[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53665-53686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25894]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[KY-117; KY-126; KY-129; KY-132-200202; IN-121-3; FRL-7082-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and 
Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky and 
Indiana; Approval of Revisions to State Implementation Plan; Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the Louisville moderate 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area (Louisville area) has attained the 1-hour ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Louisville area 
includes Jefferson County, and portions of Bullitt and Oldham Counties, 
Kentucky; and Clark and Floyd Counties, Indiana. This determination is 
based on three years of complete, quality-assured, ambient air 
monitoring data for the 1998 to 2000 ozone seasons. On the basis of 
this determination, EPA is also determining that the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions for certain reasonable further 
progress (RFP) and attainment demonstration requirements, along with 
certain other related requirements of part D of title I of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA), are not applicable to the area. EPA is also approving 
Kentucky's and Indiana's requests submitted March 30, 2001, and April 
11, 2001, respectively, as subsequently supplemented, to redesignate 
the Louisville area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 
approving these requests, EPA is approving the plans for maintaining 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 2012, as revisions to the Kentucky and 
Indiana (States) SIPs. EPA is also approving and finding adequate 
Kentucky's and Indiana's motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides(NOX) in 
the submitted maintenance plans for transportation conformity purposes. 
Approval of the MVEBs is based in part on commitments submitted by the 
States to use the MOBILE6 mobile emission model within a specific 
timeframe when it becomes available to update the MVEBs. Finally, EPA 
is approving source-specific Board Orders to control NOX 
emissions from 11 sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky. This action 
finalizes EPA's proposed rulemakings to determine that the Louisville 
area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS; and to redesignate both the 
Kentucky and Indiana portions of the Louisville area to attainment for 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and to approve the 11 source-specific 
NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Board 
Orders as revisions to the Kentucky SIP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be effective on November 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Kentucky's submittals, as well as other 
information, are available for inspection during normal business hours 
at the following locations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, Air Planning Branch, Regulatory Development Section, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 
Division for Air Quality, 803 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-
1403. Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County, 850 Barret 
Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky 40204. Persons wishing to examine these 
documents should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the 
visiting day and reference files KY-117, KY-126, KY-129, and KY-132.
    Copies of Indiana's submittals, as well as other information, are 
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following 
locations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 
Radiation Division, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Regulation 
Development Section, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 
60604. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air 
Quality, 100 North Senate Avenue, P.O. Box 6015, Indianapolis, Indiana 
46206-6015. Indiana Department of Environmental Management Southwest 
Regional Office, 208 NW 4th Street, Suite 201, Evansville, Indiana 
47708-1353. Persons wishing to examine these documents should make an 
appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day and reference 
file IN-121-3.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Humphris, Environmental 
Scientist, or Raymond Gregory, Environmental Engineer, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 
Regulatory Development Section, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303, (404) 562-9030, (404) 562-9116, 
([email protected]) ([email protected]). Mary Portanova, 
Environmental Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 
Air and Radiation Division, (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Regulation 
Development Section, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 
60604, (312) 353-5954, ([email protected])

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for these actions?
II. What comments did we receive and what are our responses?
III. What actions are we taking?
IV. Why are we taking these actions?
V. What are the effects of these actions?
VI. Administrative requirements

    Whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' are used it means EPA.

I. What Is the Background for These Actions?

    The Louisville area was designated as an ozone nonattainment area 
in March

[[Page 53666]]

1978 (43 FR 8962) and designated as the Louisville moderate 1-hour 
ozone nonattainment area on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). The 
Louisville area includes Jefferson County, and portions of Bullitt and 
Oldham Counties, Kentucky; and Clark and Floyd Counties, Indiana. As 
the result of programs adopted and implemented by Kentucky, Indiana and 
the Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County (APCDJC) to 
reduce VOC and NOX emissions since that time, monitors in 
the Louisville area have recorded three years of complete, quality-
assured, ambient air quality monitoring data for the 1998, 1999, and 
2000 ozone monitoring seasons, demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS. Preliminary data for the 2001 ozone season shows 
continuing attainment. The initial redesignation requests from Kentucky 
and Indiana were submitted on March 30, 2001, and April 11, 2001, 
respectively, and supplemented on July 9, 2001, and August 24, 2001, 
respectively.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published May 17, 2001, 
(66 FR 27483) we proposed to determine that the Louisville area has 
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this determination, we 
also proposed to determine that the SIP submissions for certain RFP and 
attainment demonstration requirements, along with certain other related 
requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, are not applicable to the 
area for so long as the Louisville area continues to attain the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS. The NPR included a detailed description and rationale for 
EPA's proposed actions, and provided for a public comment period on 
these actions ending on June 18, 2001. No comments were received on 
that NPR during the comment period.
    In an NPR published June 22, 2001, (66 FR 33505), we proposed to 
approve the requests by Kentucky and Indiana to redesignate the 
Louisville area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and to approve 
source-specific Board Orders adopted by the Air Pollution Control Board 
of Jefferson County (APCBJC) to control NOX emissions at 11 
sources in Jefferson County. The NPR included more detailed information 
and rationale for these actions, and provided for a public comment 
period ending on July 23, 2001. We received comments from three 
commenters.

II. What Comments Did We Receive and What Are Our Responses?

    The summarized comments received and EPA responses to them are 
provided below.
    Comment 1--Attainment of the standard: The commenter believes that 
the area has failed to show attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The 
commenter points out that EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System 
(AIRS) data base shows that the Charlestown monitor recorded 3.2 
estimated exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the three-year 
period of 1998-2000 and concludes that this translates to an annual 
average expected exceedance rate of more than 1.05 exceedances per 
year, and therefore nonattainment.
    The commenter also asserts that in determining that three days of 
data were unlikely to be above the standard, EPA has ignored the 
potential for exceedances on the eight other days for which data was 
missing. The commenter claims that additional information should be 
considered and claims that it was ignored. This includes ``the 
potential for exceedances on days where no exceedance was recorded, but 
where data was not available for all daytime hours (even if enough data 
was available to meet the minimum coverage of 75 percent of hours)''. 
The commenter also claims that EPA ignored the historic pattern of 
exceedances in this area, in which years with no exceedances have been 
followed by years with multiple exceedances. The commenter believes 
that EPA ignored the concentration levels of ozone exceedances recorded 
at Charlestown in 1997-99, pointing out that the design value for this 
three-year period was higher than for the period 1996-98 and that the 
peak reading in 1998 at Charlestown of 0.156 parts per million (ppm) 
was one of the highest recorded in the region in recent years. For 
these reasons, the commenter believes that EPA's proposal is arbitrary 
and capricious, and fails to adequately consider all of the relevant 
factors.

    Note: Although EPA received no comments on the proposed 
determination of attainment (66 FR 27483, May 17, 2001), the above 
comment addresses issues covered in that NPR. Therefore, the 
following response clarifies EPA's background and rationale for 
approving both the proposed determination of attainment and the 
proposed redesignation.

    Response 1: The current version of the AIRS database, EPA's air 
quality data system, calculates that the Charlestown monitor had 3.2 
estimated exceedances during the 1998 ozone season, based on the 
availability of valid AIRS data for 172 out of 183 ozone season days. 
However, the program only reflects this value because of limitations in 
the software that are not entirely reflective of the provisions in the 
CAA. For 11 days during the 1998 ozone monitoring season, incomplete 
air quality data was available for the Charlestown, Indiana monitor. 
Three of these days have been documented in AIRS to note that EPA has 
made a determination, based on documentation presented by the State, 
and in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H, that it is highly 
unlikely that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was exceeded (for further 
explanation, see 66 FR 27483, May 17, 2001) on these three days. 40 CFR 
part 50, Appendix H states, in part, that: ``[s]ome allowance should 
also be made for days for which valid daily maximum hourly values were 
not obtained but which would quite likely have been below the 
standard.'' It then suggests a criterion that ``may be used'' for 
ozone.
    For one day (August 1, 1998), EPA determined that the 1-hour NAAQS 
was not exceeded based on records of valid daily maxima below the 75 
percent level of the standard for the Charlestown monitor for the days 
immediately preceding and following this date. This determination is 
consistent with the example criterion provided in 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix H.
    For two days early in the 1998 ozone monitoring season (April 3-4, 
1998), EPA made a similar determination based on: the State's 
explanation of the site's failure to collect ozone data during the 
period, records of valid daily maxima well below the standard for the 
remaining six Louisville area monitors on those dates, and overwhelming 
evidence that meteorological conditions were not conducive to ozone 
formation (i.e. temperatures between 42 and 58 degrees, overcast skies, 
showers and windy conditions). In addition, no exceedances have ever 
been recorded at this monitoring site in early April. This 
determination was made in response to documentation presented by 
Indiana in a December 11, 2000 request. These materials are available 
for inspection in the Louisville redesignation dockets. The 
determination for these two days is consistent with 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix H, which EPA interprets as allowing for use of Agency 
discretion in defining conditions for determining when a missing value 
may be assumed to be below the level of the standard.
    The estimated exceedances for the Charlestown monitor are 
calculated using the parameters provided in Table 1 and the following 
equation: e = v + [(v/n)*(N-n-z)]. Assuming that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
was not exceeded for 172 of 183 ozone season days, and that valid AIRS 
data was unavailable for eight days, the Charlestown monitor is 
calculated as having a total of 3.1 estimated exceedances for the 1998

[[Page 53667]]

ozone season. This value was determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 
and Appendix H. Since no exceedance was recorded for 1999 or 2000, the 
average number of expected exceedances for this monitor is 1.0 
exceedance per year for the 1998 through 2000 three-year period, using 
conventional rounding techniques. Thus, the data indicate that the 
Louisville area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for this three-year 
period.

      Table 1.--Parameters for Calculation of Estimated Exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Value for
                                      Charlestown
       Variable description           monitor for         Comments
                                         1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e = the estimated number of                    3.1  Calculated.
 exceedances for the year,
N = the number of required                     183  Indiana's ozone
 monitoring days in the year,                        season is April 1-
                                                     September 30
 n = the number of valid daily                 172  Days with valid data
 maxima,.                                            based on 40 CFR 50
                                                     and Appendix H.
v = the number of daily values                   3  Based on monitored
 above the level of the standard.                    values.
z = the number of days assumed to                3  Based on 40 CFR 50
 be less than the standard level.                    Appendix H, for
                                                     days that were
                                                     likely below
                                                     thestandard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter claims that, in calculating the 1998-2000 estimated 
exceedances for the Charlestown monitor, EPA did not consider eight of 
the 11 days for which no monitoring data was available. Examination of 
the equation and the values used to calculate the estimated exceedances 
for 1998 through 2000 shows that this is not the case. In calculating 
the correction factor to account for missing data (i.e. [(v/n)*(N-n-
z)]), EPA does consider the remaining eight days for which no data was 
recorded. EPA adjusts the difference between the number of required and 
actual monitoring days (N-n) only by the number of days for which no 
data was recorded and for which we assumed the daily maximum value to 
be below the 1-hour NAAQS (i.e. z=3). Thus, EPA took the remaining 
eight days into account as prescribed in the CAA and 40 CFR 50.9. We 
did not assume that the daily maximum value for those eight days was 
below the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and we adjusted the area's estimated 
exceedance rate to account for this assumption.
    Regarding the adequacy and completeness of the remaining monitoring 
data used to calculate 1998-2000 estimated exceedances for the 
Charlestown monitor, EPA notes that there was over 99 percent data 
completeness on days meeting the 75 percent completeness test at the 
Charlestown site over the three-year period. Neither the guidance nor 
40 CFR contemplates questioning data that meet the 75 percent 
completeness test. There was also over 97 percent completeness for all 
days over the three-year period. EPA completed a review of the data and 
did not find any abnormalities that would indicate that the Charlestown 
monitor was not being run whenever possible. In addition, Region 5 
conducted a performance audit of this monitor on September 26-27, 2000, 
which confirmed the monitor's performance to be within acceptable 
limits.
    The commenter also claims that EPA ignored the historic pattern of 
exceedances for the Louisville area. EPA has not ignored historical 
data in making our determination. Rather, we looked at the historical 
data presented to us by the States in the context of the provisions of 
40 CFR 50.9. When evaluating whether the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has been 
met, the CAA specifies that EPA must consider the most recent three 
years of quality-assured monitoring data. As indicated above, the data 
for the most recent three-year period, i.e., 1998-2000, indicates 
attainment. Preliminary 2001 ozone season data indicates that the area 
continues to attain the 1-hour NAAQS. Note that the CAA and EPA 
guidance also requires that the improvement in air quality be 
attributable to permanent and enforceable reductions. Our determination 
that reductions are attributable to permanent and enforceable measures 
is discussed further in Response 3.
    Comment 2--Fully approved SIP and all requirements applicable to 
the area under section 110 and subpart D: The commenter indicated that, 
pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA, EPA cannot redesignate 
an area to attainment unless EPA ``has fully approved the applicable 
implementation plan for the area.'' The commenter contends that EPA has 
yet to fully approve the applicable implementation plan for the 
Louisville area, including the specific SIP elements identified in 
subparts A. through I. of this comment below, as required by the CAA 
for moderate ozone nonattainment areas. Also, pursuant to section 
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, EPA cannot redesignate an area to 
attainment unless the state containing the area ``has met all 
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.'' The 
commenter contends that the States have not yet met the requirement to 
submit approvable plans that satisfy all CAA-required moderate area 
ozone SIP elements. The commenter claims that the SIP elements 
identified in subparts A. through I. of this comment have not been 
satisfied for the reasons indicated below.
    Response 2: As described in the responses to subparts A. through I. 
of this comment below, EPA believes that both the Kentucky and Indiana 
portions of the Louisville area have satisfied all applicable moderate 
area ozone SIP requirements. In acting on a redesignation request, EPA 
may rely on any SIP approvals that precede, or are performed in 
conjunction with, the final rulemaking action to redesignate the area. 
The September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air 
Quality Management Division, entitled ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' (September 4, 1992 
Calcagni memorandum) allows for approval of SIP elements and 
redesignation to occur simultaneously, and EPA has frequently taken 
this approach in its redesignation actions. EPA is approving today or 
has previously approved all remaining portions of the SIP that must be 
approved prior to redesignation. Therefore, the Kentucky and Indiana 
SIPs are fully approved.
    Comment 2A--Attainment Demonstration: A commenter stated that under 
the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1), (c)(6), 7511a(b)(1); 7511a(j)) a 
moderate area is required to submit an attainment demonstration based 
on modeling or other analytical method determined by EPA to be at least 
as effective. The

