in the SCAQMD case).
Part D requirements. EPA has also
determined that the Kentucky SIP meets
applicable SIP requirements under part
D of the CAA since no requirements
became due prior to the submission of
the area’s redesignation request.
Sections 172–176 of the CAA, found in
subpart 1 of part D, set forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable
to all nonattainment areas. Section 182
of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part
D, establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
nonattainment classification. Subpart 2
is not applicable to the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area.
Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP
requirements. For purposes of
evaluating Kentucky’s redesignation
request, the applicable part D, subpart 1
SIP requirements for all nonattainment
areas are contained in sections
172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough discussion of
the requirements contained in section
172 can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I
(57 FR 13498). No requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
under part D became due prior to the
submission of the redesignation request,
and therefore none are applicable to the
area for purposes of redesignation. For
example, the requirements for an
attainment demonstration that meets the
requirements of section 172(c)(1) are not
yet applicable, nor are the requirements
for Reasonably Achievable Control
Technology (RACT) and Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM)
(section 172(c)(1)), reasonable further
progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), or
contingency measures (section
172(c)(9)).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20971
In addition to the fact that no part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request,
and therefore are not applicable, EPA
believes it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity and NSR requirements as
not requiring approval prior to EPA
final action approving the redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity
Requirements: Section 176(c) of the
CAA requires States to establish criteria
and procedures to ensure that Federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
under title 23 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(‘‘transportation conformity’’) as well as
to all other Federally supported or
funded projects (‘‘general conformity’’).
State conformity revisions must be
consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability that the
CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
State conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and Federal
conformity rules apply where State
rules have not been approved. See, Wall,
265 F.3d 426 (upholding this
interpretation). See also, 60 FR 62748
(Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida).
EPA has also determined that areas
being redesignated need not comply
with the requirement that a NSR
program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without a part D NSR program
in effect since PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation. The rationale
for this view is described in a
Memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled ‘‘Part D New Source Review
(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’ Kentucky has
demonstrated that the area will be able
to maintain the standard without a part
D NSR program in effect, and therefore,
Kentucky need not have a fully
approved part D NSR program prior to
approval of the redesignation request.
EPA most recently approved Kentucky’s
NSR program (including a
nonattainment NSR and PSD program)
into the Kentucky SIP on July 11, 2006
(71 FR 38990). Kentucky’s PSD program
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
20972
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
will become effective in the Kentucky
Bi-State Louisville Area upon final
redesignation to attainment. See,
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996). Thus, the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area has satisfied all
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation under section 110 and
part D of the CAA.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
b. The Area Has a Fully Approved
Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable
Kentucky SIP for Bullitt, Jefferson and
Oldham Counties in Kentucky under
section 110(k) of the CAA for all
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior
SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request, see Calcagni
Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (6th Cir.
1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426; plus any
additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action.
See, 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003), and
citations contained therein. Following
the passage of the CAA of 1970 by the
U.S. Congress, Kentucky adopted and
submitted, and EPA has fully approved
at various times, provisions addressing
the various 1-hour ozone standard SIP
elements applicable in the Bullitt,
Jefferson and Oldham Counties in the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area (66
FR 53665, October 23, 2001).
As indicated above, EPA believes that
the section 110 elements not connected
with nonattainment plan submissions
and not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. EPA also believes that
since the part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation did not
become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, they also are
therefore not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation.
(3) The Air Quality Improvement in the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area Is Due
to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From
Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution
Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that Kentucky has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the area is due
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal
measures, and other State-adopted
measures. EPA has determined that the
implementation of the following
permanent and enforceable emissions
controls, that occurred from 2002–2005,
have reduced local NOX and VOC
emissions and brought the area into
attainment:
2002–2005 EMISSION REDUCTION
PROGRAMS
Highway Mobile Source Reductions
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs
(FMVCP).
Tier 2 Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards
Heavy Duty Engine, Vehicle and Fuel
Standards.
Point Source Emissions Reductions.
Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM).
Maximum Available Control Technology
(MACT).
Area Source Reductions.
Open burning regulations for former 1-hour
ozone area.
Additional Reductions
NOX SIP Call Reductions
Notably, no credit specific emission
reduction is being claimed in the SIP for
the NOX SIP call reductions although
this program has resulted in measurable
emissions reductions.
Kentucky has demonstrated that the
implementation of permanent and
enforceable emissions controls have
reduced local VOC and NOX emissions.
Most of the reductions are attributable
to Federal programs such as EPA’s Tier
2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and
other national clean fuel programs that
began implementation in 2004.
Additionally, Kentucky has indicated in
its September 2006 SIP submittal that
the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area
has benefited from emissions reductions
that have been achieved, and will
continue to be achieved, through the
implementation of the NOX SIP Call,
beginning in 2002. Kentucky has further
demonstrated that year-to-year
meteorological changes and trends are
not the likely source of the overall, longterm improvements in ozone levels. In
addition, the following non-highway
mobile source reduction programs were
implemented during the 2002–2004
period: small spark-ignition engines,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
large-spark ignition engines,
locomotives and land-base diesel
engines. EPA believes that permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions,
in and surrounding the nonattainment
area, are the cause of long-term
improvements in ozone levels, and are
the cause of the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area achieving attainment of
the 8-hour ozone standard.
(4) The Area Has a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA
In its request to redesignate Bullitt,
Jefferson and Oldham Counties in
Kentucky to attainment, KDAQ
submitted a SIP revision to provide for
the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area for at least 10 years after
the effective date of redesignation to
attainment.
a. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after the redesignation, Kentucky must
submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule
for implementation as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 8-hour ozone violations.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the
elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
Calcagni Memorandum provides
additional guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan. The Calcagni
Memorandum explains that an ozone
maintenance plan should address five
requirements: The attainment emissions
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring, verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan. As
is discussed more fully below,
Kentucky’s maintenance plan includes
all the necessary components and is
approvable as part of the redesignation
request.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
In coordination with Indiana,
Kentucky selected 2003 as ‘‘the
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
20973
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
attainment year’’ for the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area for the purposes of
demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. This attainment
inventory identifies the level of
emissions in the area which is necessary
to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. The
2003 VOC and NOX emissions (as well
as the emissions for other years) for
Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties
in Kentucky were developed consistent
with EPA guidance, and are
summarized in the table in the
following subsection.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The September 29, 2006, SIP
submittal includes a maintenance plan
for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville
Area. This demonstration:
(i) Shows compliance with and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard by assuring that current and
future emissions of VOC and NOX will
remain at or below attainment year 2003
emissions levels. The year 2003 was
chosen as the attainment year because it
is one of the most recent three years
(i.e., 2003, 2004, and 2005) for which
the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area
has clean air quality data for the 8-hour
ozone standard.
(ii) Uses 2003 as the attainment year
and includes actual emissions for 2003
and 2005, and future emission inventory
projections for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017,
and 2020.
(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year’’ at least 10
years after the time necessary for EPA to
review and approve the maintenance
plan. In accordance with 40 CFR part
93, regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs
were established for the last year of the
maintenance plan (in addition to 2003).
(iv) Provides the following actual and
projected emissions inventories for the
Kentucky portion of the bi-State
Louisville nonattainment area. See,
Tables 2 and 3. For informational
purposes, a summary of the actual and
projected emissions inventories for the
entire bi-State area are also provided.
See, Tables 4 and 5.
TABLE 2.—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED VOC EMISSIONS FOR BULLITT, JEFFERSON AND OLDHAM COUNTIES
[Tons per day]
Categories
2003
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
8.10
23.63
0.72
8.21
23.62
0.73
8.39
23.55
0.75
8.58
23.33
0.76
8.77
23.15
0.78
8.95
22.96
0.79
9.16
22.74
0.81
Point Subtotal ...........................................................................................
Area
Bullitt ................................................................................................................
Jefferson ..........................................................................................................
Oldham .............................................................................................................
32.45
32.56
32.69
32.67
32.70
32.70
32.71
3.34
17.33
2.46
3.43
17.41
2.55
3.60
17.51
2.70
3.75
17.59
2.82
3.92
17.67
3.01
4.09
17.76
3.16
4.26
17.85
3.32
Area Subtotal ............................................................................................
Mobile*
Bullitt ................................................................................................................
Jefferson ..........................................................................................................
Oldham .............................................................................................................
23.13
23.39
23.81
24.16
24.60
25.01
25.43
3.74
25.34
2.29
3.43
23.04
2.16
2.87
19.22
1.79
2.52
15.49
1.56
2.30
12.24
1.45
2.18
10.52
1.40
2.05
9.52
1.34
Mobile Subtotal .........................................................................................
Nonroad
Bullitt ................................................................................................................
Jefferson ..........................................................................................................
Oldham .............................................................................................................
31.37
28.63
23.88
19.57
15.99
14.10
12.91
1.77
14.31
1.54
1.91
13.14
1.38
1.91
11.50
1.18
1.82
10.62
1.08
1.69
10.41
1.06
1.49
10.45
1.06
1.36
10.64
1.08
Nonroad Total ...........................................................................................
17.62
16.43
14.59
13.52
13.16
13.00
13.08
Total ...................................................................................................
104.57
101.01
94.97
89.92
86.45
84.81
84.13
Point
Bullitt ................................................................................................................
Jefferson ..........................................................................................................
Oldham .............................................................................................................
TABLE 3.—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED NOX EMISSIONS FOR BULLITT, JEFFERSON AND OLDHAM COUNTIES
[Tons per day]
Categories
2003
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
0.60
74.48
0.09
0.61
53.95
0.09
0.64
53.63
0.09
0.65
50.91
0.10
0.68
51.76
0.10
0.71
51.24
0.10
0.72
46.49
0.10
Point Subtotal ...........................................................................................
Area
Bullitt ................................................................................................................
Jefferson ..........................................................................................................
Oldham .............................................................................................................
75.47
54.65
54.36
51.66
52.54
52.05
47.31
0.11
0.75
0.07
0.11
0.76
0.07
0.12
0.76
0.07
0.12
0.76
0.08
0.13
0.76
0.09
0.13
0.76
0.09
0.14
0.76
0.09
Area Subtotal ............................................................................................
Mobile*
Bullitt ................................................................................................................
Jefferson ..........................................................................................................
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.98
0.98
0.99
7.52
63.29
7.23
54.96
5.99
41.55
4.83
29.62
3.84
19.76
3.17
13.87
2.73
11.02
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Point
Bullitt ................................................................................................................
Jefferson ..........................................................................................................
Oldham .............................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
20974
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED NOX EMISSIONS FOR BULLITT, JEFFERSON AND OLDHAM COUNTIES—Continued
[Tons per day]
Categories
2003
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
Oldham .............................................................................................................
4.43
4.36
3.58
2.88
2.34
1.96
1.72
Mobile Subtotal .........................................................................................
Nonroad
Bullitt ................................................................................................................
Jefferson ..........................................................................................................
Oldham .............................................................................................................
75.24
66.55
51.12
37.33
25.94
19.00
15.47
1.81
31.94
1.63
1.78
31.11
1.59
1.70
29.36
1.49
1.60
27.37
1.37
1.47
25.26
1.22
1.35
23.44
1.07
1.27
22.17
0.95
Nonroad Total ...........................................................................................
35.38
34.48
32.55
30.34
27.95
25.86
24.39
Total ...................................................................................................
187.02
156.62
138.98
120.29
107.41
97.89
88.16
TABLE 4.—ATTAINMENT YEAR AND
END-YEAR VOC EMISSIONS FOR BISTATE LOUISVILLE 8-HOUR OZONE
AREA
[Tons per day] *
2020 MVEBs for VOC and NOX. This
allocation and the remaining available
safety margin for this bi-State area are
discussed further in section VII of this
rulemaking.
d. Monitoring Network
2003
2020
There are currently seven monitors
measuring ozone in the entire bi-State
Louisville 8-hour ozone area—two in
Indiana and five in Kentucky. KDAQ
Total ...........
133.83
112.04 has committed in the maintenance plan
to continue operation of the Kentucky
Safety Margin ...
n/a
21.79 monitors in compliance with 40 CFR
* Emissions inventories, as provided by Ken- part 58, and has addressed the
tucky, for this table and Table 2 may be slight- requirement for monitoring. Indiana has
ly different due to rounding conventions.
provided a similar commitment for the
** This total reflects the VOC emissions for
Indiana as submitted in the Indiana SIP and is monitors in Clark and Floyd Counties.
an update to the total of 27.65 as provided in e. Verification of Continued Attainment
the Kentucky submittal.
Kentucky ...........
Indiana ..............
104.57
29.26
84.13
** 27.91
Kentucky has the legal authority to
enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance
plan for the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area. This includes the
authority to adopt, implement and
[Tons per day] *
enforce any subsequent emissions
control contingency measures
2003
2020
determined to be necessary to correct
Kentucky ...........
187.02
88.16 future ozone attainment problems.
Indiana ..............
51.77
** 38.10
Kentucky will track the progress of
the maintenance plan by performing
Total ...........
238.79
126.26 future reviews of actual emissions for
the area using the latest emissions
Safety Margin ...
n/a
112.53
factors, models and methodologies. For
* Emissions inventories, as provided by Ken- these periodic inventories Kentucky
tucky, for this table and Table 3 may be slight- will review the assumptions made for
ly different due to rounding conventions.
** This total reflects the NOX emissions for the purpose of the maintenance
Indiana as submitted in the Indiana SIP and is demonstration concerning projected
an update to the total of 38.11 as provided in growth of activity levels. If any of these
the Kentucky submittal.
assumptions appear to have changed
substantially, Kentucky will re-project
A safety margin is the difference
emissions. Following the redesignation
between the attainment level of
of the area, sources are prohibited from
emissions (from all sources) and the
reducing emission controls already in
projected level of emissions (from all
place when attainment is achieved
sources) in the maintenance area. The
unless EPA approves a SIP revision
attainment level of emissions is the
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
level of emissions during one of the
Kentucky and EPA have instituted the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
Kentucky and Indiana have collectively following programs that will remain
enforceable and are included as part of
decided to allocate a portion of the
Kentucky’s September 2006 SIP
available safety margin to the regional
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
TABLE 5.—ATTAINMENT YEAR AND
END-YEAR NOX EMISSIONS FOR BISTATE LOUISVILLE 8-HOUR OZONE
AREA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
submittal, to maintain air quality which
meets the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone
standard.
• All new major VOC or NOX sources
locating in Kentucky shall, as a
minimum, apply control procedures
that are reasonable, available, and
practical;
• All major modifications to existing
major VOC or NOX sources are subject
to RACT requirements as well as the
best available control technology
(BACT) requirement of the KDAQ and
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District (LMAPCD) PSD regulations;
• All new affected facilities with the
potential to emit more than 5 tons per
year of VOC are required to comply with
the Jefferson County Air Pollution
Control Commission Regulation Number
7 regarding emissions of VOCs;
• Continuation of the rule
effectiveness programs to enhance
inspection of stationary sources to
ensure emission control equipment is
functioning properly and compliance is
maintained (Jefferson County);
• Stage I vapor recovery in former 1hour maintenance portions of Bullitt
and Oldham counties;
• Stage II vapor recovery (Jefferson
County);
• Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Standards;
• Louisville Metro Air Pollution
Control District (LMAPCD) Amended
Board Order with the Kosmos Cement
Company to comply with an allowed
emission rate for the cement kiln that is
more stringent than the previous
Kentucky SIP NOX RACT limit;
• Reformulated Gasoline Phase II in
effect in Jefferson County and the former
1-Hour Maintenance portions of Bullitt
and Oldham counties since January 1,
2000;
• Transportation conformity
requirements;
• PSD requirements;
• Federal controls on certain nonroad
engines (e.g. diesel and other Federal
requirements, industrial diesel
equipment, locomotives) after 2000;
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
• Federal controls on the VOC
content for architectural and
maintenance paints, auto body shops
and consumer products;
• The Kentucky open burning rule to
further limit types of burning in the
former 1-hour Maintenance portions of
Bullitt and Oldham Counties.
In addition to these measures,
Kentucky explains in its submittal that
further reductions will be achieved
through the continued implementation
of new Federal regulations to further
control the emissions of hazardous air
pollutants that are VOCs (40 CFR part
63—NESHAPS).
f. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions of
the maintenance plan are designed to
promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation
to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that a
State will promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for
action by the State. A State should also
identify specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a
requirement that a State will implement
all measures with respect to control of
the pollutant that were contained in the
SIP before redesignation of the area to
attainment in accordance with section
175A(d). This requirement is met
because all SIP measures are retained
for maintenance. Kentucky’s submittal
satisfies all the contingency plan
requirements described in section 175A
of the CAA.
In its September 29, 2006, SIP
submittal, Kentucky affirms that a
combination of all programs already
instituted by Kentucky and EPA have
resulted in cleaner air in the Kentucky
Bi-State Louisville Area and the
anticipated future benefits from these
programs are expected to result in
continued maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in this area. Sources are
prohibited from terminating emissions
controls following the redesignation of
the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area
unless EPA approves a SIP revision
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
The contingency plan includes tracking
and triggering mechanisms to determine
when contingency measures are needed
and a process of developing and
adopting appropriate control measures.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
The triggers of the contingency plan are
(1) If a measured design value of the
fourth highest maximum at any monitor
within the maintenance area in a single
ozone season is .087 ppm or greater, or
(2) if periodic emission inventory
updates reveal excessive or
unanticipated growth greater than 10
percent in ozone precursor emissions. If
either of these two triggers are met,
Kentucky will evaluate existing control
measures to determine if any further
emission reduction measures should be
implemented at that time. If there is a
measured violation of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area, Kentucky, or as
appropriate, LMAPCD, commits to
consider for adoption one or more of the
following measures within nine months.
All regulatory programs adopted will be
implemented within 18 months from a
measured violation.
• A program to require additional
emission reductions on stationary
sources;
• A program to enhance inspection of
stationary sources to ensure emission
control equipment is functioning
properly;
• Fuel programs 2 including
incentives for alternative fuels;
• Restriction of certain roads or lanes
to, or construction of such roads or
lanes for use by, passenger buses or high
occupancy vehicles;
• Trip-reduction ordinances;
• Employer-based transportation
management plans, including
incentives;
• Programs to limit or restrict vehicle
use in downtown areas, or other areas
of emission concentration particularly
during periods of peak use;
• Programs for new construction and
major reconstructions of paths or tracks
for use by pedestrians or by nonmotorized vehicles when economically
feasible and in the public interest; and
• LMAPCD vehicle inspection/
maintenance (I/M) program.
The following milestones are
applicable to all contingency measures
and are calculated from the date upon
which Kentucky is notified of a
violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
2 Generally, states are preempted from adopting
fuel controls pursuant to section 211(c)(4)(A) of the
CAA unless EPA grants a fuel waiver in accordance
with section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA. Specifically,
section 211(c)(4)(A) of the CAA states that: ‘‘Except
as otherwise provided in [the CAA], no State (or
political subdivision thereof) may prescribe or
attempt to enforce, for purposes of motor vehicle
emission control, any control or prohibition
respecting any characteristic or component of a fuel
or fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine * * * ’’ Thus, any SIP-approved fuel
program can only be approved if a section
211(c)(4)(C) waiver is granted.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20975
• Proposal of draft regulations and
promulgation of final regulations—3
months;
• Issuance of final specifications and
procedures—3 months;
• Issuance of final request for
proposals (if applicable)—4 months; and
• Licensing or certifications of
stations and inspectors—17 months.
EPA has concluded that the
maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a
maintenance plan: attainment
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. The maintenance
plan SIP revision submitted by
Kentucky for Bullitt, Jefferson and
Oldham Counties therefore meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA and is approvable.
