78194 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: 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. 

DATES: 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. http://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. 

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 

(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 

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. http://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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 78195 

1EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for Kentucky’s Regional Haze 

Submittal,’’ is included in the public docket for this 

action. 

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 http:// 

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 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 http:// 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78196 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 3Areas 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.’’ 

4Albuquerque/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). 

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). 

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. 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 78197 

5The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

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

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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78198 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

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. 

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 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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. 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 78201 

7The 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. 8The 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. http:// 

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 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

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: http://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

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 ......................................................................................... 11.1 5.0 

Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004): 

Mammoth Cave National Park ......................................................................................... 31.4 16.5 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78202 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

9The term, ‘‘dv,’’ is the abbreviation for 

‘‘deciview.’’ 

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 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 × 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 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 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 78203 

10See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (DC Cir. 

2007). 

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 8- 

hour 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 

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 ......................................................... 46,315 240,362 14,219 21,421 995 529,182 

Area .......................................................... 98,713 40,966 51,763 240,226 51,246 41,941 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 103,503 156,417 2,697 3,723 5,055 6,308 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................... 44,805 104,571 6,046 6,425 31 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

Point ......................................................... 57,287 105,411 18,172 26,848 1,377 266,745 

Area .......................................................... 106,827 45,806 53,955 262,719 55,321 44,322 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 47,066 52,263 1,272 2,580 7,811 763 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................... 30,920 79,392 4,256 4,556 40 8,592 

Total .................................................. 242,100 282,872 77,655 296,703 64,549 320,422 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78204 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 http://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 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/

eiguid/index.html, 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 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 78205 

11Prior 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. 

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: http://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 

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 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78206 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

12See also EPA’s TSD, section III.C.2, fractional 

contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, 

excerpted from the Kentucky SIP, Appendix H. 

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 

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. 

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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 78207 

13Note 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 

Continued 

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 

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 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78208 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ 

download.htm. 

14EGUs 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. 

(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 

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 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 78209 

15On 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. 

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 

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 

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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78210 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

16On 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 

of sulfuric acid mist at the TVA Paradise Fossil Fuel 

Plant. 

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/ 

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

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 (http:// 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 78211 

17Many 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). 

Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on 

reductions due to CAIR in nearby states to develop 

their regional haze SIP submittals. 

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 

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] 

Class I area 

Baseline 

visibility—20% 

worst days 

2018 RPG—20% 

worst days (improvement from 

baseline) 

Uniform rate of 

progress at 

2018—20% 

worst days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Baseline 

visibility—20% 

best days 

2018 RPG— 

20% best days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Mammoth Cave National Park ......................... 31.37 25.56 (5.81) 26.64 (4.73) 16.51 15.57 (0.94) 

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 

available. For example, new sources 

may be built, existing sources may shut 

down or modify production in response 

to changed economic circumstances, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78212 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

18The 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). 

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. 

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 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 78213 

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. 

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 

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 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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. 

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 

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 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 78215 

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] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

DATES: 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: http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

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 http://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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. 

Dated: December 13, 2011. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32361 Filed 12–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS