Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is approving a revision to the Commonwealth of Kentucky's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted through the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KNREPC) on April 29, 1998. This revision adds a new regulation 401 KAR 50:032, “Prohibitory rule for hot mix asphalt plants,” to establish an enforceable production limit for asphalt plants in Kentucky to limit their potential to emit (PTE).
This direct final rule is effective May 9, 2000 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 10, 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.
All comments should be addressed to Joey LeVasseur at the EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Copies of the state submittal are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104.
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, 803 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joey LeVasseur at 404/562-9035 (E-mail: email@example.com).End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
The Commonwealth of Kentucky through the KNREPC submitted revisions to the Kentucky SIP on April 29, 1998. These revisions add new Kentucky regulations 401 KAR 50:032, “Prohibitory rule for hot mix asphalt plants,” 60:750, “Standards of performance for municipal solid waste landfills,” and 61:036, “Emission guidelines and compliance times for municipal solid waste landfills.” However, since regulations 401 KAR 60:750 and 61:036 are not SIP-related, Kentucky resubmitted these regulations on December 3, 1998, as required by section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA), and EPA approved these regulations on April 20, 1999, (64 FR 19290). Therefore, today EPA is only taking action on regulation 401 KAR 50:032 as a revision to the Kentucky SIP as described below.
401 KAR 50:032 Prohibitory Rule for Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
This regulation applies to hot mix asphalt plants that without the operational limits of this regulation would have a PTE that would exceed one or more of the major source thresholds and require these plants to obtain a permit as required under part 70 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 70). Compliance with this regulation would only exempt these sources from the 40 CFR part 70 requirement and would not exempt any source from any other applicable requirement. To be eligible for this exemption, sources must comply with maximum consecutive 12 month production and operation limits as well as fuel and recordkeeping requirements which are specific to the type of plant. These requirements are fully discussed in the submittal and the technical support document (TSD) at the Region 4 office listed in the addresses section of this notice.
EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment 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 relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 9, 2000 without further notice unless the agency Start Printed Page 12949receives relevant adverse comments by April 10, 2000.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice 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 on the rule. Only parties interested in commenting on the rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on May 9, 2000 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces E.O. 12612 (Federalism) and E.O. 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). E.O. 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the E.O. do not apply to this rule.
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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
Under E.O. 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, E.O. 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 E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility
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 government 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 CAA 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 CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 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 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 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 Start Printed Page 12950additional 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 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. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 9, 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
- Environmental protection
- Administrative practice and procedure
- Air pollution control
- Incorporation by reference
- Intergovernmental relations
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: January 14, 2000.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40,End Amendment Part 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
Subpart S—KentuckyStart Amendment Part
2. In § 52.920(c) the table is amended by adding the entry for 401 KAR 50:032, under chapter 50 in numerical order to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) * * *
|Regulation||Title/subject||State effective date||EPA approval date||Federal Register Notice|
|* * * * * * *|
|Chapter 50 General Administrative Procedures|
|* * * * * * *|
|401 KAR 50:032||Prohibitory rule for hot mix asphalt plants||April 13, 1998||March 10, 2000||[Insert FR page citation].|
|* * * * * * *|
[FR Doc. 00-5931 Filed 3-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P