[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52604-52623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21567]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0675, FRL-9455-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Kansas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Kansas on November 9, 2009, that 
addresses Regional Haze for the first implementation period. In so 
doing, EPA is proposing to determine that the plan submitted by Kansas 
satisfies the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), for 
states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions 
of air pollutants 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 taking this action 
pursuant to those provisions of the CAA that obligate the Agency to 
take action on submittals of SIPs. You may submit written comments on 
this proposed rule as per the instructions given under the section 
Instructions for Comment Submittal.

DATES: Written comments must be received via the methods given in the 
Instructions for Comment section on or before September 22, 2011.

[[Page 52605]]


ADDRESSES: Instructions for Comment Submittal: Submit your comments, 
which must be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0675, by one 
of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected].
    3. Fax: (913) 551-7844 (please alert the individual listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
    4. Mail: Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and Development 
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N 5th 
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    5. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 
901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention: Chrissy 
Wolfersberger. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://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 information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air 
Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 7 Office, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA 
requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of 
the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through 
Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning 
and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 
901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101 or by telephone at (913) 
551-7864.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. 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
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
    A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
    C. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    D. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    E. Reasonable Progress Goals
    F. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    G. Long Term Strategy (LTS)
III. What is the relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR) to the regional haze requirements?
    A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
    B. Remand of the CAIR
    C. CAIR in Relation to the State of Kansas's Submittal
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State of Kansas' submittal?
    A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Affected Class I Areas
    C. Consultation With States and FLMs
    D. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    1. Monitoring Strategy
    2. Emissions Inventory
    3. Reporting Requirements
    4. SIP Revision Schedule
    F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    G. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    1. BART Eligible Sources
    2. BART Subject Sources
    3. BART Determinations
    H. Long Term Strategy
    1. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    2. Measures to Mitigate Construction Activities
    3. Emissions Limitations and Schedules for Compliance to Achieve 
the Reasonable Progress Goal
    4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    5. Smoke Management
    6. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Resulting From Projected 
Changes to Emissions
    V. What action is EPA proposing?
    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

I. 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 wide 
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 
oxides (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. PM2.5 can also 
cause serious health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes 
to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Eutrophication is defined as excessive richness of nutrients 
in a lake or other body of water, frequently due to runoff from the 
land, which causes a dense growth of plant life and death of animal 
life from lack of oxygen.

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

[[Page 52606]]

    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'', or 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 in many Class I areas (e.g., 
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international 
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the Western United States is 
100-150 kilometers (13.6-9.6 deciviews (dv)) 2 3, 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 
(25 dv or more), or about one-fifth of the visual range that would 
exist under estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Visibility refers to the clarity with which distant objects 
can be viewed. Visual range is the distance at which an object is 
just discernible from the background. This could be considered how 
far one can see in a given direction. Visual range is primarily 
affected by the scattering and absorption of light by particles in 
the atmosphere. Scattering by gaseous molecules also reduces the 
transmission of light. The diminished intensity of light caused by 
this scattering and absorption is called light extinction.
    \3\ Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairment. A 
deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction, 
such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to uniform 
incremental changes in perception across the entire range of 
conditions, from pristine to highly impaired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments 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 \4\ 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'' (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 improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas are 
those national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
Section 169A of the CAA requires EPA to promulgate a list of such 
areas where visibility is an important value. 42 U.S.C. 7491. In 
1979, EPA identified visibility as an important value in 156 of 
these areas. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979); see 40 CFR part 81, 
subpart D. The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although States and tribes may designate additional areas 
as Class I, the requirements of the visibility program under 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'' (FLM), the Secretary of the department with 
authority over such lands. 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 
``Class I area'' in this notice, we mean a ``mandatory Class I 
Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) (Regional Haze Rule or Rule). The Regional Haze Rule 
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 the Federal visibility protection regulations 
at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze 
requirements are summarized below in section II. The requirement to 
submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of 
Columbia and the Virgin Islands. States are required by 40 CFR 
51.308(b) to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional 
haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.