VII. What Are the Proposed Regional
MVEBs for the Bi-State Louisville 8Hour Ozone Area?
Under the CAA, States are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone
areas. These control strategy SIPs (e.g.,
reasonable further progress SIPs and
attainment demonstration SIPs) and
maintenance plans establish MVEBs for
criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors to address pollution from
cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, an
MVEB is established for the last year of
the maintenance plan. A State may
adopt MVEBs for other years as well.
Additionally, in coordination with
cooperating States in a multi-State area,
such States may adopt regional MVEBs
that include another State. The MVEB is
the portion of the total allowable
emissions in the maintenance
demonstration that is allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and
emissions. See, 40 CFR 93.101. The
MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions
from an area’s planned transportation
system. The MVEB concept is further
explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to
establish the MVEB in the SIP and
revise the MVEB. In addition to MVEBs
for the last year of the maintenance
plan, a State may adopt MVEBs for other
years as well.
Kentucky and Indiana developed
regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs.
Kentucky used the year 2020, the last
year of its maintenance plan, and an
additional year, 2003. Kentucky’s
maintenance plan being proposed for
approval today includes the regional
MVEBs for NOX and VOCs developed
jointly by Kentucky and Indiana. EPA is
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
20976
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
now proposing to approve the regional
MVEBs.
Kentucky’s September 29, 2006, SIP
submittal included a maintenance plan
with regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs
for the entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour
ozone area for the years 2003 and 2020.
As part of its rulemaking process,
Kentucky presented the regional MVEBs
(for 2020) for public comment on the
State level, however, the additional
2003 year was not included in that
public comment process. The 2003
mobile emissions projections (the
partial basis of the 2003 MVEBs) were,
however, included in Kentucky’s June 7,
2006, initial SIP submittal that was the
subject of public comment. At that time,
the public had an opportunity to
comment on those projections. In its
final submittal in September 2006,
Kentucky included the 2003 MVEBs,
and addressed the inclusion of the 2003
MVEBs in a response to comments on
its June 7, 2006, submittal. MVEBs are
mandatory for the last year of most
maintenance plans (2020 for this area),
and optional for other years (such as
2003 for this Area).
Kentucky’s inclusion of 2003 MVEBs
in its final submittal was made to
provide consistency between the
Kentucky and Indiana submittals for the
regional MVEBs years provided for this
entire bi-State area. Indiana included
the 2003 MVEBs in its request for
redesignation of the 8-hour ozone
standard and its maintenance plan SIP
revision. The interstate-Louisville
transportation and air quality partners
were consulted on the development of
the MVEBs for 2003 and 2020, and are
in agreement with the establishment of
MVEBs for 2003 and 2020 for the entire
bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area. In
the present circumstance, EPA believes
that the public had adequate notice and
opportunity to comment on Kentucky’s
use of the years 2003 and 2020 for the
regional MVEBs. The regional MVEBs
for the entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour
ozone area are defined in the table
below.
TABLE 6.—LOUISVILLE KY-IN 8-HOUR
OZONE REGIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE
EMISSIONS BUDGETS
[Tons per day]
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
2003
VOC ..................
NOX ..................
40.97
95.51
2020
22.92
29.46
Kentucky and Indiana have jointly
chosen to allocate a portion of the
available safety margin to the 2020
MVEBs. This allocation is 6.03 tpd for
VOC and 9.84 tpd for NOX. The 2020
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
regional MVEBs are derived as follows
for VOC: (16.89 tpd for total mobile
emissions) + (6.03 tpd from available
safety margin) = 22.92 tpd; and for NOX:
(19.62 tpd for total mobile emissions) +
(9.84 tpd from available safety margin)
= 29.46 tpd. Thus, the remaining safety
margin for the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area is 15.76 tpd for VOC
and 102.69 tpd for NOX.
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to approve the 2003 and 2020
regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs for
the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area
because EPA has determined that the
Area maintains the 8-hour ozone
standard with emissions at the levels of
the budgets. Once the new MVEBs are
approved or found adequate (whichever
is done first), they must be used for
future transportation conformity
determinations. As is discussed in
greater detail below, EPA is also
notifying the public of EPA’s review of
the adequacy of the proposed 2003 and
2020 MVEBs for the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area pursuant to 40 CFR
93.118(f)(2).
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA’s
Adequacy Determination for the MVEBs
for the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone
Area?
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the State’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not ‘‘conform,’’
most new projects that would expand
the capacity of roadways cannot go
forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93
set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and
assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP. The
regional emissions analysis is one, but
not the only, requirement for
implementing transportation
conformity. Transportation conformity
is a requirement for nonattainment and
maintenance areas. Maintenance areas
are areas that were previously
nonattainment for a particular NAAQS
but have since been redesignated to
attainment with a maintenance plan for
that NAAQS.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA can make the
MVEBs available for use for
transportation conformity finding these
MVEBs ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
determining transportation conformity
through EPA’s Adequacy Process. Once
EPA affirmatively finds the submitted
MVEB is adequate for transportation
conformity purposes, that MVEB can be
used by State and Federal agencies in
determining whether proposed
transportation projects ‘‘conform’’ to the
SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA.
EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of an MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e). In
accordance with the adequacy
evaluation process outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(f)(2), EPA has the option of using
a proposed rule to notify the public that
EPA is reviewing MVEBs for adequacy.
Today, EPA is making such a
notification that it is reviewing the
regional MVEBs included as part of
Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan, for adequacy. The public has 30
days in which to comment on the
adequacy of the regional MVEBs.
If EPA affirmatively finds the MVEBs
adequate prior to approval of the
maintenance plan and redesignation
request, the applicable budgets for the
purposes of conducting transportation
conformity for the required regional
emissions analysis years that involve
the year 2020 or beyond, will be the
2020 MVEBs for the bi-State Louisville
area. For required analysis years prior to
2020, the applicable budgets would be
the 2003 MVEBs. The new regional 2003
and 2020 MVEBs will be available on
the effective the date of EPA’s adequacy
finding, or the date of publication of the
final rulemaking in which the MVEBs
are approved into the SIP in the Federal
Register, whichever is done first.
IX. Proposed Actions on the
Redesignation Request and the
Maintenance Plan SIP Revision
Including Proposed Approval of the
2003 and 2020 MVEBs
Today, EPA is proposing to determine
that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville
Area has met the criteria for
redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Further, EPA is proposing to
approve Kentucky’s redesignation
request for the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area. After evaluating
Kentucky’s SIP submittal requesting
redesignation, EPA has determined that
it meets the redesignation criteria set
forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
EPA believes that the redesignation
request and monitoring data
demonstrate that the bi-State Louisville
area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard.
