02-29179. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Kentucky: Approval of Revisions to the Jefferson County Portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

On February 19, 2002, June 16, 2002, and July 15, 2002 the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (Cabinet) submitted revisions to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Revisions pertain to definitions, portland cement kilns, abbreviations and acronyms, and solvent metal cleaning.

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective January 21, 2003 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 19, 2002. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

All comments should be addressed to: Scott Martin, Air Planning Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

Copies of the submittal are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Division for Air Quality, 803 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1403. (502/573-3382)

Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County, 850 Barrett Avenue—Suite 200, Louisville, Kentucky 40204. (502/574-6000)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Martin, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is [phone]. Mr. Martin can also be reached via electronic mail at [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Today's Action

II. Background

III. Final Action

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Today's Action

The EPA is approving into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP revisions which were submitted on February 19, 2002, June 6, 2002, and July 15, 2002.

II. Background

Description of Revisions Submitted on February 19, 2002

Regulation 1.02 “Definitions” was revised to amend the current version to ensure consistency with with current definitions used by EPA and to remove definitions that are no longer used by Jefferson County.

Description of Revisions Submitted on June 6, 2002

Regulation 6.50 “NO_X Requirements for Portland Cement Kilns” is being added by Jefferson County to incorporate the requirements of Kentucky Division for Air Quality (DAQ) regulation 401 KAR 51.170 NO_X Requirements for cement kilns. The Kosmos Cement Company (Kosmos), which is located in Jefferson County, is the only company in the Commonwealth of Kentucky that has a Portland cement kiln. Thus, this regulation applies only to Kosmos.

Description of Revisions Submitted on July 15, 2002

Regulation 1.03 “Abbreviations and Acronyms” is being amended to make technical corrections to the abbreviations and acronyms, add new abbreviations and acronyms, and remove abbreviations and acronyms that are no longer used.

Regulation 1.19 “Administrative Hearings” is being added. This regulation is being added to establish an administrative hearing process for resolving alleged violations and providing an opportunity to be heard for persons who consider themselves aggrieved by actions on orders or permits.

Regulation 6.18 “Standards of Performance for Existing Solvent Metal Cleaning Equipment” is being revised. The main purpose of the action is to remove requirements that are no longer applicable. In early 2000, a requirement was added that specified that after March 1, 2000, no solvent with a vapor pressure greater than 1 mm Hg may be sold for or used in cold cleaners in Jefferson County. Because the cold cleaner material compliance date is now in the past, other requirements for solvents with haigher vapor pressures are no longer applicable, and therefore may be removed.

Another purpose of the action is to combine Regulation 7.18 “Standards of Preformance for New Solvent Metal Cleaning Equipment” with Regulation 6.18 because both regulations have identical requirements and differ only in the applicability to existing or newly affected facilities. By combining these regulations, Regulation 7.18 is no longer needed and is being repealed.

III. Final Action

The EPA is approving the revisions to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP. The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective January 21, 2003 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by December 19, 2002.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on January 21, 2003 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. 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. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 21, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

• Environmental protection
• Air pollution control
• Intergovernmental relations
• Nitrogen dioxide
• Ozone
• Particulate matter
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Volatile organic compounds

Dated: October 31, 2002.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart S—Kentucky

2. Section 52.920 is amended by revising the entries for “1.02, 1.03 and 6.18;” adding two new entries in numerical order for “1.19 and 6.50,” and removing the entry for “7.18;” to read as follows:

§ 52.920

Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Jefferson County Regulations for Kentucky

Reg	Title/subject	EPA approval date	Federal Register notice	District effective date
Reg 1	General Provisions. . . .
*         *         *         *         *         *         *
1.02	Definitions	12/19/02	[insert FRN publication]	12/19/01
1.03	Abbreviations and Acronyms	12/19/02	[insert FRN publication]	5/15/02
*         *         *         *         *         *         *
1.19	Administrative Hearings	12/19/02	[insert FRN publication]	5/15/02
*         *         *         *         *         *         *
Reg 6	Standards of Performance for Existing Affected Facilities. . . .
*         *         *         *         *         *         *
6.18	Standards of Performance for Existing Solvent Metal Cleaning Equipment	12/19/02	[insert FRN publication]	5/15/02
*         *         *         *         *         *         *
6.50	NOX Requirements for Portland Cement Kilns	12/19/02	[insert FRN publication]	3/20/02
*         *         *         *         *         *         *

* * * * *