C. Roles 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 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 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 and other 
pollutants leading to regional haze. The State of Kansas participated 
in the planning efforts of the Central Regional Air Planning 
Association (CENRAP) which is affiliated with the Central States Air 
Resource Agencies (CENSARA). This RPO includes nine states--Nebraska, 
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and 
Louisiana.
    States were also required (40 CFR 51.308(i)) to coordinate with 
FLMs during the development of the state's strategies to address 
Regional Haze. FLMs include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. 
Forest Service, and the National Park Service.

II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze Rule

    CAA sections 110(l) and 110(a)(2) require revisions to a SIP to be 
adopted by a state after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has 
promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40 
CFR Part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of 
notices by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area of a 
public hearing on proposed revisions, at least a 30-day public comment 
period, and the opportunity for a public hearing, and that the state, 
in accordance with its laws, submit the revision to the EPA for 
approval. Specific information on Kansas' rulemaking, Regional Haze SIP 
development and public information process is included in Chapter 2, 
and Appendix 2.1, of the State of Kansas Regional Haze SIP, which is 
included in the docket of this proposed rulemaking.
    Regional Haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A, and EPA's implementing regulations (40 CFR 51.300-
51.309), require states to establish long-term strategies for making 
reasonable progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans also 
must give specific attention to certain stationary

[[Page 52607]]

sources that were in existence on August 7, 1977 but were not in 
operation before August 7, 1962 and require, where appropriate, that 
these sources install BART for the purpose of eliminating or reducing 
visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are 
discussed in further detail below.

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

    The Regional Haze Rule requires that states consult with other 
states and FLMs before adopting and submitting their SIPs (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 reasonable 
progress goals (RPGs) \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)--for each mandatory Class I area located 
within the State, the State must establish goals (expressed in 
deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving 
natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

    The Regional Haze Rule establishes the deciview as the principle 
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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule provides additional 
details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals (which 
are interim visibility goals toward meeting the national visibility 
goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The Regional Haze SIPs must contain measures 
that make ``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, 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 midway through each 10-year implementation period. To do this, 
the Regional Haze Rule 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 develop an estimate of natural visibility 
conditions for 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 (EPA-454/B-
03-004 September 2003, 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 point 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 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.

D. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule 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. 
Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in 
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Vital Environments (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 
reasonable progress goals 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;
     For a state with no mandatory Class I areas, procedures 
for using monitoring data and other information to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;

[[Page 52608]]

     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, the most recent year for which data are 
available, and estimates of future projected emissions, along with a 
commitment to update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The Regional Haze Rule 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 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 be continue to be met.

E. Reasonable Progress Goals

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress toward achieving the 
national visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs that establish two reasonable progress goals (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 Regional Haze Rule 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 reasonable progress 
goals, 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 reasonable 
progress goals, but are required to consider the following factors 
established in section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's Regional Haze Rule 
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 considered when selecting the reasonable 
progress goal for the best and worst days for each applicable Class I 
area in the state (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). 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 reasonable progress 
goals, 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 ten year 
period of the SIP. Uniform progress toward achievement of natural 
visibility conditions by 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 reasonable progress goals, 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 (51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
    States without Class I areas are required to submit Regional Haze 
SIPs to address their contribution to visibility impairment. As per the 
previous discussion in this proposed rulemaking, the ability of the 
long range transport of pollutants to affect visibility conditions 
areas makes it imperative that each state evaluate how emissions from 
within its borders affect visibility impairment in Class I areas in 
other states. However, states without Class I areas, such as Kansas, 
are not required to (a) establish reasonable progress goals, (b) 
calculate baseline and natural visibility conditions at Class I areas, 
or (c) monitor and report visibility data for each Class I area within 
the state.

