Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Kentucky; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 78194-78215 [2011-32272]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
78194
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
EPA is proposing to rescind
the federally promulgated provisions
regarding visibility in the Kentucky
State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA
approved Kentucky’s visibility rules
addressing new source review for
sources in nonattainment areas on July
11, 2006. EPA’s approval of these rules
neglected to remove the previous
federally promulgated provisions from
the Federal Implementation Plan. EPA
is proposing to correct this omission in
this rulemaking. This action is being
taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act. In
the Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving Kentucky’s
SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before January 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2011–0867 by one of the following
methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011–
0867,’’ Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Please see the direct final rule which
is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
DATES:
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madolyn S. Dominy, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
Dominy may be reached by phone at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
(404) 562–9644 or by electronic mail
address at dominy.madolyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the
Rules section of this Federal Register. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in
response to this rule, no further activity
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this
document. Any parties interested in
commenting on this document should
do so at this time.
Dated: December 8, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011–32170 Filed 12–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0783–201034, FRL–
9507–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Kentucky; Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing a limited
approval and a limited disapproval of
two revisions to the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Commonwealth of Kentucky
through the Kentucky Energy and
Environment Cabinet, Division of Air
Quality (KYDAQ), on June 25, 2008, and
May 28, 2010, that address regional haze
for the first implementation period.
These revisions address the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) and EPA’s rules that require
states to prevent any future and remedy
any existing anthropogenic impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
(national parks and wilderness areas)
caused by emissions of air pollutants
from numerous sources located over a
wide geographic area (also referred to as
the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA is proposing a limited
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
approval of these SIP revisions to
implement the regional haze
requirements for Kentucky on the basis
that the revisions, as a whole,
strengthen the Kentucky SIP. Also in
this action, EPA is proposing a limited
disapproval of these same SIP revisions
because of the deficiencies in the
Commonwealth’s regional haze SIP
submittal arising from the remand by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) to EPA
of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2009–0783, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0783,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009–
0783.’’ EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Waterson or Michele Notarianni,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Sara
Waterson can be reached at telephone
number (404) 562–9061 and by
electronic mail at
waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele
Notarianni can be reached at telephone
number (404) 562–9031 and by
electronic mail at
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for the regional
haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Consultation Wth States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is the relationship of CAIR and the
transport rule to the regional haze
requirements?
A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR
B. Remand of CAIR
C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially
Affected by the CAIR Remand and
Promulgation of the Transport Rule
D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed
Limited Approval
V. What is EPA’s analysis of Kentucky’s
regional haze submittal?
A. Affected Class I Area
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural
Conditions
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and
Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility
Impairment: Pollutants, Source
Categories, and Geographic Areas
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To
Evaluate for Reasonable Progress
Controls in Kentucky and Surrounding
Areas
5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in
the Reasonable Progress Analysis
6. BART
7. RPGs
D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional
Haze Requirements
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
F. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
2. Consultation With the FLMs
G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
VI. What action is EPA taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing a limited approval
of Kentucky’s June 25, 2008, and May
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78195
28, 2010, SIP revisions addressing
regional haze under CAA sections
301(a) and 110(k)(3) because the
revisions as a whole strengthen the
Kentucky SIP. However, the Kentucky
SIP relies on CAIR, an EPA rule, to
satisfy key elements of the regional haze
requirements. Due to the remand of
CAIR, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008), the revisions do
not meet all of the applicable
requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
regulations as set forth in sections 169A
and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR
51.300–308. As a result, EPA is
concurrently proposing a limited
disapproval of Kentucky’s SIP revisions.
The revisions nevertheless represent an
improvement over the current SIP, and
make considerable progress in fulfilling
the applicable CAA regional haze
program requirements. This proposed
rulemaking and the accompanying
Technical Support Document1 (TSD)
explain the basis for EPA’s proposed
limited approval and limited
disapproval actions.
Under CAA sections 301(a) and
110(k)(6) and EPA’s long-standing
guidance, a limited approval results in
approval of the entire SIP submittal,
even of those parts that are deficient and
prevent EPA from granting a full
approval of the SIP revision. Processing
of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, OAQPS, to Air
Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices
I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni
Memorandum) located at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/
siproc.pdf. The deficiencies that EPA
has identified as preventing a full
approval of this SIP revision relate to
the status and impact of CAIR on certain
interrelated and required elements of
the regional haze program. At the time
the Kentucky regional haze SIP was
being developed, the Commonwealth’s
reliance on CAIR was fully consistent
with EPA’s regulations, see 70 FR
39104, 39142 (July 6, 2005). CAIR, as
originally promulgated, requires
significant reductions in emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) to limit the interstate transport of
these pollutants, and the reliance on
CAIR by affected states as an alternative
to requiring BART for electric
generating units (EGUs) had specifically
been upheld in Utility Air Regulatory
Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC Cir.
2006). In 2008, however, the DC Circuit
1 EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled, ‘‘Technical
Support Document for Kentucky’s Regional Haze
Submittal,’’ is included in the public docket for this
action.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
78196
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir.
2008). The Court found CAIR to be
inconsistent with the requirements of
the CAA, see North Carolina v. EPA,
531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008), but
ultimately remanded the rule to EPA
without vacatur because it found that
‘‘allowing CAIR to remain in effect until
it is replaced by a rule consistent with
[the court’s] opinion would at least
temporarily preserve the environmental
values covered by CAIR.’’ North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. In
response to the court’s decision, EPA
has issued a new rule to address
interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in
the eastern United States (i.e., the
Transport Rule, also known as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). See 76
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). EPA
explained in that action that EPA is
promulgating the Transport Rule as a
replacement for (not a successor to)
CAIR’s SO2 and NOX emissions
reduction and trading programs. In
other words, the CAIR and CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) requirements
only remain in force to address
emissions through the 2011 control
periods. As part of the Transport Rule,
EPA finalized regulatory changes to
sunset the CAIR and CAIR FIPs for
control periods in 2012 and beyond. See
76 FR 48322.
EPA also stated in that final action
that EPA has not conducted a technical
analysis to determine whether
compliance with the Transport Rule
would satisfy the requirements of the
RHR addressing alternatives to BART.
For that reason, EPA did not make a
determination or establish a
presumption that compliance with the
Transport Rule satisfies BART-related
requirements for EGUs. EPA is now in
the process of determining whether
compliance with the Transport Rule
will provide for greater reasonable
progress toward improving visibility
than source-specific BART controls for
EGUs but no such determination has yet
been proposed.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and emit
fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and soil dust), and their
precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC)). Fine
particle precursors react in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
atmosphere to form fine particulate
matter which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity, color,
and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects
such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring
network, show that visibility
impairment caused by air pollution
occurs virtually all the time at most
national park and wilderness areas. The
average visual range 2 in many Class I
areas 3 (i.e., national parks and
memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the western United States is
100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to
two-thirds of the visual range that
would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In most of the eastern Class
I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715
(July 1, 1999).
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.’’ On
December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated
2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be
viewed against the sky.
3 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42
U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of
the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department
of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. See 44
FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42
U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas which they
consider to have visibility as an important value,
the requirements of the visibility program set forth
in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory
Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a
‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When the term ‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action,
it means a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e.,
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.’’ See 45 FR 80084. These
regulations represented the first phase
in addressing visibility impairment.
EPA deferred action on regional haze
that emanates from a variety of sources
until monitoring, modeling, and
scientific knowledge about the
relationships between pollutants and
visibility impairment were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues. EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999
(64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR
revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included
in EPA’s visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some
of the main elements of the regional
haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this preamble. The
requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.4 40
CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit
the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17,
2007.
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among
states, tribal governments, and various
Federal agencies. As noted above,
pollution affecting the air quality in
Class I areas can be transported over
long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, to effectively
address the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas, states need
to develop strategies in coordination
with one another, taking into account
the effect of emissions from one
jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to
regional haze can originate from sources
located across broad geographic areas,
EPA has encouraged the states and
4 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico
must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely
satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of
the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under
the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section
74–2–4).
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
tribes across the United States to
address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
technical information to better
understand how their states and tribes
impact Class I areas across the country,
and then pursued the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions
of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Visibility Improvement State and
Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of
state governments, tribal governments,
and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility
and other air quality issues in the
southeastern United States. Member
state and tribal governments include:
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West
Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee Indians.
III. What are the requirements for
regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR
Regional haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s
implementing regulations require states
to establish long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward
meeting this goal. Implementation plans
must also give specific attention to
certain stationary sources that were in
existence on August 7, 1977, but were
not in operation before August 7, 1962,
and require these sources, where
appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing
visibility impairment. The specific
regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural,
and Current Visibility Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as
the principal metric or unit for
expressing visibility. This visibility
metric expresses uniform changes in
haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility
expressed in deciviews is determined by
using air quality measurements to
estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light
extinction using a logarithm function.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
The deciview is a more useful measure
for tracking progress in improving
visibility than light extinction itself
because each deciview change is an
equal incremental change in visibility
perceived by the human eye. Most
people can detect a change in visibility
at one deciview.5
The deciview is used in expressing
RPGs (which are interim visibility goals
towards meeting the national visibility
goal), defining baseline, current, and
natural conditions, and tracking changes
in visibility. The regional haze SIPs
must contain measures that ensure
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the
national goal of preventing and
remedying visibility impairment in
Class I areas caused by anthropogenic
air pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause regional haze. The
national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources
of air pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over
time at each of the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program (40
CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the
process for determining reasonable
progress, states must calculate the
degree of existing visibility impairment
at each Class I area at the time of each
regional haze SIP submittal and
periodically review progress every five
years, i.e., midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the
RHR requires states to determine the
degree of impairment (in deciviews) for
the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most
impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over
a specified time period at each of their
Class I areas. In addition, states must
also develop an estimate of natural
visibility conditions for the purpose of
comparing progress toward the national
goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of
pollutants that cause visibility
impairment and then calculating total
light extinction based on those
estimates. EPA has provided guidance
to states regarding how to calculate
baseline, natural, and current visibility
conditions in documents titled, EPA’s
Guidance for Estimating Natural
Visibility Conditions Under the Regional
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–005 located at https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for
Tracking Progress Under the Regional
5 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725
(July 1, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78197
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–004 located at https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred
to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance’’).
For the first regional haze SIPs that
were due by December 17, 2007,
‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the
starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’
visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of
visibility impairment for the 20 percent
least impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring
data for 2000 through 2004, states are
required to calculate the average degree
of visibility impairment for each Class I
area, based on the average of annual
values over the five-year period. The
comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural
visibility, while the future comparison
of baseline conditions to the then
current conditions will indicate the
amount of progress made. In general, the
2000–2004 baseline period is
considered the time from which
improvement in visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing
progress towards achieving the natural
visibility goal is the submission of a
series of regional haze SIPs from the
states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two
distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and
one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class
I area for each (approximately) 10-year
implementation period. The RHR does
not mandate specific milestones or rates
of progress, but instead calls for states
to establish goals that provide for
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving
natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must
provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days over the
(approximately) 10-year period of the
SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period.
States have significant discretion in
establishing RPGs, but are required to
consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the CAA
and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) the remaining
useful life of any potentially affected
sources. States must demonstrate in
their SIPs how these factors are
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
78198
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
considered when selecting the RPGs for
the best and worst days for each
applicable Class I area. States have
considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as
noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting
Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program (‘‘EPA’s
Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1,
2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA
Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting
the RPGs, states must also consider the
rate of progress needed to reach natural
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to
as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the
‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the 10-year period of the
SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by
the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress which states are to use for
analytical comparison to the amount of
progress they expect to achieve. In
setting RPGs, each state with one or
more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must
also consult with potentially
‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby
states with emission sources that may be
affecting visibility impairment at the
Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv).
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit
controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement
that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources 6 built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit
Technology’’ as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for such
‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading
program or other alternative program as
long as the alternative provides greater
6 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART.
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at
Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. In making a BART
determination for a fossil fuel-fired
electric generating plant with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750
megawatts (MW), a state must use the
approach set forth in the BART
Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but
not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA
has stated that states should use their
best judgment in determining whether
VOC or NH3 compounds impair
visibility in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states
may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below
which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I
area. The state must document this
exemption threshold value in the SIP
and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with
emissions that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a
BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I
areas. States should consider the
number of emission sources affecting
the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources’
impacts. Any exemption threshold set
by the state should not be higher than
0.5 deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify
potential BART sources, described as
‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR,
and document their BART control
determination analyses. In making
BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that
states consider the following factors: (1)
The costs of compliance, (2) the energy
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at
the source, (4) the remaining useful life
of the source, and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. States are
free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each
factor.
A regional haze SIP must include
source-specific BART emission limits
and compliance schedules for each
source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of EPA approval of the
regional haze SIP. See CAA section
169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
BART controls on the source.
As noted above, the RHR allows states
to implement an alternative program in
lieu of BART so long as the alternative
program can be demonstrated to achieve
greater reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal than would
BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA
made just such a demonstration for
CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
EPA’s regulations provide that states
participating in the CAIR cap-and trade
program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant
to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which
remain subject to the CAIR FIP in 40
CFR part 97 need not require affected
BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate,
and maintain BART for emissions of
SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
Because CAIR did not address direct
emissions of PM, states were still
required to conduct a BART analysis for
PM emissions from EGUs subject to
BART for that pollutant.
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in
section 169A(b) of the CAA that states
include in their regional haze SIP a 10
to 15 year strategy for making
reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3)
of the RHR requires that states include
a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The
LTS is the compilation of all control
measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific
SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs.
The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures as
necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals’’ for all Class I areas
within, or affected by emissions from,
the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state’s emissions are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Class I area located in another state, the
RHR requires the impacted state to
coordinate with the contributing states
in order to develop coordinated
emissions management strategies. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases,
the contributing state must demonstrate
that it has included, in its SIP, all
measures necessary to obtain its share of
the emissions reductions needed to
meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The
RPOs have provided forums for
significant interstate consultation, but
additional consultations between states
may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is
especially true where two states belong
to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment in developing their LTS,
including stationary, minor, mobile, and
area sources. At a minimum, states must
describe how each of the following
seven factors listed below are taken into
account in developing their LTS: (1)
Emissions reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including
measures to address RAVI; (2) measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the
RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke
management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes
including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations
and control measures; and (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40
CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for
RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must
provide for a periodic review and SIP
revision not less frequently than every
three years until the date of submission
of the state’s first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment,
which was due December 17, 2007, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and
(c). On or before this date, the state must
revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for
addressing RAVI and regional haze, and
the state must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional
haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and
periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be
submitted consistent with the schedule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
for SIP submission and periodic
progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively.