[[Page 53668]]

commenter contends that since EPA has not approved an attainment 
demonstration for the Louisville area as required by the CAA, nor have 
the States involved submitted an approvable attainment demonstration, 
the requirements of section 110 and part D have not been met, and that 
EPA has not fully approved the SIP as required.
    Response 2A: An attainment demonstration is not required under 
EPA's attainment determination policy, as set forth in the May 10, 
1995, memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, 
Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard,'' (May 10, 1995, Seitz memorandum). EPA has explained at 
length in other actions its rationale for the reasonableness of that 
interpretation of the CAA and incorporates those explanations by 
reference here. See, for example, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 
20458, May 7, 1996); Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah (60 FR 36723, 
July 18, 1995); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR 31832-33, June 21, 1996); and 
Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio and Kentucky (65 FR 37879, June 19, 2000). 
EPA also reiterates its position set forth in the proposed rulemaking 
to redesignate the Louisville area (66 FR 33505, June 22, 2001), and in 
the proposed rulemaking to determine that the Louisville area has 
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (66 FR 27483, May 17, 2001). Subpart 2 
of part D of title I of the CAA contains various air quality planning 
and SIP submission requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. EPA 
believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and 
attainment demonstrations, along with certain other related provisions, 
as not requiring SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment area subject 
to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated with three 
consecutive years of complete, quality-assured, air quality monitoring 
data). EPA has interpreted the general provisions of subpart 1 of part 
D of title I (sections 171 and 172) so as not to require the submission 
of SIP revisions concerning RFP, attainment demonstrations, or section 
172(c)(9) contingency measures. As explained in the May 10, 1995, Seitz 
memorandum, EPA believes it is appropriate to interpret the more 
specific attainment demonstration and related provisions of subpart 2 
in the same manner. (See Sierra Club vs EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 
1996))
    The attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) are 
that the plan provide for ``such specific annual reductions in 
emissions* * *as necessary to attain the national primary ambient air 
quality standard by the attainment date applicable under the CAA.'' If 
an area has in fact monitored attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA 
believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission 
containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also 
consistent with the interpretation of certain section 172(c) 
requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble for the 
Interpretation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13496, 
April 16, 1992, supplemented at 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992) (General 
Preamble). As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to 
provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation 
to attainment since ``attainment will have been reached'' (57 FR 13564, 
April 16, 1992). Upon attainment of the NAAQS, the focus of state 
planning efforts shifts to the maintenance of the NAAQS.
    EPA has reviewed the 1998-2000 ambient air ozone monitoring data 
for the Louisville area for consistency with the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 58. A discussion of this review is included in EPA's proposed 
determination of attainment for the Louisville area (66 FR 27483, May 
17, 2001) and in the response to comment 1. On the basis of this 
review, EPA has determined that the Louisville area has attained the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS during the 1998-2000 period, and is therefore not 
required to submit an attainment demonstration. Since an attainment 
demonstration is not required, EPA is not required to approve an 
attainment demonstration as a requisite to redesignating the Louisville 
area.
    Comment 2B--All reasonably available control measures (RACM): The 
commenter contends that EPA has not approved a demonstration showing 
that the Kentucky and Indiana SIPs provide for implementation of all 
RACM as expeditiously as practicable. 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1). The 
commenter also alleges that the States have not met this requirement 
for the Louisville area. The commenter contends that EPA has no 
authority to waive this requirement, which applies in addition to the 
requirement to demonstrate timely attainment.
    Response 2B: The General Preamble treats the RACM requirement as a 
``component'' of an area's attainment demonstration. The General 
Preamble explains that ``section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all 
nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of RACM as 
expeditiously as practicable. EPA interprets this requirement to impose 
a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control 
measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably 
available for implementation in the area's attainment demonstration.'' 
Thus, EPA's final suspension of the attainment demonstration 
requirement pursuant to today's final determination of attainment also 
suspends the section 172(c)(1) RACM requirement, since the latter is a 
component of the attainment demonstration.
    The General Preamble further states that ``where measures that 
might in fact be available for implementation in the nonattainment area 
could not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for 
attainment in the area, EPA would not consider it reasonable to require 
implementation of such measures.'' Because attainment has been reached 
for the Louisville area, no additional measures are needed to provide 
for attainment, nor could the attainment date for the area now be 
advanced through implementation of RACM. Therefore, no additional RACM 
controls beyond what are already required in the SIP are necessary for 
redesignation to attainment.
    Comment 2C--RACT: The commenter contends that EPA has not fully 
approved the Kentucky SIP as meeting the requirement for RACT for all 
VOC sources within the nonattainment area, including each category of 
VOC sources covered by Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents. The 
commenter further contends that without EPA reopening the public 
comment period on the redesignation proposal, the public will be 
deprived of the opportunity to offer fully informed comment as to 
whether the state plan as a whole meets all of the applicable 
requirements of section 110 and part D.
    Response 2C: As described in the proposed redesignation (66 FR 
33511, June 22, 2001), Indiana fulfilled all RACT requirements prior to 
submittal of its redesignation request. Likewise, Kentucky fulfilled 
most RACT requirements prior to submittal of its redesignation request. 
In two final actions signed on September 18, 2001, and a third signed 
on October 3, 2001, and published elsewhere in the FR, EPA approved the 
following revisions to the Kentucky SIP: Existing VOC RACT regulations; 
new regulations to address VOC RACT, a source-specific non-CTG VOC RACT 
determination, and negative declarations. These final actions

[[Page 53669]]

addressed all remaining VOC RACT requirements for Kentucky. EPA had 
previously published NPRs that included proposals for each of these 
final actions that provided the public with adequate opportunity to 
offer comments on these revisions to the Kentucky SIP. Comments were 
received on one of the three NPRs. However, none of these comments 
addressed the VOC RACT requirements being proposed for approval. Since 
no comments were received that raised questions regarding the adequacy 
of the relevant VOC RACT requirements, EPA has issued final approval 
for these revisions to the Kentucky SIP. Therefore, with these actions, 
in conjunction with today's action, the Kentucky SIP for the Louisville 
area 1-hour ozone SIP is fully approved. In acting on a redesignation 
request, EPA may rely on any SIP approvals that precede, or are 
performed in conjunction with, the final redesignation action. The 
September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum allows for approval of SIP 
elements and redesignation to occur simultaneously, and EPA has 
frequently taken this approach in its redesignation actions. Thus, all 
RACT requirements have been fully adopted by Kentucky and Indiana and 
approved by EPA.
    Comment 2D--Rate of progress plans: The commenter contends that the 
CAA required the States to obtain EPA approval of a 15 percent ``rate 
of progress'' plan (RFP plan) for the Louisville area (section 
182(b)(1)). Although the States submitted such a plan, the commenter 
notes that EPA has not approved the plan. The commenter asserts that, 
on this basis, the SIP does not meet all requirements under section 110 
and part D.
    Response 2D: The General Preamble provides EPA's interpretation of 
certain section 172(c) requirements, including the following 
interpretation regarding RFP requirements: ``The requirements for RFP 
will not apply in evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment, 
since* * * air quality data* * * must show that the area has already 
attained. Showing that the state will make RFP towards attainment will 
have no meaning at that point.''
    The May 10, 1995, Seitz memorandum, which sets forth EPA's 
attainment determination policy, provides a similar position on the RFP 
requirement. In this memo, EPA interprets the general provisions of 
subpart 1 of part D of title I (sections 171 and 172) and the more 
specific requirements of subpart 2 of part D of title I so as not to 
require the submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP, attainment 
demonstrations, or section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and the 
corresponding more specific SIP revisions identified in subpart 2, for 
so long as the subject area is monitoring attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS. With regards to the specific requirement for RFP, whether 
dealing with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) or the 
more specific RFP requirements of subpart 2 for classified ozone 
nonattainment areas, including the 15 percent plan requirement of 
182(b)(1), ``the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by the 
applicable attainment date. If an area has in fact attained the 
relevant NAAQS, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have 
been met, and EPA does not believe that the area need submit revisions 
providing for the further emission reductions described in the RFP 
provisions of section 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B) and (C).''
    As noted by the commenter, both States had submitted 15 percent 
plans prior to submitting the redesignation request. EPA approved 
Indiana's 15 percent plan (62 FR 24815, May 7, 1997), and Indiana 
continues to implement and enforce all regulations associated with that 
submittal. EPA also proposed approval, in the form of a direct final 
rulemaking, of Kentucky's 15 percent plan and the regulations relied on 
to achieve those reductions (64 FR 49425, September 13, 1999), but 
subsequently withdrew the direct final rulemaking (64 FR 59644, 
November 3, 1999). In this final rulemaking, EPA is taking final action 
on our determination of attainment for the Louisville area, thereby 
removing the requirement for the 15 percent plan. Elsewhere in this FR, 
in a separate final rulemaking, EPA concludes that although no action 
on the 15 percent plan itself is required, the regulations submitted by 
Kentucky with its 15 percent plan provided permanent and enforceable 
reductions during the 1998 through 2000 time period, since they were 
implemented prior to 1998, and EPA approves regulations submitted by 
Kentucky as part of its 15 percent plan. That final action ensures that 
regulations implemented by Kentucky prior to attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS are permanent and enforceable as part of the SIP, thereby 
fulfilling the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(iii), and the 
requirements for redesignation.
    Comment 2E--New Source Review (NSR): The commenter points out that 
the CAA requires the SIP to include a preconstruction permit program 
for new major sources and modifications within the nonattainment area 
(42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(C), 7502(c)(4)&(5), 7503, 7511a(a)(2)(C), and 
(b)(5)). The commenter contends that the States have not met this 
requirement, and that EPA has no express authority to waive this 
mandate.
    Response 2E: Notwithstanding the current status of the Kentucky and 
Indiana SIPs, EPA has determined that areas being redesignated to 
attainment do not need to comply with the requirement that a part D NSR 
program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area 
demonstrates maintenance of the applicable NAAQS without part D NSR in 
effect. The rationale for this decision is described in a memorandum 
from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994. See also the discussion in 
the Grand Rapids, Michigan action (61 FR 31834, June 21, 1996). The 
States have demonstrated that the Louisville area will be able to 
maintain the 1-hour NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, and, therefore, 
need not have fully-approved part D NSR programs prior to approval of 
the redesignation request for the Louisville area. Kentucky's and 
Indiana's PSD requirements will be applicable and remain enforceable 
after the redesignation of the Louisville area (66 FR 33509-33510, June 
22, 2001). See also the discussion in the final redesignation 
rulemaking for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area (65 FR 37890-37891, June 
19, 2000).
    In any event, the Kentucky and the Indiana SIPs were reviewed to 
ensure that they satisfied all CAA requirements to include a fully-
approved part D NSR program. Section 172(c)(5) mandates that SIPs 
require permits for the construction and operation of new and modified 
major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. Section 
182(b)(5) requires all major new sources or modifications in a moderate 
nonattainment area to achieve offsetting reductions of VOCs at a ratio 
of at least 1.15 to 1.0. For Kentucky, these requirements were 
completed through previously-published final rulemaking actions, and a 
final rulemaking action signed on September 18, 2001, to approve 
revisions to Kentucky's NSR program that were proposed for approval on 
June 21, 2001, (66 FR 33216). Indiana's part D NSR program was approved 
in October 1994.
    Comment 2F--Conformity: The commenter contends that the SIP does 
not include conformity procedures as required by the CAA, and that EPA 
has no authority to waive this requirement. Since the CAA allows 
redesignation to attainment only where EPA has fully approved the 
implementation plan and only where the state has met all requirements 
applicable to the area

