Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Regional Haze Progress Report, 36707-36713 [2017-16484]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 150 / Monday, August 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules
15, 18. The proposed changes will result
in six adjustments to PRS mail
processing costs, including a decrease of
more than 30 percent in return delivery
unit oversize costs. Id.
The transportation cost adjustments
incorporate methodology changes
approved by the Commission in Order
No. 3973 2 with the cost model changes
the Postal Service proposes in this
docket. The resulting Parcel Select cost
decreases range from 6.4 to 94.6 percent.
Petition, Proposal Six at 15–16, 19.
Additionally, the transportation cost for
destination sectional center facility rates
will increase by 193 percent. Id. at 16,
19. The PRS costs for return sectional
center facility will decrease by almost
26 percent. Id.
III. Notice and Comment
The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2017–10 for consideration of
matters raised by the Petition. More
information on the Petition may be
accessed via the Commission’s Web site
at https://www.prc.gov. Interested
persons may submit comments on the
Petition and Proposal Six no later than
September 15, 2017. Pursuant to 39
U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya
is designated as officer of the
Commission (Public Representative) to
represent the interests of the general
public in this proceeding.
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2017–10 for consideration of the
matters raised by the Petition of the
United States Postal Service for the
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider
Proposed Changes in Analytical
Principles (Proposal Six), filed July 28,
2017.
2. Comments by interested persons in
this proceeding are due no later than
September 15, 2017.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the
Commission appoints Lyudmila Y.
Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of
the Commission (Public Representative)
to represent the interests of the general
public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Stacy L. Ruble,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–16517 Filed 8–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
2 Docket No. RM2016–12, Order on Analytical
Principles Used in Periodic Reporting (Proposal
Four), June 22, 2017 (Order No. 3973).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Aug 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0462; FRL–9965–68Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Regional
Haze Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky through
the Kentucky Energy and Environment
Cabinet, Division of Air Quality (KDAQ)
on September 17, 2014. Kentucky’s
September 17, 2014, SIP revision
(Progress Report) addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) and EPA’s rules that require
each state to submit periodic reports
describing progress towards reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing SIP
addressing regional haze (regional haze
plan). EPA is proposing to approve
Kentucky’s determination that the
Commonwealth’s regional haze plan is
adequate to meet these RPGs for the first
implementation period covering
through 2018 and requires no
substantive revision at this time.
DATE: Comments must be received on or
before September 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2016–0462 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
SUMMARY:
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
40 CFR Part 52
PO 00000
36707
Sfmt 4702
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
Notarianni can be reached by phone at
(404) 562–9031 and via electronic mail
at notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
States are required to submit a
progress report in the form of a SIP
revision that evaluates progress towards
the RPGs for each mandatory Class I
federal area 1 (Class I area) within the
state and for each Class I area outside
the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. 40 CFR
51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of
40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to
submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR
51.308(g) progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of the
state’s existing regional haze plan. The
progress report is due five years after
submittal of the initial regional haze
plan. Kentucky submitted its regional
haze plan on June 25, 2008, as later
amended in a SIP revision submitted on
May 28, 2010.2
Like many other states subject to the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
Kentucky relied on CAIR in its regional
haze plan to meet certain requirements
of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule, including
best available retrofit technology
(BART) requirements for emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) from certain electric generating
units (EGUs) in the Commonwealth.3
This reliance was consistent with EPA’s
regulations at the time that Kentucky
developed its regional haze plan. See 70
FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). However, in
2008, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81 Subpart D.
2 Throughout this document, references to
Kentucky’s ‘‘regional haze plan’’ refer to Kentucky’s
original June 25, 2008, regional haze SIP submittal,
as later amended in a SIP revision submitted on
May 28, 2010.
3 CAIR required certain states, including
Kentucky, to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that
significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005).
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
36708
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 150 / Monday, August 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules
EPA without vacatur to preserve the
environmental benefits provided by
CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d
1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August
8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the
D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA promulgated
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) to replace CAIR and issued
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to
implement the rule in CSAPR-subject
states.4 Implementation of CSAPR was
scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012,
when CSAPR would have superseded
the CAIR program. However, numerous
parties filed petitions for review of
CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C.
Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR
pending resolution of the petitions and
directing EPA to continue to administer
CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302.
On March 30, 2012, EPA finalized a
limited approval of Kentucky’s regional
haze plan 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.
Also in this March 30, 2012, action, EPA
finalized a limited disapproval of
Kentucky’s regional haze plan because
of deficiencies arising from the
Commonwealth’s reliance on CAIR to
satisfy certain regional haze
requirements. See 77 FR 19098. On June
7, 2012, EPA promulgated FIPs to
replace reliance on CAIR with reliance
on CSAPR to address deficiencies in
CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of
several states, including Kentucky’s
regional haze plan. See 77 FR 33642.
Following additional litigation and the
lifting of the stay, EPA began
implementation of CSAPR on January 1,
2015.
On September 17, 2014, Kentucky
submitted its Progress Report which,
among other things, detailed the
progress made in the first period toward
implementation of the long term
strategy outlined in the
Commonwealth’s regional haze plan;
the visibility improvement measured at
Mammoth Cave National Park
(Mammoth Cave), the only Class I area
within Kentucky, and at Class I areas
outside of the Commonwealth
potentially impacted by emissions from
Kentucky; and a determination of the
adequacy of the Commonwealth’s
existing regional haze plan. EPA is
proposing to approve Kentucky’s
September 17, 2014, Progress Report for
the reasons discussed below.
4 CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO
2
and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the
Eastern United States that significantly contribute
to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and
ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Aug 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Kentucky’s
Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section includes EPA’s analysis
of Kentucky’s Progress Report, and an
explanation of the basis for the Agency’s
proposed approval.
1. Control Measures
In its Progress Report, Kentucky
summarizes the status of the emissions
reduction measures that were relied
upon by Kentucky in its regional haze
plan and included in the final iteration
of the Visibility Improvement State and
Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) regional haze emissions
inventory and RPG modeling used by
the Commonwealth in developing its
regional haze plan. The measures
include, among other things, applicable
Federal programs (e.g., mobile source
rules, Maximum Achievable Control
Technology standards), Federal consent
agreements, and Federal control
strategies for EGUs. Kentucky also
reviewed the status of BART
requirements for the five BART-subject
sources for particulate matter (PM) in
the Commonwealth—American Electric
Power (AEP) Big Sandy Plant, E.ON U.S
Mill Creek Station, East Kentucky Power
Cooperative (EKPC) Cooper Station,
EKPC Spurlock Station, and Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) Paradise Plant—
and described the court decisions
addressing CAIR and CSAPR at the time
of progress report development.5
As discussed above, a number of
states, including Kentucky, submitted
regional haze SIPs that relied on CAIR
to meet certain regional haze
requirements. EPA finalized a limited
disapproval of Kentucky’s regional haze
plan due to this reliance and
promulgated a FIP to replace the
Commonwealth’s reliance on CAIR with
reliance on CSAPR. Although a number
of parties challenged the legality of
CSAPR and the D.C. Circuit initially
vacated and remanded CSAPR to EPA in
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the
United States Supreme Court reversed
the D.C. Circuit’s decision on April 29,
2014, and remanded the case to the D.C.