F. 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 that 
certain categories of existing stationary sources built between 1962 
and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``best available retrofit 
technology'' as determined by the state.\7\ Under the Regional Haze 
Rule, 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 
toward improving visibility than BART. This is discussed in more detail 
in section III. of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). The 26 source 
categories are: (1) Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more 
than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, (2) Coal 
cleaning plants (thermal dryers), (3) Kraft pulp mills, (4) Portland 
cement plants, (5) Primary zinc smelters, (6) Iron and steel mill 
plants, (7) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants, (8) Primary 
copper smelters, (9) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more 
than 250 tons of refuse per day, (10) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and 
nitric acid plants, (11) Petroleum refineries, (12) Lime plants, 
(13) Phosphate rock processing plants, (14) Coke oven batteries, 
(15) Sulfur recovery plants, (16) Carbon black plants (furnace 
process), (17) Primary lead smelters, (18) Fuel conversion plants, 
(19) Sintering plants, (20) Secondary metal production facilities, 
(21) Chemical process plants, (22) Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 
250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, (23) 
Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 
300,000 barrels, (24) Taconite ore processing facilities, (25) Glass 
fiber processing plants, and (26) Charcoal production facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule \8\ 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 emissions limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired 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

[[Page 52609]]

encouraged, but not required to follow the BART Guidelines in making 
BART determinations for other types of sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Appendix Y to part 51--F.1. The guidelines provide a process 
for making BART determinations that states can use in implementing 
the regional haze BART requirements on a source-by-source basis, as 
provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). States must follow the guidelines 
in making BART determinations on a source-by-source basis for 750 
megawatt (MW) power plants but are not required to use the process 
in the guidelines when 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 VOCs or ammonia 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 emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. As a 
general matter, any exemption threshold set by the state should not be 
higher than 0.5 deciviews (70 FR 39161).
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the Regional Haze Rule and 
document their BART control determination analyses. In making BART 
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states 
consider the following five 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, controls must be installed and 
in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years 
after EPA's approval of the regional haze SIP. See CAA section 
169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by 
the Regional Haze Rule, 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 Regional Haze Rule 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. 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 or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected 
BART-eligible electricity generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, 
and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, 
states were still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions 
from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant.

G. Long Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10- to 15-year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze 
Rule requires that states include a LTS in their 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 reasonable 
progress goals. 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 impairment in a Class I area located in another state, 
the Regional Haze Rule requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emission 
management strategies (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 emission reductions 
needed to meet the reasonable progress goal 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 are taken into account in 
developing their LTS (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)):
     Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control 
programs,
     Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction 
activities;
     Emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to 
achieve the reasonable progress goal;
     Source retirement and replacement schedules;
     Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry 
management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state 
for these purposes;
     Enforceability of emissions limitations and control 
measures; and
     The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected 
changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period 
addressed by the LTS.

III. What is the relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 
to the regional haze requirements?

A. Overview of EPA's CAIR

    CAIR, as originally promulgated, requires 28 states and the 
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and 
NOX that significantly contribute to, or interfere with 
maintenance of, the NAAQS for fine particulates and/or ozone in any 
downwind state. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR establishes 
emission budgets or caps for SO2 and NOX for 
states that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind 
states and requires the significantly contributing states to submit SIP 
revisions that implement these budgets. States have the flexibility to 
choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, 
including participation in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs 
addressing SO2, NOX-annual, and NOX-
ozone season emissions.

B. Remand of the CAIR

    On July 11, 2008, the DC 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 (DC Cir. 2008). However, in 
response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued an order 
remanding CAIR to EPA without

[[Page 52610]]

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. The Court thereby left CAIR in 
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values 
covered by CAIR'' until EPA could replace it with a rule consistent 
with the court's opinion. 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. 
Because CAIR accordingly has been remanded to the Agency without 
vacatur, CAIR and the CAIR FIPs are currently in effect in subject 
states.
    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 leads 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.
    On July 6, 2011, EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
(CSAPR).\9\ This rule responds to the court ruling remanding the 2005 
CAIR, and achieves emission reductions beyond those originally required 
by CAIR through additional air pollution reductions from power plants 
beginning in 2012. On July 11, 2011, in conjunction with EPA's 
finalization of CSAPR, EPA issued a supplemental proposal requesting 
comment on inclusion of additional states in the CSAPR ozone season 
program. (76 FR 40662) EPA intends to finalize the supplemental 
proposal by October 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. CAIR in Relation to the State of Kansas' Submittal