[[Page 53670]]

under section 110 and part D, the commenter contends that the area 
should not be redesignated.
    Response 2F: Kentucky and Indiana have met the statutory 
requirement for submitting approvable general conformity procedures. 
EPA approved the Indiana general conformity rules effective on March 
16, 1998, (63 FR 2146, January 14, 1998). EPA approved the Kentucky 
general conformity rules effective on September 25, 1998, (63 FR 40044, 
July 27, 1998).
    In addition to general conformity, section 176(c) provides that 
state conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal 
transportation conformity regulations that the CAA requires EPA to 
promulgate. The Federal transportation conformity regulations were 
finalized on November 24, 1993, amended on August 7, 1995, and amended 
again on August 15, 1997 (40 CFR parts 51 and 93 Transportation 
Conformity Rule Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining). On March 2, 
1999, a court decision (Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 167 F.3d 641 
(D.C. Cir. 1999)) rescinded several sections of the Federal 
transportation conformity rule, requiring EPA to revise those sections 
of the Federal rule. Kentucky submitted transportation conformity rules 
on November 23, 1994, and updated this submittal with revised rules on 
December 19, 1997. Indiana submitted transportation conformity rules on 
January 23, 1997, and updated this submittal with revised rules on 
April 19, 2001. The revised rules were adopted by Indiana in 1998 in 
response to the August 1997 changes to the Federal regulations. EPA has 
not acted on the submittals from either State, as they do not address 
later Federal transportation conformity regulation amendments. Once EPA 
has completed revisions to the Federal rule to reflect the 1999 court 
decision, both States will need to revise their regulations to address 
the changes.
    EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity 
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the 
redesignation request under section 107(d). The rationale for this is 
based on a combination of two factors. First, the requirement to submit 
SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the CAA 
continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment, since 
such areas would be subject to a Section 175A maintenance plan. Second, 
EPA's Federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity 
analyses in the absence of Federally approved state rules. Therefore, 
because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless of 
whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement 
conformity under Federal rules if state rules are not yet approved, EPA 
believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not applying 
for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. EPA has explained 
its rationale and applied this interpretation in numerous redesignation 
actions. See redesignations for: Tampa, Florida (60 FR 52748, December 
7, 1995); Jacksonville, Florida (60 FR 41, January 3, 1995); Miami, 
Florida (60 FR 10325, February 24, 1995); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 
31835, June 21, 1996); and Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 
May 7, 1996). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently 
upheld this interpretation in Wall v. EPA, No. 00-4010, Slip Op. at 21-
24 (6th Cir. September 11, 2001). The Court upheld EPA's view that 
failure to submit a revision that meets part D transportation 
conformity requirements is not a basis to deny a redesignation request. 
Consequently, EPA may approve Kentucky's and Indiana's 1-hour ozone 
redesignation requests notwithstanding the lack of fully approved 
conformity SIPs.
    Comment 2G-- NOX SIP Call: The commenter contends that 
under 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) the SIP must include provisions to 
prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment 
in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state. The commenter 
asserts that EPA has specifically determined that emissions from the 
States Kentucky and Indiana contribute significantly to ozone 
nonattainment in downwind states, and issued a SIP Call to require 
additional NOX controls in each State's SIP to address this 
problem. The commenter contends that this indicates that each State's 
SIP does not fully meet all of the requirements under section 110. The 
commenter believes that EPA cannot find the SIP Call requirement 
inapplicable for the purposes of redesignation.
    Response 2G: EPA believes that submissions under the NOX 
SIP call should not be considered applicable requirements for purposes 
of evaluating a redesignation request. Nevertheless, Indiana adopted 
the NOX SIP Call rules on June 6, 2001, and submitted them 
for parallel processing on March 20, 2001, with a final submittal on 
August 20, 2001. EPA signed a final FR approving Indiana's rules on 
September 27, 2001. Therefore, Indiana has met the NOX the 
SIP Call submission requirements.
    Kentucky submitted regulations for parallel processing on February 
20, 2001. EPA is currently awaiting supplemental information before 
determining if the Kentucky NOX SIP Call submittal is 
approvable. However, the requirement to submit complete SIP revisions 
under the NOX SIP call continues to apply to the area after 
redesignation to attainment. Therefore, Kentucky remains obligated to 
ensure its submittal is complete and approvable even after 
redesignation, and would risk sanctions for failure to do so.
    The NOX SIP Call requirements are not linked with a 
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification. EPA 
believes that the requirements linked with a particular area's 
designation and classification are the requirements that are the 
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The 
NOX SIP call submittal requirements continue to apply to the 
States regardless of the designation of any one particular area in 
these States. The NOX SIP Call submissions are required to 
reduce emissions affecting downwind areas, not to address air quality 
in the designated Louisville ozone nonattainment area.
    Thus, we do not agree that the NOX SIP Call submission 
requirement should be construed to be an applicable requirement for 
purposes of redesignation. 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 policy is consistent with EPA's existing 
redesignation policies regarding 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; and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and 
Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, 62741, December 7, l995).
    Comment 2H--Serious area requirements: One commenter stated that 
because the Louisville area failed to attain by its applicable 
attainment date of November 15, 1996, or the extended attainment date 
of November 15, 1997 (64 FR 27734, May 21, 1999), the Louisville area 
must be reclassified to ``serious'' and must meet all of the 
requirements for serious areas prior to redesignation.
    Response 2H: Prior to the proposed determination of attainment (66 
FR 27483, May 17, 2001), EPA approved a one 1-year extension of the 
Louisville area's attainment date (62 FR 55173, October 23, 1997) 
making its new attainment date November 15, 1997. On

[[Page 53671]]

May 21, 1999, (64 FR 27734), EPA proposed to find that the Louisville 
area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its extended attainment 
date of November 17, 1997. Alternatively, EPA proposed in this same 
notice to extend the Louisville area's attainment date, provided 
Kentucky and Indiana submit SIPs pursuant to EPA's notice of proposed 
interpretation entitled, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind 
Transport Areas'' (64 FR 14441, March 25, 1999) by November 15, 1999. 
Provided the States met the extension policy criteria and EPA proposed 
to approve the States' submittals, EPA would then be able to propose a 
specific extended attainment date in that same notice. Kentucky and 
Indiana submitted attainment demonstration SIPs by the November 15, 
1999, deadline, and were in the process of finalizing these submittals 
in the fall of 2000. At this same time, preliminary monitoring data for 
the 2000 ozone season indicated that the Louisville area was attaining 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the 1998 to 2000 three-year period. This 
attainment status was confirmed when Kentucky and Indiana provided 
early certification of their 2000 ozone season monitoring data as 
complete, accurate, quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, 
and recorded in AIRS on January 16, 2001, and January 11, 2001, 
respectively. Thus, EPA was in the process of reviewing the requests to 
extend the Louisville area's attainment date when the area, in fact, 
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Since the Louisville area has attained 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted an approvable maintenance plan, 
the additional requirements for a ``serious'' area are not needed.
    Comment 2I-- NOX RACT: EPA proposed to approve various 
source-specific NOX RACT orders from Kentucky as part of the 
SIP (66 FR 33505, June 22, 2001). The commenter notes that EPA's 
longstanding definition of RACT is ``the lowest emission limitation 
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of 
control technology that is reasonably available considering 
technological and economic feasibility.'' (44 FR 53762, September 17, 
1979). The commenter contends that the material in the proposed 
rulemaking action (66 FR 33505, June 22, 2001) does not demonstrate 
that the proposed emission limits are in fact RACT. The commenter 
contends that to determine RACT for these sources, EPA must at least 
examine NOX control technologies in use throughout the 
nation and elsewhere, select one or more technologies as RACT for each 
category, and document why any more effective technologies are not 
technically and/or economically feasible. That EPA has failed to 
provide such analysis here. (The commenter also claims to identify 
several specific deficiencies with respect to individual sources and 
categories. These are described and responded to as subparts of this 
comment).
    Response 2I: On November 12, 1999, and May 23, 2001, Kentucky 
submitted Board Orders approved by APCBJC for the 11 major 
NOX sources located in the Louisville area. A Board Order is 
a regulatory instrument adopted by an air pollution control board which 
specifies air pollution control limits or requirements for a specific 
source or company. EPA reviewed each Board Order at both the prehearing 
and formal submittal stage for adequacy in meeting the requirements of 
NOX RACT as defined in the November 25, 1992, Nitrogen 
Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; CAA Amendments of 1990 
Implementation of title I (57 FR 55625) ( NOX Supplement). 
The original November 12, 1999, submittal included Board Orders for 10 
sources, but EPA concluded that only two of these Board Orders 
satisfied RACT. Following extensive consultation between APCDJC and 
EPA, Kentucky submitted revised Board Orders for the remaining eight 
sources, and for one additional major NOX source, all of 
which EPA determined to satisfy RACT.
    Comment 2Ia--Louisville Gas and Electric (LG&E) emission limits: 
EPA proposes to approve emission limits ranging from 0.47 to 0.52 
pounds NOX per million British thermal unit (lb/mmBtu) for 
LG&E electric generating units. The commenter contends that EPA does 
not explain why most of these limits are so much higher than the Ozone 
Transport Commission (OTC) phase II limit, which is the less stringent 
of 0.2 lb/mmBtu or a 65 percent reduction. The commenter claims that 
EPA estimates that the phase II reductions will be achieved at a cost 
of $1,600 per ton--a level that EPA has determined to be reasonably 
achievable. The commenter contends that in the absence of an adequate 
explanation or analysis of this discrepancy, EPA cannot determine that 
the proposed limits constitute RACT.
    Response 2Ia: NOX RACT for each of the sources located 
in the Louisville area, including LG&E's Cane Run and Mill Creek 
Generating Stations, was determined based on EPA's interpretation of 
what constitutes RACT as presented in the NOX Supplement. 
The OTC is comprised of several northeastern states, and the programs 
and emission limits established by OTC for purpose of controlling 
NOX emissions in the northeast are applicable only to those 
states.
    The NOX Supplement considers RACT for utilities to be 
``the most effective level of combustion modification reasonably 
available to an individual unit. This implies low-NOX 
burners. * * *'' EPA determined that, in the majority of cases, such 
controls result in an overall level of control equivalent to maximum 
allowable NOX emission rates of 0.45 and 0.50 lb/mmBtu, 
respectively, for tangentially-fired and wall-fired coal-burning 
electric utility boilers, with compliance based upon a 30-day rolling 
average emission rate. EPA further determined that ``the actual 
NOX emission reduction that can be achieved on a specific 
boiler depends on a number of site-specific factors * * *''
    The initial Board Orders for these two facilities, submitted 
November 12, 1999, addressed EPA's prehearing concern that compliance 
with the established emission limits must be determined based on a 30-
day rolling average emission rate. However, EPA commented that Kentucky 
increased the emission limits over the presumptive RACT limit provided 
in the NOX Supplement, making them unapprovable absent 
further justification. Specifically, the November 12, 1999 Board Orders 
included emission limits of 0.49 lb/mmBtu for the tangentially-fired 
units (Mill Creek boilers 1 and 2 and Cane Run boiler 6) and 0.55 lb/
mmBtu for the wall-fired units (Mill Creek boilers 3 and 4 and Cane Run 
boilers 4 and 5) located at these facilities. To support why these two 
sources could not meet presumptive RACT levels, Kentucky provided 
documentation showing that the selected acid rain controls for 
compliance with title 4 requirements--low-NOX burners--were 
installed on these boilers and operated as designed on a regular basis. 
Kentucky further demonstrated, using Continuous Emission Monitoring 
data from the sources, that reasonable emission limits for these 
boilers, based on a 30-day rolling average compliance period and 
appropriate operation of the installed controls, were 0.47 lb/mmBtu for 
the three tangentially-fired units and 0.52 lb/mmBtu for the four wall-
fired units. On May 23, 2001, Kentucky submitted revised Board Orders 
for the LG&E Cane Run and Mill Creek facilities that specify emission 
limits of 0.47 for three tangentially-fired coal-burning utility

[[Page 53672]]

boilers and 0.52 for four bottom wall-fired coal-burning utility 
boilers.
    EPA therefore determined that Kentucky has required a RACT level of 
control for these facilities by installing the most effective, 
reasonably available controls, documenting the actual NOX 
emission reduction achieved through appropriate operation of those 
controls, and requiring the corresponding emission limits in the final 
Board Orders for these facilities. The unit-specific nature of these 
requirements also assures a greater level of control than could be 
achieved through an ``overall [facility-wide] level of control,'' which 
the NOX Supplement uses to establish presumptive RACT 
limits.
    Comment 2Ib--Setting emission limits for some sources: For several 
source categories, EPA proposes to approve limits on capacity factors, 
rather than actual emission limits. The commenter contends that the 
notice does not explain why these constitute RACT, when other states 
have set numeric NOX RACT emission limits for the same or 
similar source categories. See EPA's October 17, 1995, Summary of 
NOX RACT Rules (available at www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1pgm.htm). The commenter further contends that the proposal conflicts 
with EPA's NOX RACT guidance, which indicates that EPA 
expects that NOX RACT for sources other than electric 
utility boilers to be set at levels at least comparable to RACT 
guidance levels for electric utility boilers (57 FR 55620, November 25, 
1992).
    Response 2Ib: Capacity factors that limit the operation of coal- 
and gas-fired boilers at facilities to less than 10 percent of total 
capacity were included in the Board Orders for five facilities in lieu 
of emission limits. However, all of the boilers subject to capacity 
limits are back-up or emergency units that are operated on a very 
infrequent basis. In fact, most of these units were not operated during 
the 2000 and/or 2001 ozone seasons. Thus, total ozone season emissions 
from the capacity-limited units in recent years have been so low that 
additional controls or extensive monitoring are clearly not cost-
effective and therefore not justified. The Board Orders do establish 
emission limits for all primary boilers in use at these facilities that 
satisfy RACT. Taken together, these different approaches for addressing 
emissions from primary and back-up boilers ensure that the emissions 
from these five facilities comply with RACT. The five Board Orders also 
require these facilities to record the amount, type and heat content of 
fuel combusted each day for each boiler subject to a 10 percent 
capacity limit; the capacity factor for each of these boilers must also 
be calculated and recorded monthly. Finally, the facilities must submit 
a semi-annual report documenting all deviations from NOX 
RACT Plan requirements. These comprehensive usage and reporting 
requirements ensure that emissions from the subject boilers for all 
five facilities will continue to represent RACT. In summary, due to 
limited operating hours, the costs to control these units would be very 
high for a small amount of emission reductions.
    For three of the five facilities, the boilers subject to 10 percent 
capacity factors are gas-fired. Low usage rates, combined with the 
clean-burning, inherently lower-emitting nature of these gas-fired 
boilers (0.20 lb/mmBtu or less) ensure that total emissions from these 
units will be minimal. The Board Order for one of these facilities--Oxy 
Vinyls--establishes a 10 percent capacity factor for one gas-fired 
boiler that serves as a back-up unit for the two primary coal-fired 
boilers. In actuality, this gas-fired boiler was not operated during 
the 1999 or 2000 ozone seasons. However, even if operated at 10 percent 
capacity, total potential NOX emissions for this unit would 
be significantly lower than could be achieved by establishing a RACT 
emission limit for the unit, assuming operation at full capacity. In 
addition, emissions from the two primary coal-fired boilers effectively 
dwarf emissions from the capacity-limited gas boiler by comparison. 
Installation of controls on the latter unit would be non-cost effective 
and impracticable. The second facility--Ford Louisville Assembly 
Plant--has three gas-fired boilers subject to a 10 percent capacity 
factor. Two of these boilers were not operated in 2000 or 2001. The 
third was operated for a short time in October of one year for testing 
purposes. The third facility--Rohm and Haas--has one primary gas-fired 
boiler, and one back-up gas-fired boiler subject to a 10 percent 
capacity factor. Emissions from the latter could potentially comprise a 
greater portion of this facility's total emissions. However, the Rohm & 
Haas Board Order also requires this boiler to meet a 0.20 lb/mmBtu 
emissions limit in the event that it is unable to comply with the 10 
percent capacity limit. This boiler was operated at less than three 
percent capacity in 2000.
    The Board Order for the fourth facility, GE Appliances, establishes 
a 10 percent capacity factor for each of five secondary backup coal-
fired boilers. The primary energy source for the facility is a clean-
burning methane gas boiler, and the secondary energy source is a gas-
fired boiler subject to an emissions limit of 0.2 lb/mmBtu. During the 
2000 ozone season, four of the coal-fired boilers were not used and the 
fifth had a usage rate equivalent to two percent of its total capacity. 
During the 2001 ozone season, none of these five boilers were operated. 
In addition to the above-mentioned recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements that all five facilities must meet, the GE Appliances 
Board Order requires this facility to conduct a thorough maintenance or 
``tune-up'' of each of the five coal-fired boilers prior to the start 
of the ozone season. It also requires even more extensive maintenance 
on one of these five boilers--to be identified by May 1 of each year as 
the primary backup among these five boilers. The required semi-annual 
report submitted by GE Appliances must document all maintenance 
activities performed on these boilers to verify that the pre-season 
``tune-up'' was completed and that the boilers continued to be well-
maintained on an ongoing basis.
    The Board Order for the fifth facility, the Louisville Medical 
Center Steam Plant, establishes a 10 percent capacity factor for each 
of two coal-fired boilers that are designated as third-level backup for 
the primary boilers at the source. The Board Order establishes emission 
limits that satisfy RACT for the primary, and first- and second-level 
backup boilers in use at the facility. During the 2000 ozone season, 
the two coal-fired boilers subject to 10 percent capacity limits were 
not operated.
    Comment 2Ic--Texas Gas Transmission delayed compliance dates: The 
commenter points out that EPA proposes to approve delayed compliance 
dates for various emission limits applicable to Texas Gas Transmission. 
Some of these dates are during 2002, and one is during 2004. The 
commenter contends that EPA cannot approve NOX RACT with 
such delayed compliance dates. The CAA required adoption and 
implementation of NOX RACT in Louisville long ago, and EPA 
has no authority to approve orders that allow for delayed compliance.
    Response 2Ic: Based on review of the November 12, 1999, submittal, 
EPA noted that the turbine lacked controls and identified several types 
of controls, including dry low NOX controls, that appeared 
to be viable RACT choices. Absent adequate justification, EPA required 
the facility to install controls on this unit. Texas Gas agreed to 
install dry low NOX controls on the turbine in 2004. 
Installation could not be done in 2001-2002, because the facility will 
be