The periodic review of a state’s LTS
must report on both regional haze and
RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR
includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting of regional
haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state. The
strategy must be coordinated with the
monitoring strategy required in section
51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through
‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE
network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide
for additional monitoring sites if the
IMPROVE network is not sufficient to
determine whether RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the
following:
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas
both within and outside the state;
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with no mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
other states;
• Reporting of all visibility
monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in
the state, and where possible, in
electronic format;
• Developing a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area. The inventory must
include emissions for a baseline year,
emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates
of future projected emissions. A state
must also make a commitment to update
the inventory periodically; and
• Other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to
cover an initial implementation period
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78199
extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and
revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter.
Periodic SIP revisions must meet the
core requirements of section 51.308(d)
with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for
BART applies only to the first regional
haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART
must continue to comply with the BART
provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted
above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure
that the statutory requirement of
reasonable progress will continue to be
met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult
with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR
51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least 60 days prior to holding any
public hearing on the SIP. This
consultation must include the
opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their assessment of impairment of
visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development
of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Further, a
state must include in its SIP a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
Finally, a SIP must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs regarding the state’s
visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP
revisions, five-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
IV. What is the relationship of CAIR and
the transport rule to the regional haze
requirements?
A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR
CAIR, as originally promulgated,
required 28 states and the District of
Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2
and NOX that significantly contributed
to, or interfered with maintenance of,
the 1997 national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates
and/or the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour
ozone in any downwind state. See 70 FR
25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR established
emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX for
states found to contribute significantly
to nonattainment in downwind states
and required these states to submit SIP
revisions that implemented these
budgets. States had the flexibility to
choose which control measures to adopt
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
78200
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
to achieve the budgets, including
participation in EPA-administered capand-trade programs addressing SO2,
NOX-annual, and NOX-ozone season
emissions. In 2006, EPA promulgated
FIPs for all states covered by CAIR to
ensure the reductions were achieved in
a timely manner.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Remand of CAIR
On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit
issued its decision to vacate and remand
both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs
in their entirety. See North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
However, in response to EPA’s petition
for rehearing, the Court issued an order
remanding CAIR to EPA without
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs.
The Court thereby left the EPA CAIR
rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in place in
order to ‘‘temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR’’
until EPA replaces it with a rule
consistent with the court’s opinion. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at
1178. The Court directed EPA to
‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ consistent with
its July 11, 2008, opinion but declined
to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing that action. EPA
subsequently promulgated the Transport
Rule to replace CAIR. 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
C. Regional Haze SIP Elements
Potentially Affected by the CAIR
Remand and Promulgation of the
Transport Rule
The following is a summary of the
elements of the regional haze SIPs that
are potentially affected by the remand of
CAIR. As described above, EPA
determined in 2005 that states opting to
participate in the CAIR cap-and-trade
program need not require BART for SO2
and NOX at BART-eligible EGUs. 70 FR
at 39142–39143. Many states relied on
CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO2
and NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed
under the BART provisions at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several states
established RPGs that reflect the
improvement in visibility expected to
result from controls planned for or
already installed on sources within the
state to meet the CAIR provisions for
this implementation period for specified
pollutants. Many states relied upon
their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs
for their states to provide the legal
requirements which lead to these
planned controls, and did not include
enforceable measures in the LTS in the
regional haze SIP submission to ensure
these reductions. States also submitted
demonstrations showing that no
additional controls on EGUs beyond
CAIR would be reasonable for this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
implementation period. Because of the
deficiencies identified in CAIR by the
court and the impact of the Transport
Rule on CAIR, it is inappropriate to
fully approve states’ LTSs that rely upon
the emissions reductions predicted to
result from CAIR to meet the BART
requirement for EGUs or to meet the
RPGs in the states’ regional haze SIPs.
For this reason, EPA cannot fully
approve regional haze SIP revisions that
rely on CAIR for emission reduction
measures. However, as discussed in
section IV.D, EPA still believes it is
appropriate to propose a limited
approval of Kentucky’s regional haze
SIP revisions as these revisions provide
an improvement over the current SIP,
and make progress in fulfilling the
applicable CAA regional haze program
requirements. EPA therefore proposes to
grant limited approval and limited
disapproval of the two Kentucky
regional haze SIP revisions. The next
section discusses how the Agency
proposes to address these deficiencies.
In the Transport Rule, EPA did not
substantively address the question of
whether the emissions reductions from
the Transport Rule will provide for
greater reasonable progress than BART.
EPA explained in that rulemaking that
the Agency had not yet conducted any
technical analysis to determine whether
compliance with the Transport Rule
would satisfy the requirements for a
BART alternative program. Given the
lack of any analysis at that time, EPA
made no determinations as to whether
the Transport Rule would provide
sufficient emissions reductions and
concomitant improvements in visibility
to be considered to provide for greater
reasonable progress than BART.
Although EPA is now in the process of
undertaking such an analysis, no action
has been proposed. As a result, today’s
proposal action on Kentucky’s regional
haze SIP is affected by the issuance of
the Transport Rule only insofar as the
Transport Rule provides for the
sunsetting of CAIR. Future analyses
involving the Transport Rule and BART
will determine appropriate subsequent
Agency action on Kentucky’s regional
haze SIP revisions.
D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed
Limited Approval
EPA is intending to propose to issue
limited approvals of those regional haze
SIP revisions that rely on CAIR to
address the impact of emissions from a
state’s own EGUs. Limited approval
results in approval of the entire regional
haze submission and all its elements.
EPA is taking this approach because an
affected state’s SIP will be stronger and
more protective of the environment with
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the implementation of those measures
by the state and having Federal approval
and enforceability than it would
without those measures being included
in the state’s SIP.
EPA also intends to propose to issue
limited disapprovals for regional haze
SIP revisions that rely on CAIR. As
explained in the 1992 Calcagni
Memorandum, ‘‘[t]hrough a limited
approval, EPA [will] concurrently, or
within a reasonable period of time
thereafter, disapprove the rule * * * for
not meeting all of the applicable
requirements of the Act. * * * [T]he
limited disapproval is a rulemaking
action, and it is subject to notice and
comment.’’ Final limited disapproval of
a SIP submittal does not affect the
Federal enforceability of the measures
in the subject SIP revision nor prevent
state implementation of these measures.
The legal effects of the final limited
disapproval are to provide EPA the
authority to issue a FIP at any time, and
to obligate the Agency to take such
action no more than two years after the
effective date of the final limited
disapproval action.
V. What is EPA’s analysis of Kentucky’s
regional haze submittal?
On June 25, 2008, and May 28, 2010,
KYDAQ submitted revisions to the
Kentucky SIP to address regional haze
in the Commonwealth’s Class I area as
required by EPA’s RHR. Throughout this
document, references to Kentucky’s (or
KYDAQ’s or the Commonwealth’s)
‘‘regional haze SIP’’ refer to Kentucky’s
original June 25, 2008, regional haze SIP
submittal, as later amended in a SIP
revision submitted May 28, 2010.
A. Affected Class I Area
Kentucky has one Class I area within
its borders: Mammoth Cave National
Park. Kentucky is responsible for
developing a regional haze SIP that
addresses this Class I area and for
consulting with other states that impact
the area.
The June 25, 2008, Kentucky regional
haze SIP, as later amended on May 28,
2010, establishes RPGs for visibility
improvement at Mammoth Cave
National Park and a LTS to achieve
those RPGs within the first regional
haze implementation period ending in
2018. In developing the LTS for the
area, Kentucky considered both
emission sources inside and outside of
Kentucky that may cause or contribute
to visibility impairment in Kentucky’s
Class I area. The Commonwealth also
identified and considered emission
sources within Kentucky that may cause
or contribute to visibility impairment in
Class I areas in neighboring states as
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
78201
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The
VISTAS RPO worked with the
Commonwealth in developing the
technical analyses used to make these
determinations, including state-by-state
contributions to visibility impairment in
specific Class I areas, which included
the Class I area in Kentucky and those
areas affected by emissions from
Kentucky.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural,
and Current Visibility Conditions
As required by the RHR and in
accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, Kentucky
calculated baseline/current and natural
visibility conditions for its Class I area,
as summarized below (and as further
described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2
of EPA’s TSD to this Federal Register
action).
1. Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions
Natural background visibility, as
defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance, is estimated by calculating
the expected light extinction using
default estimates of natural
concentrations of fine particle
components adjusted by site-specific
estimates of humidity. This calculation
uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a
formula for estimating light extinction
from the estimated natural
concentrations of fine particle
components (or from components
measured by the IMPROVE monitors).
As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states
to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative
approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to
estimate the values that characterize the
natural visibility conditions of the Class
I areas. One alternative approach is to
develop and justify the use of
alternative estimates of natural
concentrations of fine particle
components. Another alternative is to
use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that
was adopted for use by the IMPROVE
Steering Committee in December 2005.7
The purpose of this refinement to the
‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide
more accurate estimates of the various
factors that affect the calculation of light
extinction. Kentucky opted to use this
refined approach, referred to as the
‘‘new IMPROVE equation,’’ for its Class
I area.
Natural visibility conditions using the
new IMPROVE equation were calculated
separately for each Class I area by
VISTAS. Natural background visibility,
as defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by
calculating the expected light extinction
using default estimates of natural
concentrations of fine particle
components adjusted by site-specific
estimates of humidity.
The new IMPROVE equation takes
into account the most recent review of
the science 8 and it accounts for the
effect of particle size distribution on
light extinction efficiency of sulfate,
nitrate, and organic carbon. It also
adjusts the mass multiplier for organic
carbon (particulate organic matter) by
increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms
are added to the equation to account for
light extinction by sea salt and light
absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide.
Site-specific values are used for
Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light
due to atmospheric gases) to account for
the site-specific effects of elevation and
temperature. Separate relative humidity
enhancement factors are used for small
and large size distributions of
ammonium sulfate and ammonium
nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the
remaining contributors, elemental
carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not
change between the original and new
IMPROVE equations.
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
KYDAQ estimated baseline visibility
conditions at the Kentucky Class I area
using available monitoring data from an
IMPROVE monitoring site in Mammoth
Cave National Park. As explained in
section III.B, baseline visibility
conditions are the same as current
conditions for the first regional haze
SIP. A five-year average of the 2000 to
2004 monitoring data was calculated for
each of the 20 percent worst and 20
percent best visibility days at the
Kentucky Class I area. IMPROVE data
records for Mammoth Cave National
Park for the period 2000 to 2004 meet
the EPA requirements for data
completeness. See page 2–8 of EPA’s
2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. Table
3.3–1 from Appendix G of the Kentucky
regional haze SIP, also provided in
section III.B.3 of EPA’s TSD to this
action, lists the 20 percent best and
worst days for the baseline period of
2000–2004 for Mammoth Cave National
Park. This data is also provided at the
following Web site: https://www.metro4sesarm.org/vistas/
SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural
Conditions
For the Kentucky Class I area,
baseline visibility on the 20 percent
worst days is approximately 31
deciviews. Natural visibility in the area
is predicted to be approximately 11
deciviews on the 20 percent worst days.
The natural and baseline conditions for
Kentucky’s Class I area for both the 20
percent worst and best days are
presented in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE KENTUCKY CLASS I AREA
Average for 20 percent
worst days (dv 9)
Average for 20 percent
best days (dv)
Natural Background Conditions:
Mammoth Cave National Park .........................................................................................
Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004):
Mammoth Cave National Park .........................................................................................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Class I area
11.1
5.0
31.4
16.5
7 The IMPROVE program is a cooperative
measurement effort governed by a steering
committee composed of representatives from
Federal agencies (including representatives from
EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE
monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid
the creation of Federal and State implementation
plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas.
One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify
chemical species and emission sources responsible
for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment.
The IMPROVE program has also been a key
participant in visibility-related research, including
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
the advancement of monitoring instrumentation,
analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.
8 The science behind the revised IMPROVE
equation is summarized in Appendix B.2 of the
Kentucky regional haze submittal and in numerous
published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and
Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE
Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction
Coefficients—Final Report. March 2006. Prepared
for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State
University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://
vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/
GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/
IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc.,
2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the
New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species
Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO
Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September
2006 https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/
Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/
naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78202
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
In setting the RPGs, Kentucky
considered the uniform rate of progress
needed to reach natural visibility
conditions by 2064 (‘‘glidepath’’) and
the emission reduction measures
needed to achieve that rate of progress
over the period of the SIP to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in
EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance
document, the uniform rate of progress
is not a presumptive target, and RPGs
may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to
the glidepath.
The Commonwealth’s implementation
plan presents two sets of graphs, one for
the 20 percent best days, and one for the
20 percent worst days, for its Class I
area. Kentucky constructed the graph for
the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in
accordance with EPA’s 2003 Tracking
Progress Guidance by plotting a straight
graphical line from the baseline level of
visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to
the level of visibility conditions
representing no anthropogenic
impairment in 2064 for its area. For the
best days, the graph includes a
horizontal, straight line spanning from
baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018
to depict no degradation in visibility
over the implementation period of the
SIP. Kentucky’s SIP shows that the
Commonwealth’s RPGs for its area
provide for improvement in visibility
for the 20 percent worst days over the
period of the implementation plan and
ensure no degradation in visibility for
the 20 percent best days over the same
period, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).
For the Kentucky Class I area, the
overall visibility improvement
necessary to reach natural conditions is
the difference between baseline
visibility of 31.37 deciviews for the 20
percent worst days and natural
conditions of 11.08 deciviews, i.e.,
20.29 deciviews. Over the 60-year
period from 2004 to 2064, this would
require an average improvement of
0.338 deciviews per year to reach
natural conditions. Hence, for the 14year period from 2004 to 2018, in order
to achieve visibility improvements at
least equivalent to the uniform rate of
progress for the 20 percent worst days
at Mammoth Cave National Park,
Kentucky would need to project at least
4.73 deciviews over the first
implementation period (i.e., 0.338
deciviews × 14 years = 4.732 deciviews)
of visibility improvement from the 31.37
deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in
visibility levels at or below 26.64
9 The term, ‘‘dv,’’ is the abbreviation for
‘‘deciview.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
deciviews in 2018. As discussed below
in section V.C.7, Kentucky projects a
5.81 deciview improvement to visibility
from the 31.37 deciview baseline to
25.56 deciviews in 2018 for the 20
percent most impaired days, and a 0.94
deciview improvement to 15.57
deciviews from the baseline visibility of
16.51 deciviews for the 20 percent least
impaired days.