    The State of Kansas is not in the CAIR program and did not rely on 
CAIR for reductions of SO2 or NOX in place of 
BART at its BART-subject EGUs. EPA acknowledges that the CAIR program 
was a major component in the underlying assumptions used by the State 
to determine source apportionment based on the modeled reduction 
expected in neighboring states that participate in the CAIR program. 
Modeling used by the CENRAP states included assumptions based on 
reductions from CENRAP states that relied on CAIR. As more fully 
discussed in section IV. F. of this proposal, and page 30 of the SIP, 
the State committed to report on its progress towards meeting the 
reasonable progress goals established for the Class I areas in other 
states within five years of submittal of the SIP, and if the State 
determines that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure the 
reasonable progress goals are met, to submit necessary revisions to 
EPA. Kansas has committed to review emissions changes and potential new 
technology developments that may apply to the sources identified above 
as part of the five-year progress report. As described on page 74 of 
the SIP, if a determination is made that controls are feasible, cost-
effective, and needed for visibility improvements, the State will 
explore additional controls at that time.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State of Kansas' submittal?

A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze Rule

    EPA is proposing to find that that the State of Kansas has met the 
requirements of the CAA which require that the State adopt a SIP after 
reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA also believes that the State 
has met the requirements of the specific procedural requirements for 
SIP revisions promulgated at 40 CFR part 51, subpart F and appendix V. 
These requirements include publication of notices by prominent 
advertisement in the relevant geographic area of a public hearing on 
proposed revisions, at least a 30-day public comment period, and the 
opportunity for a public hearing, and that the State, in accordance 
with its laws, submit the revision to EPA for approval. Specific 
information on Kansas' rulemaking, Regional Haze SIP development and 
public information process is included in Chapter 2, and Appendix 2.1, 
of the State of Kansas Regional Haze SIP, which is included in the 
docket of this proposed rule making.

B. Affected Class I Areas

    EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas has adequately 
established which Class I areas are impacted by emissions from the 
State, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d) and as described in the Agency's 
``Visibility Monitoring Guidance'' \10\ . There are no Class I areas 
hosted by the State of Kansas. States, such as Kansas, that do not host 
Class I areas are not required to identify reasonable progress goals or 
calculate baseline and natural visibility conditions at Class I areas. 
However, states without Class I areas are still required to submit SIPs 
that address the apportionment of visibility impact from the emissions 
generated by sources within the state's borders at Class I areas hosted 
by other states. The following are the Class I areas nearest to the 
State of Kansas in all directions around the State's border:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Visibility Monitoring Guidance: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/visible/r-99-003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Arkansas (CACR)
     Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Arkansas (UPBU)
     Great Sands Dunes Wilderness Area, Colorado (GRSA)
     Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado (ROMO)
     Hercules Glades Wilderness Area, Missouri (HEGL)
     Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri (MING)
     Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area, Oklahoma (WIMO)
     Badlands National Park, South Dakota (BADL)
     Wind Cave National Park, Texas (WICA)
     Big Bend National Park, Texas (BIBE)
     Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (GUMO)
    The 20 percent worst day estimated percent light extinction (for 
the base year 2002 and projection year 2018), at these eleven Class I 
areas, attributed to emissions from sources in Kansas (shown by 
pollutant species and source category), are provided in the Technical 
Support Document (TSD) to this proposed rulemaking. The CENRAP computed 
these data using IMPROVE data for 2000 to 2004 to define baseline, 
natural and 2018 conditions for each of the affected Class I areas. All 
CENRAP states relied upon the regional modeling work performed by 
CENRAP \11\ (and its contractors) for determining the impact that 
sources within a state might have on Class I areas in the region. The 
modeling was based on PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) with 
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) 
photochemical model. For Kansas, the CENRAP modeling indicated that 
Kansas sources were most likely to have

[[Page 52611]]

the highest visibility impact at the WIMO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A contractor to CENRAP, ENVIRON, completed the data 
analysis. This analysis can be reviewed in Chapter 4 of the 
Technical Support Document developed by ENVIRON and can be found at 
http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas adequately 
identified the Class I areas impacted by sources of air pollution 
within the State and the State adequately determined the apportionment 
of those pollutants from sources located within the State and as such 
has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).

