Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0783-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approvals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Commonwealth of Kentucky; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2011-12-16T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78194-78215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32272]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0783-201034, FRL-9507-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Commonwealth of Kentucky; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval 
of two revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky through the Kentucky Energy 
and Environment Cabinet, Division of Air Quality (KYDAQ), on June 25, 
2008, and May 28, 2010, that address regional haze for the first 
implementation period. These revisions address the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to 
prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness 
areas) caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources 
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional 
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress 
toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in 
Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of these SIP 
revisions to implement the regional haze requirements for Kentucky on 
the basis that the revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Kentucky SIP. 
Also in this action, EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of these 
same SIP revisions because of the deficiencies in the Commonwealth's 
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) to EPA of 
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2009-0783, by one of the following methods:
    1. 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

[[Page 78195]]

www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the 
EPA Docket Center homepage at 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 Document\1\ (TSD) 
explain the basis for EPA's proposed limited approval and limited 
disapproval actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support 
Document for Kentucky's Regional Haze Submittal,'' is included in 
the public docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing 
guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP 
submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from 
granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Processing of State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division 
Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 
Memorandum) located at 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

[[Page 78196]]

remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC 
Cir. 2008). The Court found CAIR to be inconsistent with the 
requirements of the CAA, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC 
Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur 
because it found that ``allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is 
replaced by a rule consistent with [the court's] opinion would at least 
temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.'' North 
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. In response to the court's decision, 
EPA has issued a new rule to address interstate transport of 
NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States (i.e., 
the Transport Rule, also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). 
See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). EPA explained in that action that EPA 
is promulgating the Transport Rule as a replacement for (not a 
successor to) CAIR's SO2 and NOX emissions 
reduction and trading programs. In other words, the CAIR and CAIR 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) requirements only remain in force to 
address emissions through the 2011 control periods. As part of the 
Transport Rule, EPA finalized regulatory changes to sunset the CAIR and 
CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 and beyond. See 76 FR 48322.
    EPA also stated in that final action that EPA has not conducted a 
technical analysis to determine whether compliance with the Transport 
Rule would satisfy the requirements of the RHR addressing alternatives 
to BART. For that reason, EPA did not make a determination or establish 
a presumption that compliance with the Transport Rule satisfies BART-
related requirements for EGUs. EPA is now in the process of determining 
whether compliance with the Transport Rule will provide for greater 
reasonable progress toward improving visibility than source-specific 
BART controls for EGUs but no such determination has yet been proposed.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). 
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine 
particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing 
light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible 
distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious 
health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental 
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \2\ in many Class I areas 
\3\ (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See 
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
    \3\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in 
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 
156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. See 
44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I 
area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park 
expansions. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have 
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility 
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal 
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See 42 
U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term ``Class I area'' is used in this 
action, it means a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility 
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility 
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional 
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the 
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in 
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze 
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 
Islands.\4\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first 
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no 
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and 
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and

[[Page 78197]]

tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment from a 
regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were 
developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first 
evaluated technical information to better understand how their states 
and tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued 
the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of 
particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, 
tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to 
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of 
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the 
southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments 
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the 
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit 
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using 
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then 
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. 
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim 
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), 
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of 
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused 
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that 
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural 
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no 
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years, i.e., midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired 
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of 
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate 
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in 
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at 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

[[Page 78198]]

considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each 
applicable Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how 
they take these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance 
for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program 
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') 
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state 
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult 
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states 
with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at 
the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \6\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set 
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, 
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other 
types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements 
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements 
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART 
controls on the source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration 
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide 
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain 
subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected 
BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions 
of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because 
CAIR did not address direct emissions of PM, states were still required 
to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART 
for that pollutant.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected 
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a

[[Page 78199]]

Class I area located in another state, the RHR requires the impacted 
state to coordinate with the contributing states in order to develop 
coordinated emissions management strategies. See 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing state must demonstrate 
that it has included, in its SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its 
share of the emissions reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class 
I area. The RPOs have provided forums for significant interstate 
consultation, but additional consultations between states may be 
required to sufficiently address interstate visibility issues. This is 
especially true where two states belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a 
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state 
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze 
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating 
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule 
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's 
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be 
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs 
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior 
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of 
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development 
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is the relationship of CAIR and the transport rule to the 
regional haze requirements?