C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
As described in section III.E of this
action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by
the state for achieving its RPGs.
Kentucky’s LTS for the first
implementation period addresses the
emissions reductions from Federal,
state, and local controls that take effect
in the Commonwealth from the end of
the baseline period starting in 2004
until 2018. The Kentucky LTS was
developed by the Commonwealth, in
coordination with the VISTAS RPO,
through an evaluation of the following
components: (1) Identification of the
emissions units within Kentucky and in
surrounding states that likely have the
largest impacts currently on visibility at
the Commonwealth’s Class I area; (2)
estimation of emissions reductions for
2018 based on all controls required or
expected under Federal and state
regulations for the 2004–2018 period
(including BART); (3) comparison of
projected visibility improvement with
the uniform rate of progress for the
Commonwealth’s Class I area; and (4)
application of the four statutory factors
in the reasonable progress analysis for
the identified emissions units to
determine if additional reasonable
controls were required.
CAIR is also an element of Kentucky’s
LTS. CAIR rule revisions were approved
into the Kentucky SIP in 2007. See 72
FR 56623. Kentucky opted to rely on
CAIR emission reduction requirements
to satisfy the BART requirements for
SO2 and NOX from EGUs. See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Therefore, Kentucky only
required its BART-eligible EGUs to
evaluate PM emissions for determining
whether they are subject to BART, and,
if applicable, for performing a BART
control assessment. See section III.D of
this action for further details.
Additionally, as discussed below in
section V.C.5, Kentucky concluded that
no additional controls beyond CAIR are
reasonable for reasonable progress for its
EGUs for this first implementation
period. Prior to the remand of CAIR,
EPA believed the Commonwealth’s
reliance on CAIR for specific BART and
reasonable progress provisions affecting
its EGUs was adequate, as detailed later
in this action. As explained in section
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IV of this action, the Agency proposes
today to issue a limited approval and a
proposed limited disapproval of the
Commonwealth’s regional haze SIP
revisions.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the
regional haze technical analyses was
developed by VISTAS with assistance
from Kentucky. The 2018 emissions
inventory was developed by projecting
2002 emissions and applying reductions
expected from Federal and state
regulations affecting the emissions of
VOC and the visibility-impairing
pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The
BART Guidelines direct states to
exercise judgment in deciding whether
VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their
Class I area(s). As discussed further in
section V.C.3, VISTAS performed
modeling sensitivity analyses, which
demonstrated that anthropogenic
emissions of VOC and NH3 do not
significantly impair visibility in the
VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions
inventories were also developed for NH3
and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC
reductions were incorporated into
Kentucky’s regional haze analyses,
Kentucky did not further evaluate NH3
and VOC emissions sources for potential
controls under BART or reasonable
progress.
VISTAS developed emissions for five
inventory source classifications:
stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources, and
biogenic sources. Stationary point
sources are those sources that emit
greater than a specified tonnage per
year, depending on the pollutant, with
data provided at the facility level.
Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are
relatively small, but due to the large
number of these sources, the collective
emissions from the source category
could be significant. VISTAS estimated
emissions on a countywide level for the
inventory categories of: (a) Stationary
area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road)
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can
move but does not use the roadways);
and (c) biogenic sources (which are
natural sources of emissions, such as
trees). On-road mobile source emissions
are estimated by vehicle type and road
type, and are summed to the
countywide level.
There are many Federal and state
control programs being implemented
that VISTAS and Kentucky anticipate
will reduce emissions between the end
of the baseline period and 2018.
Emissions reductions from these control
programs are projected to achieve
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
substantial visibility improvement by
2018 in the Kentucky Class I area. The
control programs relied upon by
Kentucky include CAIR; EPA’s NOX SIP
Call; North Carolina’s Clean
Smokestacks Act; Georgia multipollutant rule; consent decrees for
Tampa Electric, Virginia Electric and
Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant
Crist, East Kentucky Power Cooperative
(EKPC)—Cooper and Spurlock stations,
and American Electric Power (AEP);
NOX and/or VOC reductions from the
control rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for
Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern
Kentucky; North Carolina’s NOX
Reasonably Available Control
Technology; state rule for Philip Morris
USA and Norandal USA in the
Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock Hill 1997 8hour ozone nonattainment area; Federal
2007 heavy duty diesel engine standards
for on-road trucks and buses; Federal
Tier 2 tailpipe controls for on-road
vehicles; Federal large spark ignition
and recreational vehicle controls; and
EPA’s non-road diesel rules. Controls
from various Federal Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
rules were also utilized in the
development of the 2018 emission
inventory projections. These MACT
rules include the industrial boiler/
process heater MACT (referred to as
‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the
combustion turbine and reciprocating
internal combustion engines MACTs,
and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year
MACT standards.
On June 8, 2007, and effective July 30,
2007, the DC Circuit mandated the
vacatur and remand of the Industrial
Boiler MACT Rule.10 This MACT was
vacated since it was directly affected by
the vacatur and remand of the
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incinerator Definition Rule.
Notwithstanding the vacatur of the
Industrial Boiler MACT Rule, the
VISTAS states, including Kentucky,
decided to leave these controls in the
modeling for their regional haze SIPs
since it is believed that by 2018, EPA
will have re-promulgated an industrial
boiler MACT rule or the states will have
addressed the issue through state-level
case-by-case MACT reviews in
accordance with section 112(j) of the
CAA. EPA finds this approach
acceptable for the following reasons.
EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler
MACT rule to address the vacatur on
June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006), and issued
a final rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR
15608), giving Kentucky time to assure
the required controls are in place prior
to the end of the first implementation
period in 2018. In the absence of an
established MACT rule for boilers and
process heaters, the statutory language
in section 112(j) of the CAA specifies a
schedule for the incorporation of
enforceable MACT-equivalent limits
into the title V operating permits of
78203
affected sources. Should circumstances
warrant the need to implement section
112(j) of the CAA for industrial boilers,
EPA would expect, in this case, that
compliance with case-by-case MACT
limits for industrial boilers would occur
no later than January 2015, which is
well before the 2018 RPGs for regional
haze. In addition, the RHR requires that
any resulting differences between
emissions projections and actual
emissions reductions that may occur
will be addressed during the five-year
review prior to the next 2018 regional
haze SIP. The expected reductions due
to the original, vacated Industrial Boiler
MACT rule were relatively small
compared to the Commonwealth’s total
SO2, PM2.5, and coarse particulate
matter (PM10) emissions in 2018 (i.e.,
0.1 to 0.2 percent, depending on the
pollutant, of the projected 2018 SO2,
PM2.5, and PM10 inventory), and not
likely to affect any of Kentucky’s
modeling conclusions. Thus, if there is
a need to address discrepancies such
that projected emissions reductions
from the vacated Industrial Boiler
MACT were greater than actual
reductions achieved by the replacement
MACT, EPA would not expect that this
would affect the adequacy of the
existing Kentucky regional haze SIP.
Below in Tables 2 and 3 are
summaries of the 2002 baseline and
2018 estimated emission inventories for
Kentucky.
TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR KENTUCKY
[Tons per year]
VOC
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Off-Road Mobile .......................................
46,315
98,713
103,503
44,805
240,362
40,966
156,417
104,571
14,219
51,763
2,697
6,046
21,421
240,226
3,723
6,425
995
51,246
5,055
31
529,182
41,941
6,308
14,043
Total ..................................................
293,336
542,316
74,725
271,795
57,327
591,474
TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR KENTUCKY
[Tons per year]
VOC
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
57,287
106,827
47,066
30,920
105,411
45,806
52,263
79,392
18,172
53,955
1,272
4,256
26,848
262,719
2,580
4,556
1,377
55,321
7,811
40
266,745
44,322
763
8,592
Total ..................................................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Off-Road Mobile .......................................
242,100
282,872
77,655
296,703
64,549
320,422
10 See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (DC Cir.
2007).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
78204
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and
Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
VISTAS performed modeling for the
regional haze LTS for the 10
southeastern states, including Kentucky.
The modeling analysis is a complex
technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system.
VISTAS used the following modeling
system:
• Meteorological Model: The
Pennsylvania State University/National
Center for Atmospheric Research
Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a
nonhydrostatic, prognostic,
meteorological model routinely used for
urban- and regional-scale
photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze
regulatory modeling studies.
• Emissions Model: The Sparse
Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions
modeling system is an emissions
modeling system that generates hourly
gridded speciated emission inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point,
fire, and biogenic emission sources for
photochemical grid models.
• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s
Models-3/Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a
photochemical grid model capable of
addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and
acid deposition at a regional scale. The
photochemical model selected for this
study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was
modified through VISTAS with a
module for Secondary Organics
Aerosols in an open and transparent
manner that was also subjected to
outside peer review.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in
the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018
was carried out on a grid of 12x12
kilometer cells that covers the 10
VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia) and states
adjacent to them. This grid is nested
within a larger national CMAQ
modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer grid
cells that covers the continental United
States, portions of Canada and Mexico,
and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts.
Selection of a representative period of
meteorology is crucial for evaluating
baseline air quality conditions and
projecting future changes in air quality
due to changes in emissions of
visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS
conducted an in-depth analysis which
resulted in the selection of the entire
year of 2002 (January 1–December 31) as
the best period of meteorology available
for conducting the CMAQ modeling.
The VISTAS states modeling was
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
developed consistent with EPA’s
Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
located at https://www.epa.gov/
scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA–454/B–07–002),
April 2007, and EPA document,
Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations, located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/
eiguid/, EPA–454/R–05–001,
August 2005, updated November 2005
(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’).
VISTAS examined the model
performance of the regional modeling
for the areas of interest before
determining whether the CMAQ model
results were suitable for use in the
regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The
modeling assessment predicts future
levels of emissions and visibility
impairment used to support the LTS
and to compare predicted, modeled
visibility levels with those on the
uniform rate of progress. In keeping
with the objective of the CMAQ
modeling platform, the air quality
model performance was evaluated using
graphical and statistical assessments
based on measured ozone, fine particles,
and acid deposition from various
monitoring networks and databases for
the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a
diverse set of statistical parameters from
the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress
and examine the model and modeling
inputs. Once VISTAS determined the
model performance to be acceptable,
VISTAS used the model to assess the
2018 RPGs using the current and future
year air quality modeling predictions,
and compared the RPGs to the uniform
rate of progress.
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3), the Commonwealth of
Kentucky provided the appropriate
supporting documentation for all
required analyses used to determine the
Commonwealth’s LTS. The technical
analyses and modeling used to develop
the glidepath and to support the LTS are
consistent with EPA’s RHR, and interim
and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA
accepts the VISTAS technical modeling
to support the LTS and determine
visibility improvement for the uniform
rate of progress because the modeling
system was chosen and simulated
according to EPA Modeling Guidance.
EPA agrees with the VISTAS model
performance procedures and results,
and that the CMAQ is an appropriate
tool for the regional haze assessments
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for the Kentucky LTS and regional haze
SIP.
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility
Impairment: Pollutants, Source
Categories, and Geographic Areas
An important step toward identifying
reasonable progress measures is to
identify the key pollutants contributing
to visibility impairment at each Class I
area. To understand the relative benefit
of further reducing emissions from
different pollutants, source sectors, and
geographic areas, VISTAS developed
emission sensitivity model runs using
CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air
quality impacts from various groups of
emissions and pollutant scenarios in the
Class I areas on the 20 percent worst
visibility days.
Regarding which pollutants are most
significantly impacting visibility in the
VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution
assessment, based on IMPROVE
monitoring data, demonstrated that
ammonium sulfate is the major
contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility
impairment at Class I areas in the
VISTAS and neighboring states. On the
20 percent worst visibility days in
2000–2004, ammonium sulfate
accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the
calculated light extinction at the inland
Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74
percent of the calculated light extinction
for all but one of the coastal Class I areas
in the VISTAS states. In particular, for
Mammoth Cave National Park, sulfate
particles resulting from SO2 emissions
contribute roughly 82 percent to the
calculated light extinction on the
haziest days. In contrast, ammonium
nitrate contributed less than five percent
of the calculated light extinction at the
VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent
worst visibility days. Particulate organic
matter (organic carbon) accounted for 20
percent or less of the light extinction on
the 20 percent worst visibility days at
the VISTAS Class I areas.
VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas
into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or
‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as
‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/
similar characteristics (e.g., terrain,
geography, meteorology), to better
represent variations in model sensitivity
and performance within the VISTAS
region, and to describe the common
factors influencing visibility conditions
in the two types of Class I areas.
Kentucky’s Class I area is an ‘‘inland’’
area.
Results from VISTAS’ emission
sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate
particles resulting from SO2 emissions
are the dominant contributor to
visibility impairment on the 20 percent
worst days at all Class I areas in
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VISTAS, including the Kentucky area.
Kentucky concluded that reducing SO2
emissions from EGU and non-EGU point
sources in the VISTAS states would
have the greatest visibility benefits for
the Kentucky Class I area. Because
ammonium nitrate is a small contributor
to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment
on the 20 percent worst days at the
inland Class I areas in VISTAS, which
include Mammoth Cave National Park,
the benefits of reducing NOX and NH3
emissions at these sites are small.
The VISTAS sensitivity analyses
show that VOC emissions from biogenic
sources such as vegetation also
contribute to visibility impairment.
However, control of these biogenic
sources of VOC would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible. The
anthropogenic sources of VOC
emissions are minor compared to the
biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling
anthropogenic sources of VOC
emissions would have little if any
visibility benefits at the Class I areas in
the VISTAS region, including Kentucky.
The sensitivity analyses also show that
reducing primary carbon from point
sources, ground level sources, or fires is
projected to have small to no visibility
benefit at the VISTAS Class I areas.
Kentucky considered the factors listed
in under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and in
section III.E of this action to develop its
LTS as described below. Kentucky, in
conjunction with VISTAS,
demonstrated in its SIP that elemental
carbon (a product of highway and nonroad diesel engines, agricultural
burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires),
fine soils (a product of construction
activities and activities that generate
fugitive dust), and ammonia are
relatively minor contributors to
visibility impairment at the Class I area
in Kentucky. Kentucky considered
agricultural and forestry smoke
management techniques to address
visibility impacts from elemental
carbon. KYDAQ has an open burning
regulation (401 KAR 63:005) which
addresses the issues laid out in the
EPA’s 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy
on Wildland and Prescribed Fires
available at: https://www.epa.gov/
ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf.