Circuit to resolve remaining issues in
accordance with the high court’s ruling.
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand,
the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most
respects, and CSAPR is now in effect.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Kentucky notes in its Progress Report
that it has an EPA-approved CAIR SIP
and that CAIR was in effect at the time
of Progress Report submittal due to the
2011 CSAPR stay. Because CSAPR
should result in greater emissions
reductions of SO2 and NOX than CAIR
throughout the affected region, EPA
expects Kentucky to maintain and
continue its progress towards its RPGs
for 2018 through continued, and
additional, SO2 and NOX reductions.
See generally 76 FR 48208 (August 8,
2011).
The Commonwealth also discusses in
its Progress Report the status of several
measures that were not included in the
final VISTAS emissions inventory and
were not relied upon in the initial
regional haze plan to meet RPGs. These
measures include EPA’s Mercury and
Air Toxics Rule, three Federal consent
decrees, and planned retirements and
fuel switching at several EGUs in
Kentucky. The Commonwealth notes
that the emissions reductions from these
measures will help ensure that Class I
areas impacted by Kentucky sources
achieve their RPGs.
In its regional haze plan and Progress
Report, Kentucky focuses its assessment
on SO2 emissions from EGUs because of
VISTAS’ findings that ammonium
sulfate accounted for 69–87 percent of
the visibility-impairing pollution in the
VISTAS states and roughly 82 percent of
the visibility-impairing pollution at
Mammoth Cave National Park on the 20
percent worst visibility days. Although
Kentucky determined in its regional
haze plan that no additional controls for
sources in the Commonwealth were
needed to make reasonable progress for
SO2 during the first implementation
period,6 Kentucky’s Progress Report
identifies the control status of eight outof-state EGUs, six from Indiana and two
from Tennessee, located in the area of
influence of Kentucky’s Class I area
using the Commonwealth’s
methodology for determining sources
eligible for a reasonable progress control
determination. Because these eight
EGUs were subject to CAIR and
Mammoth Cave National Park was
projected to exceed the uniform rate of
progress during the first implementation
period, KDAQ opted not to request from
Indiana and Tennessee any additional
emissions reductions for reasonable
progress for the first implementation
period.7 Kentucky’s Progress Report
indicates that SO2 emissions from these
eight out-of-state EGUs have decreased
by nearly 50 percent from 2002 to 2012.
6 See
7 See
5 Kentucky
PO 00000
Progress Report, pp. 33–35.
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76 FR 78204.
76 FR 78213 and Kentucky Progress Report,
p. 37.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 150 / Monday, August 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules
In addition, the Commonwealth
provides an update on the control status
of EGUs in Kentucky identified by
Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire,
and Vermont as contributing to
visibility impairment at Class I areas
located in those states based on 2002
emissions. These states are members of
the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE–VU), which identified
167 EGU ‘‘stacks,’’ 10 of which are in
Kentucky, as contributing significantly
to visibility impairment at MANE–VU
Class I areas in 2002. The 10 EGU stacks
are located at: Duke Energy’s East Bend
plant; EKPC’s Cooper and Spurlock
plants; AEP Big Sandy plant; E.ON U.S.
E.W. Brown, Ghent, and Mill Creek
plants; and TVA Paradise. MANE–VU
asked Kentucky to control the SO2
emissions from these EGUs with a 90
percent control efficiency and to adopt
a control strategy to provide a 28
percent reduction in SO2 emissions
from non-EGU emission sources that
would be equivalent to MANE–VU’s
proposed low sulfur residential fuel oil
strategy.
In its Progress Report, the
Commonwealth notes that the Kentucky
EGUs identified by MANE–VU either
have or will have scrubbers with a
minimum SO2 control efficiency of 90
percent or are scheduled for retirement
by 2018. Kentucky also notes that there
was a decrease of 196,753 tons in SO2
emissions from 2002 to 2012 8 at these
EGUs and that planned retirements at
these EGUs will result in an additional
SO2 emissions decrease of 30,845 tons
by 2018 from these units.
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding the implementation status of
control measures because the
Commonwealth described the
implementation of measures within
Kentucky, including BART at BARTsubject sources for PM.
2. Emissions Reductions
As discussed above, Kentucky
focused its assessment in its regional
haze plan and Progress Report on SO2
emissions from EGUs because of
VISTAS’ findings that ammonium
sulfate is the primary component of
visibility-impairing pollution in the
VISTAS states. In its Progress Report,
Kentucky provides SO2 emissions data
from EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division
(CAMD) for each coal-fired EGU in the
Commonwealth. Actual SO2 emissions
reductions from 2002 to 2012 for these
Kentucky EGUs (300,335 tons) have
already exceeded the projected SO2
emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018
estimated in Kentucky’s regional haze
plan for these EGUs (261,234 tons).9
Kentucky also includes cumulative SO2
and NOX CAMD emissions data from
2002–2012 for EGUs in the
Commonwealth subject to reporting
under the Acid Rain Program. This data
shows a decline in these emissions over
this time period and shows that the SO2
reductions are greater than those
36709
estimated for these units between 2002–
2018 in the Commonwealth’s regional
haze plan. The emissions reductions
identified by Kentucky are due, in part,
to the implemenation of measures
included in the Commonwealth’s
regional haze plan (e.g., CAIR).
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding emissions reductions because
the Commonwealth identifies SO2
emissions reductions from EGUs in
Kentucky, the largest sources of SO2
emissions in the Commonwealth.
3. Visibility Conditions
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) require that states with Class
I areas within their borders provide
information on current visibility
conditions and the difference between
current visibility conditions and
baseline visibility conditions expressed
in terms of five-year averages of these
annual values.
Kentucky’s Progress Report provides
figures with visibility monitoring data
for Mammoth Cave. Kentucky reported
current visibility conditions as both the
2006–2010 and 2009–2013 five-year
time periods and used the 2000–2004
baseline period for its Class I area.10
Table 1, below, shows the visibility
conditions for both the 2006–2010 and
2009–2013 five-year time periods and
the difference between these current
visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions.
TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, AND VISIBILITY CHANGES IN KENTUCKY’S CLASS I AREA
[deciviews]
Baseline
(2000–2004)
Class I area
Current
(2006–2010)
Difference
More current
(2009–2013)
Difference
20% Worst Days
Mammoth Cave National Park .............................................
31.37
29.09
¥2.28
25.09
¥6.28
15.41
¥1.10
13.69
¥2.82
20% Best Days
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Mammoth Cave National Park .............................................
As shown in Table 1, Mammoth Cave
saw an improvement in visibility
between baseline and the 2006–2010
and 2009–2013 time periods.11
Kentucky also reported 20 percent worst
day and 20 percent best day visibility
data for Mammoth Cave from 2006–
2013 for each year in terms of five-year
averages.12 This data shows an
8 Kentucky Progress Report, Table 15, pp.62–65.
The emissions reductions are based on data from
EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division provided in the
Progress Report.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Aug 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
16.51
improvement in visibility at Mammoth
Cave on the 20 percent best days from
2006–2013 and on the 20 percent worst
days from 2007–2013.
EPA notes that Kentucky’s original
RPGs were based on the VISTAS
modeling run available at the time of
Kentucky’s June 25, 2008, regional haze
plan. In 2008, VISTAS provided
9 Kentucky
Progress Report, Table 14, pp. 53–60.
the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’
conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time
period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999).
10 For
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
updated modeling results that changed
the modeled progress for Kentucky’s
Class I area. Table 2 identifies the RPGs
for Mammoth Cave in the
Commonwealth’s regional haze plan
and provides, for comparison purposes
only, the updated RPGs provided by
VISTAS.13
11 Kentucky Progress Report, Tables 17 and 18,
pp. 67–68.
12 Kentucky Progress Report, Table 18, p.68.
13 Kentucky Progress Report, Table 16, p. 66.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
36710
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 150 / Monday, August 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—UPDATED RPGS FOR KENTUCKY’S CLASS I AREA
[deciviews]
RPG 20%
worst days
Class I area Mammoth Cave National Park
Original RPGs ..........................................................................................................................................................
Updated RPGs .........................................................................................................................................................
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding visibility conditions because
the Commonwealth provided baseline
visibility conditions (2000–2004),
current conditions based on the most
recently available visibility monitoring
data available at the time of Progress
Report development, the difference
between these current sets of visibility
conditions and baseline visibility
conditions, and the change in visibility
impairment from 2006–2013.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Kentucky
presents data from a statewide actual
emissions inventory for 2007 and
compares this data to the baseline
emissions inventory for 2002 (actual
and typical emissions).14 The pollutants
inventoried include VOC, NH3, NOX,
PM2.5, coarse particulate matter (PM10),
and SO2. The emissions inventories
include the following source
classifications: point, area, fires, nonroad mobile, and on-road mobile
sources. As discussed in Section II.A.2,
above, Kentucky also presented NOX
and SO2 data from 2002–2012 for EGUs
in Kentucky.
25.56
25.40
RPG 20% best
days
15.57
15.42
Kentucky estimated on-road mobile
source emissions in the 2007 inventory
using EPA’s MOVES model. This model
tends to estimate higher emissions for
NOX and PM than its previous
counterpart, EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model,
used by the Commonwealth to estimate
on-road mobile source emissions for the
2002 inventories. Despite the change in
methodology, with the exception of a
slight increase in PM2.5 and PM10, 2007
actual emissions are lower for all
inventoried emissions than both the
actual and typical 2002 emissions, as
can be seen when comparing Tables 3
and 4 to Table 5.
TABLE 3—2002 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR KENTUCKY
[tpy]
Source category
NH 3
NOX
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
VOC
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Non-Road Mobile .....................................
Fires .........................................................
1,000
51,135
5,055
31
44
237,209
39,507
156,417
104,571
1,142
21,326
233,559
3,723
6,425
5,226
14,173
45,453
2,697
6,046
5,074
518,086
41,805
6,308
14,043
49
46,321
95,375
103,503
44,805
2,640
Total ..................................................
57,265
538,846
270,259
73,443
580,291
292,644
TABLE 4—2002 TYPICAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR KENTUCKY
[tpy]
Source category
NH 3
NOX
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
VOC
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Non-Road Mobile .....................................
Fires .........................................................
995
51,135
5,055
31
110
240,362
39,507
156,417
104,517
1,460
21,421
233,559
3,723
6,425
6,667
14,219
45,453
2,697
6,046
6,310
529,182
41,805
6,308
14,043
136
46,315
95,375
103,503
44,805
3,338
Total ..................................................
57,326
542,317
271,795
74,725
591,474
293,336
TABLE 5—2007 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR KENTUCKY
[tpy]
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Source category
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Non-Road Mobile .....................................
Fires .........................................................
14 For the typical 2002 stationary point source
emissions inventory, the EGU emissions are
adjusted for a typical year so that if sources were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Aug 04, 2017
NOX
NH3
Jkt 241001
113
52,332
2,172
46
138
PM10
210,213
12,693
133,425
63,454
1,377
30,678
226,829
5,524
4,207
5,016
shut down or are operating above or below normal,
the emissions are normalized to a typical emissions
inventory year. The typical year data is used to
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5
21,110
40,341
4,363
3,969
4,678
SO2
410,413
15,590
1,022
3,037
180
VOC
47,679
75,100
55,883
38,785
2,939
develop projected typical future year emissions
inventories.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 150 / Monday, August 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules
36711
TABLE 5—2007 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR KENTUCKY—Continued
[tpy]
Source category
Total ..................................................
54,801
EPA is proposing to find that
Kentucky adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding emissions tracking because
the Commonwealth compared the most
recent updated emission inventory data
available at the time of Progress Report
development with the baseline
emissions used in the modeling for the
regional haze plan. Furthermore,
Kentucky evaluated available CAMD
SO2 emissions data from 2002 to 2012
for Kentucky EGUs because this data
was available at the time of Progress
Report development, ammonium sulfate
is the primary component of visibilityimpairing pollution in the VISTAS
states, and EGUs are the largest source
of SO2 in the Commonwealth.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
In its Progress Report, Kentucky
documented that sulfates, which are
formed from SO2 emissions, continue to
be the biggest single contributor to
regional haze for Class I areas in the
Commonwealth and therefore focused
its analysis on large SO2 emissions from
point sources. In addressing the
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5),
Kentucky demonstrates that sulfate
contributions to visibility impairment
have decreased overall from 2000 to
2013 15 along with an improvement in
visibility, and examines other potential
pollutants of concern affecting visibility
at Mammoth Cave. The Commonwealth
presents data for the 20 percent worst
days showing that ammonium sulfate is
responsible for 79.6 and 67.8 percent of
the regional haze at Mammoth Cave for
the periods 2006–2010 and 2009–2013,
respectively. For 2006–2010, primary
organic matter is the next largest
contributor at 9.3 percent whereas for
2009–2013, the next largest contributor
to regional haze is ammonium nitrate at
13.9 percent, followed by primary
organic matter at 11.7 percent.