C. Consultation With States and FLMs

    EPA is proposing to find that that the State of Kansas participated 
in sufficient consultation with other states where emissions from 
sources in Kansas are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in Class I areas hosted by other states and to 
coordinate emission management strategies for such Class I areas, as 
required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and (d)(3)(i). The State of Kansas 
was an active member of the CENRAP. The governing body (voting members) 
of CENRAP was considered the Policy Oversight Group (POG). The POG was 
made up of 18 voting members representing states and tribes in the 
CENRAP region and nonvoting member representing local air agencies, the 
FLMs and other stakeholders. CENRAP members also developed a workgroup 
structure to address technical and non-technical issues related to 
regional haze. There were five workgroups: Monitoring; Emissions 
Inventory; Modeling; Communications; and Implementation and Control 
Strategies. Any interested party to CENRAP was invited to participate 
on any or all of the workgroups. Policy issues were decided by the POG. 
The Kansas Regional Haze SIP was developed utilizing data analysis, 
modeling results and other technical support documents prepared for 
CENRAP members by the workgroups, or parties contracted by CENRAP.\12\ 
The Kansas SIP (at page 85) indicates that in addition to participation 
in the regional planning process, Kansas consulted directly with the 
States of Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas to determine if 
controls beyond presumptive BART (presumptive BART is discussed in 
greater detail below) would be required of emission sources in Kansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This information was provided on the CENRAP Web site, 
http://cenrap.org or CENRAP's FTP site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas engaged in 
adequate consultation with the FLMs as required by 40 CFR 51.308(i). 
The State provided the FLMs with state contacts for submission of 
recommendations in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(1), as provided on 
page 14 of the Kansas Regional Haze SIP. In addition to the FLMs having 
the opportunity to participate in or comment on (as non-voting members 
of CENRAP) the development of technical and non-technical documents 
used by the State to develop its Regional Haze SIP, the FLMs were given 
the opportunity to comment on the State's draft SIP dated November 1, 
2007 as required by 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), participate in a public 
hearing held on August 20, 2008, the opportunity to comment on a 
revised draft SIP dated July 16, 2009, and participate in a second 
public hearing held on August 27, 2009. The FLMs submitted comments to 
the State of Kansas on December 14, 2007. The State addressed comments 
received from the FLMs as shown in Appendix 4.1 of the State's Regional 
Haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). To address the 
requirement for continuing consultation with the FLMs under 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(4), the State of Kansas has committed in its SIP to ongoing 
consultation with the FLMs on Regional Haze issues throughout the 
implementation period by coordinating and consulting with the FLMs 
during development of five-year progress reports and plan revisions.
    EPA is proposing to find the State of Kansas provided sufficient 
evidence that it engaged in adequate consultation with other states and 
the FLMs and therefore has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i) and 
(d)(3)(i) and of the Regional Haze Rule.

D. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

    States that host Class I areas are required to estimate the 
baseline, natural and current visibility conditions of those Class I 
areas. As Kansas does not host a Class I area, it is not required to 
estimate these metrics. However, as previously discussed in section IV. 
B. of this document, the State must still develop a SIP that estimates 
the apportionment of visibility impact related to pollutant emissions 
from sources within the State on Class I areas hosted by other States.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    As it does not host a Class I area, Kansas is not required to 
develop a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and 
reporting regional haze impairment that is representative of Class I 
areas within the State. However, Kansas is required to establish 
procedures by which monitoring data and other information is used to 
determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to 
regional haze impairment at Class I areas outside of the State and to 
document the technical basis on which it is relying to determine its 
apportionment of emission reductions necessary for achieving reasonable 
progress in each Class I area it affects, as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(iii), (d)(4)(ii) and (iii). Kansas is also required to 
develop a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that are 
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment 
in any Class I area, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) and 
(d)(4)(v). This inventory must include baseline year emissions, 
emissions for the most recent year that data is available, and 
estimates of future year emissions. A commitment to update the 
inventory as well as a commitment to maintain reporting, recording 
keeping and other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility 
improvements are required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) and (vi). EPA is 
proposing to find that the State has met these requirements, as 
explained below.
1. Monitoring Strategy
    There are three IMPROVE protocol sites (sites that are not managed 
directly by IMPROVE (a Federal program) but by the operating agency) 
which are operated in the State of Kansas. One is located at Cedar 
Bluff State Park in Trego County in the western part of the State, a 
second at the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in the eastern part 
of the State (each operated by the State of Kansas), and the third is 
located in Reserve, Kansas in the northeastern part of the State and it 
is operated by the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and 
Nebraska. Descriptions of these monitoring sites and methods for data 
validation can be found in Chapter 6 of the State's Regional Haze SIP. 
The State has provided a commitment in Chapter 6, section 6.3, of the 
State's Regional Haze SIP to maintain the three IMPROVE protocol 
monitoring sites, or any other EPA approved network configuration, 
contingent upon continued national funding.
    The filter samples from the three IMPROVE-protocol sites are sent 
for analysis to the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at the University of 
California in Davis, and the resultant data are subjected to 
preliminary review and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) 
procedures. Nephelometer data from the Cedar Bluff site are validated 
by the CENRAP contractor. Other visibility-related data collected by 
the State of Kansas (PM2.5, SO2, NO2, 
and NH3) are subjected to review and QA/QC procedures prior 
to reporting.

[[Page 52612]]

    After validation, data from the three IMPROVE-protocol sites are 
sent by the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at the University of California 
in Davis for posting to the IMPROVE Web site and the Visibility 
Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web site http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/. Nephelometer data from the Cedar Bluff 
site are reported to the VIEWS database by the CENRAP contractor. Other 
visibility-related data collected by the State of Kansas are reported 
to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database on a quarterly basis.
    EPA is proposing to find that the State's commitment to provide and 
utilize data from these sites, or any other EPA approved monitoring 
network location, to characterize and monitor model conditions within 
the State and to compare visibility conditions in the State to 
visibility impairment at Class I areas hosted by other states meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(ii) and (iii) of the Regional Haze 
Rule.
2. Emissions Inventory
    EPA has reviewed the emissions inventory provided by the State of 
Kansas and believes that it is sufficient and follows the guidance 
provided by the Agency in its ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for the 
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations'' \13\ and its 
``2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hour Ozone, 
PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs'' memo.\14\ Kansas is 
required to develop a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that 
are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment in any Class I area. This inventory must include baseline 
year emissions, emissions for the most recent year that data is 
available, and estimates of future year emissions. The State provided 
an inventory of emissions of pollutants that may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area: VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5, 
PM10 and NH3. As required, the inventory includes 
emissions for a baseline year (2002), the most recent year for which 
data are available, and estimates of future year (2018) projected 
emissions along with a commitment to update the inventory periodically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Emissions Inventory Guidance for the Implementation of 
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/eiguidfinal_nov2005.pdf.
    \14\ 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hour 
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs memo-http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/2002baseinven_102502new.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2002 emissions inventory and its improvements were developed by 
CENRAP and its contractors as part of the development of a baseline 
inventory for the 2002 modeling inventory.\15\ The TSD to this proposal 
discusses the improvements to the inventory that were prepared by the 
contractor retained to develop and improve three inventory categories 
of the baseline 2002 inventory: planned burning, ammonia, mobile source 
and fugitive dust. The complete 2002 baseline emissions inventory can 
be found in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP. Methodologies for the development 
of the 2002 emissions inventories can be found in Appendix 7.3 of the 
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the 2018 future year emissions the State grew the 2002 
emissions using the Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS), MOBILE 6.2 
vehicle emissions software, and the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) 
version 2.93 for EGUs.
    EPA is proposing to find that the 2002 and 2018 statewide emissions 
inventories and the State's method for developing the 2018 emissions 
inventory meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) of the 
Regional Haze Rule.

                    Table 1--2002 Kansas Emissions Summary, by Source Category and Pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Tons/yr
             Source category             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              VOC         NOX        PM2.5       PM10         NH3         SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................      40,278     165,224      16,321      38,366      59,750     143,367
Nonpoint (except fires).................      87,327      13,851      10,024      10,533         796       3,100
On-road mobile..........................      74,519     100,152       1,607       2,179       2,816       3,097
Nonroad mobile..........................      28,138      82,697       5,993       6,549         115       8,101
Nonpoint fire...........................      35,046      29,322     117,597     129,187          19      11,051
Biogenic................................     575,073      49,616         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................     840,381     440,862     151,542     186,814      63,496     168,716
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Table 2--2018 Kansas Projected Emissions Summary, by Source Category and Pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Tons/yr
             Source category             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              VOC         NOX        PM2.5       PM10         NH3         SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................      54,007     145,647      23,669      50,165      71,623      81,664
Nonpoint (except fires).................     104,983      15,822       9,143       9,534       1,247       3,860
On-road mobile..........................      32,724      28,779         655         655       3,892         369
Nonroad mobile..........................      15,156      38,044       2,696       2,954          52         126
Nonpoint fire...........................      35,046      29,322     117,597     129,187          19      11,051
Biogenic................................     575,073      49,616         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................     816,989     307,230     153,760     192,495      76,833      97,070
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52613]]

3. Reporting Requirements
    EPA has reviewed and believes the State's reporting strategy meets 
the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. The State is required to 
maintain reporting, recordkeeping and other measures necessary to 
assess and report on visibility improvements. In its Regional Haze SIP, 
Kansas asserts that by complying with EPA's Air Emissions Reporting 
Rule, in addition to the State's commitment (as given in Chapter 7, 
section 7.7, of the State's Regional Haze SIP) to periodically update 
the emissions inventory through use of the latest available emissions 
data (expected to be the 2011 National Emissions Inventory, source 
inventory data such as Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) 
data for EGUs, or EGAS growth rates for other sources in comparison to 
actual emissions) when completing the State's mandatory five-year 
progress reports, it has met the requirement of the Rule. EPA is 
proposing to find that the State's methods of reporting and 
recordkeeping of emissions meets the requirement of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(4)(v) and (vi) of the Regional Haze Rule.
4. SIP Revision Schedule
    Section 51.308(f) of the Regional Haze Rule requires control 
strategies to cover an initial implementation period extending to the 
year 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment and revision of those 
strategies and the SIP, as appropriate, by July 31, 2018, and every ten 
years thereafter. EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas met 
this requirement by committing to reassess and revise the Regional Haze 
SIP on this schedule, as necessary, in Chapter 7, section 7.7 of the 
SIP. In addition, the State committed to submit its five-year SIP 
report by November 9, 2014, and along with the five-year report, submit 
a determination of the adequacy of its existing Regional Haze SIP 
revisions. EPA is proposing to find that the State's commitment to meet 
these schedules meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and 
(h) of the Regional Haze Rule.

F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

    Since the State of Kansas does not host Class I areas, it is not 
required to establish RPGs for a Class I area. However, as discussed in 
sections IV.B. and IV.D. of this proposed rulemaking, the State must 
still develop a SIP that estimates the apportionment of visibility 
impact, related to pollutant emissions from sources within the State of 
Kansas, on Class I areas hosted by other states. As discussed in 
section IV.G. of this proposal the State is required to develop a 
control strategy to reduce those impacts.\16\ A discussion of the 
State's control strategy to reduce visibility impacts at Class I areas 
around the State is included in section IV.H. of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)--Where other States cause or 
contribute to impairment of visibility in a mandatory Class 1 
Federal area, the State must demonstrate that it has included in its 
implementation plan all measures necessary to obtain reductions 
needed to meet the progress goal for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    EPA has reviewed and proposes that the State's process to identify 
BART-eligible sources, BART-subject sources and the emission rates it 
has determined to be BART for five BART-subject units at three sources 
in Kansas meets the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 
51.308(e) and is consistent with the Guidelines for BART Determinations 
under the Regional Haze Rule. The TSD to this proposal provides a 
detailed analysis of the State's BART determinations.
    As previously mentioned in this proposal, 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 determining 
appropriate emissions limits for each BART-subject source. The BART 
evaluation process consists of three components: (a) Identification of 
all the BART-eligible sources; (b) assessment of whether the BART-
eligible sources are subject to BART; and (c) determination of the BART 
controls. The components, as addressed by the State's findings, are 
discussed below, and further discussed in the TSD for this proposed 
rulemaking.
    In making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired generating 
plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a 
state must use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state 
is not required to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART 
determinations for other types of sources. The BART Guidelines provide 
five steps toward identifying BART control for these very large EGUs. 
Step 1: Identify all available retrofit control technologies; Step 2: 
Eliminate technically infeasible control technologies; Step 3: Evaluate 
the control effectiveness of remaining control technologies; Step 4: 
Evaluate impacts and document the results; Step 5: Evaluate visibility 
impact.
1. BART Eligible Sources
    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the State's boundaries. The State utilized the 
methodology in the BART Guidelines and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 
51.301, for determining which sources were BART-eligible. For an 
emission source to be identified as BART-eligible, the State used these 
criteria from the BART Guidelines:
     One or more emissions units at the facility fit within one 
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines;
     The emission unit was in existence on August 7, 1977 and 
began operation at some point on or after August 7, 1962; and
     The limited potential emissions from all emission units 
identified in the previous two bullets were 250 tons or more per year 
of any of these visibility-impairing pollutants: SO2, 
NOX, or PM10.
    In the BART determination process, states must address all 
significant visibility impairing pollutants. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. As indicated by the BART Guidelines, a state should use its best 
judgment in determining whether VOCs, ammonia or ammonia compounds 
impair visibility in particular Class I areas. Kansas determined that 
it did not need to evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions as part of its 
BART analyses.\17\ The TSD to this proposal includes EPA's analysis and 
confirmation of the state's conclusion that neither VOC nor ammonia 
needed to be evaluated as part of the State's BART determinations.