With regard to fine soils, the
Commonwealth considered those
activities that generate fugitive dust,
including construction activities. With
regard to construction activities,
KYDAQ has a fugitive emissions
regulation (401 KAR 63:010) which
addresses fugitive dust emissions. The
Kentucky regulations, 401 KAR 63:005
and 401 KAR 63:010, are both approved
regulations incorporated into the
Kentucky SIP, and provide additional
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
support to aid the Commonwealth with
meeting its RPGs for this first
implementation period. With regard to
ammonia, the Commonwealth has
chosen not to develop controls for
ammonia emissions from Kentucky
sources in this first implementation
period because of its relatively minor
contribution to visibility impairment.
EPA concurs with the Commonwealth’s
technical demonstration showing that
elemental carbon, fine soils, and
ammonia are not significant
contributors to visibility in the
Commonwealth’s Class I area, and
therefore, finds that Kentucky has
adequately satisfied 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA’s TSD to this
Federal Register action and Kentucky’s
SIP provide more details on the
Commonwealth’s consideration of these
factors for Kentucky’s LTS.
The emissions sensitivity analyses
conducted by VISTAS predict that
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU
and non-EGU industrial point sources
will result in the greatest improvements
in visibility in the Class I areas in the
VISTAS region, more than any other
visibility-impairing pollutant. Specific
to Kentucky, the VISTAS sensitivity
analysis projects visibility benefits in
Mammoth Cave National Park from SO2
reductions from EGUs in nearby
VISTAS states. Additional, smaller
benefits are projected from SO2
emissions reductions from non-utility
industrial point sources. SO2 emissions
contributions to visibility impairment
from other RPO regions are
comparatively small in contrast to the
VISTAS states’ contributions, and, thus,
controlling sources outside of the
VISTAS region is predicted to provide
less significant improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS.
Taking the VISTAS sensitivity
analyses results into consideration,
Kentucky concluded that reducing SO2
emissions from EGU and non-EGU point
sources in certain VISTAS states, states
in the Midwest Regional Planning
Organization and Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU)
regions, and outside the modeling
domain would have the greatest
visibility benefits for the Kentucky Class
I area. The Commonwealth chose to
focus solely on evaluating certain SO2
sources contributing to visibility
impairment to the Commonwealth’s
Class I area for additional emissions
reductions for reasonable progress in
this first implementation period
(described in sections V.C.4 and V.C.5
of this notice). EPA agrees with the
Commonwealth’s analyses and
conclusions used to determine the
pollutants and source categories that
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78205
most contribute to visibility impairment
in the Class I area, and finds the
Commonwealth’s approach to focus on
developing a LTS that includes largely
additional measures for point sources of
SO2 emissions to be appropriate.
SO2 sources for which it is
demonstrated that no additional
controls are reasonable in this current
implementation period will not be
exempted from future assessments for
controls in subsequent implementation
periods or, when appropriate, from the
five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future
implementation periods, additional
controls on these SO2 sources evaluated
in the first implementation period may
be determined to be reasonable, based
on a reasonable progress control
evaluation, for continued progress
toward natural conditions for the 20
percent worst days and to avoid further
degradation of the 20 percent best days.
Similarly, in subsequent
implementation periods, the
Commonwealth may use different
criteria for identifying sources for
evaluation and may consider other
pollutants as visibility conditions
change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To
Evaluate for Reasonable Progress
Controls in Kentucky and Surrounding
Areas
As discussed in section V.C.3 of this
action, through comprehensive
evaluations by VISTAS and the
Southern Appalachian Mountains
Initiative (SAMI),11 the VISTAS states
concluded that sulfate particles
resulting from SO2 emissions account
for the greatest portion of the regional
haze affecting the Class I areas in
VISTAS states, including those in
Kentucky. Utility and non-utility boilers
are the main sources of SO2 emissions
within the southeastern United States.
VISTAS developed a methodology for
Kentucky, which enables the
Commonwealth to focus its reasonable
progress analysis on those geographic
regions and source categories that
impact visibility at its Class I area.
Recognizing that there was neither
sufficient time nor adequate resources
available to evaluate all emissions units
11 Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated
in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and
recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing
and prevent future adverse effects from humaninduced air pollution on the air quality related
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.’’
States cooperated with FLMs, the EPA, industry,
environmental organizations, and academia to
complete a technical assessment of the impacts of
acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on
sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians.
The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August
2002.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78206
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
within a given area of influence (AOI)
around each Class I area that Kentucky’s
sources impact, the Commonwealth
established a threshold to determine
which emissions units would be
evaluated for reasonable progress
control. In applying this methodology,
KYDAQ first calculated the fractional
contribution to visibility impairment
from all emissions units within the SO2
AOI for its Class I area, and those
surrounding areas in other states
potentially impacted by emissions from
emissions units in Kentucky. The
Commonwealth then identified those
emissions units with a contribution of
one percent or more to the visibility
impairment at that particular Class I
area, and evaluated each of these units
for control measures for reasonable
progress, using the following four
‘‘reasonable progress factors’’ as
required under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of
compliance; (ii) time necessary for
compliance; (iii) energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (iv) remaining useful
life of the emissions unit.
Kentucky’s SO2 AOI methodology
captured greater than 50 percent of the
total point source SO2 contribution to
visibility impairment in the Mammoth
Cave Class I area, and required an
evaluation of 19 emissions units (10 of
which are located in Kentucky).
Capturing a significantly greater
percentage of the total contribution
would involve an evaluation of many
more emissions units that have
substantially less impact. EPA believes
the approach developed by VISTAS and
implemented for the Class I area in
Kentucky is a reasonable methodology
to prioritize the most significant
contributors to regional haze and to
identify sources to assess for reasonable
progress control in the Commonwealth’s
Class I area. The approach is consistent
with EPA’s Reasonable Progress
Guidance. The technical approach of
VISTAS and Kentucky was objective
and based on several analyses, which
included a large universe of emissions
units within and surrounding the
Commonwealth of Kentucky and all of
the 18 VISTAS Class I areas. It also
included an analysis of the VISTAS
emissions units affecting nearby Class I
areas surrounding the VISTAS states
that are located in other RPOs’ Class I
areas.
5. Application of the Four CAA factors
in the Reasonable Progress Analysis
KYDAQ identified 10 emissions units
at five facilities in Kentucky (see Table
4) with SO2 emissions that were above
the Commonwealth’s minimum
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
threshold for reasonable progress
evaluation because they were modeled
to fall within the sulfate AOI of any
Class I area and have a one percent or
greater contribution to the sulfate
visibility impairment to at least one
Class I area.12
Nine of these 10 emissions units were
already subject to CAIR. The reasonable
progress analyses for these units are
discussed in section V.C.5.B. KYDAQ
determined that the only unit not
subject to CAIR that falls within the
sulfate AOI of any Class I area and
contributes one percent or more to
visibility impairment is located at
Century Aluminum of KY LLC.
TABLE 4—KENTUCKY FACILITIES SUBJECT TO REASONABLE PROGRESS
ANALYSIS
Facilities With a Unit Subject to
Reasonable Progress Analysis
Century Aluminum of KY LLC, Potlines 1–4.
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to CAIR
Within AOI of Any Class I Area
Kentucky Utilities Co Green River Station
Units 003, 004.
Louisville Gas & Electric, Mill Creek Units 02,
03, 04.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Paradise
Steam Plant Units 001, 002, 003.
Western KY Energy Corp Wilson Station Unit
001.
A. Facilities With an Emissions Unit
Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis
KYDAQ analyzed whether SO2
controls should be required for one unit
at one facility, Century Aluminum,
based on a consideration of the four
factors set out in the CAA and EPA’s
regulations. For the limited purpose of
evaluating the cost of compliance for the
reasonable progress assessment in this
first regional haze SIP for the non-EGUs,
KYDAQ concluded that it was not
equitable to require non-EGUs to bear a
greater economic burden than EGUs for
a given control strategy. Using CAIR as
a guide, KYDAQ used a cost of $2,000
per ton of SO2 controlled or reduced as
a threshold for cost effectiveness.
The Century Aluminum facility in
Hawesville, Kentucky, has four potlines
with 2002 base year emissions of 4,985
tons per year of SO2 which were
identified as having a significant
contribution at the Mammoth Cave
Class I area. VISTAS evaluated control
options and costs for sources within the
AOI for the Class I areas of concern.
12 See also EPA’s TSD, section III.C.2, fractional
contribution analysis tables for each Class I area,
excerpted from the Kentucky SIP, Appendix H.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VISTAS used EPA’s AirControlNet
software to evaluate control options and
costs for controls. The cost effectiveness
of SO2 control suggested by the VISTAS
control cost spreadsheet for potlines 1–
4 at Century Aluminum is $14,207 per
ton of SO2 removed. Since the cost of
compliance for the control option is
over seven times greater than the
Commonwealth’s cost-effectiveness
threshold for reasonable progress,
KYDAQ concludes that there are no
cost-effective controls available for these
Century Aluminum units at this time
within the cost threshold established for
this reasonable progress assessment for
the first implementation period.
KYDAQ deemed the three remaining
statutory factors (i.e., time necessary for
compliance, energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance,
and remaining useful life of the
emissions unit) as not applicable since
there were no cost-effective controls to
evaluate. KYDAQ concluded, based on
its evaluation of the Century Aluminum
facility, that no further controls are
warranted at this time. After reviewing
KYDAQ’s methodology and analyses,
EPA finds Kentucky’s conclusion that
no further controls are necessary at this
time acceptable. EPA finds that
Kentucky adequately evaluated the
control technologies available at the
time of its analysis and applicable to
this type of facility and consistently
applied its criteria for reasonable
compliance costs. The Commonwealth
also included appropriate
documentation in its SIP of the
technical analysis it used to assess the
need for and implementation of
reasonable progress controls. Although
the use of a specific threshold for
assessing costs means that a state may
not fully consider available emissions
reduction measures above its threshold
that would result in meaningful
visibility improvement, EPA believes
that the Kentucky SIP still ensures
reasonable progress. In proposing to
approve Kentucky’s reasonable progress
analysis, EPA is placing great weight on
the fact that there is no indication in the
SIP submittal that Kentucky, as a result
of using a specific cost effectiveness
threshold, rejected potential reasonable
progress measures that would have had
a meaningful impact on visibility in its
Class I area. EPA notes that given the
emissions reductions resulting from
CAIR, Kentucky’s BART determinations,
and the measures in nearby states, the
visibility improvements projected for
the affected Class I area are in excess of
that needed to be on the uniform rate of
progress glidepath.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
B. Emissions Units Subject to CAIR
Within AOI of Any Class I Area
Nine of the 10 emissions units
identified for a reasonable progress
control analysis are EGUs. These nine
EGUs, located at four facilities, are:
Kentucky Utilities Co. Green River
Station, units 003 and 004; Louisville
Gas & Electric, Mill Creek, units 02, 03,
and 04; TVA Paradise Steam Plant, units
001, 002, 003; and Western KY Energy
Corp, Wilson Station, unit 001.
To determine whether any additional
controls beyond those required by CAIR
would be considered reasonable for
Kentucky’s EGUs for this first
implementation period, KYDAQ
evaluated the SO2 reductions expected
from the EGU sector based upon results
of the Integrated Planning Model (IPM)
as applied by VISTAS to estimate the
impacts region-wide of all the
anticipated EGU controls, including
CAIR. The EGUs located in Kentucky
are expected to reduce their 2002 SO2
emissions by approximately 54 percent
by 2018.
To further evaluate whether CAIR
requirements will satisfy reasonable
progress for SO2 for EGUs, KYDAQ
considered the four reasonable progress
factors set forth in EPA’s RHR as they
apply to the Commonwealth’s entire
EGU sector in sections 7.7 and 7.8 of the
Kentucky SIP. The Commonwealth also
reviewed CAIR requirements that
include 2015 as the ‘‘earliest reasonable
deadline for compliance’’ for EGUs
installing retrofits. See 70 FR 25162,
25197–25198 (May 12, 2005). This is a
particularly relevant consideration
because CAIR addresses the reasonable
progress factors of cost and time
necessary for compliance. In the
preamble to CAIR, EPA recognized there
are a number of factors that influence
compliance with the emission reduction
requirements set forth in CAIR, which
make the 2015 compliance date
reasonable. For example, each EGU
retrofit requires a large pool of
specialized labor resources, which exist
in limited quantities. Retrofitting an
EGU can be a capital-intensive venture.
Allowing retrofits to be installed over
time enables the industry to learn from
early installations. Lastly, EGU retrofits
over time minimize disruption of the
power grid by enabling industry to take
advantage of planned outages.
Since EPA made the determination in
CAIR that the earliest reasonable
deadline for compliance for reducing
emissions was 2015, KYDAQ concluded
that the emissions reductions required
by CAIR constitute reasonable measures
for Kentucky EGUs during this first
assessment period (between baseline
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
and 2018) based on a consideration of
the reasonable progress statutory factors
and EPA’s determination in CAIR that
the earliest reasonable deadline for
compliance with CAIR is 2015. This
conclusion is bolstered by the fact that,
as discussed in section V.C.7, visibility
improvement at Mammoth Cave
National Park is projected to exceed the
uniform rate of progress in this first
implementation period. KYDAQ stated
in its SIP that the Commonwealth
intends to re-evaluate the IPM
predictions of SO2 reductions for CAIR
at the time of the next periodic report
to ensure that the reductions predicted
by IPM for CAIR are taking place where
expected and needed. If KYDAQ’s
assessment for the periodic report
indicates that its emissions are likely to
exceed the 2018 projections, then the
Commonwealth may re-evaluate the
four factors to re-assess the LTS, as
KYDAQ noted in its SIP.
Prior to the CAIR remand by the DC
Circuit, EPA believed the
Commonwealth’s demonstration that no
additional controls beyond CAIR are
reasonable for SO2 for affected Kentucky
EGUs for the first implementation
period to be acceptable. In this instance,
EPA considered the visibility
improvement at Class I areas in
Kentucky and affected nearby states, the
time necessary for compliance, the cost
of compliance, and available reasonable
controls, and EPA’s belief that the CAIR
requirements reflected the most costeffective controls that can be achieved
over the CAIR SO2 compliance
timeframe, which spans out to 2015 and
overlaps most of the first regional haze
implementation period. However, as
explained in section IV of this action,
the Commonwealth’s demonstration
regarding CAIR and reasonable progress
for EGUs, and other provisions in this
SIP revision, are based on CAIR and
thus, the Agency proposes today to
issue a limited approval and a limited
disapproval of the Commonwealth’s
regional haze SIP revision.
6. BART
BART is an element of Kentucky’s
LTS for the first implementation period.
The BART evaluation process consists
of three components: (a) An
identification of all the BART-eligible
sources, (b) an assessment of whether
the BART-eligible sources are subject to
BART, and (c) a determination of the
BART controls. These components, as
addressed by KYDAQ and KYDAQ’s
findings, are discussed as follows.