Furthermore, the Progress Report shows
that the Commonwealth is on track to
meeting its 2018 RPGs for Mammoth
Cave and that SO2 emissions reductions
from 2002–2012 for EGUs in Kentucky
have exceeded the projected reductions
15 Kentucky
PM10
421,163
272,254
from 2002–2018 in the regional haze
plan.
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky
has adequately addressed the provisions
of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an
assessment of significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions. EPA
preliminarily agrees with Kentucky’s
conclusion that there have been no
significant changes in emissions of
visibility-impairing pollutants which
have limited or impeded progress in
reducing emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas impacted by
the Commonwealth’s sources.
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
The Commonwealth believes that it is
on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for
Mammoth Cave and will not impede
Class I areas outside of Kentucky from
meeting their RPGs based on the trends
in visibility and emissions presented in
its Progress Report. Kentucky notes that
the IMPROVE visibility readings for
2009–2013 already show greater
improvments in visibility than projected
by Kentucky in establishing the 2018
RPGs for Mammoth Cave and that SO2
emissions from coal-fired EGUs in the
Commonwealth have fallen from 2002
to 2012 by more than than the predicted
decline in SO2 emissions from these
sources for the first planning period in
Kentucky’s regional haze plan.
Kentucky expects that these emissions
will continue to decrease through the
first regional haze implementation
period. The Commonwealth identifies
additional SO2 reductions of 49,649 tpy
from Kentucky EGUs that are retiring or
converting to natural gas which were
not accounted for in the original 2018
emissions projections in its regional
haze plan.16 Kentucky also provides
data showing that SO2 emissions from
2002 to 2012 from EGUs outside of the
Commonwealth impacting visibility at
Mammoth Cave have decreased by
nearly 49 percent (65,416 tpy). In
addition, the Commonwealth provides
emissions data in Table 13 and in
Figures 10 and 12 of its Progress Report
showing a declining trend in SO2 and
NOX emissions from 2002 to 2012 for
EGUs in Kentucky and the VISTAS
states.
Kentucky also provides updated
visibility analyses for Mammoth Cave
Progress Report, Figures 21 and 22,
16 Kentucky
p. 80.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
NOX
NH3
18:21 Aug 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Progress Report, Table 11, pp. 42–43.
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5
74,461
SO2
430,242
VOC
220,386
and the Class I areas outside the
Commonwealth potentially impacted by
sources in Kentucky (Great Smoky
Mountains National Park in North
Carolina and Tennessee, James River
Face Wilderness Area and Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, Linville Gorge
Wilderness Area in North Carolina, and
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area in West
Virginia), and notes that these analyses
show that these areas are on track to
achieve their RPGs by 2018.17
As discussed in Section II.A.1, above,
CAIR was implemented during the time
period evaluated by Kentucky for its
Progress Report, but has now been
replaced by CSAPR. At the present time,
the requirements of CSAPR apply to
sources in Kentucky under the terms of
a FIP because Kentucky has not, to date,
incorporated the CSAPR requirements
into its SIP. Kentuky’s regional haze
plan accordingly does not contain
sufficient provisions to ensure that the
RPGs of Class I areas in nearby states
will be achieved. The term
‘‘implementation plan,’’ however, is
defined for purposes of the Regional
Haze Rule to mean ‘‘any [SIP], [FIP], or
Tribal Implementation Plan.’’ 40 CFR
51.301. Measures in any issued FIP, as
well as those in a state’s regional haze
SIP, may therefore be considered in
assessing the adequacy of the ‘‘existing
implementation plan.’’
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky
has adequately addressed the provisions
of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
strategy assessment. In its Progress
Report, Kentucky described the
improving visibility trends using data
from the IMPROVE network and the
downward emissions trends in key
pollutants, with a focus on SO2
emissions from EGUs in the
Commonwealth. Kentucky determined
that its regional haze plan is sufficient
to meet the RPGs for its own Class I area
and the Class I areas outside the
Commonwealth potentially impacted by
the emissions from Kentucky. EPA finds
that Kentucky’s conclusion regarding
the sufficiency of its regional haze plan
is appropriate because CAIR was in
effect in Kentucky through 2014,
providing the emission reductions
relied upon in Kentucky’s regional haze
17 Kentucky Progress Report, Table 26, p. 87;
Figures 23–32, pp. 82–86; Figures 14 and 15, pp.
69–70.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
36712
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 150 / Monday, August 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules
plan through that date. CSAPR is now
being implemented, and by 2018, the
end of the first regional haze
implementation period, CSAPR will
reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX from
EGUs in Kentucky by the same amount
assumed by EPA when it issued the FIP
for the Commonwealth in June 2012
replacing reliance on CAIR with
reliance on CSAPR. Because CSAPR
will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX
emissions reductions relied upon by
Kentucky and other states in setting
their RPGs beginning in January 2015 at
least through the remainder of the first
implementation period in 2018, EPA is
proposing to approve Kentucky’s
finding that the plan elements and
strategies in its implementation plan are
sufficient to achieve the RPGs for the
Class I area in the Commonwealth and
for Class I areas in nearby states
potentially impacted by sources in the
Commonwealth.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
7. Review of Current Monitoring
Strategy
In its Progress Report, Kentucky
summarizes the existing monitoring
network in Kentucky to monitor
visibility at Mammoth Cave and
concludes that no modifications to the
existing visibility monitoring strategy
are necessary. The primary monitoring
network for regional haze, both
nationwide and in Kentucky, is the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network. There is currently one
IMPROVE site located in Mammoth
Cave National Park.
The Commonwealth also explains the
importance of the IMPROVE monitoring
network for tracking visibility trends at
the Class I area in Kentucky. Kentucky
states that data produced by the
IMPROVE monitoring network will be
used nearly continuously for preparing
the regional haze progress reports and
SIP revisions, and thus, the monitoring
data from the IMPROVE sites needs to
be readily accessible and to be kept up
to date. The Visibility Information
Exchange Web System Web site has
been maintained by VISTAS and the
other Regional Planning Organizations
to provide ready access to the IMPROVE
data and data analysis tools.