EPA is also proposing to approve the
September 29, 2006, SIP revision
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
containing Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area. The maintenance
plan includes regional MVEBs for 2003
and 2020, among other requirements.
Further, as part of today’s action, EPA
is providing notice that it is reviewing
the adequacy of the regional MVEBs in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
Within 24 months from the effective
date of EPA’s adequacy finding for the
MVEBs, or the date of publication of the
final rule for this action, whichever is
done first, the transportation partners
will need to demonstrate conformity to
these new MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e) as effectively amended by new
section 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added
by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which
was signed into law on August 10, 2005.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action merely
proposes to approve State law as
meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law.
Redesignation of an area to attainment
under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the CAA
does not impose any new requirements
on small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose
any new regulatory requirements on
sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by State law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
affects the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements
on sources, or allow a State to avoid
adopting or implementing other
requirements and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
CAA. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant and because the Agency does
not have reason to believe that the rule
concerns an environmental health risk
or safety risk that may
disproportionately affect children.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
Commonwealth to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no
authority to disapprove a SIP
submission for failure to use VCS. It
would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews
a SIP submission, to use VCS in place
of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA.
Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area but
does not impose any new requirements
on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply. This proposed rule does not
impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20977
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 18, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7–8114 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 94
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0120; FRL–8306–6]
RIN 2060–A026
Change in Deadline for Rulemaking To
Address the Control of Emissions
From New Marine CompressionIgnition Engines at or Above 30 Liters
per Cylinder
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: A January 2003 final rule
established the first U.S. emission
standards for new compression-ignition
Category 3 marine engines, those with a
displacement at or above 30 liters per
cylinder displacement. It also
established a deadline of April 27, 2007
for EPA to promulgate a new tier of
emission standards for these engines as
determined appropriate under Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 213(a). This
rulemaking schedule was intended to
allow EPA time to consider the state of
technology that may permit deeper
emission reductions and the status of
international action for more stringent
standards. Since 2003, we have
continued to gain a greater
understanding of the technical issues
described in the final rule and to assess
the continuing efforts of manufacturers
to apply advanced emission control
technologies to these very large engines,
through ongoing discussions with
various stakeholders. In addition, we
have continued to work with and
through the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) toward more
stringent international emission
standards that would apply to all new
marine diesel engines on ships engaged
in international transportation. IMO is
an important forum for EPA to gather
new information and data regarding
emission control technologies, costs,
and other information on Category 3
engines and vessels. IMO is also
important because the majority of ships
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 81 (Friday, April 27, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20966-20977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8114]
[[Page 20966]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0584-200701-; FRL-8306-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky:
Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Louisville 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the Commonwealth of Kentucky
(Kentucky), through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ),
submitted a request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the bi-State
Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for
the Kentucky portion of the bi-State Louisville area. The Kentucky
portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area'') is
comprised of three Kentucky Counties--Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham.
The Indiana portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area is comprised of two Indiana Counties--Clark and
Floyd. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's 8-hour
ozone redesignation request for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area, including the regional
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This proposed
approval of Kentucky's redesignation request is based upon EPA's
determination that Kentucky has demonstrated that the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment
specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that
the entire (both the Kentucky and Indiana portions) Bi-State Louisville
8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.
In July and September 2006, Indiana submitted a redesignation request
and maintenance plan for the Indiana portion of this 8-hour ozone area.
EPA is taking action on that redesignation request and maintenance plan
in a separate action. In this action, EPA is also notifying the public
that EPA is reviewing the 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs for
NOX and VOCs submitted by Kentucky as part of its
maintenance plan, for adequacy. These regional MVEBs are identical to
those contained in the Indiana submittal for the bi-State area. During
the comment period for this proposal, the public may also comment on
the adequacy of the proposed regional MVEBs.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2006-0584, by one of the following methods:
(a) www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
(b) E-mail: LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.
(c) Fax: 404-562-9019.
(d) Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0584 Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
(e) Hand Delivery or Courier: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2006-0584, EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or e-
mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9074. Mrs. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail at
LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
[[Page 20967]]
VII. What Are the Proposed Regional MVEBs for the Bi-State
Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area?
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the
MVEBs for the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area?
IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan SIP Revision, Including Proposed Approval of the 2003 and 2020
MVEBs
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
EPA is proposing to take three related actions, which are
summarized below and described in greater detail throughout the notice
of proposed rulemaking: (1) To redesignate the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to
approve Kentucky's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, including the
associated MVEBs; and (3) to notify the public that EPA is reviewing
regional MVEBs for adequacy.
First, EPA is proposing to determine that the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and has met the
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
The entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is
comprised of three Kentucky Counties--Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham,
and two Indiana Counties--Clark and Floyd. Today's proposal addresses
only the Kentucky portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area.
EPA will take action on the redesignation request and maintenance plan
for the Indiana portion of this area in a separate action. EPA is now
proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of
Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in Kentucky from nonattainment
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area (such
approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment
status). The maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Kentucky Bi-
State Louisville Area in attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through
2020. Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is
proposing to approve today also includes 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs
for NOX and VOCs. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the
2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs that are included as part of Kentucky's
maintenance plan. These regional MVEBs apply to both the Kentucky and
Indiana portions of this bi-State 8-hour ozone area.
Third, EPA is notifying the public in today's notice of proposed
rulemaking that EPA is reviewing the 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs for
NOX and VOCs, as provided in the Kentucky submittal, for
adequacy pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). The public may comment at
this time on whether the proposed MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria
found in EPA's conformity regulations, 40 CFR 93.118(e).
Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Kentucky's
September 29, 2006, SIP submittal which supersedes Kentucky's June 7,
2006, submittal that included a request for parallel processing. The
September 29, 2006, submittal requested redesignation of the Kentucky
bi-State Louisville Area, and included a SIP revision addressing the
specific issues summarized above, and the necessary elements for
redesignation described in section 107(d)(3)(E).
II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred to as
precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality
management through the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40
CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information). Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness
requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less
than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part
50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I,
``Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards'' states:
``The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards
are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of
significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the
rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with
the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed
value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding
up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm
is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.''
The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that
was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent
years of ambient air quality data. The entire bi-State Louisville 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area was designated using 2001-2003 ambient
air quality data. The Federal Register document making these
designations was signed on April 15, 2004, and published on April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23857). The CAA contains two sets of provisions--subpart 1
and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart 1
(which covers areas that EPA refers to as ``basic'' nonattainment)
contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment
areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a NAAQS. Subpart
2 (which covers areas that EPA refers to as ``classified''
nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for certain ozone
nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject
only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA's
Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule (69 FR 23857) (Phase 1 Rule),
signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April 30, 2004, an area was
classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value
(i.e., the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design value at
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of
subpart 2). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon
their 8-hour ambient air quality design values.