A. Overview of EPA's CAIR

    CAIR, as originally promulgated, required 28 states and the 
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and 
NOX that significantly contributed to, or interfered with 
maintenance of, the 1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 
for fine particulates and/or the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour ozone in any 
downwind state. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR established 
emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX for states 
found to contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind states 
and required these states to submit SIP revisions that implemented 
these budgets. States had the flexibility to choose which control 
measures to adopt

[[Page 78200]]

to achieve the budgets, including participation in EPA-administered 
cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2, NOX-
annual, and NOX-ozone season emissions. In 2006, EPA 
promulgated FIPs for all states covered by CAIR to ensure the 
reductions were achieved in a timely manner.

B. Remand of CAIR

    On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision to vacate 
and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. 
See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008). However, in 
response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued an order 
remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 
The Court thereby left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in 
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values 
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the 
court's opinion. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. The Court 
directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 11, 
2008, opinion but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for completing 
that action. EPA subsequently promulgated the Transport Rule to replace 
CAIR. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR Remand 
and Promulgation of the Transport Rule

    The following is a summary of the elements of the regional haze 
SIPs that are potentially affected by the remand of CAIR. As described 
above, EPA determined in 2005 that states opting to participate in the 
CAIR cap-and-trade program need not require BART for SO2 and 
NOX at BART-eligible EGUs. 70 FR at 39142-39143. Many states 
relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO2 and 
NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed under the BART provisions 
at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several states established RPGs 
that reflect the improvement in visibility expected to result from 
controls planned for or already installed on sources within the state 
to meet the CAIR provisions for this implementation period for 
specified pollutants. Many states relied upon their own CAIR SIPs or 
the CAIR FIPs for their states to provide the legal requirements which 
lead to these planned controls, and did not include enforceable 
measures in the LTS in the regional haze SIP submission to ensure these 
reductions. States also submitted demonstrations showing that no 
additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR would be reasonable for this 
implementation period. Because of the deficiencies identified in CAIR 
by the court and the impact of the Transport Rule on CAIR, it is 
inappropriate to fully approve states' LTSs that rely upon the 
emissions reductions predicted to result from CAIR to meet the BART 
requirement for EGUs or to meet the RPGs in the states' regional haze 
SIPs. For this reason, EPA cannot fully approve regional haze SIP 
revisions that rely on CAIR for emission reduction measures. However, 
as discussed in section IV.D, EPA still believes it is appropriate to 
propose a limited approval of Kentucky's regional haze SIP revisions as 
these revisions provide an improvement over the current SIP, and make 
progress in fulfilling the applicable CAA regional haze program 
requirements. EPA therefore proposes to grant limited approval and 
limited disapproval of the two Kentucky regional haze SIP revisions. 
The next section discusses how the Agency proposes to address these 
deficiencies.
    In the Transport Rule, EPA did not substantively address the 
question of whether the emissions reductions from the Transport Rule 
will provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. EPA explained 
in that rulemaking that the Agency had not yet conducted any technical 
analysis to determine whether compliance with the Transport Rule would 
satisfy the requirements for a BART alternative program. Given the lack 
of any analysis at that time, EPA made no determinations as to whether 
the Transport Rule would provide sufficient emissions reductions and 
concomitant improvements in visibility to be considered to provide for 
greater reasonable progress than BART. Although EPA is now in the 
process of undertaking such an analysis, no action has been proposed. 
As a result, today's proposal action on Kentucky's regional haze SIP is 
affected by the issuance of the Transport Rule only insofar as the 
Transport Rule provides for the sunsetting of CAIR. Future analyses 
involving the Transport Rule and BART will determine appropriate 
subsequent Agency action on Kentucky's regional haze SIP revisions.

D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval

    EPA is intending to propose to issue limited approvals of those 
regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR to address the impact of 
emissions from a state's own EGUs. Limited approval results in approval 
of the entire regional haze submission and all its elements. EPA is 
taking this approach because an affected state's SIP will be stronger 
and more protective of the environment with the implementation of those 
measures by the state and having Federal approval and enforceability 
than it would without those measures being included in the state's SIP.
    EPA also intends to propose to issue limited disapprovals for 
regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR. As explained in the 1992 
Calcagni Memorandum, ``[t]hrough a limited approval, EPA [will] 
concurrently, or within a reasonable period of time thereafter, 
disapprove the rule * * * for not meeting all of the applicable 
requirements of the Act. * * * [T]he limited disapproval is a 
rulemaking action, and it is subject to notice and comment.'' Final 
limited disapproval of a SIP submittal does not affect the Federal 
enforceability of the measures in the subject SIP revision nor prevent 
state implementation of these measures. The legal effects of the final 
limited disapproval are to provide EPA the authority to issue a FIP at 
any time, and to obligate the Agency to take such action no more than 
two years after the effective date of the final limited disapproval 
action.

V. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's regional haze submittal?

    On June 25, 2008, and May 28, 2010, KYDAQ submitted revisions to 
the Kentucky SIP to address regional haze in the Commonwealth's Class I 
area as required by EPA's RHR. Throughout this document, references to 
Kentucky's (or KYDAQ's or the Commonwealth's) ``regional haze SIP'' 
refer to Kentucky's original June 25, 2008, regional haze SIP 
submittal, as later amended in a SIP revision submitted May 28, 2010.

A. Affected Class I Area

    Kentucky has one Class I area within its borders: Mammoth Cave 
National Park. Kentucky is responsible for developing a regional haze 
SIP that addresses this Class I area and for consulting with other 
states that impact the area.
    The June 25, 2008, Kentucky regional haze SIP, as later amended on 
May 28, 2010, establishes RPGs for visibility improvement at Mammoth 
Cave National Park and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within the first 
regional haze implementation period ending in 2018. In developing the 
LTS for the area, Kentucky considered both emission sources inside and 
outside of Kentucky that may cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment in Kentucky's Class I area. The Commonwealth also identified 
and considered emission sources within Kentucky that may cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in neighboring 
states as

[[Page 78201]]

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO worked with the 
Commonwealth in developing the technical analyses used to make these 
determinations, including state-by-state contributions to visibility 
impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the Class I area 
in Kentucky and those areas affected by emissions from Kentucky.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, Kentucky calculated baseline/current and natural 
visibility conditions for its Class I area, as summarized below (and as 
further described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of EPA's TSD to this 
Federal Register action).
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light 
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine 
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. 
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations 
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE 
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA 
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA 
guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural 
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is 
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural 
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to 
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the 
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\7\ The purpose of this 
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate 
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light 
extinction. Kentucky opted to use this refined approach, referred to as 
the ``new IMPROVE equation,'' for its Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) 
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to 
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the 
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of 
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources 
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring 
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were 
calculated separately for each Class I area by VISTAS. Natural 
background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction 
using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle 
components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science \8\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and 
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon 
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New 
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea 
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific 
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to 
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of 
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement 
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium 
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new 
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in Appendix B.2 of the Kentucky regional haze submittal 
and in numerous published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and 
Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating 
Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006. 
Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for 
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Average for 20 percent    Average for 20 percent
                        Class I area                             worst days (dv \9\)         best days (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Background Conditions:
    Mammoth Cave National Park..............................                     11.1                       5.0
Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000-2004):
    Mammoth Cave National Park..............................                     31.4                      16.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 78202]]

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, Kentucky considered the uniform rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve 
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is 
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or 
equivalent to the glidepath.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term, ``dv,'' is the abbreviation for ``deciview.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commonwealth's implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, 
one for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst 
days, for its Class I area. Kentucky constructed the graph for the 
worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking 
Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the 
baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of 
visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 
for its area. For the best days, the graph includes a horizontal, 
straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to 
depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation period of 
the SIP. Kentucky's SIP shows that the Commonwealth's RPGs for its area 
provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst days 
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in 
visibility for the 20 percent best days over the same period, in 
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    For the Kentucky Class I area, the overall visibility improvement 
necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between 
baseline visibility of 31.37 deciviews for the 20 percent worst days 
and natural conditions of 11.08 deciviews, i.e., 20.29 deciviews. Over 
the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average 
improvement of 0.338 deciviews per year to reach natural conditions. 
Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve 
visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate of 
progress for the 20 percent worst days at Mammoth Cave National Park, 
Kentucky would need to project at least 4.73 deciviews over the first 
implementation period (i.e., 0.338 deciviews x 14 years = 4.732 
deciviews) of visibility improvement from the 31.37 deciviews baseline 
in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 26.64 deciviews in 
2018. As discussed below in section V.C.7, Kentucky projects a 5.81 
deciview improvement to visibility from the 31.37 deciview baseline to 
25.56 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 
0.94 deciview improvement to 15.57 deciviews from the baseline 
visibility of 16.51 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days.