A. BART-Eligible Sources
The first phase of a BART evaluation
is to identify all the BART-eligible
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78207
sources within the state’s boundaries.
KYDAQ identified the BART-eligible
sources in Kentucky by utilizing the
three eligibility criteria in the BART
Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s
regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or
more emissions units at the facility fit
within one of the 26 categories listed in
the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions
units were not in operation prior to
August 7, 1962, and were in existence
on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units
have the potential to emit 250 tons or
more per year of any visibility-impairing
pollutant.
The BART Guidelines also direct
states to address SO2, NOX and direct
PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5)
emissions as visibility-impairment
pollutants, and to exercise judgment in
determining whether VOC or ammonia
emissions from a source impair
visibility in an area. 70 FR 39160.
VISTAS modeling demonstrated that
VOC from anthropogenic sources and
ammonia from point sources are not
significant visibility-impairing
pollutants in Kentucky, as discussed in
section V.C.3 of this action. KYDAQ has
determined, based on the VISTAS
modeling, that ammonia emissions from
the Commonwealth’s point sources are
not anticipated to cause or contribute
significantly to any impairment of
visibility in Class I areas and should be
exempt for BART purposes.
B. BART-Subject Sources
The second phase of the BART
evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any Class I area,
i.e., those sources that are subject to
BART. The BART Guidelines allow
states to consider exempting some
BART-eligible sources from further
BART review because they may not
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area. Consistent with the
BART Guidelines, Kentucky required
each of its BART-eligible sources to
develop and submit dispersion
modeling to assess the extent of their
contribution to visibility impairment at
surrounding Class I areas.
1. Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines allow states to
use the CALPUFF 13 modeling system
13 Note that our reference to CALPUFF
encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system,
which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post
processors. The different versions of CALPUFF
have corresponding versions of CALMET,
CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
Continued
16DEP1
78208
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(CALPUFF) or another appropriate
model to predict the visibility impacts
from a single source on a Class I area,
and therefore, to determine whether an
individual source is anticipated to cause
or contribute to impairment of visibility
in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to
BART.’’ The Guidelines state that EPA
believes that CALPUFF is the best
regulatory modeling application
currently available for predicting a
single source’s contribution to visibility
impairment (70 FR 39162). Kentucky, in
coordination with VISTAS, used the
CALPUFF modeling system to
determine whether individual sources
in Kentucky were subject to or exempt
from BART.
The BART Guidelines also
recommend that states develop a
modeling protocol for making
individual source attributions and
suggest that states may want to consult
with EPA and their RPO to address any
issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS
states, including Kentucky, developed a
‘‘Protocol for the Application of
CALPUFF for BART Analyses.’’
Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs,
industrial sources, trade groups, and
other interested parties, actively
participated in the development and
review of the VISTAS protocol.
VISTAS developed a post-processing
approach to use the new IMPROVE
equation with the CALPUFF model
results so that the BART analyses could
consider both the old and new
IMPROVE equations. KYDAQ sent a
letter to EPA justifying the need for this
post-processing approach, and the EPA
Region 4 Regional Administrator sent
the Commonwealth a letter of approval
dated January 17, 2008. Kentucky’s
justification included a method to
process the CALPUFF output and a
rationale on the benefits of using the
new IMPROVE equation. The
Commonwealth and Region 4 letters are
located in Appendix L.9 of the June 25,
2008, Kentucky regional haze SIP
submittal and can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID
No. EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0783.
2. Contribution Threshold
For states using modeling to
determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines
note that the first step is to set a
contribution threshold to assess whether
the impact of a single source is
previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer
version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions
of the CALPUFF modeling system are available
from the model developer on the following Web
site: https://www.src.com/verio/download/
download.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
sufficient to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at a Class I area.
The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘A
single source that is responsible for a 1.0
deciview change or more should be
considered to ‘cause’ visibility
impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines
also state that ‘‘the appropriate
threshold for determining whether a
source ‘contributes to visibility
impairment’ may reasonably differ
across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general
matter, any threshold that you use for
determining whether a source
‘contributes’ to visibility impairment
should not be higher than 0.5
deciviews.’’ The Guidelines affirm that
states are free to use a lower threshold
if they conclude that the location of a
large number of BART-eligible sources
in proximity of a Class I area justifies
this approach.
Kentucky used a contribution
threshold of 0.5 deciview for
determining which sources are subject
to BART. Kentucky concluded that,
considering the results of the visibility
impacts modeling conducted, a 0.5
deciview threshold was appropriate and
a lower threshold was not warranted
since the majority of the visibility
impacts were well below 0.5 deciview
and the sources are distributed across
the Commonwealth. Also, even though
several sources impacted each Class I
area, the overall visibility impacts were
low from the sources. As stated in the
BART Guidelines, where a state
concludes that a large number of these
BART-eligible sources within proximity
of a Class I area justify a lower
threshold, it may warrant establishing a
lower contribution threshold. See 70 FR
39161–39162 (July 6, 2005). EPA is
proposing to agree with Kentucky that
the overall impacts of these sources are
not sufficient to warrant a lower
contribution threshold and that a 0.5
deciview threshold was appropriate in
this instance.
3. Identification of Sources Subject to
BART
Kentucky initially identified 31
facilities with BART-eligible sources.
The Commonwealth subsequently
determined that five of these sources are
exempt from being considered BARTeligible. Arkema requested and KYDAQ
established an enforceable permit
emission limit (title V permit number V
04–044, (R–02) as revised January 11,
2007), to limit its potential to emit to
lower than 250 tons per year of any
pollutant and thus, the source no longer
meets the BART eligibility criteria. E.I.
Dupont Inc, Cc Metals & Alloys Inc.,
and ISP Chemicals Inc., submitted
information, which KYDAQ
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
corroborated, documenting that the
facilities did not meet the BART
eligibility criteria discussed in section
V.C.6.A. Kingsford Manufacturing Co.
provided documentation that the unit
that was BART-eligible had been
reconstructed in 2002 (consistent with
EPA’s definition of ‘‘reconstruction’’ in
40 CFR 51.301) and was subject to a
Best Available Control Technology
Analysis at that time. (EPA’s BART
Guidelines address reconstructed
sources in the context of BART
eligibility on pages 70 FR 39159–39160.)
Table 5 identifies the remaining 26
BART-eligible sources located in
Kentucky, and of these, lists the five
sources subject to BART.
TABLE 5—KENTUCKY BART-ELIGIBLE
AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART
Analysis
AEP Big Sandy Plant.
E.ON U.S Mill Creek Station.
EKPC Cooper Station.
EKPC Spurlock Station.
TVA Paradise Plant.
Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to
BART
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only)
Exempt Sources:14
Duke Energy East Bend Station.
E.ON U.S. Brown Station.
E.ON U.S. Cane Run Station.
E.ON U.S. Ghent Station.
Henderson Power and Light.
Owensboro Municipal Utilities.
Western Kentucky Energy Coleman Station.
Western Kentucky Energy Green Station.
Western Kentucky Energy Reid/Henderson
Station.
Non-EGU BART Modeling.
AK Steel Corporation—Coke Manufacturing Plant.
AK Steel Corporation—Steel Plant.
Alcan Primary Products Corporation.
Arch Chemicals Inc.
Calgon Carbon Corporation.
Century Aluminum.
Commonwealth Aluminum Lewisport LLC.
Marathon Petroleum Company Refinery.
Martin County Coal Corporation.
NewPage Corporation Wickliffe Paper
Company.
Pinnacle Processing Inc.
Westlake Vinyls Inc.
All 12 of the non-EGU sources
demonstrated that they are exempt from
being subject to BART by modeling less
14 EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions.
The Commonwealth relied on CAIR to satisfy BART
for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs subject to CAIR, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2
and NOX were not analyzed.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
than a 0.5 deciview visibility impact at
the affected Class I areas. This modeling
involved assessing the visibility impact
of emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM10 as
applicable to individual facilities.
The 14 BART-eligible EGUs relied on
Kentucky’s decision to rely upon CAIR
emission limits for SO2 and NOX to
satisfy their obligation to comply with
BART requirements in accordance with
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, EGU
sources only modeled PM10 emissions.
Nine of the 14 EGUs demonstrated that
their PM10 emissions do not contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I
area. Modeling for five of the 14 EGUs
demonstrated that their PM10 emissions
exceeded the 0.5 deciview contribution
threshold and thus, required a BART
analysis. The five sources found subject
to BART are EGUs that are subject to
BART because of the modeled impacts
on visibility of their inorganic
condensable particulate emissions (i.e.,
sulfite (SO3)/sulfuric acid (H2SO4)).
These BART-subject sources were
required to complete BART
determination modeling, which
included an analysis of the five CAA
BART factors, to determine appropriate
BART controls for PM.
Prior to the CAIR remand, the
Commonwealth’s reliance on CAIR to
satisfy BART for NOX and SO2 for
affected CAIR EGUs was fully
approvable and in accordance with 40
CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, as explained
in section IV of this action, the BART
assessments for CAIR EGUs for NOX and
SO2 and other provisions in the regional
haze SIP revision are based on CAIR,
and thus, the Agency proposes today to
issue a limited approval and a limited
disapproval of the Commonwealth’s
regional haze SIP revision.
C. BART Determinations
Five BART-eligible EGU sources (i.e.,
AEP Big Sandy Plant, E.ON U.S Mill
Creek Station, EKPC Cooper Station,
EKPC Spurlock Station, and TVA
Paradise Plant) had modeled visibility
impacts of more than the 0.5 deciview
threshold for BART exemption. These
five facilities are therefore considered to
be subject to BART. Consequently, they
each submitted permit applications to
the Commonwealth that included their
proposed BART determinations.
In accordance with the BART
Guidelines, to determine the level of
control that represents BART for each
source, the Commonwealth first
reviewed existing controls on these
units to assess whether these
constituted the best controls currently
available, then identified what other
technically feasible controls are
available, and finally, evaluated the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
technically feasible controls using the
five BART statutory factors. The
Commonwealth’s evaluations and
conclusions, and EPA’s assessment, are
summarized below.
1. AEP Big Sandy Plant
AEP Big Sandy plant is a coal-fired
power station located near Louisa,
Kentucky, with two EGUs, units 1 and
2, with nominal generating capacities of
281 and 816 MW, respectively. KYDAQ
determined that units 1 and 2 and an
auxiliary boiler are BART-eligible
sources. Subsequently, the auxiliary
boiler at the Big Sandy Plant was
removed from the analysis since it is
only operated for short periods of time
during startup operations and for
periodic mandated emissions tests that
cannot be coordinated with startup
operations, as confirmed in AEP’s BART
submittal to Kentucky. AEP performed a
full analysis of BART for particulates,
with its primary focus on the
condensable fraction due to the minimal
impact from the primary particulates
since both units are currently equipped
with electrostatic precipitators (ESPs)
for primary particulate control.
AEP evaluated five combinations of
condensable particulate control options
for the two units. For unit 1, AEP only
considered injecting ammonia or
injecting trona, a mineral composed
primarily of sodium and carbonate, for
the reduction of inorganic condensables.
For unit 2, AEP considered injecting
ammonia, injecting trona, or installing a
wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
system. AEP determined that unit 1 was
not a viable candidate for installation of
a wet FGD system due to its age. This
unit will be 50 years old in 2013. While
a specific retirement date has not yet
been established for this unit, the
likelihood of this unit continuing
operations in its present form for 15 to
20 years is low.15 Unit 2 is currently
expected to run until at least the 2033–
2035 timeframe, so retrofit controls are
considered a viable option for this unit.
In addition, AEP determined that the
options involving injecting trona on
either unit at the Big Sandy Plant were
technically infeasible. Based on the
experience of AEP at units where
sorbents are injected for the reduction of
inorganic condensables, the presently
installed ESPs at both Big Sandy units
are unsuitable for trona injection.
For AEP Big Sandy Plant units 1 and
2, the company agreed to install
ammonia injection controls on unit 1
15 On June 9, 2011, AEP announced that Big
Sandy unit 1 would be retired by December 31,
2014, and rebuilt as a natural gas-fired plant by
December 31, 2015.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78209
and a FGD on unit 2. KYDAQ reviewed
the source’s BART modeling
determination, the available data, and
considering the statutory factors,
KYDAQ has determined that the
controls proposed by AEP are
reasonable and appropriate for
addressing condensable particulates and
their impacts on nearby Class I areas.
2. E.ON U.S. Mill Creek Station
E.ON U.S. Mill Creek Station consists
of four pulverized coal-fired boilers,
combusting high sulfur bituminous coal.
The source evaluated installing a pulse
jet fabric filter (PJFF) to increase
primary particulate control and sorbent
injection and a wet ESP to improve SO3/
H2SO4 control. The existing cold-side
ESPs at all four units at the Mill Creek
Station are already demonstrating high
removal efficiencies of 99 percent and
all four units are already equipped with
wet FGD systems for SO2 removal,
limiting the additional available options
for SO3 condensable particulate control.
The incremental cost effectiveness of
PJFF and a wet ESP ranged from
$20,380 to $52,190 per ton of PM
reduced and these options were not
considered further. Sorbent injection
was more cost effective, ranging from
$4,293 to $5,017 per ton of PM reduced.
As indicated in the September 24, 2007,
E.ON U.S. Mill Creek proposed BART
determination submittal to KYDAQ, the
average cost effectiveness for installing
sorbent controls on all four Mill Creek
units is about the same as that for only
units 3 and 4 (an estimated $5.1 million
per deciview). However, sorbent
injection at all four units would require
an additional total capital investment of
$8.8 million above the $10.5 million
total capital investment for controls
only on the larger units 3 and 4, and the
BART modeling demonstrated that
controlling units 3 and 4 alone can
achieve an estimated 70 percent of the
total deciview improvement that would
result from controlling all four units
(0.85 deciview for controlling units 3
and 4 compared to 1.18 deciviews from
controlling all four units). After
completing the BART analysis for PM,
E.ON U.S. therefore recommended
sorbent injection for the reduction of
SO3 emissions in the flue gas for units
3 and 4. The control scenario also
included continued utilization of the
existing ESPs to control PM emissions.