Various aspects of EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule
were challenged in court and on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court)
vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone
Standard. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v. EPA, 472
F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The D.C. Circuit Court held that certain
[[Page 20968]]
provisions of EPA's Phase I Rule were inconsistent with the
requirements of the CAA. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under subpart 1
in lieu of subpart 2 of title I, part D of the CAA. The Court also held
that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of EPA's
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR)
requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2) CAA section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not
making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour
NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) certain conformity
requirements for certain types of Federal actions. The D.C. Circuit
Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided
that there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions in place.
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's ruling on this redesignation action. For the reasons described
throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA does not believe
that the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling alters any requirements relevant
to the redesignation of the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area so as to
preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from proposing to
finalize, or finalizing, the Louisville redesignation. EPA believes
that the Court's decision, as it currently stands or as it may be
modified based upon the petitions for rehearing that have been filed,
imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area to attainment, because redesignation
is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA
and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests.
The Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area was originally designated as
moderate nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in November 6,
1991 (56 FR 56694). The Area was redesignated as attainment for the 1-
hour ozone standard on October 23, 2001 (66 FR 53665). On April 30,
2004, EPA designated the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area as a
``basic'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. (69 FR 23857).
The D.C. Circuit Court's decision in 2006 also addressed the 8-hour
ozone classification scheme. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for
classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded
that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is possible that the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville area could, as a result of the remand to
EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2. Although any future decision by
EPA to classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger additional
future requirements for the area, this does not mean that redesignation
cannot go forward now. EPA's position is based upon: (1) EPA's
longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the
requirements due at the time that the request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of retroactively applying any
requirements that might be applied in the future.
In September 2006, when Kentucky submitted its final redesignation
request, the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area was classified under
subpart 1 of the CAA, and was obligated to meet only the subpart 1
requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; see also,
Michael Shapiro Memorandum, ``SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide NAAQS On or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael
H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993; and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7,
1995)(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. See also,
68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis,
Missouri).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The D.C. Circuit Court recognized the general inequity in
retroactive rulemakings in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit Court upheld a district court's
refusal to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. In
Sierra Club, the D.C. Circuit Court stated, ``[a]lthough EPA failed to
make the nonattainment determination within the statutory time frame,
Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation worse.
Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the States, which
would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution
prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on notice at the
time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, with regard to Kentucky's redesignation
request, it would be unfair to penalize Kentucky by retroactively
applying to it for purposes of redesignation, additional SIP
requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect at the time it
submitted its redesignation request, and that are not currently in
effect, but that might be in effect as a result of the D.C. Circuit
Court's remand.
With respect to the requirements under the 1-hour standard ozone
standard, the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area was originally
designated as moderate nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in
November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). The Area was redesignated as attainment
for the 1-hour ozone standard on October 23, 2001 (66 FR 53665).
Therefore, the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area was designated to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard prior to its nonattainment
designation for the 8-hour ozone standard. As a result, it is
considered to be a 1-hour attainment area subject to a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard. The D.C. Circuit Court's
ruling does not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas
for two main reasons.
First, there are no conformity requirements relevant for the
Louisville redesignation request, such as a transportation conformity
SIP.\1\ It is EPA's longstanding policy position that it is reasonable
to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d)
because State conformity rules are still required after redesignation,
and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been
approved. See, 40 CFR 51.390; see also, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th
Cir. 2001) (upholding EPA's interpretation).
[[Page 20969]]
See also, 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit revisions
to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for
determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity
SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are
established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with regard to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour standard that the D.C. Circuit Court found were not
properly retained, the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area is an
attainment area subject to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard,
and the NSR, contingency measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9)), and fee provision requirements no longer apply to this area
because it was redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard. As a
result, the decision in SCAQMD should not alter any requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of Kentucky Bi-
State Louisville Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
As noted earlier, in 2005, the ambient ozone data for the Kentucky
Bi-State Louisville Area indicated no further violations of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, using data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 to
demonstrate attainment. As a result, on September 29, 2006, Kentucky
requested redesignation of the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation request
included three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality
data for the ozone seasons (March 1st until October 31st) of 2003-2005,
indicating that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been achieved for the entire
Bi-State Louisville area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured
data is available for the Administrator to determine that the area has
attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation
requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully
approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A; and, (5) the State containing such area has met all
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, June
18, 1990;
2. ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director,
Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. `` State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On
or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
8. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
9. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
On September 29, 2006, Kentucky requested redesignation of the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's evaluation indicates that Kentucky has
demonstrated that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard and has met the requirements for
redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also
notifying the public of its review of the adequacy of the proposed
regional MVEBs, which is relevant to the requested redesignation.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?
EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take
final action on the three issues being proposed for approval today.
Approval of Kentucky's redesignation request would change the official
designation of Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in Kentucky for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. Approval of Kentucky's
request would also incorporate into the Kentucky SIP, a plan for
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville
Area through 2020. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures
to remedy future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance
plan also establishes regional MVEBs of 40.97 tons per day (tpd) for
VOC and 95.51 tpd for NOX for the year 2003, and MVEBs of
22.92 tpd for VOC and 29.46 tpd for NOX for the year 2020.
Approval of Kentucky's maintenance plan would also result in approval
of the regional MVEBs. Additionally, EPA is notifying the public that
it is reviewing the adequacy of the proposed regional MVEBs pursuant to
40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
EPA is proposing to make the determination that the Kentucky Bi-
State Louisville Area has attained the 8-
[[Page 20970]]
hour ozone NAAQS, and that all other redesignation criteria have been
met. The basis for EPA's determination is discussed in greater detail
below.
(1) The Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be
considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no
violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix
I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of
quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard,
the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each
year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention
described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if
the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the
EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have
remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from ambient ozone monitoring
stations in the bi-State Louisville area for the ozone season from
2003-2005. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AQS.
The fourth high averages for 2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year
average of these values (i.e., design value), are summarized in Table 1
below.