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a 
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state 
for achieving its RPGs. Kentucky's LTS for the first implementation 
period addresses the emissions reductions from Federal, state, and 
local controls that take effect in the Commonwealth from the end of the 
baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Kentucky LTS was 
developed by the Commonwealth, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO, 
through an evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification 
of the emissions units within Kentucky and in surrounding states that 
likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the 
Commonwealth's Class I area; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 
2018 based on all controls required or expected under Federal and state 
regulations for the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison 
of projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress 
for the Commonwealth's Class I area; and (4) application of the four 
statutory factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the 
identified emissions units to determine if additional reasonable 
controls were required.
    CAIR is also an element of Kentucky's LTS. CAIR rule revisions were 
approved into the Kentucky SIP in 2007. See 72 FR 56623. Kentucky opted 
to rely on CAIR emission reduction requirements to satisfy the BART 
requirements for SO2 and NOX from EGUs. See 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, Kentucky only required its BART-eligible 
EGUs to evaluate PM emissions for determining whether they are subject 
to BART, and, if applicable, for performing a BART control assessment. 
See section III.D of this action for further details. Additionally, as 
discussed below in section V.C.5, Kentucky concluded that no additional 
controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for reasonable progress for its 
EGUs for this first implementation period. Prior to the remand of CAIR, 
EPA believed the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR for specific BART and 
reasonable progress provisions affecting its EGUs was adequate, as 
detailed later in this action. As explained in section IV of this 
action, the Agency proposes today to issue a limited approval and a 
proposed limited disapproval of the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP 
revisions.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Kentucky. The 
2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and 
applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations 
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants 
NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines direct 
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in 
section V.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which 
demonstrated that 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, off-road 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

[[Page 78203]]

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 multi-pollutant 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (DC Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 78204]]

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-pm-rh-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

[[Page 78205]]

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 non-road 
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

[[Page 78206]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a 
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend 
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse 
effects from human-induced 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also EPA's TSD, section III.C.2, fractional 
contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, excerpted from 
the Kentucky SIP, Appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 78207]]

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 cost-effective 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 BART-
eligible 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

[[Page 78208]]

(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire 
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different 
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, 
etc. which may not be compatible with 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 BART-eligible. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. The Commonwealth 
relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX 
for its EGUs subject to CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were not 
analyzed.

       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

[[Page 78209]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On June 9, 2011, AEP announced that Big Sandy unit 1 would 
be retired by December 31, 2014, and rebuilt as a natural gas-fired 
plant by December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 78210]]

    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 coal-fired 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ On December 15, 2009, KYDAQ issued permit V-07-01 
8 R 1 pursuant to Kentucky's Administrative Regulations (KAR) at 401 
KAR 52:020 (title V regulations). The December 15, 2009, permit 
incorporated the requirement for the installation of pollution 
controls for the reduction of sulfuric acid mist at the TVA Paradise 
Fossil Fuel Plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 mid-2009 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 
BART-subject 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

[[Page 78211]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly 
relied on CAIR emission reductions within the state to address some 
or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other 
states' Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used 
to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-
CAIR states also relied on reductions due to CAIR in nearby states 
to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.

                                                               Table 6--Kentucky 2018 RPGs
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Uniform rate of
                                                                                    2018 RPG--20%      progress at                       2018 RPG-- 20%
                                                                    Baseline         worst days      2018--20% worst      Baseline          best days
                         Class I area                            visibility--20%    (improvement          days         visibility--20%    (improvement
                                                                   worst days      from baseline)     (improvement        best days      from baseline)
                                                                                                     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,

[[Page 78212]]

and facilities may change their emission characteristics as they 
install control equipment to comply with new rules. It would be both 
impractical and resource-intensive 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Kentucky visibility SIP revisions to address Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions were submitted to EPA 
on February 20, 1986, and approved by EPA September 1, 1989 (54 FR 
36311). The Commonwealth's visibility plan provisions were submitted 
on August 31, 1987, and approved July 12, 1988 (53 FR 26256). The 
nonattainment NSR provisions were submitted July 14, 2004, and 
approved July 11, 2006 (71 FR 38990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 78213]]

management system to facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, the FLMs perform long-term 
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

[[Page 78214]]

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 five-
year 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 cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that 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 pre-existing 
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

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

[[Page 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