In addition to the IMPROVE
measurements, some ongoing long-term
limited monitoring supported by
Federal Land Managers provides
additional insight into progress toward
regional haze goals. Kentucky benefits
from the data from these measurements,
but is not responsible for associated
funding decisions to maintain these
measurements into the future.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Aug 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
In addition, KDAQ operates a PM2.5
network of filter-based Federal reference
method monitors and filter-based
speciation monitors. These PM2.5
measurements help the KDAQ
characterize air pollution levels in areas
across the Commonwealth, and
therefore aid in the analysis of visibility
improvement in and near Mammoth
Cave.
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding monitoring strategy because
the Commonwealth reviewed its
visibility monitoring strategy and
determined that no further
modifications to the strategy are
necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the
Existing Regional Haze Plan
In its Progress Report, Kentucky
submitted a negative declaration to EPA
regarding the need for additional actions
or emissions reductions in Kentucky
beyond those already in place and those
to be implemented by 2018 according to
Kentucky’s regional haze plan.
Kentucky determined that the existing
regional haze plan requires no further
substantive revision at this time to
achieve the RPGs for Class I areas
affected by the Commonwealth’s
sources. The Commonwealth’s negative
declaration is based on the findings
from the Progress Report, including the
findings that: visibility has already
improved at Mammoth Cave in
Kentucky such that monitored 2009–
2013 visibility readings show that the
Class I area has already met its RPGs for
2018; actual SO2 emissions reductions
from coal-fired EGUs in Kentucky
exceed the predicted reductions in
Kentucky’s regional haze plan;
additional EGU control measures not
relied upon in the Commonwealth’s
regional haze plan have occurred or will
occur during the first implementation
period that will further reduce SO2
emissions; and emissions of SO2 from
EGUs in Kentucky and the surrounding
VISTAS states are expected to continue
to trend downward.
EPA proposes to conclude that
Kentucky has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility
trends at Mammoth Cave and at Class I
areas outside of the Commonwealth
potentially impacted by sources within
Kentucky and the emissions trends of
the largest emitters of visibilityimpairing pollutants in the
Commonwealth indicate that the
relevant RPGs will be met.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve
Kentucky’s September 17, 2014,
Regional Haze Progress Report as
meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 150 / Monday, August 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 25, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017–16484 Filed 8–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360; FRL–9965–18–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AT48
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This action proposes
amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations (OSWRO). The
proposed amendments address an issue
related to monitoring pressure relief
devices (PRDs) on containers. This issue
was raised in a petition for
reconsideration of the amendments to
the OSWRO NESHAP finalized in 2015
based on the residual risk and
technology review (RTR). Among other
things, the 2015 amendments
established additional monitoring
requirements for all PRDs, including
PRDs on containers. For PRDs on
containers, these monitoring
requirements were in addition to the
inspection and monitoring requirements
for containers and their closure devices,
which include PRDs that were already
required by the OSWRO NESHAP. This
proposed action would remove the
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Aug 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
additional monitoring requirements for
PRDs on containers that resulted from
the 2015 amendments because we have
determined that they are not necessary.
This action, if finalized as proposed,
would not substantially change the level
of environmental protection provided
under the OSWRO NESHAP. The
proposed amendments would reduce
capital costs related to compliance to
this industry by $28 million compared
to the current rule. Total annualized
costs, at an interest rate of 7 percent,
would be reduced by $4.2 million per
year. These costs are associated with a
present value of $39 million dollars,
discounted at 7 percent over 15 years.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before September 21,
2017.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is
requested by August 14, 2017, then we
will hold a public hearing on August 22,
2017 at the location described in the
ADDRESSES section. The last day to preregister in advance to speak at the
public hearing will be August 21, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from https://
www.regulations.gov. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is
requested, it will be held at EPA
Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton
East Building, 1201 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. If
a public hearing is requested, then we
will provide details about the public
hearing on our Web site at: https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36713
pollution/site-waste-and-recoveryoperations-oswro-national-emission.
The EPA does not intend to publish
another document in the Federal
Register announcing any updates on the
request for a public hearing. Please
contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–
0832 or by email at hunt.virginia@
epa.gov to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing,
or to inquire as to whether a public
hearing will be held.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this proposed action,
please contact Ms. Angie Carey, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (E143–
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541–2187; fax number:
(919) 541–0246; email address:
carey.angela@epa.gov. For information
about the applicability of the NESHAP
to a particular entity, contact Ms. Marcia
Mia, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
WJC South Building, Mail Code 2227A,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564–7042; fax number:
(202) 564–0050; and email address:
mia.marcia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket. The EPA has established a
docket for this rulemaking under Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., 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. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
EPA WJC West Building, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–
0360. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
will be made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36707-36713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16484]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0462; FRL-9965-68-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky through the Kentucky Energy and Environment
Cabinet, Division of Air Quality (KDAQ) on September 17, 2014.
Kentucky's September 17, 2014, SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that
require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress
towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze
and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP
addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). EPA is proposing to
approve Kentucky's determination that the Commonwealth's regional haze
plan is adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period
covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this
time.
DATE: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0462 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9031
and via electronic mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I federal area \1\ (Class I area) within the state and
for each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same
time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. The progress
report is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze
plan. Kentucky submitted its regional haze plan on June 25, 2008, as
later amended in a SIP revision submitted on May 28, 2010.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81 Subpart D.
\2\ Throughout this document, references to Kentucky's
``regional haze plan'' refer to Kentucky's original June 25, 2008,
regional haze SIP submittal, as later amended in a SIP revision
submitted on May 28, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), Kentucky relied on CAIR in its regional haze plan to meet
certain requirements of EPA's Regional Haze Rule, including best
available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
from certain electric generating units (EGUs) in the Commonwealth.\3\
This reliance was consistent with EPA's regulations at the time that
Kentucky developed its regional haze plan. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6,
2005). However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to
[[Page 36708]]
EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by
CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On
August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA
promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR
and issued Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to implement the rule in
CSAPR-subject states.\4\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin
on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.
However, numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and at
the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending
resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer
CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAIR required certain states, including Kentucky, to reduce
emissions of SO2 and NOX that significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
\4\ CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and
NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the Eastern
United States that significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 30, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of Kentucky's
regional haze plan 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. Also in this March 30, 2012, action, EPA finalized a
limited disapproval of Kentucky's regional haze plan because of
deficiencies arising from the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR to
satisfy certain regional haze requirements. See 77 FR 19098. On June 7,
2012, EPA promulgated FIPs to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on
CSAPR to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of
several states, including Kentucky's regional haze plan. See 77 FR
33642. Following additional litigation and the lifting of the stay, EPA
began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
On September 17, 2014, Kentucky submitted its Progress Report
which, among other things, detailed the progress made in the first
period toward implementation of the long term strategy outlined in the
Commonwealth's regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured
at Mammoth Cave National Park (Mammoth Cave), the only Class I area
within Kentucky, and at Class I areas outside of the Commonwealth
potentially impacted by emissions from Kentucky; and a determination of
the adequacy of the Commonwealth's existing regional haze plan. EPA is
proposing to approve Kentucky's September 17, 2014, Progress Report for
the reasons discussed below.