Table 1.--Annual 4th Max High and Design Value for 8-Hour Ozone for Bi-State Louisville Area
[parts per million, ppm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design
Monitor County 2003 2004 2005 value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charleston, IN...................... Clark................. 0.090 0.074 0.080 0.081
New Albany, IN...................... Floyd................. 0.086 0.071 0.080 0.079
WLKY, KY............................ Jefferson............. 0.073 0.068 0.074 0.071
Watson, KY.......................... Jefferson............. 0.075 0.070 0.085 0.076
Bates, KY........................... Jefferson............. 0.072 0.070 0.079 0.073
Shepherdsville, KY.................. Bullitt............... 0.072 0.068 0.080 0.073
Buckner, KY......................... Oldham................ 0.082 0.076 0.089 0.082
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the design value for an area is the highest
design value recorded at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the design
value for the Kentucky Louisville Bi-State Area is 0.082 ppm, which
meets the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, preliminary air quality
data from the 2006 monitoring season indicates that the Kentucky
Louisville Bi-State Area is continuing to attain the 8-hour ozone
standard. As is discussed in more detail below, KDAQ has indicated a
commitment to continue monitoring in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville
Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The data submitted by Kentucky
provides an adequate demonstration that the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
(2) Kentucky Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for the
Three Affected Counties and (5) Has Met All Applicable Requirements
Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
Below is a summary of how these two criteria were met.
EPA has determined that Kentucky has met all applicable SIP
requirements for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties under section
110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA has also determined that
the Kentucky SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP
requirements under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific
to subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas), in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the
SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to
the Area and that if applicable, they are fully approved under section
110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable
requirements.
a. Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties in Kentucky Have Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum (``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' September 4,
1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E).
Consistent with this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation,
States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the
relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum
(``SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS On or After November
15, 1992,'' September 17, 1993), and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's
submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. See, section 175A(c) of the CAA; Sierra Club, 375 F.3d
537 (7th Cir. 2004); see also, 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri).
General SIP requirements. Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include
enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means,
techniques, or provisions for the establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality,
and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and
requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of
the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following: submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after
reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air
quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit
[[Page 20971]]
programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for
public and local agency participation in planning and emission control
rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain States to establish programs to address the transport
of air pollutants (NOX SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that States have not submitted
SIPs under section 110(a)(1) to meet the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification in that State. EPA
believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP
submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State
regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the State.
Thus, we do not believe that the CAA's interstate transport
requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. The State will still be subject to these requirements
after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone
transport requirements. See, Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458,
May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also, the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, since, as
explained below, no part D requirements for the 8-hour standard became
due prior to submission of the redesignation request. Therefore, as
discussed earlier, for purposes of redesignation, they are not
considered applicable requirements. Nonetheless, EPA notes that it has
previously approved provisions into the Kentucky SIP addressing section
110 elements under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (47 FR 30059, July 12, 1982).
EPA believes that the section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS is also sufficient to meet the requirements under the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (as well as satisfying the issues raised by the D.C.
Circuit Court in the SCAQMD case).
Part D requirements. EPA has also determined that the Kentucky SIP
meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no
requirements became due prior to the submission of the area's
redesignation request. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1
of part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to
all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of
part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the
area's nonattainment classification. Subpart 2 is not applicable to the
Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area.
Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of
evaluating Kentucky's redesignation request, the applicable part D,
subpart 1 SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in
sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). No requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under part D became due prior to the
submission of the redesignation request, and therefore none are
applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation. For example, the
requirements for an attainment demonstration that meets the
requirements of section 172(c)(1) are not yet applicable, nor are the
requirements for Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT) and
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) (section 172(c)(1)),
reasonable further progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), or contingency
measures (section 172(c)(9)).
In addition to the fact that no part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, and therefore are not applicable, EPA believes
it is reasonable to interpret the conformity and NSR requirements as
not requiring approval prior to EPA final action approving the
redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires States to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects
developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as
well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (``general
conformity''). State conformity revisions must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement
and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) because State conformity
rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity
rules apply where State rules have not been approved. See, Wall, 265
F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation). See also, 60 FR 62748 (Dec.
7, 1995, Tampa, Florida).
EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without a part D NSR program in effect since PSD requirements
will apply after redesignation. The rationale for this view is
described in a Memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled ``Part D New
Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' Kentucky has demonstrated that the area
will be able to maintain the standard without a part D NSR program in
effect, and therefore, Kentucky need not have a fully approved part D
NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. EPA most
recently approved Kentucky's NSR program (including a nonattainment NSR
and PSD program) into the Kentucky SIP on July 11, 2006 (71 FR 38990).
Kentucky's PSD program
[[Page 20972]]
will become effective in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area upon
final redesignation to attainment. See, rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine,
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR
53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837,
June 21, 1996). Thus, the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has
satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation
under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
b. The Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable Kentucky SIP for Bullitt,
Jefferson and Oldham Counties in Kentucky under section 110(k) of the
CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA
may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request,
see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265
F.3d 426; plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action. See, 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003), and
citations contained therein. Following the passage of the CAA of 1970
by the U.S. Congress, Kentucky adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully
approved at various times, provisions addressing the various 1-hour
ozone standard SIP elements applicable in the Bullitt, Jefferson and
Oldham Counties in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001).
As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the
area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that since the part D
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become
due prior to submission of the redesignation request, they also are
therefore not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
(3) The Air Quality Improvement in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville
Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air
Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions
EPA believes that Kentucky has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures. EPA has determined
that the implementation of the following permanent and enforceable
emissions controls, that occurred from 2002-2005, have reduced local
NOX and VOC emissions and brought the area into attainment:
2002-2005 Emission Reduction Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Mobile Source Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP).
Tier 2 Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards
Heavy Duty Engine, Vehicle and Fuel Standards.
Point Source Emissions Reductions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM).
Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Source Reductions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open burning regulations for former 1-hour ozone area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX SIP Call Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, no credit specific emission reduction is being claimed in the
SIP for the NOX SIP call reductions although this program
has resulted in measurable emissions reductions.
Kentucky has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent and
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and
NOX emissions. Most of the reductions are attributable to
Federal programs such as EPA's Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and
other national clean fuel programs that began implementation in 2004.
Additionally, Kentucky has indicated in its September 2006 SIP
submittal that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has benefited from
emissions reductions that have been achieved, and will continue to be
achieved, through the implementation of the NOX SIP Call,
beginning in 2002. Kentucky has further demonstrated that year-to-year
meteorological changes and trends are not the likely source of the
overall, long-term improvements in ozone levels. In addition, the
following non-highway mobile source reduction programs were implemented
during the 2002-2004 period: small spark-ignition engines, large-spark
ignition engines, locomotives and land-base diesel engines. EPA
believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, in and
surrounding the nonattainment area, are the cause of long-term
improvements in ozone levels, and are the cause of the Kentucky Bi-
State Louisville Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
(4) The Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA
In its request to redesignate Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham
Counties in Kentucky to attainment, KDAQ submitted a SIP revision to
provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Kentucky
Bi-State Louisville Area for at least 10 years after the effective date
of redesignation to attainment.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, Kentucky must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan. The Calcagni Memorandum explains that an
ozone maintenance plan should address five requirements: The attainment
emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As is
discussed more fully below, Kentucky's maintenance plan includes all
the necessary components and is approvable as part of the redesignation
request.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
In coordination with Indiana, Kentucky selected 2003 as ``the
[[Page 20973]]
attainment year'' for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area for the
purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
attainment inventory identifies the level of emissions in the area
which is necessary to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. The 2003 VOC
and NOX emissions (as well as the emissions for other years)
for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties in Kentucky were developed
consistent with EPA guidance, and are summarized in the table in the
following subsection.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The September 29, 2006, SIP submittal includes a maintenance plan
for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area. This demonstration:
(i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and
NOX will remain at or below attainment year 2003 emissions
levels. The year 2003 was chosen as the attainment year because it is
one of the most recent three years (i.e., 2003, 2004, and 2005) for
which the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has clean air quality data
for the 8-hour ozone standard.