[[Page 53673]]

installing RACT controls on the Internal Combustion Engines (ICEs) 
during that timeframe, and requires that either the ICEs or the turbine 
be operational at all times. Following installation of these controls, 
this facility will have fulfilled the CAA requirement to implement 
NOX RACT.
    Comment 3--Showing that air quality improvement is due to permanent 
and enforceable reductions: The commenter asserts that neither the 
States nor EPA have shown that air quality improvements are due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions, as required by 42 U.S.C. 
7407(d)(3)(E)(iii). The commenter asserts that although States have 
adopted measures that have produced some emission reductions, EPA has 
not demonstrated that these reductions are responsible for the area's 
improved air quality or the absence of violations. The commenter holds 
that the only way to reliably make such a showing is through 
photochemical grid modeling. The commenter further asserts that given 
the complex chemistry and meteorology of ozone formation, the 
combination of NOX and VOC emission reductions that might be 
attributable to the cited measures could just as easily lead to 
increases in ozone concentrations. The commenter contends that the lack 
of violations in 1998-2000 could be due to weather patterns or changes 
in transport of ozone precursors. The commenter further contends that 
the States did not offer other technically sound analysis showing that 
air quality improvements are due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions.
    Response 3--Our policy does not specify that photochemical grid 
modeling is required for all ozone nonattainment areas to demonstrate 
that permanent and enforceable emission reductions have produced 
improvements in air quality. See the September 4, 1992, Calcagni 
memorandum; the General Preamble; ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,'' Michael H. 
Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, 
September 17, 1993; and ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance 
Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' D. Kent Berry, 
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993.
    We have found that reductions in ozone precursor (VOC and 
NOX) emissions (emission inventory approach) have brought 
many areas across the country into attainment. Reductions in ozone 
precursor emissions similar to the reductions that have taken place in 
the Louisville area have been confirmed in photochemical grid modeling 
to reduce ambient ozone concentrations. EPA has approved many ozone 
redesignations showing decreases in ozone precursor emissions resulting 
in attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See redesignations for 
Charleston, West Virginia (59 FR 30326, June 13, 1994; and 59 FR 45985, 
Sept. 6, 1994); Greenbrier County, West Virginia (60 FR 39857, Aug. 4, 
1995); Parkersburg, West Virginia (59 FR 29977, June 10, 1994; and 59 
FR 45978, Sept. 6, 1994); Jacksonville/Duval County, Florida (60 FR 41, 
January 3, 1995); Miami/Southeast, Florida (60 FR 10325, February 24, 
1995); Tampa, Florida (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995); Lexington, 
Kentucky (60 FR 47089, September 11, 1995); Greensboro, North Carolina 
(58 FR 47391, September 9,1993); Indianapolis, Indiana (59 FR 35044, 
July 8, 1994; and 59 FR 54391, October 31, 1994); South Bend-Elkhart, 
Indiana (59 FR 35044, July 8, 1994); Evansville/Vanderburgh County, 
Indiana (62 FR 12137, March 14, 1997, and 62 FR 64725, December 9, 
1997); Canton, Youngstown-Warren, Ohio (61 FR 3319, January 31, 1996); 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (60 FR 31433, June 15, 1995, and 61 FR 
20458, May 7, 1996), Clinton County, Ohio (60 FR 22337, May 5, 1995, 
and 61 FR 11560, March 21, 1996); Columbus, Ohio (61 FR 3591, February 
1, 1996); Kewaunee, Manitowoc, and Sheboygan Counties, Wisconsin (61 FR 
29508, June 11, 1996; and 61 FR 43668, August 26,1996); Walworth 
County, Wisconsin (61 FR 28541, June 5, 1996, and 61 FR 43668, August 
26, 1996); Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana (61 FR 37833, July 22, 1996, 
and 62 FR 648, January 6, 1997); and Monterey Bay, California (62 FR 
2597, January 7, 1997). Most of the areas that have been redesignated 
to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS have continued to attain the 
standard. Areas that are not maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are 
implementing maintenance plans designed to bring them back into 
attainment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently 
upheld EPA's emissions inventory approach for maintenance plans as a 
basis for approval of those plans in Wall v. EPA, supra at 17-19.
    Between 1990 and 1999, VOC emissions in the Louisville 
nonattainment area have decreased area-wide by more than 112 tons per 
day. These emissions reductions are due to a number of permanent and 
enforceable regulatory programs, including the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Emissions Control Program, fleet turnover of automobiles, 
implementation of Stage II vapor recovery program, implementation of 
VOC RACT, lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline, restrictions on open 
burning, regulations covering landfill emissions, and ceased operation 
and improved technology at facilities in the Louisville area. Kentucky 
also instituted regulations regarding rule effectiveness and mandated 
the use of reformulated gasoline in the nonattainment area. Additional 
reductions in Indiana resulted from regulations for VOC storage tanks, 
shipbuilding/ship repair, wood furniture coating, automobile 
refinishing, and the implementation of an improved vehicle Inspection 
and Maintenance (I/M) program and a ridesharing program. Since the 1999 
attainment year, the States have increased the rule effectiveness of 
Stage I vapor control and have implemented additional Federal 
regulations on such emission sources as architectural coatings, traffic 
paints, auto-body refinishing, and commercial/consumer products rules.
    It is a technically sound and acceptable analysis to show that air 
quality improvements are due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions by demonstrating a decline in ozone levels which corresponds 
to the implementation of the enforceable reductions. An analysis of the 
ozone values in the Louisville area shows that ambient ozone 
concentrations dropped after this combination of ozone precursor 
reductions occurred. Ozone air quality monitoring data shows that the 
design value \1\ changed from 0.149 ppm during the 1987-1989 time 
period to 0.123 ppm during the 1998-2000 time period. The decline in 
ozone concentrations indicates that the reduction in ozone precursor 
emissions in the area has contributed to improved air quality and 
helped bring about attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Louisville 
area's decrease in ozone levels is consistent with what other areas 
have experienced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The design value is typically the fourth highest ozone 
concentration recorded at a monitor over a three-year period. This 
value is calculated for each monitor and the highest value is the 
design value for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the complex chemistry and meteorology of ozone formation is a 
factor, the combination of NOX and VOC emission reductions 
in the Louisville area have lead to decreases in ozone concentrations, 
not increases. The commenter has not provided data

[[Page 53674]]

showing that similar decreases in ozone precursor emissions have led to 
higher levels of ozone elsewhere. Nor did the commenter supply evidence 
to support the conclusion that the absence of violations during 1998-
2000 was due to weather patterns or changes in transport of ozone 
precursors. Climatological data for the Louisville area from the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration \2\ (http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/USclimate/USclimdivs.html) shows that during the 1998-
2000 ozone seasons, local weather conditions were, in fact, more 
favorable for high ozone concentrations than low concentrations. This 
data is summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The fact that weather conditions 
and transport may have a substantial effect on ozone concentrations, 
both in terms of increasing ozone and decreasing ozone, cannot be 
controlled. We use a three-year averaging period to account for the 
year-to-year difference in weather conditions. In the Louisville area, 
the fact that the preliminary ozone data for 2001 continues to 
demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS increases our 
confidence that meteorology has not been the controlling factor in the 
area's attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The weather data for Louisville used to develop Tables 2 and 
3 was derived from the average of the two weather zones covering 
Louisville (Kentucky zones 2 and 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows the ranking (percentile) for each year of the average 
temperatures over the April--October period (ozone season) for the 
listed years compared to the long term average (1895 to 1999). A rank 
or value of 100 represents the highest temperature percentile and is 
given to the hottest year. Correspondingly, rank of one represents the 
lowest temperature percentile and is given to the coolest year. Table 3 
shows the standard deviation for the average temperature anomaly (in 
degrees Fahrenheit) over recent three-year ozone seasons compared to a 
contemporary long-term average of temperature (1971-2000). In this 
table, warmer periods are indicated by larger positive values. If 
favorable weather conditions had been a large factor in Louisville's 
attainment of the standard, then one would have expected the attainment 
period to have been cooler than the previous nonattainment period 
(1997-1999). Instead, during the attainment period of 1998-2000, 
average temperatures were above the long term average (+1.24) from 
Table 2. Table 2 also shows that the three attainment years (1998-2000) 
were relatively warm, ranked in the 82th, 79nd, and 49st percentiles 
respectively. The temperature rankings and anomalies indicate that the 
ozone seasons with violations were less conducive to ozone formation 
based on temperature than the attainment period of 1998-2000 with no 
violations.

    Table 2.--Temperature Percentiles (Ranking) for the Ozone Seasons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Temperature
                                                           percentiles
                         Year                             (ranking) for
                                                           Louisville,
                                                            Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990..................................................                19
1991..................................................                92
1992..................................................                 5
1993..................................................                30
1994..................................................                29
1995..................................................                67
1996..................................................                23
1997..................................................                 5
1998..................................................                82
1999..................................................                79
2000..................................................                49
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 3.--Composite Temperature Anomalies 1 for April--October versus
                            1971-2000 average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Temperature
       Three year period of April-October data 2           anomaly for
                                                         Louisville, KY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992-1994.............................................             -0.72
1993-1995.............................................              0.22
1994-1996.............................................              0.10
1995-1997.............................................             -0.50
1996-1998.............................................             -0.23
1997-1999.............................................              0.45
1998-2000.............................................              1.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 The standard deviation for temperature anomaly in degrees Fahrenheit.

    The above data shows that the weather conditions in the 1998-2000 
attainment years were not unusually favorable towards lower levels of 
ozone, and that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS despite 
this warmer than average weather. The combination of this analysis of 
the meteorological conditions in conjunction with the existence of 
adopted emission controls demonstrates that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In 
light of this information, EPA believes that photochemical grid 
modeling is not necessary to support this conclusion, nor is it 
required by the CAA or guidance.
    Comment 4A--Maintenance demonstration using adequate methods: One 
commenter stated that the attainment inventory approach was inadequate, 
and that modeling shows continued nonattainment through 2007 and 
beyond. The specific details of the commenter's remarks and EPA's 
replies are addressed below in the comments and responses identified as 
4Aa, 4Ab, and 4Ac.
    Comment 4Aa--Demonstration of maintenance: The commenter asserts 
that the plan does not demonstrate maintenance as required by the CAA, 
and that EPA has proposed to find maintenance on the presumption that 
the area will always be in attainment if emissions remain at or below 
estimated 1999 levels. The commenter contends that since the area 
violated the NAAQS in the 1997-99 period, holding emissions to 1999 
levels will not assure attainment. The commenter further contends that 
EPA regulation and guidance explicitly require modeled maintenance 
demonstrations in multi-state ozone nonattainment areas like 
Louisville, where modeling was required for the attainment 
demonstration (see 40 CFR 51.112; 65 FR 6711, rejecting use of rollback 
analysis for making attainment and nonattainment predictions; and the 
September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum). The commenter insists that 
until EPA approves such a modeling demonstration, it cannot approve the 
maintenance plan.
    Response 4Aa: In evaluating Kentucky's and Indiana's maintenance 
plans, EPA determined that the Louisville area's ability to demonstrate 
attainment for the 1998-2000 time period indicates that the attainment 
year (1999) level of emissions is adequate to keep the area in 
attainment (maintenance) for at least the next 10 years. Pursuant to 
EPA policy, states may demonstrate maintenance by preparing an 
attainment emissions inventory corresponding to the period during which 
the area monitored attainment and showing that future emissions will 
stay below the attainment emissions inventory. (See September 4, 1992, 
Calcagni memorandum). The Louisville area emissions are indeed 
projected to remain below the 1999 level for the next 10 years. Holding 
emissions at or below the level of attainment is, in EPA's view, 
``adequate to reasonably assure continued maintenance of the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS.'' Thus, under EPA's interpretation, the air quality will 
be maintained by keeping emissions below the attainment emissions 
level, continuing to monitor ozone levels, and having maintenance plan 
contingency measures available. As noted above, in response to comment 
3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently upheld 
EPA's emissions inventory