II. EPA's Evaluation of Kentucky's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section includes EPA's analysis of Kentucky's Progress Report,
and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's proposed approval.
1. Control Measures
In its Progress Report, Kentucky summarizes the status of the
emissions reduction measures that were relied upon by Kentucky in its
regional haze plan and included in the final iteration of the
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling used by the
Commonwealth in developing its regional haze plan. The measures
include, among other things, applicable Federal programs (e.g., mobile
source rules, Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards), Federal
consent agreements, and Federal control strategies for EGUs. Kentucky
also reviewed the status of BART requirements for the five BART-subject
sources for particulate matter (PM) in the Commonwealth--American
Electric Power (AEP) Big Sandy Plant, E.ON U.S Mill Creek Station, East
Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) Cooper Station, EKPC Spurlock
Station, and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Paradise Plant--and
described the court decisions addressing CAIR and CSAPR at the time of
progress report development.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Kentucky Progress Report, pp. 33-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, a number of states, including Kentucky,
submitted regional haze SIPs that relied on CAIR to meet certain
regional haze requirements. EPA finalized a limited disapproval of
Kentucky's regional haze plan due to this reliance and promulgated a
FIP to replace the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR with reliance on
CSAPR. Although a number of parties challenged the legality of CSAPR
and the D.C. Circuit initially vacated and remanded CSAPR to EPA in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the
United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision on
April 29, 2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to resolve
remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the
D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, and CSAPR is now in
effect. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir.
2015). Kentucky notes in its Progress Report that it has an EPA-
approved CAIR SIP and that CAIR was in effect at the time of Progress
Report submittal due to the 2011 CSAPR stay. Because CSAPR should
result in greater emissions reductions of SO2 and
NOX than CAIR throughout the affected region, EPA expects
Kentucky to maintain and continue its progress towards its RPGs for
2018 through continued, and additional, SO2 and
NOX reductions. See generally 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
The Commonwealth also discusses in its Progress Report the status
of several measures that were not included in the final VISTAS
emissions inventory and were not relied upon in the initial regional
haze plan to meet RPGs. These measures include EPA's Mercury and Air
Toxics Rule, three Federal consent decrees, and planned retirements and
fuel switching at several EGUs in Kentucky. The Commonwealth notes that
the emissions reductions from these measures will help ensure that
Class I areas impacted by Kentucky sources achieve their RPGs.
In its regional haze plan and Progress Report, Kentucky focuses its
assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because of VISTAS'
findings that ammonium sulfate accounted for 69-87 percent of the
visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states and roughly 82
percent of the visibility-impairing pollution at Mammoth Cave National
Park on the 20 percent worst visibility days. Although Kentucky
determined in its regional haze plan that no additional controls for
sources in the Commonwealth were needed to make reasonable progress for
SO2 during the first implementation period,\6\ Kentucky's
Progress Report identifies the control status of eight out-of-state
EGUs, six from Indiana and two from Tennessee, located in the area of
influence of Kentucky's Class I area using the Commonwealth's
methodology for determining sources eligible for a reasonable progress
control determination. Because these eight EGUs were subject to CAIR
and Mammoth Cave National Park was projected to exceed the uniform rate
of progress during the first implementation period, KDAQ opted not to
request from Indiana and Tennessee any additional emissions reductions
for reasonable progress for the first implementation period.\7\
Kentucky's Progress Report indicates that SO2 emissions from
these eight out-of-state EGUs have decreased by nearly 50 percent from
2002 to 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 76 FR 78204.
\7\ See 76 FR 78213 and Kentucky Progress Report, p. 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36709]]
In addition, the Commonwealth provides an update on the control
status of EGUs in Kentucky identified by Maine, New Jersey, New
Hampshire, and Vermont as contributing to visibility impairment at
Class I areas located in those states based on 2002 emissions. These
states are members of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU), which identified 167 EGU ``stacks,'' 10 of which are in
Kentucky, as contributing significantly to visibility impairment at
MANE-VU Class I areas in 2002. The 10 EGU stacks are located at: Duke
Energy's East Bend plant; EKPC's Cooper and Spurlock plants; AEP Big
Sandy plant; E.ON U.S. E.W. Brown, Ghent, and Mill Creek plants; and
TVA Paradise. MANE-VU asked Kentucky to control the SO2
emissions from these EGUs with a 90 percent control efficiency and to
adopt a control strategy to provide a 28 percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from non-EGU emission sources that would be
equivalent to MANE-VU's proposed low sulfur residential fuel oil
strategy.
In its Progress Report, the Commonwealth notes that the Kentucky
EGUs identified by MANE-VU either have or will have scrubbers with a
minimum SO2 control efficiency of 90 percent or are
scheduled for retirement by 2018. Kentucky also notes that there was a
decrease of 196,753 tons in SO2 emissions from 2002 to 2012
\8\ at these EGUs and that planned retirements at these EGUs will
result in an additional SO2 emissions decrease of 30,845
tons by 2018 from these units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 15, pp.62-65. The emissions
reductions are based on data from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division
provided in the Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the Commonwealth
described the implementation of measures within Kentucky, including
BART at BART-subject sources for PM.
2. Emissions Reductions
As discussed above, Kentucky focused its assessment in its regional
haze plan and Progress Report on SO2 emissions from EGUs
because of VISTAS' findings that ammonium sulfate is the primary
component of visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states. In
its Progress Report, Kentucky provides SO2 emissions data
from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for each coal-fired EGU in
the Commonwealth. Actual SO2 emissions reductions from 2002
to 2012 for these Kentucky EGUs (300,335 tons) have already exceeded
the projected SO2 emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018
estimated in Kentucky's regional haze plan for these EGUs (261,234
tons).\9\ Kentucky also includes cumulative SO2 and
NOX CAMD emissions data from 2002-2012 for EGUs in the
Commonwealth subject to reporting under the Acid Rain Program. This
data shows a decline in these emissions over this time period and shows
that the SO2 reductions are greater than those estimated for
these units between 2002-2018 in the Commonwealth's regional haze plan.
The emissions reductions identified by Kentucky are due, in part, to
the implemenation of measures included in the Commonwealth's regional
haze plan (e.g., CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 14, pp. 53-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions because the Commonwealth identifies SO2 emissions
reductions from EGUs in Kentucky, the largest sources of SO2
emissions in the Commonwealth.