(ii) Uses 2003 as the attainment year and includes actual emissions
for 2003 and 2005, and future emission inventory projections for 2008,
2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020.
(iii) Identifies an ``out year'' at least 10 years after the time
necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. In
accordance with 40 CFR part 93, regional MVEBs for NOX and
VOCs were established for the last year of the maintenance plan (in
addition to 2003).
(iv) Provides the following actual and projected emissions
inventories for the Kentucky portion of the bi-State Louisville
nonattainment area. See, Tables 2 and 3. For informational purposes, a
summary of the actual and projected emissions inventories for the
entire bi-State area are also provided. See, Tables 4 and 5.
Table 2.--Actual and Projected VOC Emissions for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Categories 2003 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point
Bullitt.......................................... 8.10 8.21 8.39 8.58 8.77 8.95 9.16
Jefferson........................................ 23.63 23.62 23.55 23.33 23.15 22.96 22.74
Oldham........................................... 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.81
--------------------------------------------------------------
Point Subtotal............................... 32.45 32.56 32.69 32.67 32.70 32.70 32.71
Area
Bullitt.......................................... 3.34 3.43 3.60 3.75 3.92 4.09 4.26
Jefferson........................................ 17.33 17.41 17.51 17.59 17.67 17.76 17.85
Oldham........................................... 2.46 2.55 2.70 2.82 3.01 3.16 3.32
--------------------------------------------------------------
Area Subtotal................................ 23.13 23.39 23.81 24.16 24.60 25.01 25.43
Mobile*
Bullitt.......................................... 3.74 3.43 2.87 2.52 2.30 2.18 2.05
Jefferson........................................ 25.34 23.04 19.22 15.49 12.24 10.52 9.52
Oldham........................................... 2.29 2.16 1.79 1.56 1.45 1.40 1.34
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Subtotal.............................. 31.37 28.63 23.88 19.57 15.99 14.10 12.91
Nonroad
Bullitt.......................................... 1.77 1.91 1.91 1.82 1.69 1.49 1.36
Jefferson........................................ 14.31 13.14 11.50 10.62 10.41 10.45 10.64
Oldham........................................... 1.54 1.38 1.18 1.08 1.06 1.06 1.08
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad Total................................ 17.62 16.43 14.59 13.52 13.16 13.00 13.08
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 104.57 101.01 94.97 89.92 86.45 84.81 84.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Actual and Projected NOX Emissions for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Categories 2003 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point
Bullitt.......................................... 0.60 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.72
Jefferson........................................ 74.48 53.95 53.63 50.91 51.76 51.24 46.49
Oldham........................................... 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
--------------------------------------------------------------
Point Subtotal............................... 75.47 54.65 54.36 51.66 52.54 52.05 47.31
Area
Bullitt.......................................... 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14
Jefferson........................................ 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76
Oldham........................................... 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09
--------------------------------------------------------------
Area Subtotal................................ 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.99
Mobile*
Bullitt.......................................... 7.52 7.23 5.99 4.83 3.84 3.17 2.73
Jefferson........................................ 63.29 54.96 41.55 29.62 19.76 13.87 11.02
[[Page 20974]]
Oldham........................................... 4.43 4.36 3.58 2.88 2.34 1.96 1.72
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Subtotal.............................. 75.24 66.55 51.12 37.33 25.94 19.00 15.47
Nonroad
Bullitt.......................................... 1.81 1.78 1.70 1.60 1.47 1.35 1.27
Jefferson........................................ 31.94 31.11 29.36 27.37 25.26 23.44 22.17
Oldham........................................... 1.63 1.59 1.49 1.37 1.22 1.07 0.95
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad Total................................ 35.38 34.48 32.55 30.34 27.95 25.86 24.39
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 187.02 156.62 138.98 120.29 107.41 97.89 88.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Attainment Year and End-Year VOC Emissions for Bi-State
Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area
[Tons per day] *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky...................................... 104.57 84.13
Indiana....................................... 29.26 ** 27.91
-------------------------
Total..................................... 133.83 112.04
=========================
Safety Margin................................. n/a 21.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions inventories, as provided by Kentucky, for this table and
Table 2 may be slightly different due to rounding conventions.
** This total reflects the VOC emissions for Indiana as submitted in the
Indiana SIP and is an update to the total of 27.65 as provided in the
Kentucky submittal.
Table 5.--Attainment Year and End-Year NOX Emissions for Bi-State
Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area
[Tons per day] *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky...................................... 187.02 88.16
Indiana....................................... 51.77 ** 38.10
-------------------------
Total..................................... 238.79 126.26
=========================
Safety Margin................................. n/a 112.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions inventories, as provided by Kentucky, for this table and
Table 3 may be slightly different due to rounding conventions.
** This total reflects the NOX emissions for Indiana as submitted in the
Indiana SIP and is an update to the total of 38.11 as provided in the
Kentucky submittal.
A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance area. The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS. Kentucky and Indiana have collectively decided to allocate a
portion of the available safety margin to the regional 2020 MVEBs for
VOC and NOX. This allocation and the remaining available
safety margin for this bi-State area are discussed further in section
VII of this rulemaking.
d. Monitoring Network
There are currently seven monitors measuring ozone in the entire
bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area--two in Indiana and five in
Kentucky. KDAQ has committed in the maintenance plan to continue
operation of the Kentucky monitors in compliance with 40 CFR part 58,
and has addressed the requirement for monitoring. Indiana has provided
a similar commitment for the monitors in Clark and Floyd Counties.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Kentucky has the legal authority to enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for the Kentucky Bi-State
Louisville Area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement and
enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures
determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems.
Kentucky will track the progress of the maintenance plan by
performing future reviews of actual emissions for the area using the
latest emissions factors, models and methodologies. For these periodic
inventories Kentucky will review the assumptions made for the purpose
of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth of
activity levels. If any of the