[[Page 53675]]

approach to evaluating maintenance plans in Wall v. EPA, supra at 17-
19.
    According to the September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum, ``many 
areas are required to submit modeled attainment demonstrations to show 
that proposed reductions in emissions will be sufficient to attain the 
applicable NAAQS. For these areas, the maintenance demonstrations 
should be based upon the same level of modeling. In areas where no such 
modeling was required, the State should be able to rely on the 
attainment inventory approach.'' This guidance does not, as the 
commenter suggests, require an area such as the Louisville area to 
submit modeled attainment demonstrations when the States have already 
produced actual quality-assured data showing attainment. Therefore, the 
maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. As provided 
for by the September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum, ``[a] State may 
generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that 
future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the 
level of the attainment inventory or by modeling to show that the 
future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of 
the NAAQS.'' Kentucky and Indiana are not required to submit a modeled 
attainment demonstration to support their redesignation request, since 
EPA has concluded that this requirement is not applicable so long as 
the area actually attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA has 
determined that an attainment demonstration that includes photochemical 
grid modeling is not needed to show that the area has attained the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. Since the States were not required to submit a 
modeled attainment demonstration under EPA's established interpretation 
of the statute and its longstanding policy, the States need not submit 
a modeled maintenance demonstration. EPA finds that the States can rely 
on the attainment inventory approach as was done here.
    In addition, citing 40 CFR 51.112, the commenter contends that 
EPA's regulations require modeling to show that a maintenance plan is 
adequate. Section 51.112 provides in relevant part, that ``[e]ach plan 
must demonstrate that the measures, rules and regulations contained in 
it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of 
the national standard that it implements.'' Both the language and the 
context of this regulation indicate that it applies to attainment 
demonstrations, and not to stand alone maintenance plans submitted 
under CAA section 175A. There is no reference in the regulation to 
modeling requirements applicable to a section 175A plan revision for 
the sole purpose of providing maintenance and not attainment.
    Moreover, even if the regulation could be construed as applying 
such a requirement, by its own terms, the regulation provides authority 
for EPA to modify requirements through notice and comment rulemaking. 
The rulemaking proposing redesignation of the Louisville area (66 FR 
33505, June 22, 2001) addresses the attainment inventory approach in 
the maintenance plan, requests comments, and concludes that a modeled 
demonstration is not required to demonstrate maintenance under the 
statute. Many of the ozone areas for which EPA has approved ozone 
redesignations have used an emissions inventory approach to demonstrate 
maintenance. Indeed, the majority of areas have continued to maintain 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS using that approach. There are ozone monitors 
located in the Louisville area to ensure that the area's air quality 
remains below the level set by the one-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, 
areas that are not maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS have contingency 
measures in a maintenance plan to bring them back into attainment. See 
redesignations listed above in Response 3.
    Comment 4Ab--Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur Ozone Modeling Analysis: The 
commenter asserts that a modeling analysis set forth in EPA's Tier 2/
Gasoline Sulfur Ozone Modeling Analysis, contradicts the premise that 
the Louisville area's maintenance plan is adequate to maintain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS for the required 10 year period. Specifically, the 
commenter contends that the Louisville area was included in the Tier 2 
modeling analysis as among those that are certain or highly likely to 
require additional emission reductions in order to attain and maintain 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Response 4Ab: In the Tier 2 rulemaking, EPA used a regional ozone 
modeling system to predict ozone levels in many cities as part of an 
analytical process to characterize the risk that there would be 
nonattainment in a large and geographically broad number of areas. The 
Tier 2 modeling involved many approximations and assumptions because it 
was conducted for a very large region. While ozone predictions and the 
characterization of the risk of nonattainment in individual areas was a 
step toward reaching a conclusion about risks across the group of areas 
that characterization was not a finding by EPA of violations for any 
specific area. In addition, EPA's decision to approve the Louisville 
maintenance plan is based on more recent air quality data than was 
taken into account in the Tier 2 rulemaking. The Tier 2 rulemaking 
reflected only air quality data through 1998; it did not reflect the 
additional two years of air quality data in which the Louisville area 
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This is clear from the Tier 2 notice 
(65 FR 6709, February 10, 2000) which indicated that Louisville was 
included on a list of areas ``that have current violations of the 1-
hour NAAQS.'' (See also the discussion of this issue in the final 
redesignation rulemaking for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 65 FR 37882-
37883, June 19, 2000).
    The Louisville area is not now nor was it in violation of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS at the time it was proposed to be redesignated. In 
fact, the preliminary air quality data for the Louisville area for 2001 
indicates continued attainment. In addition, the emission inventory 
projections in the maintenance plans show that total NOX and 
VOC emissions decline between 1999 and 2012. When the air quality data 
is combined with a downward trend in total emissions, there is an even 
stronger basis for not relying completely on the Tier 2 ozone modeling. 
Even so the Tier 2 reductions are the type of additional reductions 
that will help ensure maintenance for the next 10 years. The U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently upheld EPA's decision to 
treat Tier 2 findings as inapplicable to an evaluation of an area's 
maintenance plan in a redesignation action (see Wall v. EPA, supra at 
19-20).
    Even if there is some risk of lapse, that would not preclude the 
redesignation of the Louisville area. In drafting the CAA, Congress did 
not presume that an area will always be in attainment (62 FR 650). In 
fact, Congress specifically contemplated that future violations may 
occur and therefore required that EPA fully approve a maintenance plan 
and contingency measures for an area consistent with the requirements 
of section 175A of the CAA before that area can be redesignated to 
attainment (See 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(iv)). If the area monitors a 
violation, then the contingency measures required by section 175A to be 
included in the maintenance plan would be triggered to bring the area 
back into attainment. Clearly, the CAA and Congress anticipated that 
areas redesignated to attainment may violate the NAAQS in the future, 
and Congress ensured in the CAA that control measures to remedy

[[Page 53676]]

the violation are available if such violations occur.
    Comment 4Ac--Correlation of emission levels with ozone levels: The 
commenter asserts that EPA cannot assume that emission levels correlate 
with ozone levels in a linear or consistent fashion. Because the 
Charlestown and New Albany monitors violated the 1-hour NAAQS through 
1999 and recorded more exceedances in 1997-98 than in 1995-96, even 
though emissions were declining, the commenter concludes that the 
States' attainment inventory approach is not a reliable predictor of 
future attainment.
    Response 4Ac: We believe that the monitoring data confirms that the 
1999 level of emissions is adequate to keep the area in attainment. 
Table 4 summarizes the number of estimated exceedances at each monitor 
in the area from 1995 through 2000. It is considered a violation of the 
1-hour ozone NAAQS \3\ if the average expected exceedances over a three 
year period total more than 1.0 at any one monitor (See 40 CFR 50.9 and 
Appendix H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Estimated exceedances take into account actual monitored 
exceedances and account for days where there is missing data or the 
data was invalidated (See Response 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During 1999 and 2000 exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard were 
measured at only one of the Louisville area monitors. The Buckner 
monitor in Oldham County, Kentucky had 1.2 exceedances in 1999. 
Therefore, over the three-year averaging period from 1998 through 2000, 
there were exceedances but no violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

                                  Table 4.--Louisville Area 1-hour Ozone NAAQS Estimated Exceedances From 1995 to 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Indiana sites                                     Kentucky sites
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Year                                                                              Bates,      Watson,      WLKY-TV      Buckner,
                                                     Charlestown,     New Albany,    Shepherdsville,   Jefferson    Jefferson    Jefferson      Oldham
                                                     Clark County    Floyd County    Bullitt County      County       County       County       County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995..............................................             2.1             1.0               0.0          1.0          1.0          0.0          0.0
1996..............................................             0.0             1.0               0.0          0.0          1.0          1.1          0.0
1997..............................................             3.1             2.0               1.2          1.0          0.0          0.0          2.1
1998..............................................         \1\ 3.1             2.0               0.0          1.2          1.2          1.1          1.1
1999..............................................             0.0             0.0               0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          1.2
2000..............................................             0.0             0.0               0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Response 1 for explanation of the derivation of this value.

    Several factors which cannot be controlled have an effect on ozone 
formation, most notably meteorology and the presence of transported 
ozone or transported ozone precursors. EPA addresses meteorological 
variations by using long term averaging (EPA's 3-year ozone averaging 
period) and evaluating the effectiveness of a local control strategy 
during ozone-conducive years. As Response 3 described, the local 
control strategy for Louisville has been effective during warmer than 
average years. See Tables 2 and 3. See also the discussion of this 
issue in the final redesignation rulemaking for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 
area (65 FR 37886-37887, June 19, 2000).
    The commenter states that ``[b]oth the Charlestown and New Albany 
monitors violated the 1-hour NAAQS through 1999, and both recorded more 
exceedances in 1997-98 than in 1995-96.'' In order to test the 
commenter's contention that temperature (weather) not emission 
reductions brought about the lower ozone concentrations in the 
Louisville area, we ranked the average ozone-season temperatures for 
the years the commenter referenced. The percentile table (Table 2) 
compares each year's average temperature to the average temperature 
during the period 1895-2000, ranks the years from coolest to warmest. 
Table 2 (see Response 3) shows that the rankings of 1997-1998 are 5 and 
86 respectively, and the rankings of 1999-2000 to be 82 and 51 
respectively. It also lists the rankings for the years of 1995-1996 as 
69 and 24 respectively.
    If weather is the sole or most significant influence on ozone 
levels, then the period with a lower temperature ranking should have a 
lower number of ozone exceedances The year 1997 was cooler but had more 
exceedances than 1995 or 1996. During the period 1998-1999, with the 
two highest temperature rankings between 1995 and 2000, there were 
fewer exceedances than in the 1996-1997 or 1997-1998 periods. Given 
that ozone exceedances did not occur more frequently in apparently 
ozone-conducive high-temperature years (1998-1999), it seems reasonable 
to conclude that the improvement in air quality that occurred during 
this timeframe in the Louisville area is due to permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions. See also the discussion of this issue 
in the final redesignation rulemaking for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 
(65 FR 37886, June 19, 2000). Based on its analyses, EPA continues to 
believe that reductions in ozone precursors do lead to measurable ozone 
decreases, and therefore, the attainment inventory approach used by the 
States is an appropriate predictor of future attainment. Wall v. EPA, 
supra at 17-19.
    Comment 4B--Understatement of future emissions: The commenter 
contends that even if the emissions inventory approach was otherwise 
defensible here, Kentucky has failed to demonstrate that emission 
reductions projected for future years will in fact be achieved. The 
Kentucky appears to rely in part on reductions claimed in their 15 
percent rate of progress plans, but EPA has never determined that the 
plans actually demonstrate the claimed emission reductions. The 
commenter insists that the reductions claimed from various 15 percent 
plan measures, as well as from other measures, are not creditable. 
Specifically, the commenter claims that Kentucky's Regulation 1.18 
(Rule Effectiveness) does not require any specified minimum level of 
emission reduction, and that because the content of each rule 
effectiveness plan is determined solely by the source, these plans 
provide no assurance of any emission reductions at all. The commenter 
also claims that emission reductions resulting from Regulation 6.43 
(VOC Reduction Requirements) are not creditable, because Kentucky 
raised questions about the legality of adopting this regulation, and 
the reductions claimed are also dependent on the adequacy of the 
APCDJC's emissions trading program, which EPA has not approved.

[[Page 53677]]