Given the extra cost for the lesser
additional deciview improvement for
units 1 and 2 (approximately $8.8
million for an additional 0.3 deciview
improvement), KYDAQ agreed that
BART for PM for the Mill Creek Station
is the installation of sorbent injection
controls on the larger units 3 and 4.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
78210
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
In its May 28, 2010, amendment to its
June 25, 2008, regional haze SIP
submittal, Kentucky modified the
emission limits for E.ON U.S. Mill Creek
units 3 and 4. This change modifies the
SIP and the BART title V permit
emission limits to 64.3 pounds per hour
(lb/hr) and 76.5 lb/hr, respectively, for
H2SO4 in place of a 0.015 lb/million
British Thermal Units per hour
(MMBtu/hr) limit. This change was
made for the E.ON U.S. Mill Creek
facility because the company clarified
that the 0.015 lb/MMBtu limits in its
September 24, 2007, submittal to
KYDAQ were converted to lb/MMBtu
values in the submittal for illustrative
purposes only and were not intended to
be included in the SIP. The lb/hr values
were the primary model input values
utilized in the CALPUFF modeling and
thus, Kentucky agreed that these values
are appropriate for incorporation into
Mill Creek Station’s title V permit.
3. EKPC Cooper Station and Spurlock
Station
EKPC operates two pulverized coalfired EGUs at Cooper Station with
maximum rated heat inputs of 1,080 and
2,089 MMBtu/hr and two pulverized
coal-fired EGUs at Spurlock Station
with maximum rated heat inputs of
3,500 and 4,850 MMBtu/hr. EKPC
evaluated fabric filtration and an ESP
with and without FGD for PM. Since the
company agreed to install the most
stringent option at both facilities, it did
not further develop the BART five-factor
control analysis. Per a consent decree
and for BART, EKPC agreed to install a
wet FGD and a wet ESP at EKPC
Spurlock units 1 and 2 and also at
Cooper units 1 and 2 that will address
condensable particulate emissions and
other visibility-impairing pollutants. A
July 2, 2007, EKPC consent decree
provides a filterable PM emission rate of
0.030 lb/MMBtu, which was utilized to
demonstrate modeled visibility
improvement.
In the May 28, 2010, amendment to its
June 25, 2008, regional haze SIP
submittal, Kentucky modified the
requirements for Cooper Station units 1
and 2 in response to a March 18, 2009,
request from EKPC. EKPC submitted
revised BART determination modeling
that substituted dry FGD and PJFF
emission controls for the wet FGD and
wet ESP controls. EKPC determined that
the use of a dry FGD system combined
with a PJFF for Cooper units 1 and 2
meets or exceeds the performance of the
wet FGD/wet ESP system previously
proposed as BART. The anticipated total
PM emission control achieved by the
dry FGD/PJFF control train is higher
than the previously approved wet FGD/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
wet ESP, and the predicted PM visibility
impacts are comparable. Accordingly,
EKPC submitted a revised BART
analysis in support of its request that
KYDAQ amend the regional haze SIP to
allow for the substitution of the dry
FGD/PJFF control train in place of the
wet FGD/wet ESP. KYDAQ concurred
with EKPC’s request. There is no change
in the BART emission limits for EKPC.
4. TVA Paradise Plant
The TVA Paradise Fossil Plant,
located in Muhlenberg County,
Kentucky, has three cyclone steam
generators burning pulverized coal that
are considered subject to BART. Units 1
and 2 are nominally rated at
approximately 704 MW each, and unit
3 is nominally rated at approximately
1,150 MW. Units 1 and 2 use wet
venturi scrubbers to control PM
emissions, and unit 3 uses an ESP.
Because all three units at TVA
Paradise are subject to CAIR, the BART
analysis only considers PM10 emissions.
The modeling analysis also
demonstrates that approximately 90
percent of the visibility impacts at the
affected Class I areas can be attributed
to condensable PM10 emissions (i.e.,
SO3/H2SO4). Thus, the engineering
evaluation for TVA Paradise focused on
control of SO3/H2SO4 emissions. The
total capital investment for a wet ESP
ranges from about $100 million for unit
1 or 2 to almost $156 million for unit
3. Total annual costs range from about
$29 million to $44 million per year. The
corresponding total cost effectiveness
ranges from $27,594 to $39,263 per ton
of SO3/H2SO4. TVA determined that a
wet ESP is economically infeasible for
TVA Paradise and should, therefore, be
eliminated from consideration as a basis
for BART. The total capital investment
for hydrated lime injection ranges from
$4.2 million for unit 1 or 2 to $8.4
million for unit 3. Total annual costs
range from about $2.3 million to $4.4
million per year. The corresponding
cost effectiveness ranges from $3,265 to
$6,776 per ton of SO3/H2SO4. Although
considerably less expensive than a wet
ESP, TVA considered the cost
effectiveness values for lime injection as
still too high to be considered as an
acceptable cost of compliance for BART.
However, TVA plans to install lime
injection on all three units at TVA
Paradise to mitigate stack opacity. These
controls are already required to be in
place.16
16 On December 15, 2009, KYDAQ issued permit
#V–07–01 8 R 1 pursuant to Kentucky’s
Administrative Regulations (KAR) at 401 KAR
52:020 (title V regulations). The December 15, 2009,
permit incorporated the requirement for the
installation of pollution controls for the reduction
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Since TVA had previously indicated
to KYDAQ its plans to install hydrated
lime injection controls on TVA Paradise
units 1–3 to mitigate opacity due to SO3
emissions and that additional controls
are not cost-effective at this time,
KYDAQ has determined BART to be no
additional control for TVA Paradise
units 1–3 since the hydrated lime
injection controls for TVA Paradise
units 1–3 are already required as a
Federally enforceable provision of the
SIP, will achieve the reduction in
visibility impacts listed in the Kentucky
regional haze SIP, and are now included
in TVA Paradise’s title V permit.
Specifically, the schedule for the
installation of hydrated lime injection
controls for TVA Paradise units 1–3
required construction to begin in mid2009 on unit 3 with construction for
unit 1 and 2 to follow; and for controls
to be operating on all three TVA
Paradise units possibly by the fall of
2010. For these reasons, KYDAQ chose
to concur with the TVA Paradise plant
BART assessment and concluded that
BART is no additional control.
5. EPA Assessment
EPA agrees with Kentucky’s analyses
and conclusions for these five BARTsubject EGU sources described above:
AEP Big Sandy Plant, E.ON U.S Mill
Creek Station, EKPC Cooper Station,
EKPC Spurlock Station, and TVA
Paradise Plant. EPA has reviewed the
Commonwealth’s analyses and
concluded they were conducted in a
manner that is consistent with EPA’s
BART Guidelines and EPA’s Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual (https://
www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/
products.html#cccinfo). With regard to
AEP’s decision not to evaluate
installation of a wet FGD on unit 1
because of its age, EPA would generally
not rely on an assertion that the unit
would shut down without a legally
enforceable condition requiring
shutdown of the unit at issue. Also, as
the unit has now established a firm date
for closure and a decision has been
made to repower the unit to burn
natural gas, requiring additional
analysis would not likely change the
conclusions of the BART analysis.
Therefore, the conclusions reflect a
reasonable application of EPA’s
guidance to these sources.
Prior to the CAIR remand, EPA
believed the Commonwealth’s
demonstration that CAIR satisfies BART
for SO2 and NOX for affected EGUs for
the first implementation period to be
approvable and in accordance with 40
of sulfuric acid mist at the TVA Paradise Fossil Fuel
Plant.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, as explained
in section IV of this action, the
Commonwealth’s demonstration
regarding CAIR and BART for EGUs,
and other provisions in its regional haze
SIP revision, are based on CAIR and
thus, the Agency proposes today to
issue a limited approval and a limited
disapproval of the Commonwealth’s
regional haze SIP revision.
6. Enforceability of Limits
The BART determinations for each of
the facilities discussed above and the
resulting emission limits are adopted by
Kentucky into the Commonwealth’s
regional haze SIP submittal, in consent
decrees, and will be included in the
facilities’ title V permits as follows:
AEP Big Sandy unit 1 and unit 2 will
install ammonia injection controls on
unit 1 and a FGD on unit 2. Inorganic
condensable particulate emission limits
(modeled as sulfates) will be limited to
101.0 lb/hr H2SO4 and 127.0 lb/hr
H2SO4. Emission limits and controls
will be included in the source’s title V
permit as appropriate or on renewal.
Compliance is to be as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after EPA approves Kentucky’s regional
haze SIP.
E.ON U.S. Mill Creek will install
sorbent injection controls on unit 3 and
unit 4 to control SO3 emissions and will
continue to utilize existing ESPs to
control PM emissions for units 1
through 4. Inorganic condensable
particulate emission limits (modeled as
sulfates) are 64.3 lb/hr H2SO4 and 76.5
lb/hr H2SO4. Emission limits and
controls will be included in the source’s
title V permit as appropriate or on
renewal. Compliance shall be as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than five years after EPA approves
Kentucky’s regional haze SIP.
EKPC will install wet FGD and wet
ESP on Spurlock units 1 and 2 and a dry
FGD and fabric filtration on Cooper
units 1 and 2. A July 2, 2007, EKPC
consent decree provides for a filterable
PM emission rate of 0.030 lb/MMBtu,
which was utilized to demonstrate
modeled visibility improvement.
Emission limits and controls will be
included in the source’s title V permit
as appropriate or on renewal.
Compliance will be as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after EPA approves Kentucky’s regional
haze SIP.
Although not for BART, TVA
previously indicated to KYDAQ its
plans to install hydrated lime injection
controls on TVA Paradise units 1–3 to
mitigate opacity due to SO3 emissions.
TVA has incorporated the requirement
for SO3 controls for Paradise Units 1–3
in its title V permit #V–07–01 8 R 1
issued December 15, 2009. In its
proposed BART determination
submittal to Kentucky, TVA noted its
expectation to have hydrated lime
injection controls operating on all three
TVA Paradise units by the fall of 2010.
7. RPGs
The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
requires states to establish RPGs for
each Class I area within the state
(expressed in deciviews) that provide
for reasonable progress towards
achieving natural visibility. VISTAS
modeled visibility improvements under
existing Federal and state regulations for
the period 2004–2018, and additional
control measures which the VISTAS
states planned to implement in the first
implementation period. At the time of
VISTAS modeling, some of the other
78211
states with sources potentially
impacting visibility at the Kentucky
Class I area had not yet made final
control determinations for BART and/or
reasonable progress, and thus, these
controls were not included in the
modeling submitted by Kentucky. Any
controls resulting from those
determinations will provide additional
emissions reductions and resulting
visibility improvement, which give
further assurances that Kentucky will
achieve its RPGs. This modeling
demonstrates that the 2018 base control
scenario provides for an improvement
in visibility better than the uniform rate
of progress for the Kentucky Class I area
for the most impaired days over the
period of the implementation plan and
ensures no degradation in visibility for
the least impaired days over the same
period.
As shown in Table 6 below,
Kentucky’s 2018 RPG for the 20 percent
worst days provides greater visibility
improvement by 2018 than the uniform
rate of progress for the Commonwealth’s
Class I area (i.e., 26.64 deciviews in
2018). Also, the RPG for the 20 percent
best days provides greater visibility
improvement by 2018 than current best
day conditions. The modeling
supporting the analysis of these RPGs is
consistent with EPA guidance prior to
the CAIR remand. The regional haze
provisions specify that a state may not
adopt a RPG that represents less
visibility improvement than is expected
to result from other CAA requirements
during the implementation period. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the
CAIR states with Class I areas, like
Kentucky, took into account emissions
reductions anticipated from CAIR in
determining their 2018 RPGs.17
TABLE 6—KENTUCKY 2018 RPGS
[In deciviews]
Baseline
visibility—20%
worst days
Class I area
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Mammoth Cave National Park .........................
2018 RPG—20%
worst days (improvement from
baseline)
31.37
25.56 (5.81)
Uniform rate of
progress at
2018—20%
worst days
(improvement
from baseline)
Baseline
visibility—20%
best days
26.64 (4.73)
The RPGs for the Class I area in
Kentucky are based on modeled
projections of future conditions that
were developed using the best available
information at the time the analysis was
done. These projections can be expected
to change as additional information
regarding future conditions becomes
17 Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas
similarly relied on CAIR emission reductions
within the state to address some or all of their
contribution to visibility impairment in other states’
Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area
state(s) used to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s).
16.51
Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on
reductions due to CAIR in nearby states to develop
their regional haze SIP submittals.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2018 RPG—
20% best days
(improvement
from baseline)
15.57 (0.94)
available. For example, new sources
may be built, existing sources may shut
down or modify production in response
to changed economic circumstances,
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78212
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and facilities may change their emission
characteristics as they install control
equipment to comply with new rules. It
would be both impractical and resourceintensive to require a state to
continually revise its RPGs every time
an event affecting these future
projections changed.
EPA recognized the problems of a
rigid requirement to meet a long-term
goal based on modeled projections of
future visibility conditions, and
addressed the uncertainties associated
with RPGs in several ways. EPA made
clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a
mandatory standard which must be
achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR
at 35733. At the same time, EPA
established a requirement for a
midcourse review and, if necessary,
correction of the states’ regional haze
plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In
particular, the RHR calls for a five-year
progress review after submittal of the
initial regional haze plan. The purpose
of this progress review is to assess the
effectiveness of emission management
strategies in meeting the RPG and to
provide an assessment of whether
current implementation strategies are
sufficient for the state or affected states
to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes,
based on its assessment, that the RPGs
for a Class I area will not be met, the
RHR requires the state to take
appropriate action. See 40 CFR
52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate
action will depend on the basis for the
state’s conclusion that the current
strategies are insufficient to meet the
RPGs. Kentucky specifically committed
to follow this process in the LTS portion
of its submittal.
EPA anticipates that the Transport
Rule will result in similar or better
improvements in visibility than
predicted from CAIR. EPA has not yet
assessed how the Transport Rule will
affect any individual Class I area and
has not modeled future conditions
based on its implementation. By the
time Kentucky is required to undertake
its five-year progress review, however, it
is likely that the impact of the Transport
Rule and other measures on visibility
can be meaningfully assessed. If, in
particular Class I areas, the Transport
Rule does not provide similar or greater
benefits than CAIR and meeting the
RPGs at its Class I Federal area is in
jeopardy, the Commonwealth will be
required to address this circumstance in
its five-year review. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to approve Kentucky’s RPGs
for the Mammoth Cave National Park.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional
Haze Requirements
EPA’s visibility regulations direct
states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and
monitoring provisions with those for
regional haze, as explained in sections
III.F and III.G of this action. Under
EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI
portion of a state SIP must address any
integral vistas identified by the FLMs
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a
‘‘view perceived from within the
mandatory Class I Federal area of a
specific landmark or panorama located
outside the boundary of the mandatory
Class I Federal area.’’ Visibility in any
mandatory Class I Federal area includes
any integral vista associated with that
area. The FLMs did not identify any
integral vistas in Kentucky. In addition,
the Class I area in Kentucky is neither
experiencing RAVI, nor are any of its
sources affected by the RAVI provisions.
