Skip to Content

Rule

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans- State: Approval of Revisions to Kentucky State Implementation Plan

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

EPA is approving a revision to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) to allow the Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County (APCDJC) to issue Federally enforceable district origin operating permits (FEDOOP). On November 10, 1998, the APCDJC through the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KNREPC) submitted a SIP revision fulfilling the requirements necessary for the FEDOOP program to become federally enforceable.

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective April 17, 2000 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 16, 2000. 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 Gregory Crawford at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

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

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

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

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, 803 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.

Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County, 850 Barret Avenue, Suite 205, Louisville, Kentucky 40204.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregory Crawford, Regulatory Planning Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division at 404/562-9046. Start Printed Page 7438

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 10, 1998, the APCDJC, through the KNREPC, submitted a SIP revision to make certain permits issued under the APCDJC existing minor source operating permit program Federally enforceable. The revision was added to comply with EPA requirements specified in the Federal Register notice entitled “Requirements for the Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans” (see 54 FR 27274, June 28, 1989).

EPA has always had and continues to have the authority to enforce state and local permits that are issued under permit programs approved into the SIP. However, EPA has not always recognized as valid certain state and local permits which purport to limit a source's potential to emit. The principle purpose for adopting this regulation is to give APCDJC a Federally recognized means of expeditiously restricting potential emissions such that sources can avoid major source permitting requirements. A key mechanism for such limitations is the use of the Federally enforceable state or local operating permits. The term “Federally enforceable,” when used in the context of permits which limit potential to emit, means “Federally recognized.” The voluntary revision that is the subject of this action approves Regulation 2.17, Federally Enforceable District Origin Operating Permits, into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP. This rule and the materials provided by the APCDJC satisfy the five criteria outlined in the June 28, 1989, Federal Register notice. Refer to section II of this notice for the analysis of each of the criteria.

II. Analysis of the Submittal

Criterion 1. The county's operating permit program (i.e. the regulations or other administrative framework describing how such permits are issued) must be submitted to and approved by EPA as a SIP revision.

On November 10, 1998, the APCDJC through the KNREPC submitted a SIP revision request to EPA consisting of revisions to Regulation 2.17, Federally Enforceable District Origin Operating Permits, amending the APCDJC existing stationary source requirements to include provisions to issue FEDOOP.

Criterion 2. The SIP revision must impose a legal obligation that operating permit holders adhere to the terms and limitations of such permits (or subsequent revisions of the permit made in accordance with the approved operating permit program) and provide that permits which do not conform to the operating permit program requirements and the requirements of EPA's underlying regulations may be deemed not “Federally enforceable” by EPA. Regulation 2.17, sections 3.1 and 3.2 address this criterion and meet this requirement. The source shall comply with all terms and conditions in a FEDOOP, including subsequent revisions. All terms and conditions in a FEDOOP, including those requirements designed to limit a source's potential to emit, are enforceable by EPA.

Criterion 3. The state operating permit program must require that all emission limitations, controls, and other requirements imposed by such permits will be at least as stringent as any applicable limitations and requirements contained in the SIP, or enforceable under the SIP, and that the program may not issue permits that waive, or make less stringent, any limitations or requirements contained in or issued pursuant to the SIP, or that are otherwise “federally enforceable” (e.g. standards established under sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)).

Regulation 2.17, section 3.4 contains regulatory provisions which state that permits issued by the APCDJC will be at least as stringent as standards established pursuant to sections 111 and 112 of the CAA.

Criterion 4. The limitations, controls, and requirements of the state's operating permits must be permanent, quantifiable, and otherwise enforceable as a practical matter. Regulation 2.17, section 5.3 contains regulatory provisions which satisfy this criterion. The terms and conditions of all permits issued must be permanent, quantifiable, and otherwise enforceable as a practical matter.

Criterion 5. The state operating permits must be issued subject to public participation. This means that the APCDJC agrees, as part of their program, to provide EPA and the public with timely notice of the proposal and issuance of such permits, and to provide EPA, on a timely basis, with a copy of each proposed ( or draft) and final permit intended to be “Federally enforceable.” This process must also provide for an opportunity for public comment on the permit applications prior to issuance of the final permits.

Regulation 2.17, sections 6.1 and 8.1 meet this criterion. Jefferson County will provide EPA with notice of proposed issuance, renewal, or revision of a FEDOOP or, pursuant to section 8.5, administrative incorporation of a construction permit, at the time of public notice. Jefferson County will provide public notice of proposed issuance, renewal, or revision of a FEDOOP in the newspaper having the largest bona fide paid circulation in Jefferson County, Kentucky.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP because they are consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA requirements. 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 April 17, 2000 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by March 15, 2000.

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 April 17, 2000 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Nothing in this action should be construed as making any determination or expressing any position regarding Kentucky's audit privilege and penalty immunity law Kentucky—“KRS 224.01-040” or its impact upon any approved provision in the SIP, including the revision at issue here. The action taken herein does not express or imply any viewpoint on the question of whether there are legal deficiencies in this or any other Clean Air Act program resulting from the effect of Kentucky's audit privilege and immunity law. A state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities. EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by a state audit privilege or immunity law. Start Printed Page 7439

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This final rule will 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.” Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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 Start Printed Page 7440of 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 rule is not a “major” rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 April 17, 2000. 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).)

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

End List of Subjects Start Signature

Dated: January 14, 2000.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

End Signature

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

Start Part

PART 52—[AMENDED]

End Part Start Amendment Part

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

End Amendment Part Start Authority

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

End Authority

Subpart S—Kentucky

Start Amendment Part

2. Section 52.939 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(95) to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Original identification of plan section.
* * * * *

(c) * * *

(95) Revisions to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan submitted by the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet on November 10, 1998. The regulation being added is Regulation 2.17, Federally Enforceable District Origin Operating Permits.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County Regulation 2.17, Federally Enforceable District Origin Operating Permits effective June 21, 1995.

(ii) Other material. None.

End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 00-3207 Filed 2-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P