    Response 4B: EPA is publishing elsewhere in this FR its final 
rulemaking action approving regulations contained in Kentucky's 15 
percent plan. EPA hereby incorporates the rationale and responses of 
that rulemaking by reference. As EPA explains in that rulemaking, EPA's 
final attainment determination renders EPA approval of Kentucky's 15 
per cent plan unnecessary, since that requirement is no longer 
applicable. Thus no specific credits are being approved as part of the 
15 percent plan. Notwithstanding this circumstance, EPA has taken final 
action to approve the control measures contained in the plan, and these 
measures will continue to be implemented after redesignation. 
Therefore, all reductions by these control measures are permanent and 
enforceable and will continue to be achieved after redesignation. 
Indiana's 15 percent plan was approved on May 7, 1997 (62 FR 24815).
    Comment 4C--Lack of resource and enforcement commitments: A 
commenter contends that the maintenance plan is also not approvable 
because it lacks enforcement programs and commitments of legal 
authority and resources to implement all of the measures, as required 
by the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(E)). The commenter claims that EPA 
simply assumes that the various measures relied on for continued and 
future emission reductions will continue to be implemented. See also 40 
CFR 51.111, 51.280, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (1992).
    Response 4C: The States have committed to select and implement the 
maintenance plan contingency measures within 18 months of a violation 
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The commenter provided no evidence that the 
maintenance plan fails to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(E). The CAA does 
not require a separate level of enforcement for a maintenance plan as a 
prerequisite to redesignation. The enforcement program approved for, 
and applicable to, the SIP as a whole also applies to the maintenance 
plan. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently upheld 
EPA's approval of a maintenance plan without requiring a separate 
commitment of resources and authority (see Wall v. EPA, supra at 17-
19).
    EPA approved the Kentucky ozone SIP on January 25, 1980, (45 FR 
6092) and the Indiana ozone SIP on January 18, 1983, (48 FR 2124), as 
meeting all of the requirements of section 110, which included section 
110(a)(2)(F), the predecessor of current section 110(a)(2)(E). EPA has 
consistently interpreted section 107(d)(3) as allowing EPA to rely on 
prior approvals of SIP provisions when reviewing redesignation 
requests. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum describes 
procedures that EPA regions should use to evaluate requests to 
redesignate areas to attainment status. The memo states: ``An area 
cannot be redesignated if a required element of its plan is the subject 
of a disapproval.* * * However, this does not mean that earlier issues 
with regard to the SIP will be reopened. Regions should not reconsider 
those things that have already been approved and for which the Clean 
Air Act Amendments did not alter what is required.'' EPA does not need 
to reconsider the issue of whether the Kentucky or Indiana SIPs met 
section 110(a)(2)(E) requirements prior to redesignation. Southwestern 
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998).
    Even if violations subsequently occur, this does not conclusively 
establish that state enforcement is so inadequate as to make the state 
enforcement program deficient under the CAA. EPA has not made such a 
finding, and even if an area is redesignated, EPA retains authority to 
make a finding of failure to implement under section 173(b) of the CAA 
or to require a SIP revision under section 110(a)(2)(H) if it concludes 
that state implementation and enforcement is deficient. The state would 
thus remain subject to EPA authority to improve its enforcement even 
after the area is redesignated. For purposes of redesignation, the area 
has a fully approved SIP.
    Comment 4D--Lack of accurate estimate of Tier II benefit: The 
commenter contends that there is no accurate estimate of Tier 2 
benefits. Since EPA has recognized that better data will be available 
after the issuance of MOBILE6, the commenter believes that, EPA cannot 
allow the state to claim credit in its future year emissions 
projections for a specific level of Tier 2 reductions. The commenter 
asserts that without the Tier 2 reductions claimed, it does not appear 
that future year VOC emissions will be lower than 1999 emissions, and 
therefore, EPA cannot approve the maintenance demonstration.
    Response 4D: EPA requires that maintenance plans reflect expected 
actual emission rates (see September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum). 
Hence, once rules are finalized and enforceable, they need be 
considered when preparing maintenance plans and establishing MVEBs. The 
MVEBs represent the emissions budgets for motor vehicles and are 
closely related to the emission reductions from the Tier 2 program. EPA 
requires that 1-hour ozone maintenance plans contain MVEBs for ozone 
precursors. In order to find MVEBs in plans adequate, EPA requires that 
the MVEBs be consistent with the control measures in the submitted 
maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v)). EPA believes that once a 
regulation is finalized and we know that the reductions will occur, it 
is best professional practice, and thereby required by EPA guidance, to 
account for those reductions in plan development. The final Tier 2 low 
sulfur rulemaking was published on February 10, 2000, (65 FR 6697). In 
this case, the maintenance plans, and the MVEBs, contained in these 
plans, need to reflect the reductions achieved by the Tier 2 
rulemaking.
    EPA first estimated emission reductions from Tier 2 for serious and 
severe 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration areas in a memorandum, 
``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur 
Rulemaking,'' from Lydia N. Wegman, Director, Air Quality Standards 
Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and 
Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Director, Fuels and Energy Division of the (then) 
Office of Mobile Sources to the Air Directors of EPA Regions 1-6, on 
November 8, 1999. This memorandum was the result of a detailed analysis 
to determine the best way to estimate the reductions from Tier 2 given 
the fact that MOBILE6 had not yet been released. The purpose of the 
memorandum was to advise the EPA Regional offices of the relationship 
between 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations and the emissions 
reductions that will be achieved by the Tier 2 rule and to provide 
emissions data related to that rule. A copy of this memorandum and the 
associated spreadsheet is available on the EPA web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/meta/m10433.html.
    Subsequently, in April 2000, the Office of Transportation and Air 
Quality (OTAQ) issued an information sheet so that other areas could 
use the emission reduction methodology that was used to determine the 
reductions for the serious and severe ozone areas. That information 
sheet is titled, ``MOBILE5 Information Sheet #8--Tier 2 Benefits Using 
MOBILE5'' and is also available on the OTAQ website at http://www.epa.gov/oms/m5.htm.
    In order to derive these estimates, OTAQ developed a special 
version of MOBILE called ``Modified MOBILE5b/Version2,'' for the Tier 2 
rulemaking. Full documentation of the methods used to develop the 
estimates for VOC and NOX Tier 2 emission reductions are

[[Page 53678]]

available in the Tier 2 Docket. To briefly summarize here, highway 
vehicle emissions were first estimated using MOBILE5b with input files 
that described specific conditions (I/M program, temperatures, fuel 
parameters, and registration distribution). The resulting emission 
factors were then multiplied by correction factors in order to simulate 
emission factors that would result from proposed changes in MOBILE to 
be incorporated in MOBILE6. Correction factors were developed for both 
a base case (without Tier 2 control) and a Tier 2 control case. Because 
the factors used were based on default national MOBILE inputs and for 
the reasons described above, we do recognize that the results should be 
viewed as interim approximations which may change when MOBILE6 becomes 
available.
    The differences in grams per mile shown in the tables (see 
``MOBILE5 Information Sheet #8--Tier 2 Benefits Using MOBILE5'' April 
2000) can be multiplied by the appropriate local vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT) to develop estimates of Tier 2 reductions in any area in any year 
starting in 2004. These Tier 2 reductions would then be subtracted from 
the total on-highway mobile emissions that were calculated using 
MOBILE5a or MOBILE5b and existing MOBILE information sheets.
    EPA understands and acknowledges the limitations of this 
information and the potential inaccuracies introduced by the use of 
national defaults and differing baselines. We also recognize the need, 
consistent with our guidance, to be able to estimate reductions from 
this program now, since it is a final rule that we know will provide 
emission reductions within the scope of the 20 year transportation 
plans, as well as 10 year maintenance plans. Recognizing that this is 
an interim approach, EPA has required both Kentucky and Indiana to 
update the MVEBs in their maintenance plans within two years after the 
release of MOBILE6 and furthermore, any new conformity analysis in the 
Louisville area can not be found to conform during the second year 
until budgets based on MOBILE6 calculations are in place.
    The modeling process is constantly improving and EPA looks forward 
to the release of MOBILE6 as an improved MOBILE modeling tool that will 
fully incorporate the Tier 2 reductions. Until that time, EPA has 
established this interim approach so that state air quality planning 
initiatives can continue to make progress toward clean air goals. 
Furthermore, recognizing the limitations of this approach, EPA has 
required and the States have committed to use MOBILE6 to develop new 
MVEBs.
    Comment 4E--Mobile source budget: The commenter points out that, 
given the VOC MVEB safety margin originally proposed by the States in 
their submittals, the area does not in fact show that 2012 emissions of 
VOCs will be less than 1999 emissions. The commenter contends that EPA 
cannot allow the state to revise the maintenance plan (MVEB safety 
margin) to correct the deficiency in the amendments to the submittal 
without providing another public notice and comment opportunity prior 
to approval of the redesignation request and the maintenance plan.
    Response 4E: In the FR proposing approval of the redesignation 
requests, EPA specified the changes that the States intended to make to 
their VOC MVEB and proposed approval of their plans only if those plans 
were amended to incorporate the changes. After receiving the 
submittals, EPA had pointed out this error in the MVEB safety margin to 
the States. To remedy this issue, Kentucky submitted a letter on May 
17, 2001, and Indiana submitted a letter on May 29, 2001, indicating 
their intent to revise the maintenance plans so that the amended 
documents would include an approvable VOC MVEB of 48.17 tons/day, 2.76 
tons/day less than the MVEB included in the original submittal. Based 
on the States' letters, EPA was able to specify the exact VOC MVEB of 
48.17 tons/day that the States were planning to adopt in their 
maintenance plans. Our proposed approval demonstrated how this revised 
VOC MVEB would affect the maintenance plan and that the revised 2012 
VOC emission projections were less than the 1999 attainment year 
emissions. The proposal also stated that we could only take final 
approval action on the maintenance plans if they were in fact revised 
to include the 48.17 tons/day VOC MVEB consistent with an approvable 
maintenance plan.
    As noted by the commenter, it is very important that there should 
be an opportunity for public notice and comment on all significant 
aspects of a plan. Each revised VOC MVEB was subjected to public 
hearing with opportunity for public comment. Kentucky's hearing was 
held on May 16, 2001, and Indiana's was held July 30, 2001. Neither 
State received any public comments regarding the revised VOC MVEB. 
Since there has been public notice with comment periods on this VOC 
MVEB at both the state and federal level, and no public comment has 
been received on the technical merits of the MVEB itself, EPA does not 
believe an additional public comment period is necessary.
    Comment 5--Contingency plan: Two commenters contend that the 
contingency measures contained in the maintenance plans submitted by 
the States do not adequately address the CAA requirement to include 
measures that ``assure that the State will promptly correct any 
violation of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the 
area.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7505a(d). The first commenter claims that EPA 
does not explicitly address this requirement in the proposed 
rulemaking: ``Nowhere has EPA proposed to find that the maintenance 
contingency plan for Louisville `assures' prompt correction of future 
violations. Nor is there anything in the record to support such a 
finding.'' The commenter further contends that the contingency measures 
do not meet the requirements of EPA guidance (see September 4, 1992, 
Calcagni memorandum), to ``clearly identify the measures to be adopted, 
a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a 
specific time limit for action by the State.''(Note: Responses to the 
detailed comments for this item are addressed below as Responses 5A-
5F).
    Comment 5A--Need for clearly-defined contingency measures: 
Regarding the requirement in EPA guidance to ``clearly identify the 
measures to be adopted,'' both commenters contend that the measures 
identified in Kentucky's and Indiana's plans must be more clearly 
defined. The first commenter notes that contingency measures in both 
maintenance plans have yet to be adopted, and consist solely of ``lists 
of largely undefined categories of measures * * *[or] other as-yet 
unidentified measures * * *.'' The commenter further contends that the 
subject maintenance plans ``[provide no] procedure for quantifying the 
reductions needed to correct ambient violations, or any estimate of the 
potential emission reduction benefit from the listed measures, it 
provides no basis for concluding that these measures, if ever adopted, 
would assure correction of any violations.'' The second commenter 
argues for the importance of having ``a more specific plan to require 
additional reductions from stationary sources and other sources that 
can be [readily] implemented by Board Order'', based on ``the difficult 
history of District efforts to secure across-the-board reductions as 
part of the 15 percent plan.''
    The first commenter claims that more specificity is needed for the 
Kentucky measures pointing out that ``the Kentucky list includes `more 
restrictive

[[Page 53679]]

new source review requirements' and `more rigorous vehicle emissions 
testing program', without giving any indication of how much `more 
restrictive' or `more stringent' the state has in mind.'' The second 
commenter states that the contingency measures to require 
``implementation of a program to require additional emission reductions 
at stationary sources for specific types of processes or an across-the-
board reduction for the larger stationary sources'' and ``more 
restrictive new source review requirements'' should be better defined 
prior to approval of the plan.
    In providing more specific arguments of the need for clearly-
defined contingency measures in Indiana's maintenance plan, the first 
commenter notes that the list of contingency measures includes ``such 
items as `broader' geographic applicability of existing programs, and 
application of RACT to `smaller' sources, without giving any definition 
to these vague terms.''
    Response 5A: EPA believes that Kentucky's and Indiana's maintenance 
plans, and the contingency measures contained in those plans, are 
consistent with the structure and intent of the CAA requirements and 
EPA guidance, and provide adequate assurances of adequate public health 
benefits. The description of the contingency measures contained in the 
maintenance plans satisfies the CAA requirement to assure prompt 
correction of any monitored violations. As stated in the September 4, 
1992, Calcagni memorandum, ``For purposes of section 175A, a State is 
not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take 
effect without further action by the State in order for the maintenance 
plan to be approved. However, the contingency plan is considered to be 
an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency 
measures are adopted expediently once they are triggered.'' As the 
commenter notes, the guidance later states that the measures to be 
adopted should be clearly identified. EPA believes that the measures 
are adequately identified, and that the goal of returning the area to 
attainment as expediently as possible may be most effectively achieved 
by reviewing and refining the precise levels and scope of the 
contingency measures at the time they are required to be put into 
effect. Each of the contingency measures now contained in the 
maintenance plans will clearly achieve emission reductions and 
contribute to reattainment of the 1-hour NAAQS in the event of a 
violation. Newer control programs that would be more effective or 
advantageous for the area may also be developed after the area is 
redesignated to attainment. Selecting and adjusting the stringency of 
the measures that will most effectively bring the area back into 
attainment may best be performed at the time of response to a 
violation.
    As noted by the commenter, and as the above excerpt from the 
guidance on contingency measures goes on to say, ``* * * the 
contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and 
should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expediently 
once they are triggered.'' Kentucky's maintenance plan satisfies this 
requirement by establishing a clear schedule to ensure expeditious 
adoption of clearly defined contingency measures in the event of a 
violation. First, in the event of a monitored exceedance or if periodic 
emission inventory updates reveal a greater than 10 percent increase in 
ozone precursor emissions, Kentucky and APCDJC will identify and 
evaluate existing control measures, and assess, using available data 
and technical analyses, the amount of emission reductions needed to 
ensure that repeated exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or further 
emissions increases do not occur. In the event of an actual violation, 
they must adopt, within nine months, ``one or more * * *contingency 
measures to reattain the standard.'' The maintenance plan allows 
Kentucky the freedom to select the appropriate emission control 
strategy from a number of emission control measures (including not only 
one of the contingency measures listed in the plan, but also additional 
contingency measures if new, more advantageous control programs are 
developed for the area), but it must still demonstrate to the EPA that 
the emission controls will be adequate to prevent future violations of 
the ozone NAAQS. This demonstration process will likely be expedited by 
considering the results of the evaluation completed to address the 
exceedances that preceded the violation; that evaluation should provide 
the agencies with the basis for identifying, at the time, which of 
these control measures would be most effectively used to achieve the 
needed reductions and restore the area to attainment. In summary, the 
schedule presented by the maintenance plan ensures the adoption of 
contingency measures within nine months of a violation. The inclusion 
of somewhat broad, but still clearly identified, categories of 
contingency measures in the maintenance plan, provides Kentucky with 
flexibility to select the most effective measure(s) available, while 
ensuring compliance with the contingency measures requirement. Kentucky 
must implement such measure(s) within 18 months following the 
confirmation of a 1-hour ozone NAAQS violation in accordance with 
175A(b). EPA believes that these are sufficient to assure that the 
Commonwealth will promptly correct any violation of the standard which 
occurs after the redesignation of the area.
    Indiana's maintenance plan also provides for expeditious action to 
address future ozone increases. If an ozone exceedance is monitored, or 
if the level of VOC or NOX for the entire Louisville area 
increases above the 1999 baseline, Indiana would study the situation 
and choose appropriate control measures from those listed in its 
contingency plan. Some of the measures identified in Indiana's list of 
contingency measures are clearly defined and could be readily adopted 
and implemented by the State. The full scope of some other measures in 
Indiana's plan has not been specifically prescribed, but this allows 
the State to determine an appropriate level of control to address 
future ozone exceedances effectively and economically. The State would 
adopt and implement these control measures as expeditiously as 
possible, and in no case later than 18 months after Indiana's 
contingency plan is triggered. If there is a monitored violation of the 
1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Louisville area (more than 1.0 expected 
exceedances over a 3-year period), Indiana has committed to choose, 
adopt, and implement suitable control measures within 18 months.
    Finally, the requirement to adopt any control measures needed to 
attain the NAAQS as part of the SIP gives the public assurance that 
these measures will be carried out, if necessary, through federal 
enforcement or citizen suit. The CAA places the burden on the state to 
demonstrate that its plan, at all times, provides for attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS, through federally enforceable emission 
reductions sufficient to avoid violations of the NAAQS. The CAA also 
provides protections to the public in the event that state plans are 
not fully and successfully implemented to achieve the scheduled 
emission reductions and air quality improvements. These protections 
include federally imposed nonimplementation sanctions and opportunities 
for citizens to sue to compel implementation.
    Comment 5B--Need for prompt implementation schedule: Regarding the 
requirement in EPA guidance to ``clearly