Thus, the June 25, 2008, Kentucky
regional haze SIP submittal does not
explicitly address the two requirements
regarding coordination of the regional
haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring
provisions. However, Kentucky
previously made a commitment to
address RAVI should the FLM certify
visibility impairment from an
individual source.18 EPA finds that this
regional haze submittal appropriately
supplements and augments Kentucky’s
RAVI visibility provisions to address
regional haze by updating the
monitoring and LTS provisions as
summarized below in this section.
In the June 25, 2008, submittal,
KYDAQ updated its visibility
monitoring program and developed a
LTS to address regional haze. Also in
this submittal, KYDAQ affirmed its
commitment to complete items required
in the future under EPA’s RHR.
Specifically, KYDAQ made a
commitment to review and revise its
regional haze implementation plan and
submit a plan revision to EPA by July
31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance
with the requirements listed in 40 CFR
51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze
regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the
RAVI LTS regulations, KYDAQ made a
commitment to submit a report to EPA
on progress towards the RPGs for each
18 The Kentucky visibility SIP revisions to
address Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) provisions were submitted to EPA on
February 20, 1986, and approved by EPA September
1, 1989 (54 FR 36311). The Commonwealth’s
visibility plan provisions were submitted on August
31, 1987, and approved July 12, 1988 (53 FR 26256).
The nonattainment NSR provisions were submitted
July 14, 2004, and approved July 11, 2006 (71 FR
38990).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
mandatory Class I area located within
Kentucky and in each mandatory Class
I area located outside Kentucky which
may be affected by emissions from
within Kentucky. The progress report is
required to be in the form of a SIP
revision and is due every five years
following the initial submittal of the
regional haze SIP. Consistent with
EPA’s monitoring regulations for RAVI
and regional haze, Kentucky will rely on
the IMPROVE network for compliance
purposes, in addition to any RAVI
monitoring that may be needed in the
future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4). Also, the Kentucky new
source review (NSR) rules, previously
approved in the Commonwealth’s SIP,
continue to provide a framework for
review and coordination with the FLMs
on new sources which may have an
adverse impact on visibility in either
form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze) in
any Class I Federal area. The Kentucky
SIP contains a plan addressing the
associated monitoring and reporting
requirements. See 53 FR 26256 (July 12,
1988). Although EPA’s approval of this
plan neglected to remove the Federally
promulgated provisions set forth in 40
CFR 52.936, EPA intends to correct this
omission in a separate future
rulemaking.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
The primary monitoring network for
regional haze in Kentucky is the
IMPROVE network. As discussed in
section V.B.2 of this action, there is
currently one IMPROVE site in
Kentucky, which serves as the
monitoring site for Mammoth Cave
National Park in Kentucky.
IMPROVE monitoring data from
2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the
regional haze program, and is relied
upon in the Kentucky regional haze
submittal. In the submittal, Kentucky
states its intention to rely on the
IMPROVE network for complying with
the regional haze monitoring
requirement in EPA’s RHR for the
current and future regional haze
implementation periods.
Data produced by the IMPROVE
monitoring network will be used nearly
continuously for preparing the five-year
progress reports and the 10-year SIP
revisions, each of which relies on
analysis of the preceding five years of
data. The Visibility Information
Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web
site has been maintained by VISTAS
and the other RPOs to provide ready
access to the IMPROVE data and data
analysis tools. Kentucky is encouraging
VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain
the VIEWS or a similar data
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
management system to facilitate
analysis of the IMPROVE data.
In addition to the IMPROVE
measurements, the FLMs perform longterm limited monitoring that provides
additional insight into progress toward
regional haze goals. Such measurements
include web cameras operated by the
National Park Service at Mammoth Cave
National Park. Also, Kentucky and the
local air agencies in the Commonwealth
operate a comprehensive PM2.5 network
of filter-based Federal reference method
monitors, continuous mass monitors,
and filter-based speciated monitors.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
In December 2006 and in May 2007,
the State Air Directors from the VISTAS
states held formal interstate
consultation meetings. The purpose of
the meetings was to discuss the
methodology proposed by VISTAS for
identifying sources to evaluate for
reasonable progress. The states invited
FLM and EPA representatives to
participate and to provide additional
feedback. The Directors discussed the
results of analyses showing
contributions to visibility impairment
from states to each of the Class I areas
in the VISTAS region.
KYDAQ has evaluated the impact of
sources on Class I areas in neighboring
states. The state in which a Class I area
is located is responsible for determining
which sources, both inside and outside
of that state, to evaluate for reasonable
progress controls. Because many of
these states had not yet defined their
criteria for identifying sources to
evaluate for reasonable progress,
KYDAQ applied its AOI methodology to
identify sources in the Commonwealth
that have emissions units with impacts
large enough to potentially warrant
further evaluation and analysis. The
Commonwealth identified no emissions
units in Kentucky with a contribution of
one percent or more to the visibility
impairment at Class I areas in
neighboring states. Additionally,
KYDAQ sent letters to the other states
in the VISTAS region documenting its
analysis using the Commonwealth’s AOI
methodology that no SO2 emissions
units in Kentucky contribute at least one
percent to the visibility impairment at
the Class I areas in those states. The
documentation for these formal
consultations is provided in Appendix J
of Kentucky’s SIP.
Regarding the impact of sources
outside of the Commonwealth on the
Class I area in Kentucky, KYDAQ sent
letters to Indiana and Tennessee
pertaining to emissions units within
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
these states that the Commonwealth
believes contributed one percent or
higher to visibility impairment in the
Kentucky Class I area. Kentucky
identified six EGUs in Indiana and two
EGUs in Tennessee as meeting its SO2
AOI contribution threshold. Because the
eight EGUs in these states are subject to
CAIR, and Mammoth Cave National
Park is projected to exceed the uniform
rate of progress during the first
implementation period, KYDAQ opted
not to request any additional emissions
reductions for reasonable progress for
this implementation period.
Additionally, at that time, these
neighboring states were still in the
process of evaluating BART and
reasonable progress for their sources.
Any controls resulting from those
determinations will provide additional
emissions reductions and resulting
visibility improvement, which gives
further assurances that Kentucky will
achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be
conservative, Kentucky opted not to rely
on any additional emissions reductions
from sources located outside the
Commonwealth’s boundaries beyond
those already identified in Kentucky’s
regional haze SIP submittal and as
discussed in section V.C.1 (Federal and
state controls in place by 2018) of this
action.
Kentucky received letters from the
MANE–VU RPO States of Maine, New
Jersey, New Hampshire, and Vermont in
the spring of 2007, stating that based on
MANE–VU’s analysis of 2002 emissions
data, Kentucky contributed to visibility
impairment to Class I areas in those
states. The MANE–VU states identified
14 EGU stacks in Kentucky that they
would like to see controlled to 90
percent efficiency for SO2. They also
requested a control strategy to provide
a 28 percent reduction in SO2 emissions
from sources other than EGUs that
would be equivalent to MANE–VU’s
proposed low sulfur fuel oil strategy. Of
the 14 Kentucky EGUs identified by
MANE–VU, 93 percent of those sources
have existing SO2 controls or will have
SO2 controls by 2015 or sooner. KYDAQ
believes that these emissions reductions
satisfy MANE–VU’s request.
EPA finds that Kentucky has
adequately addressed the consultation
requirements in the RHR and
appropriately documented its
consultation with other states in its SIP
submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
Through the VISTAS RPO, Kentucky
and the nine other member states
worked extensively with the FLMs from
the U.S. Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture to develop technical
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78213
analyses that support the regional haze
SIPs for the VISTAS states. The
proposed regional haze plan for
Kentucky was out for public comment
during the March to April 2008 time
period. KYDAQ also provided a draft
plan dated December 17, 2007, to the
FLMs (and EPA) for review. Appendix
N of the Kentucky regional haze SIP
submittal includes the comment letters
from the FLMs, which indicate that the
FLMs appear to be generally supportive
of the Commonwealth’s regional haze
SIP, and were pleased with the
technical information summarized in
the regional haze SIP narrative. The
FLM comments mainly suggested that
Kentucky insert language to further
expand and/or clarify certain
information. For example, the FLMs
requested that KYDAQ discuss the
linkage between the LTS and the
Commonwealth’s NSR/PSD program in
the SIP narrative. Additionally, the
FLMs asked KYDAQ to reiterate
statements in the appendices regarding
the conclusions of interstate
consultation discussions in the SIP
narrative. The FLMs also suggested that
emission inventory data from 2002 in
the SIP narrative be put with the
projection data for 2009 and 2018 to aid
the reader with understanding the
anticipated effects of Kentucky’s LTS.
To address the requirement for
continuing consultation procedures
with the FLMs under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), KYDAQ made a
commitment in the SIP to ongoing
consultation with the FLMs on regional
haze issues throughout implementation
of its plan, including annual
discussions. KYDAQ also affirms in the
SIP that FLM consultation is required
for those sources subject to the
Commonwealth’s NSR regulations.
G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
As also summarized in section V.D of
this action, consistent with 40 CFR
51.308(g), KYDAQ affirmed its
commitment to submitting a progress
report in the form of a SIP revision to
EPA every five years following this
initial submittal of the Kentucky
regional haze SIP. The report will
evaluate the progress made towards the
RPGs for the mandatory Class I area
located within Kentucky and in each
mandatory Class I area located outside
Kentucky which may be affected by
emissions from within Kentucky.
Kentucky also offered recommendations
for several technical improvements that,
as funding allows, can support the
Commonwealth’s next LTS. These
recommendations are discussed in
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
78214
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
detail in the Kentucky submittal in
Appendix K.
If another state’s regional haze SIP
identifies that Kentucky’s SIP needs to
be supplemented or modified, and if,
after appropriate consultation Kentucky
agrees, today’s action may be revisited,
or additional information and/or
changes will be addressed in the fiveyear progress report SIP revision.
VI. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing a limited approval
and a limited disapproval of revisions to
the Kentucky SIP submitted by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky on June 25,
2008, and May 28, 2010, as meeting
some of the applicable regional haze
requirements as set forth in sections
169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40
CFR 51.300–308, as described
previously in this action.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ‘‘collections of information’’
by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of
information’’ as a requirement for
answers to * * * identical reporting or
recordkeeping requirements imposed on
ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction
Act does not apply to this action.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The 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 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
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. EPA, 427 U.S.
246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 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 the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Under section
205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 today’s
proposal 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 proposes to approve preexisting 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.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
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
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 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, because it
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.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
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
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12 of the 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.
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 8, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011–32272 Filed 12–15–11; 8:45 am]
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
42 CFR Part 73
[Docket Number CDC–2011–0012]
RIN 0920–AA34
Possession, Use, and Transfer of
Select Agents and Toxins; Biennial
Review; Proposed Rule
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
On October 3, 2011, the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
located within the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
in the Federal Register (76 FR 61206)
requesting public comment on the
appropriateness of the current HHS and
Overlap list of select agents and toxins
including whether there are other agents
or toxins that should be added to the
HHS or Overlap list or whether agents
or toxins currently on the HHS or
Overlap list should be deleted from the
list; the appropriateness of the proposed
tiering of the select agents and toxins
list; whether minimum standards for
personnel reliability, physical and cyber
security should be prescribed for
identified Tier 1 agents; and any other
aspect of the proposed amendments to
the select agent regulations. The
comment period closed on December 2,
2011. Since we would like to allow
interested persons additional time to
prepare and submit comments, we are
reopening the comment period for the
NPRM.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before January 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Regulatory Information
Number (RIN), 0920–AA34 in the
heading of this document by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, Select Agent Program,
1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A–46,
Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Attn: RIN 0920–
AA34.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and RIN
for this rulemaking. All relevant
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
78215
Docket Access: For access to the
docket to read background documents
or comments received or to download
an electronic version of the NPRM, go
to https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments will be available for public
inspection Monday through Friday,
except for legal holidays, from 9 a.m.
until 5 p.m. at 1600 Clifton Road NE.,
Atlanta, GA 30333. Please call ahead to
1–866–694–4867 and ask for a
representative in the Division of Select
Agents and Toxins to schedule your
visit. Our general policy for comments
and other submissions from members of
the public is to make these submissions
available for public viewing on the
Internet as they are received and
without change.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robbin Weyant, Director, Division of
Select Agents and Toxins, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 1600
Clifton Road NE., MS A–46, Atlanta,
Georgia 30333. Telephone: (404) 718–
2000.
On
October 3, 2011, the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC), located within the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (76 FR 61206)
requesting public comment on (1) The
appropriateness of the current HHS and
Overlap list of select agents and toxins
including whether there are other agents
or toxins that should be added to the
HHS or Overlap list or whether agents
or toxins currently on the HHS or
Overlap list should be deleted from the
list; (2) the appropriateness of the
proposed tiering of the select agents and
toxins list; (3) whether minimum
standards for personnel reliability,
physical and cyber security should be
prescribed for identified Tier 1 agents;
and (4) any other aspect of the proposed
amendments to the select agent
regulations. The comment period closed
on December 2, 2011. Since we would
like to allow interested persons
additional time to prepare and submit
comments, we are reopening the
comment period for its NPRM. We will
also consider all comments we receive
between December 2, 2011 and the date
of this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: December 13, 2011.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–32361 Filed 12–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78194-78215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32272]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0783-201034, FRL-9507-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Kentucky; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval
of two revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky through the Kentucky Energy
and Environment Cabinet, Division of Air Quality (KYDAQ), on June 25,
2008, and May 28, 2010, that address regional haze for the first
implementation period. These revisions address the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to
prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness
areas) caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in
Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of these SIP
revisions to implement the regional haze requirements for Kentucky on
the basis that the revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Kentucky SIP.
Also in this action, EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of these
same SIP revisions because of the deficiencies in the Commonwealth's
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) to EPA of
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2009-0783, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0783, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2009-0783.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through
[[Page 78195]]
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson or Michele Notarianni,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Sara
Waterson can be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9061 and by
electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele Notarianni can be
reached at telephone number (404) 562-9031 and by electronic mail at
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation Wth States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is the relationship of CAIR and the transport rule to the
regional haze requirements?
A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
B. Remand of CAIR
C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR
Remand and Promulgation of the Transport Rule
D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval
V. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's regional haze submittal?
A. Affected Class I Area
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants,
Source Categories, and Geographic Areas
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls in Kentucky and Surrounding Areas
5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable
Progress Analysis
6. BART
7. RPGs
D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
2. Consultation With the FLMs
G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
VI. What action is EPA taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing a limited approval of Kentucky's June 25, 2008,
and May 28, 2010, SIP revisions addressing regional haze under CAA
sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) because the revisions as a whole
strengthen the Kentucky SIP. However, the Kentucky SIP relies on CAIR,
an EPA rule, to satisfy key elements of the regional haze requirements.