3. Visibility Conditions
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) require that states with
Class I areas within their borders provide information on current
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of
five-year averages of these annual values.
Kentucky's Progress Report provides figures with visibility
monitoring data for Mammoth Cave. Kentucky reported current visibility
conditions as both the 2006-2010 and 2009-2013 five-year time periods
and used the 2000-2004 baseline period for its Class I area.\10\ Table
1, below, shows the visibility conditions for both the 2006-2010 and
2009-2013 five-year time periods and the difference between these
current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).
Table 1--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, and Visibility Changes in Kentucky's Class I Area
[deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (2000- Current (2006- More current
Class I area 2004) 2010) Difference (2009-2013) Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Cave National Park...... 31.37 29.09 -2.28 25.09 -6.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Cave National Park...... 16.51 15.41 -1.10 13.69 -2.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, Mammoth Cave saw an improvement in visibility
between baseline and the 2006-2010 and 2009-2013 time periods.\11\
Kentucky also reported 20 percent worst day and 20 percent best day
visibility data for Mammoth Cave from 2006-2013 for each year in terms
of five-year averages.\12\ This data shows an improvement in visibility
at Mammoth Cave on the 20 percent best days from 2006-2013 and on the
20 percent worst days from 2007-2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Kentucky Progress Report, Tables 17 and 18, pp. 67-68.
\12\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 18, p.68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that Kentucky's original RPGs were based on the VISTAS
modeling run available at the time of Kentucky's June 25, 2008,
regional haze plan. In 2008, VISTAS provided updated modeling results
that changed the modeled progress for Kentucky's Class I area. Table 2
identifies the RPGs for Mammoth Cave in the Commonwealth's regional
haze plan and provides, for comparison purposes only, the updated RPGs
provided by VISTAS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 16, p. 66.
[[Page 36710]]
Table 2--Updated RPGs for Kentucky's Class I Area
[deciviews]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RPG 20% worst RPG 20% best
Class I area Mammoth Cave National Park days days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original RPGs........................... 25.56 15.57
Updated RPGs............................ 25.40 15.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding visibility
conditions because the Commonwealth provided baseline visibility
conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently
available visibility monitoring data available at the time of Progress
Report development, the difference between these current sets of
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the
change in visibility impairment from 2006-2013.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Kentucky presents data from a statewide
actual emissions inventory for 2007 and compares this data to the
baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (actual and typical
emissions).\14\ The pollutants inventoried include VOC, NH3,
NOX, PM2.5, coarse particulate matter
(PM10), and SO2. The emissions inventories
include the following source classifications: point, area, fires, non-
road mobile, and on-road mobile sources. As discussed in Section
II.A.2, above, Kentucky also presented NOX and
SO2 data from 2002-2012 for EGUs in Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For the typical 2002 stationary point source emissions
inventory, the EGU emissions are adjusted for a typical year so that
if sources were shut down or are operating above or below normal,
the emissions are normalized to a typical emissions inventory year.
The typical year data is used to develop projected typical future
year emissions inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky estimated on-road mobile source emissions in the 2007
inventory using EPA's MOVES model. This model tends to estimate higher
emissions for NOX and PM than its previous counterpart,
EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, used by the Commonwealth to estimate on-road
mobile source emissions for the 2002 inventories. Despite the change in
methodology, with the exception of a slight increase in
PM2.5 and PM10, 2007 actual emissions are lower
for all inventoried emissions than both the actual and typical 2002
emissions, as can be seen when comparing Tables 3 and 4 to Table 5.
Table 3--2002 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Kentucky
[tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NH 3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 1,000 237,209 21,326 14,173 518,086 46,321
Area.................................................... 51,135 39,507 233,559 45,453 41,805 95,375
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 5,055 156,417 3,723 2,697 6,308 103,503
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 31 104,571 6,425 6,046 14,043 44,805
Fires................................................... 44 1,142 5,226 5,074 49 2,640
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 57,265 538,846 270,259 73,443 580,291 292,644
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--2002 Typical Emissions Inventory Summary for Kentucky
[tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NH 3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 995 240,362 21,421 14,219 529,182 46,315
Area.................................................... 51,135 39,507 233,559 45,453 41,805 95,375
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 5,055 156,417 3,723 2,697 6,308 103,503
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 31 104,517 6,425 6,046 14,043 44,805
Fires................................................... 110 1,460 6,667 6,310 136 3,338
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 57,326 542,317 271,795 74,725 591,474 293,336
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--2007 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Kentucky
[tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 113 210,213 30,678 21,110 410,413 47,679
Area.................................................... 52,332 12,693 226,829 40,341 15,590 75,100
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 2,172 133,425 5,524 4,363 1,022 55,883
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 46 63,454 4,207 3,969 3,037 38,785
Fires................................................... 138 1,377 5,016 4,678 180 2,939
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36711]]
Total............................................... 54,801 421,163 272,254 74,461 430,242 220,386
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to find that Kentucky adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking because the
Commonwealth compared the most recent updated emission inventory data
available at the time of Progress Report development with the baseline
emissions used in the modeling for the regional haze plan. Furthermore,
Kentucky evaluated available CAMD SO2 emissions data from
2002 to 2012 for Kentucky EGUs because this data was available at the
time of Progress Report development, ammonium sulfate is the primary
component of visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states, and
EGUs are the largest source of SO2 in the Commonwealth.
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
In its Progress Report, Kentucky documented that sulfates, which
are formed from SO2 emissions, continue to be the biggest
single contributor to regional haze for Class I areas in the
Commonwealth and therefore focused its analysis on large SO2
emissions from point sources. In addressing the requirements at 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5), Kentucky demonstrates that sulfate contributions to
visibility impairment have decreased overall from 2000 to 2013 \15\
along with an improvement in visibility, and examines other potential
pollutants of concern affecting visibility at Mammoth Cave. The
Commonwealth presents data for the 20 percent worst days showing that
ammonium sulfate is responsible for 79.6 and 67.8 percent of the
regional haze at Mammoth Cave for the periods 2006-2010 and 2009-2013,
respectively. For 2006-2010, primary organic matter is the next largest
contributor at 9.3 percent whereas for 2009-2013, the next largest
contributor to regional haze is ammonium nitrate at 13.9 percent,
followed by primary organic matter at 11.7 percent. Furthermore, the
Progress Report shows that the Commonwealth is on track to meeting its
2018 RPGs for Mammoth Cave and that SO2 emissions reductions
from 2002-2012 for EGUs in Kentucky have exceeded the projected
reductions from 2002-2018 in the regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Kentucky Progress Report, Figures 21 and 22, p. 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an assessment of significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions. EPA preliminarily agrees with
Kentucky's conclusion that there have been no significant changes in
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants which have limited or
impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the Commonwealth's sources.