[[Page 53680]]

identify * * * a schedule and procedure for adoption and 
implementation,'' the second commenter contends that the schedule for 
implementation of contingency measures in the event of a monitored 
violation, as contained in Kentucky's maintenance plan, fails to 
``assure * * * prompt correct[ion of] any violation''. This schedule 
allows Kentucky to take up to nine months to adopt, and another nine 
months to implement, regulatory contingency measures in the event of a 
monitored violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which, the commenter 
contends, is not an assurance of prompt correction of the violation.
    Response 5B: EPA believes that the schedule requiring adoption of 
contingency measures within nine months of a confirmed violation, 
followed by implementation of the associated regulatory programs within 
18 months of a confirmed violation, constitutes prompt, responsive 
implementation. While in some instances, an identified contingency 
measure may be adopted and implemented in less than 18 months, more 
often, a number of complicating factors lengthen the time to complete 
these actions. For example, in the case of stationary source controls, 
development of the necessary regulation or source-specific SIP revision 
specifying additional controls may occur quickly. However, even using 
emergency rulemaking procedures, the adoption process may take several 
months. For many types of controls, nine months to install and ensure 
proper operation of those controls is an ambitious schedule. In the 
case of many transportation control measures, as noted by one of the 
commenters, obtaining the necessary budgets or acquiring the necessary 
property for such measures may entail consultation with numerous local 
county or city governments or transportation management agencies. Thus, 
implementation of these measures may proceed quickly following adoption 
of these measures, but adoption of these measures within nine months 
from the date of violation is a very expeditious schedule. Overall EPA 
deems the schedule to comply with the requirements of 175A(d).
    Comment 5C--Authority to implement: The second commenter contends 
that the Kentucky and APCDJC air pollution control agencies lack the 
legal ability to promptly implement contingency measures identified in 
the plan, making those measures ``insufficient under Section 175A(d).'' 
The commenter contends that the agencies cannot assure prompt 
implementation of measures requiring ``local county or city (or soon, 
merged city-county) government budgetary or regulatory action.'' 
Therefore, ``[f]or each of the proposed contingency measures, the state 
and local air pollution district should be required to explain whether 
the agency has the authority to implement the contingency measure, and 
whether that measure would be implemented by Board Order or by 
regulation.''
    The commenter specifically requests additional explanation of the 
agencies' authority to implement several types of measures. The 
commenter notes that ``new construction of pedestrian and non-motorized 
vehicles would require several activities beyond the control of state 
and local air pollution control agencies including budgeting for 
construction using funds not available to the air pollution district,* 
* * which would have to be allocated by local or state government, and 
[would also require] dedication or acquisition of areas for such 
construction.'' The commenter also notes that ``the state and local 
agencies should be required to assess and document whether they have 
the legal authority to adopt trip-reduction ordinances, to restrict 
road access to HOVs [high occupancy vehicle lanes], to limit parking 
and vehicle use in areas of emission concentration, and to broaden 
emission testing programs.'' No challenge is made to Indiana's 
authority to promptly implement contingency measures.
    Response 5C: Chapters 224.10-100(30) and 77.190 of the Kentucky 
revised Statutes provide Kentucky and APCDJC with broad authority to 
enact orders, rules and regulations to reduce air pollution. Other 
subchapters of KRS 77 give APCDJC the power to ``* * * take by grant, 
purchase, gift, devise, or lease * * * real or personal property of 
every kind within or without the district necessary to the full 
exercise of its powers.'' (KRS 77.060) and to establish an ``air 
quality trust fund to be used for conducting and funding air quality 
research and development projects * * * to assist in implementing the 
policies and purposes of this chapter.'' (KRS 77.127).
    Certain control measures that may be applied under diverse 
circumstances, or implemented on a voluntary basis, may not lend 
themselves to the development and adoption of specific regulations, but 
will probably require the development of formal implementation and/or 
reporting procedures. In such instances, Kentucky and the APCDJC may 
take an active role in promoting the use of such procedures. In 
addition, it should be noted that this process may be community-based, 
with local residents and industries taking the lead rather than 
Kentucky.
    Kentucky recognizes that the budgeting of funds for the 
construction of certain types of vehicles and roadway improvements 
requires the approval of various state and local transportation 
agencies. However, since conformity will continue to apply to the 
Louisville area following redesignation, Kentucky must continue to work 
with these agencies to ensure that conformity analyses continue to be 
conducted to ensure that short- and long-term transportation plans 
provide for emission levels within the MVEBs provided in the SIP. 
Kentucky also continues to work with these agencies to improve the 
consultation process by establishing and/or refining further 
consultation procedures that will facilitate and streamline the process 
of making future conformity determinations for all areas, including the 
Louisville area. Overall EPA finds that there is adequate authority to 
implement within the meaning of 175A(d).
    Comment 5D--Need for measures to prevent violation: Both commenters 
contend that the Kentucky maintenance plan contains inadequate 
provisions to respond to exceedances, and/or anticipated violations. 
They contend that Kentucky's maintenance plan is insufficient, as it 
only commits to evaluate the list of control measures in the event of 
recorded exceedances or unexpected growth (i.e. greater than 10 percent 
growth in ozone precursor emissions, based on the periodic 
inventories). They are concerned that the plan offers no assurance that 
Kentucky will adopt additional controls to prevent a future violation, 
even where analyses show that such a violation is likely. The first 
commenter contends that ``the lack of commitment [to ever actually 
adopt additional controls to address anticipated violations] renders 
the plan inadequate under the Act and EPA policy. EPA guidance 
explicitly requires the maintenance plan to `contain any additional 
measures as necessary to ensure that the standard will not be 
violated'.'' (57 FR 13563). The guidance further requires that ``Any 
future measures must be implemented before any violations might be 
anticipated, based on tracking of the emission inventory.'' Id. The 
state's plan here meets none of these requirements.'' The second 
commenter further states that ``any exceedances of the 1-hour standard 
should be considered as violations triggering the implementation of 
contingency measures.''

[[Page 53681]]

    Response 5D: In the event of a monitored exceedance or if periodic 
emission inventory updates reveal a greater than 10 percent increase in 
ozone precursor emissions, the maintenance plan requires Kentucky to 
initiate a study to determine if additional emission controls are 
needed to prevent a future 1-hour ozone NAAQS violation. EPA views 
these commitments to be adequate and enforceable. This approach is 
consistent with the September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum, which 
states that the maintenance plan should ``identify specific indicators, 
or triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency 
measures need to be implemented. The indicators would allow the State 
to take early action to address potential violations of the NAAQS 
before they occur.'' Kentucky's maintenance plan addresses this 
requirement by identifying two occurrences that trigger a study ``to 
evaluate existing control measures to see if any further emission 
reduction measures should be implemented at that time.'' This 
commitment allows Kentucky to take early action. It does require 
Kentucky to fully evaluate the current air quality status and control 
status of the area, and determine if, and what level of, action should 
be implemented to prevent further air quality deterioration. If 
Kentucky concludes from this evaluation that a violation is likely, and 
further controls are needed to avoid such occurrence, the maintenance 
plan indicates that action will be initiated ``at that time.'' The 
evaluation, in effect, allows Kentucky to pro-actively identify and 
implement controls deemed necessary to avoid an actual violation. 
Should any action taken be insufficient to prevent a violation, 
Kentucky is clearly aware of their obligation to implement controls 
within 18 months of that violation. Indiana has made similar 
commitments to implement controls expeditiously to address ozone 
exceedances and avoid violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 5E--Commitment to implement all existing SIP measures: The 
first commenter contends that Kentucky's and Indiana's contingency plan 
does not contain the commitment mandated by the CAA that the state will 
implement all ozone-control measures in the SIP prior to redesignation 
(42 U.S.C. 7505a(d)). Regardless of whether the state is currently 
implementing all required SIP measures, the foregoing commitment is 
crucial to ensuring that the contingency plan will remain adequate in 
the future if the state stops implementing pre-redesignation SIP 
measures. EPA does not have the discretion to approve the maintenance 
plan without this mandatory commitment.
    Response 5E: 42 U.S.C. 7505(d) (section 175A(d)) requires that 
``[s]uch provisions shall include a requirement that the State will 
implement all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant 
concerned which were contained in the State implementation plan for the 
area before redesignation of the area as an attainment area.'' There 
are no unimplemented measures in the Kentucky SIP to which any 
commitments under section 175A(d) could apply. There is no need for the 
Commonwealth to commit to further implementation in light of the fact 
that they are continuing to implement all measures contained in their 
SIP. Since the section 175A(d) requirement to implement all measures is 
being satisfied, there is no requirement for an additional commitment.
    Kentucky's redesignation request includes the following statement: 
``The DAQ, APCD, and EPA have instituted programs that will remain 
enforceable and are hereby submitted as a plan to maintain air quality 
which meets the 1-hour ozone standard for the Kentucky portion of the 
Louisville 1-hour ozone attainment area. Sources are prohibited from 
reducing emissions controls following the redesignation of the area 
unless such a relaxation is first approved by the EPA as a revision to 
the Kentucky SIP.'' This is a clear statement of the requirement that 
the regulatory programs (adopted by both the Kentucky Division of Air 
Quality (DAQ), and the APCDJC; as well as, EPA's Federal measures 
relative to control of ozone levels) which constitute the regulatory 
scheme for reduction of ozone precursors instituted to attain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville area, having 
been implemented will remain enforceable. It is clear that Kentucky has 
stated that it prohibits sources from reducing emission controls after 
redesignation unless EPA approves any change via a SIP revision. Such a 
revision would have to meet the requirements of 110(l) which requires 
that the revision could not interfere with ``* * * any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment * * *'' EPA considers that under 
these circumstances, the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7505(d) are 
satisfied.
    Similarly, in its maintenance plan, Indiana stated that it intends 
to maintain its current control measures after redesignation. Indiana 
has committed that any changes to its rules or emission limits 
applicable to VOC and/or NOX sources, as required for maintenance of 
the ozone standard in Clark and Floyd Counties, will be submitted to 
EPA for approval as a SIP revision. Indiana further stated that through 
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's Office of Air 
Quality and its Office of Enforcement it has the necessary resources to 
actively enforce any violations of its rules or permit provisions. 
After redesignation, it intends to continue enforcing all rules that 
relate to the emissions of ozone precursors in Clark and Floyd 
counties. Thus Indiana also satisfies the requirements of section 
175A(d).
    Comment 5F--Adequate demonstration of maintenance: The second 
commenter voices concern over the accuracy of the Kentucky maintenance 
plan's demonstration that the area's attainment status will be 
maintained for at least the next 10 years, ``due in large part to the 
increases in mobile source emissions traceable to both increases in 
vehicle miles traveled and to lower fuel efficiency among the ``SUV'' 
[Sport Utility Vehicles] and light duty truck classes of vehicles that 
populate Louisville's highways'.
    Response 5F: The redesignation request submitted by Kentucky 
addresses the issue of ``SUVs'' as follows: ``In 2000-2001, responding 
to advice by EPA, the District undertook to update the fleet 
characterization data to support redesignation to attainment status. 
The primary concern was that market research had shown a significant 
shift from passenger automobiles toward sport utility vehicles (SUVs) 
over the 1990's decade. It was prudent to reflect the shift toward 
larger, higher-emitting vehicles in the MOBILE modeling for Jefferson 
County. In response, the District produced updated tables based on 1999 
Vehicle Emission Testing operations data, Federal Highway 
Administration VMT mix data for Indiana and Kentucky, and draft MOBILE6 
mileage accumulation rates. A spreadsheet (RDIST99Q.WK1) was developed 
to construct the necessary tables from raw data in a transparent 
manner, and to fill in certain gaps in the data. The spreadsheet 
reconciled unavailable Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) count and usage data 
with overall VMT mix and reasonable assumptions about local daily VMT. 
Following local peer review of this spreadsheet, the updated tables 
were implemented into District MOBILE modeling.
    As expected, the net effect of the updated fleet tables was a 
significant increase in all emission factors over prior estimates. This 
reflected both the