Due to the remand of CAIR, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC
Cir. 2008), the revisions do not meet all of the applicable
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations as set forth in sections
169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308. As a result, EPA is
concurrently proposing a limited disapproval of Kentucky's SIP
revisions. The revisions nevertheless represent an improvement over the
current SIP, and make considerable progress in fulfilling the
applicable CAA regional haze program requirements. This proposed
rulemaking and the accompanying Technical Support Document\1\ (TSD)
explain the basis for EPA's proposed limited approval and limited
disapproval actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support
Document for Kentucky's Regional Haze Submittal,'' is included in
the public docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing
guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP
submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from
granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Processing of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division
Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni
Memorandum) located at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. The deficiencies that EPA has identified as preventing a
full approval of this SIP revision relate to the status and impact of
CAIR on certain interrelated and required elements of the regional haze
program. At the time the Kentucky regional haze SIP was being
developed, the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR was fully consistent
with EPA's regulations, see 70 FR 39104, 39142 (July 6, 2005). CAIR, as
originally promulgated, requires significant reductions in emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to
limit the interstate transport of these pollutants, and the reliance on
CAIR by affected states as an alternative to requiring BART for
electric generating units (EGUs) had specifically been upheld in
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC Cir. 2006). In
2008, however, the DC Circuit
[[Page 78196]]
remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC
Cir. 2008). The Court found CAIR to be inconsistent with the
requirements of the CAA, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC
Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur
because it found that ``allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is
replaced by a rule consistent with [the court's] opinion would at least
temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.'' North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. In response to the court's decision,
EPA has issued a new rule to address interstate transport of
NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States (i.e.,
the Transport Rule, also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule).
See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). EPA explained in that action that EPA
is promulgating the Transport Rule as a replacement for (not a
successor to) CAIR's SO2 and NOX emissions
reduction and trading programs. In other words, the CAIR and CAIR
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) requirements only remain in force to
address emissions through the 2011 control periods. As part of the
Transport Rule, EPA finalized regulatory changes to sunset the CAIR and
CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 and beyond. See 76 FR 48322.
EPA also stated in that final action that EPA has not conducted a
technical analysis to determine whether compliance with the Transport
Rule would satisfy the requirements of the RHR addressing alternatives
to BART. For that reason, EPA did not make a determination or establish
a presumption that compliance with the Transport Rule satisfies BART-
related requirements for EGUs. EPA is now in the process of determining
whether compliance with the Transport Rule will provide for greater
reasonable progress toward improving visibility than source-specific
BART controls for EGUs but no such determination has yet been proposed.
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)).
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine
particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing
light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible
distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious
health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \2\ in many Class I areas
\3\ (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
\3\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of
156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. See
44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I
area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See 42
U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term ``Class I area'' is used in this
action, it means a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands.\4\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and
[[Page 78197]]
tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first
evaluated technical information to better understand how their states
and tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued
the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of
particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments,
tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the
southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years, i.e., midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period.
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are
[[Page 78198]]
considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each
applicable Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how
they take these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance
for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2,
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'')
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states
with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at
the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \6\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required,
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other
types of sources.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART
controls on the source.
As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain
subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected
BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions
of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because
CAIR did not address direct emissions of PM, states were still required
to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART
for that pollutant.
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
[[Page 78199]]
Class I area located in another state, the RHR requires the impacted
state to coordinate with the contributing states in order to develop
coordinated emissions management strategies. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing state must demonstrate
that it has included, in its SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its
share of the emissions reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class
I area. The RPOs have provided forums for significant interstate
consultation, but additional consultations between states may be
required to sufficiently address interstate visibility issues. This is
especially true where two states belong to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
IV. What is the relationship of CAIR and the transport rule to the
regional haze requirements?
A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
CAIR, as originally promulgated, required 28 states and the
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX that significantly contributed to, or interfered with
maintenance of, the 1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for fine particulates and/or the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour ozone in any
downwind state. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR established
emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX for states
found to contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind states
and required these states to submit SIP revisions that implemented
these budgets. States had the flexibility to choose which control
measures to adopt
[[Page 78200]]
to achieve the budgets, including participation in EPA-administered
cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2, NOX-
annual, and NOX-ozone season emissions. In 2006, EPA
promulgated FIPs for all states covered by CAIR to ensure the
reductions were achieved in a timely manner.
B. Remand of CAIR
On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision to vacate
and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety.
See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008). However, in
response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued an order
remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs.
The Court thereby left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the
court's opinion. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. The Court
directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 11,
2008, opinion but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for completing
that action. EPA subsequently promulgated the Transport Rule to replace
CAIR. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR Remand
and Promulgation of the Transport Rule
The following is a summary of the elements of the regional haze
SIPs that are potentially affected by the remand of CAIR. As described
above, EPA determined in 2005 that states opting to participate in the
CAIR cap-and-trade program need not require BART for SO2 and
NOX at BART-eligible EGUs. 70 FR at 39142-39143. Many states
relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO2 and
NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed under the BART provisions
at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several states established RPGs
that reflect the improvement in visibility expected to result from
controls planned for or already installed on sources within the state
to meet the CAIR provisions for this implementation period for
specified pollutants. Many states relied upon their own CAIR SIPs or
the CAIR FIPs for their states to provide the legal requirements which
lead to these planned controls, and did not include enforceable
measures in the LTS in the regional haze SIP submission to ensure these
reductions. States also submitted demonstrations showing that no
additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR would be reasonable for this
implementation period. Because of the deficiencies identified in CAIR
by the court and the impact of the Transport Rule on CAIR, it is
inappropriate to fully approve states' LTSs that rely upon the
emissions reductions predicted to result from CAIR to meet the BART
requirement for EGUs or to meet the RPGs in the states' regional haze
SIPs. For this reason, EPA cannot fully approve regional haze SIP
revisions that rely on CAIR for emission reduction measures. However,
as discussed in section IV.D, EPA still believes it is appropriate to
propose a limited approval of Kentucky's regional haze SIP revisions as
these revisions provide an improvement over the current SIP, and make
progress in fulfilling the applicable CAA regional haze program
requirements. EPA therefore proposes to grant limited approval and
limited disapproval of the two Kentucky regional haze SIP revisions.
The next section discusses how the Agency proposes to address these
deficiencies.
In the Transport Rule, EPA did not substantively address the
question of whether the emissions reductions from the Transport Rule
will provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. EPA explained
in that rulemaking that the Agency had not yet conducted any technical
analysis to determine whether compliance with the Transport Rule would
satisfy the requirements for a BART alternative program. Given the lack
of any analysis at that time, EPA made no determinations as to whether
the Transport Rule would provide sufficient emissions reductions and
concomitant improvements in visibility to be considered to provide for
greater reasonable progress than BART. Although EPA is now in the
process of undertaking such an analysis, no action has been proposed.
As a result, today's proposal action on Kentucky's regional haze SIP is
affected by the issuance of the Transport Rule only insofar as the
Transport Rule provides for the sunsetting of CAIR. Future analyses
involving the Transport Rule and BART will determine appropriate
subsequent Agency action on Kentucky's regional haze SIP revisions.
D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval
EPA is intending to propose to issue limited approvals of those
regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR to address the impact of
emissions from a state's own EGUs. Limited approval results in approval
of the entire regional haze submission and all its elements. EPA is
taking this approach because an affected state's SIP will be stronger
and more protective of the environment with the implementation of those
measures by the state and having Federal approval and enforceability
than it would without those measures being included in the state's SIP.
EPA also intends to propose to issue limited disapprovals for
regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR. As explained in the 1992
Calcagni Memorandum, ``[t]hrough a limited approval, EPA [will]
concurrently, or within a reasonable period of time thereafter,
disapprove the rule * * * for not meeting all of the applicable
requirements of the Act. * * * [T]he limited disapproval is a
rulemaking action, and it is subject to notice and comment.'' Final
limited disapproval of a SIP submittal does not affect the Federal
enforceability of the measures in the subject SIP revision nor prevent
state implementation of these measures. The legal effects of the final
limited disapproval are to provide EPA the authority to issue a FIP at
any time, and to obligate the Agency to take such action no more than
two years after the effective date of the final limited disapproval
action.
V. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's regional haze submittal?
On June 25, 2008, and May 28, 2010, KYDAQ submitted revisions to
the Kentucky SIP to address regional haze in the Commonwealth's Class I
area as required by EPA's RHR. Throughout this document, references to
Kentucky's (or KYDAQ's or the Commonwealth's) ``regional haze SIP''
refer to Kentucky's original June 25, 2008, regional haze SIP
submittal, as later amended in a SIP revision submitted May 28, 2010.
A. Affected Class I Area
Kentucky has one Class I area within its borders: Mammoth Cave
National Park. Kentucky is responsible for developing a regional haze
SIP that addresses this Class I area and for consulting with other
states that impact the area.
The June 25, 2008, Kentucky regional haze SIP, as later amended on
May 28, 2010, establishes RPGs for visibility improvement at Mammoth
Cave National Park and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within the first
regional haze implementation period ending in 2018. In developing the
LTS for the area, Kentucky considered both emission sources inside and
outside of Kentucky that may cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in Kentucky's Class I area. The Commonwealth also identified
and considered emission sources within Kentucky that may cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in neighboring
states as
[[Page 78201]]
required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO worked with the
Commonwealth in developing the technical analyses used to make these
determinations, including state-by-state contributions to visibility
impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the Class I area
in Kentucky and those areas affected by emissions from Kentucky.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, Kentucky calculated baseline/current and natural
visibility conditions for its Class I area, as summarized below (and as
further described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of EPA's TSD to this
Federal Register action).
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA
guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\7\ The purpose of this
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light
extinction. Kentucky opted to use this refined approach, referred to as
the ``new IMPROVE equation,'' for its Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs)
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were
calculated separately for each Class I area by VISTAS. Natural
background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction
using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle
components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review
of the science \8\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is
summarized in Appendix B.2 of the Kentucky regional haze submittal
and in numerous published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and
Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating
Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006.
Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006,
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis
Workgroup. September 2006 https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
KYDAQ estimated baseline visibility conditions at the Kentucky
Class I area using available monitoring data from an IMPROVE monitoring
site in Mammoth Cave National Park. As explained in section III.B,
baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions for
the first regional haze SIP. A five-year average of the 2000 to 2004
monitoring data was calculated for each of the 20 percent worst and 20
percent best visibility days at the Kentucky Class I area. IMPROVE data
records for Mammoth Cave National Park for the period 2000 to 2004 meet
the EPA requirements for data completeness. See page 2-8 of EPA's 2003
Tracking Progress Guidance. Table 3.3-1 from Appendix G of the Kentucky
regional haze SIP, also provided in section III.B.3 of EPA's TSD to
this action, lists the 20 percent best and worst days for the baseline
period of 2000-2004 for Mammoth Cave National Park. This data is also
provided at the following Web site: https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
For the Kentucky Class I area, baseline visibility on the 20
percent worst days is approximately 31 deciviews. Natural visibility in
the area is predicted to be approximately 11 deciviews on the 20
percent worst days. The natural and baseline conditions for Kentucky's
Class I area for both the 20 percent worst and best days are presented
in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for the Kentucky Class I Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average for 20 percent Average for 20 percent
Class I area worst days (dv \9\) best days (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Background Conditions:
Mammoth Cave National Park.............................. 11.1 5.0
Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000-2004):
Mammoth Cave National Park.............................. 31.4 16.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78202]]
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
In setting the RPGs, Kentucky considered the uniform rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or
equivalent to the glidepath.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The term, ``dv,'' is the abbreviation for ``deciview.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth's implementation plan presents two sets of graphs,
one for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst
days, for its Class I area. Kentucky constructed the graph for the
worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking
Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the
baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of
visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064
for its area. For the best days, the graph includes a horizontal,
straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to
depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation period of
the SIP. Kentucky's SIP shows that the Commonwealth's RPGs for its area
provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst days
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the 20 percent best days over the same period, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
For the Kentucky Class I area, the overall visibility improvement
necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between
baseline visibility of 31.37 deciviews for the 20 percent worst days
and natural conditions of 11.08 deciviews, i.e., 20.29 deciviews. Over
the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average
improvement of 0.338 deciviews per year to reach natural conditions.
Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve
visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate of
progress for the 20 percent worst days at Mammoth Cave National Park,
Kentucky would need to project at least 4.73 deciviews over the first
implementation period (i.e., 0.338 deciviews x 14 years = 4.732
deciviews) of visibility improvement from the 31.37 deciviews baseline
in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 26.64 deciviews in
2018. As discussed below in section V.C.7, Kentucky projects a 5.81
deciview improvement to visibility from the 31.37 deciview baseline to
25.56 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a
0.94 deciview improvement to 15.57 deciviews from the baseline
visibility of 16.51 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days.
C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state
for achieving its RPGs. Kentucky's LTS for the first implementation
period addresses the emissions reductions from Federal, state, and
local controls that take effect in the Commonwealth from the end of the
baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Kentucky LTS was
developed by the Commonwealth, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO,
through an evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification
of the emissions units within Kentucky and in surrounding states that
likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the
Commonwealth's Class I area; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for
2018 based on all controls required or expected under Federal and state
regulations for the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison
of projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress
for the Commonwealth's Class I area; and (4) application of the four
statutory factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the
identified emissions units to determine if additional reasonable
controls were required.
CAIR is also an element of Kentucky's LTS. CAIR rule revisions were
approved into the Kentucky SIP in 2007. See 72 FR 56623. Kentucky opted
to rely on CAIR emission reduction requirements to satisfy the BART
requirements for SO2 and NOX from EGUs. See 40
CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, Kentucky only required its BART-eligible
EGUs to evaluate PM emissions for determining whether they are subject
to BART, and, if applicable, for performing a BART control assessment.
See section III.D of this action for further details. Additionally, as
discussed below in section V.C.5, Kentucky concluded that no additional
controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for reasonable progress for its
EGUs for this first implementation period. Prior to the remand of CAIR,
EPA believed the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR for specific BART and
reasonable progress provisions affecting its EGUs was adequate, as
detailed later in this action. As explained in section IV of this
action, the Agency proposes today to issue a limited approval and a
proposed limited disapproval of the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP
revisions.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Kentucky. The
2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and
applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants
NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines direct
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in
section V.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which
demonstrated that anth