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
The Commonwealth believes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs
for Mammoth Cave and will not impede Class I areas outside of Kentucky
from meeting their RPGs based on the trends in visibility and emissions
presented in its Progress Report. Kentucky notes that the IMPROVE
visibility readings for 2009-2013 already show greater improvments in
visibility than projected by Kentucky in establishing the 2018 RPGs for
Mammoth Cave and that SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs in
the Commonwealth have fallen from 2002 to 2012 by more than than the
predicted decline in SO2 emissions from these sources for
the first planning period in Kentucky's regional haze plan. Kentucky
expects that these emissions will continue to decrease through the
first regional haze implementation period. The Commonwealth identifies
additional SO2 reductions of 49,649 tpy from Kentucky EGUs
that are retiring or converting to natural gas which were not accounted
for in the original 2018 emissions projections in its regional haze
plan.\16\ Kentucky also provides data showing that SO2
emissions from 2002 to 2012 from EGUs outside of the Commonwealth
impacting visibility at Mammoth Cave have decreased by nearly 49
percent (65,416 tpy). In addition, the Commonwealth provides emissions
data in Table 13 and in Figures 10 and 12 of its Progress Report
showing a declining trend in SO2 and NOX
emissions from 2002 to 2012 for EGUs in Kentucky and the VISTAS states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 11, pp. 42-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky also provides updated visibility analyses for Mammoth Cave
and the Class I areas outside the Commonwealth potentially impacted by
sources in Kentucky (Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North
Carolina and Tennessee, James River Face Wilderness Area and Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, Linville Gorge Wilderness Area in North
Carolina, and Dolly Sods Wilderness Area in West Virginia), and notes
that these analyses show that these areas are on track to achieve their
RPGs by 2018.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 26, p. 87; Figures 23-32,
pp. 82-86; Figures 14 and 15, pp. 69-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section II.A.1, above, CAIR was implemented during
the time period evaluated by Kentucky for its Progress Report, but has
now been replaced by CSAPR. At the present time, the requirements of
CSAPR apply to sources in Kentucky under the terms of a FIP because
Kentucky has not, to date, incorporated the CSAPR requirements into its
SIP. Kentuky's regional haze plan accordingly does not contain
sufficient provisions to ensure that the RPGs of Class I areas in
nearby states will be achieved. The term ``implementation plan,''
however, is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze Rule to mean
``any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
Measures in any issued FIP, as well as those in a state's regional haze
SIP, may therefore be considered in assessing the adequacy of the
``existing implementation plan.''
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment. In
its Progress Report, Kentucky described the improving visibility trends
using data from the IMPROVE network and the downward emissions trends
in key pollutants, with a focus on SO2 emissions from EGUs
in the Commonwealth. Kentucky determined that its regional haze plan is
sufficient to meet the RPGs for its own Class I area and the Class I
areas outside the Commonwealth potentially impacted by the emissions
from Kentucky. EPA finds that Kentucky's conclusion regarding the
sufficiency of its regional haze plan is appropriate because CAIR was
in effect in Kentucky through 2014, providing the emission reductions
relied upon in Kentucky's regional haze
[[Page 36712]]
plan through that date. CSAPR is now being implemented, and by 2018,
the end of the first regional haze implementation period, CSAPR will
reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs in
Kentucky by the same amount assumed by EPA when it issued the FIP for
the Commonwealth in June 2012 replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance
on CSAPR. Because CSAPR will ensure the control of SO2 and
NOX emissions reductions relied upon by Kentucky and other
states in setting their RPGs beginning in January 2015 at least through
the remainder of the first implementation period in 2018, EPA is
proposing to approve Kentucky's finding that the plan elements and
strategies in its implementation plan are sufficient to achieve the
RPGs for the Class I area in the Commonwealth and for Class I areas in
nearby states potentially impacted by sources in the Commonwealth.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
In its Progress Report, Kentucky summarizes the existing monitoring
network in Kentucky to monitor visibility at Mammoth Cave and concludes
that no modifications to the existing visibility monitoring strategy
are necessary. The primary monitoring network for regional haze, both
nationwide and in Kentucky, is the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. There is currently one IMPROVE
site located in Mammoth Cave National Park.
The Commonwealth also explains the importance of the IMPROVE
monitoring network for tracking visibility trends at the Class I area
in Kentucky. Kentucky states that data produced by the IMPROVE
monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the
regional haze progress reports and SIP revisions, and thus, the
monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible
and to be kept up to date. The Visibility Information Exchange Web
System Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other Regional
Planning Organizations to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and
data analysis tools.
In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, some ongoing long-term
limited monitoring supported by Federal Land Managers provides
additional insight into progress toward regional haze goals. Kentucky
benefits from the data from these measurements, but is not responsible
for associated funding decisions to maintain these measurements into
the future.
In addition, KDAQ operates a PM2.5 network of filter-
based Federal reference method monitors and filter-based speciation
monitors. These PM2.5 measurements help the KDAQ
characterize air pollution levels in areas across the Commonwealth, and
therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in and near
Mammoth Cave.
EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding monitoring strategy
because the Commonwealth reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy
and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are
necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan
In its Progress Report, Kentucky submitted a negative declaration
to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or emissions
reductions in Kentucky beyond those already in place and those to be
implemented by 2018 according to Kentucky's regional haze plan.
Kentucky determined that the existing regional haze plan requires no
further substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class
I areas affected by the Commonwealth's sources. The Commonwealth's
negative declaration is based on the findings from the Progress Report,
including the findings that: visibility has already improved at Mammoth
Cave in Kentucky such that monitored 2009-2013 visibility readings show
that the Class I area has already met its RPGs for 2018; actual
SO2 emissions reductions from coal-fired EGUs in Kentucky
exceed the predicted reductions in Kentucky's regional haze plan;
additional EGU control measures not relied upon in the Commonwealth's
regional haze plan have occurred or will occur during the first
implementation period that will further reduce SO2
emissions; and emissions of SO2 from EGUs in Kentucky and
the surrounding VISTAS states are expected to continue to trend
downward.
EPA proposes to conclude that Kentucky has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility trends at Mammoth Cave and at
Class I areas outside of the Commonwealth potentially impacted by
sources within Kentucky and the emissions trends of the largest
emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants in the Commonwealth
indicate that the relevant RPGs will be met.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's September 17, 2014, Regional
Haze Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
[[Page 36713]]
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 25, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-16484 Filed 8-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