[[Page 53682]]

move toward SUVs and a significantly higher, more accurate estimate of 
the local contribution of HDVs, particularly interstate transport 
vehicles.''
    It is clear from the discussion above that Kentucky and the APCDJC 
did address the issue of increases in emissions from SUVs and light 
trucks in the modeling of the mobile source emissions. They found as 
the commenter had suggested that there was a significant increase in 
all emission factors over prior estimates. However, the commenter's 
``concern over the accuracy of the maintenance plan's demonstration 
that the area's attainment status will be maintained for at least the 
next ten years' is unfounded. The increased emissions were accounted 
for and the States have made a commitment to revise the mobile modeling 
using MOBILE6 when appropriate.
    EPA, in proposing to approve Kentucky's and Indiana's requests to 
redesignate the Louisville area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS, required both States to revise their maintenance plans to 
include an enforceable commitment to revise the MVEBs using MOBILE6 
(once it becomes available) and to revise the VOC MVEB so that the 
area's 2012 projected emissions do not exceed the 1999 attainment year 
emissions. Both States met these requirements by submitting enforceable 
commitment to revise the MVEBs using MOBILE6 and a revised MVEB that 
does not exceed the 1999 attainment year emissions.
    Comment 6: One commenter expressed concern over the possible 
implementation of more restrictions, in reference to the list of 
contingency measures at 66 FR 33516, on individuals or personal 
vehicles. This commenter also expressed the opinion that the listed 
contingency measures were oppressive, ``designed to punish an ordinary 
citizen.'' In addition, the commenter objects to the statement 
``Kentucky [also] reserves the right to implement other contingency.'' 
(sic) [The complete statement is ``Kentucky also reserves the right to 
implement other contingency measures if new control programs should be 
developed and deemed more advantageous for the area.''] The commenter's 
objection is on the basis that this is an open ended ``political ploy 
to do something secret that is not on the list.'' The commenter was 
concerned that ``something secret'' might include higher ``gas 
prices.'' The commenter questioned how the process of instituting 
contingency measures could be allowed without public involvement and 
requested that this not be allowed.
    Response 6: There are contingency measures listed at 66 FR 33516 
which if implemented in the event of a triggering mechanism or 
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS may impact in some limited manner 
the operation or use of private vehicles. The implementation of the 
contingency measures must follow applicable public notice and public 
hearing procedures during which the public is invited and encouraged to 
make comments or bring forth information which would influence the 
decision under consideration. If contingency measures are required to 
be implemented, they would be for the purpose of protecting the public 
health and environment of the citizens in the Louisville area and only 
implemented after following CAA procedures.
    Neither the CAA nor the regulatory requirements adopted by the 
elected officials in the Louisville area are ``designed to punish an 
ordinary citizen.'' They were and are required by law to be adopted or 
amended in a public forum requiring public notice and a public hearing 
process allowing for citizen input. Just as the items on the list of 
contingency measures have, or will have to, undergo the public adoption 
process, any ``other contingency'' measures will also have to meet the 
same requirements. All regulations adopted for submittal to meet 
federal requirements and SIP revisions submitted to EPA for approval 
must contain proof of public notice and a public hearing before they 
are considered complete. The process for adoption of contingency 
measures in response to federal requirements must be done in a manner 
which allows for public participation or they will not be approved at 
the federal level.

III. What Actions Are We Taking?

    We are determining that the Louisville area has attained the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS. The Louisville area includes the Kentucky Counties of 
Bullitt, Jefferson, Oldham; and the Indiana Counties of Clark, and 
Floyd. On the basis of this determination, EPA is also determining that 
SIP revisions to address certain requirements of part D of title I of 
the CAA need not be submitted, since they would no longer be considered 
applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) for so long as the 
area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. These requirements 
include RFP (see the general requirements of section 172(c)(2) and the 
more specific requirement of section 182(b)(1) for a plan that reduces 
VOC emissions by 15 percent), attainment demonstration requirements 
(see the general requirement of section 172(c)(1)) and the specific 
requirement of section 182(j) for a multi-state attainment 
demonstration) and contingency measures (see the general requirement of 
section 172(c)(9)).
    We are approving Kentucky's redesignation request and redesignating 
the Kentucky portion of the Louisville nonattainment area to attainment 
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We are also approving as revisions to the 
Kentucky SIP, the maintenance plan and associated MVEBs for the 
Kentucky portion of the Louisville nonattainment area that were 
submitted by Kentucky with its redesignation request. In this final 
rule, we are notifying the public that we believe the MVEBs for VOC and 
NOX in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville moderate 
interstate maintenance plan are adequate for conformity purposes and 
approvable as part of the maintenance plan. We are approving Indiana's 
redesignation request and redesignating the Indiana portion of the 
Louisville nonattainment area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 
We are also approving as revisions to the Indiana SIP, the maintenance 
plan and associated MVEBs for the Indiana portion of the Louisville 
nonattainment area that were submitted by Indiana with its 
redesignation request. In this final rule, we are notifying the public 
that we believe the MVEBs for VOC and NOX in the Indiana 
portion of the Louisville moderate interstate maintenance plan are 
adequate for conformity purposes and approvable as part of the 
maintenance plan. We are also approving 11 Board Orders to control 
NOX emissions consistent with RACT requirements from major 
NOX sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
    Any challenge to EPA's actions regarding the redesignation of one 
portion of the Louisville area shall not be deemed to affect the 
validity of the redesignation of the other portion. The Commonwealth of 
Kentucky and the State of Indiana have satisfied all of the necessary 
requirements of the CAA relative to these actions.

IV. Why Are We Taking These Actions?

    We are making a determination that the area has attained the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS. EPA is basing this determination upon three years of 
complete, quality-assured, ambient air monitoring data for the 1998-
2000 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has 
been attained in the entire Louisville area, and preliminary data for 
the 2001 ozone season that shows continuing attainment. Regarding the 
need to

[[Page 53683]]

address the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, EPA 
interprets the general provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I 
(sections 171 and 172) and the more specific attainment demonstration 
and related provisions of subpart 2 (section 182) to not require the 
submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP, attainment demonstrations, 
or contingency measures for areas where the monitoring data show that 
the area is attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (See Sierra Club vs EPA, 
99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996)). This rationale is described in the May 
10, 1995, Seitz memorandum. EPA has previously applied this 
interpretation in a number of areas, including Salt Lake and Davis 
Counties, Utah (60 FR 36723, July 18, 1995); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 
FR 31831, June 21, 1996); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain (61 FR 20458, May 7, 
1996); and Cincinnati, Ohio (65 FR 37879, June 19, 2000). All 
previously-approved SIP revisions are not affected by this action and 
must continue to be implemented and enforced. This includes Indiana's 
15 percent plan approved on May 7, 1997, (62 FR 24815).
    We are redesignating the Kentucky and Indiana portions of the 
Louisville area because the area has attained three years of ambient 
air quality monitoring data demonstrating that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
has been attained, and both the Kentucky and Indiana portions of the 
area have satisfied the other criteria for redesignation. We are 
approving Kentucky's and Indiana's maintenance plans, including the 
MVEBs, that were submitted with the State's redesignation requests as 
revisions to the Kentucky and Indiana SIPs, because these plans meet 
the requirements of section 175A and 107(d). We are also notifying the 
public that we believe the MVEBs for VOC and NOX for the 
Kentucky and Indiana Louisville moderate interstate maintenance plan 
are adequate for conformity purposes and approvable as part of the 
maintenance plans, because in addition to meeting the requirements of 
section 175A and 107(d), adequate opportunity for public comment on 
these MVEBs was provided through the adequacy process (posted April 13, 
2001) and in the NPR (66 FR 33505, June 22, 2001). In the NPR, EPA 
explained that we could not approve the originally-submitted VOC MVEB 
unless the States revised this MVEB, by adjusting the safety margin, so 
that the MVEB would not exceed attainment year VOC emissions. The 
States corrected the VOC MVEB accordingly in July 9, 2001 and August 
24, 2001 supplements to their original redesignation requests.
    Finally, we are approving 11 Board Orders relating to control of 
NOX sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky submitted by 
Kentucky on November 12, 1999, and May 23, 2001, because they satisfy 
the NOX RACT requirements of 182(f) of the CAA.

V. What Are the Effects of These Actions?

    These actions determine that the Louisville area has attained the 
1-hour ozone NAAQS and that the requirements of sections 172(c)(1) and 
182(j) concerning submission of an ozone attainment demonstration, the 
requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) concerning submission 
of a 15 percent VOC emission reduction plan, and the requirements of 
section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for RFP or attainment 
are not applicable to the Louisville area. However, all controls 
previously approved for the area by EPA must continue to be 
implemented. Kentucky and Indiana must continue to operate an 
appropriate ozone air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 
CFR part 58, to verify the ozone attainment status of the area. The air 
quality data relied upon to determine that the area is attaining the 
ozone standard must be consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements and 
other relevant EPA guidance.
    The redesignation changes the official designation of the Kentucky 
Counties of Bullitt, Jefferson, Oldham, and the Indiana Counties of 
Clark, and Floyd from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS. It also approves as a SIP revision and puts into place plans for 
maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years. These 
maintenance plans include contingency measures to correct any future 
violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. These maintenance plans establish 
MVEBs for the Louisville area for the purposes of transportation 
conformity. These MVEB are now 48.17 tons per summer day VOC and 92.93 
tons per summer day NOX for the year 2012. Finally, this 
action also approves 11 Board Orders for sources of NOX in 
Jefferson County, Kentucky.

VI. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This 
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and 
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
This action also redesignates an area to attainment, an action that 
affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new 
regulatory requirements on sources. Redesignation of an area to 
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not 
impose any new requirements on small entities. Accordingly, the 
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state 
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also 
does not have tribal implications because it will not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 
This action also redesignates an area to attainment. The redesignation 
merely affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any 
new requirements on sources, or allows 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. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health

[[Page 53684]]

Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is 
not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Additionally, 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 rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the FR. A major rule cannot take 
effect until 60 days after it is published in the FR. This action is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 24, 2001. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: October 3, 2001.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.


    Dated: October 3, 2001.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart P--Indiana

    2. Section 52.777 is amended by adding paragraph (x) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.777  Control strategy: photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons).

* * * * *
    (x) The request submitted by Indiana on April 11, 2001 and 
supplemented on August 24, 2001, to redesignate the Indiana portion of 
the Louisville moderate interstate ozone nonattainment area from 
nonattainment to attainment was approved on October 23, 2001. The motor 
vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and NOX in the Indiana 
portion of the Louisville moderate interstate maintenance plan are 
adequate for conformity purposes and approvable as part of the 
maintenance plan. The 1-hour ozone standard maintenance plan motor 
vehicle emission budgets for the entire interstate Louisville area for 
the purposes of transportation conformity are now 48.17 tons per summer 
day of VOC and 92.93 tons per summer day of NOX for the year 
2012.

Subpart S--Kentucky

    3. Section 52.920 is amended:
    a. By adding new entries to the end of the table in paragraph (d).
    b. By adding a new entry in numerical order to the table in 
paragraph (e). The additions read as follows:


Sec. 52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Kentucky Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State         EPA
           Name of source                Permit number       effective     approval     Federal Register Notice
                                                                date         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Board Order American Synthetic       NOX RACT Plan 12/20/      01/01/01     10/23/01  66 FR 53684
 Rubber Company.                      00.
Board Order E. I. du Pont de         NOX RACT Plan 02/21/      03/01/01     10/23/01  66 FR 53684
 Nemours & Company.                   01.
Board Order Ford Louisville          NOX RACT Plan 11/08/      01/01/00     10/23/01  66 FR 53684
 Assembly Plant.                      99.
Board Order General Electric         NOX RACT Plan 01/17/      03/01/01     10/23/01  66 FR 53684
 Company.                             01.
Board Order Kosmos Cement Company..  NOX RACT Plan 11/15/      01/01/01     10/23/01  66 FR 53684
                                      00.
Board Order Louisville Gas and       NOX RACT Plan 10/18/      01/01/01     10/23/01  66 FR 53684
 Electric Company, Cane Run           00.
 Generating Station.
Board Order Louisville Gas and       NOX RACT Plan 10/18/      01/01/01     10/23/01  66 FR 53684
 Electric Company, Mill Creek         00.
 Generating Station.

[[Page 53685]]

 
Board Order Louisville Medical       NOX RACT Plan 2/21/01     04/01/01     10/23/01  66 FR 53685
 Center Steam Plant.
Board Order Oxy Vinyls, LP.........  NOX RACT Plan 12/20/      01/01/01     10/23/01  66 FR 53685
                                      00.
Board Order Rohm and Haas Company..  NOX RACT Plan 12/20/      01/01/01     10/23/01  66 FR 53685
                                      00.
Board Order Texas Gas Transmission.  NOX RACT Plan 11/08/      01/01/00     10/23/01  66 FR 53685
                                      99.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Kentucky Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State         EPA
             Appendix                 Title/subject      effective     approval      Federal Register  notice
                                                            date         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
23...............................  Louisville Ozone        10/23/01  66 FR 53685
                                    Maintenance Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
    4. Section 52.930 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.930  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (k) The redesignation request submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Kentucky, on March 30, 2001, and supplemented on July 9, 2001, for the 
Kentucky portion of the Louisville moderate interstate ozone 
nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment was approved on 
October 23, 2001. The motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and 
NOX in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville moderate 
interstate maintenance plan are adequate for conformity purposes and 
approvable as part of the maintenance plan. The 1-hour ozone standard 
maintenance plan motor vehicle emission budgets for the entire 
interstate Louisville area for the purposes of transportation 
conformity are now 48.17 tons per summer day of VOC and 92.93 tons per 
summer day of NOX for the year 2012.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


    2. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry for the 
``Louisville Area'' in the Indiana-Ozone (1-Hour Standard) table to 
read as follows:


Sec. 81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                                            Indiana--Ozone (1-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Designation                                           Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date 1                       Type                       Date 1                       Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Louisville Area:
    Clark County........................     10/23/01  Attainment
    Floyd County........................     10/23/01  Attainment
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 This date is November 15, 1990 unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

    3. Section 81.318 is amended by revising the entry for the 
``Louisville Area'' in the Kentucky-Ozone (1-Hour Standard) table to 
read as follows:


Sec. 81.318  Kentucky.

* * * * *

[[Page 53686]]



                                                            Kentucky--Ozone (1-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Designation                                           Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Louisville Area:
    Bullitt County......................     10/23/01  Attainment
    Jefferson County....................     10/23/01  Attainment
    Oldham County.......................     10/23/01  Attainment
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 This date is November 15, 1990 unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-25894 Filed 10-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P