[[Page 52614]]

EPA is proposing to find that the State's use of air quality data 
provided by CENRAP, in evaluating whether potential BART sources could 
be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment 
in a Class I area is in accordance with the BART guidelines and in 
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Appendix Y of Part 51--States should exercise judgment in 
deciding whether the following pollutants impair visibility in an 
area: (4) VOCs and (5) Ammonia and ammonia compounds. A State should 
use its best judgment in deciding whether VOC or ammonia emissions 
from a source are likely to have an impact on visibility in an area. 
Certain types of VOC emissions, for example, are more likely to form 
secondary organic aerosols than others. Similarly, controlling 
ammonia emissions in some areas may not have a significant impact on 
visibility. A State need not provide a formal showing of an 
individual decision that a source of VOC or ammonia emissions is not 
subject to BART review. Because air quality modeling may not be 
feasible for individual sources of VOC or ammonia, a state should 
also exercise its judgment in assessing the degree of visibility 
impacts due to emissions of VOC and emissions of ammonia or ammonia 
compounds. A state should fully document the basis for judging that 
a VOC or ammonia source merits BART review, including its assessment 
of the source's contribution to visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To identify the sources that met the criteria above, Kansas 
performed a multi-step search and analysis including a database query 
of the permitted air sources in its point source emissions inventory 
database, and a more detailed survey of the limited number of 
facilities in the database that met the source category criteria. This 
process is outlined in detail in Appendix 9.1 of the SIP and is 
discussed in the TSD to this proposal. The nineteen facilities 
identified are listed in Table 3.

                       Table 3--Facilities With BART-Eligible Units in the State of Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     BART Source category name         Facility ID       Facility name          BART-Eligible emission units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil-Fuel Fired Electric                  0090002  Aquila (now Sunflower  Unit 3 (Stacks 1 and 2).
 Generating Units.                                    Electric)--Arthur
                                                      Mullergren.
                                            1750001  Aquila (now Sunflower  Unit 1.
                                                      Electric)--Cimarron
                                                      River.
                                            0570001  Aquila (now Sunflower  Unit 4.
                                                      Electric)--Judson
                                                      Large.
                                            2090008  Kansas City BPU--      Unit 1.
                                                      Nearman.
                                            2090048  Kansas City BPU--      Unit 1
                                                      Quindaro.             Unit 2.
                                            1070005  KCP&L--La Cygne......  Unit 1
                                                                            Unit 2.
                                            1130014  McPherson Municipal    Unit 1.
                                                      Power Plan 2.
                                            0550026  Sunflower Electric--   Unit S2.
                                                      Garden City.
                                            1730012  Westar Energy--Gordon  Unit 2 (Stacks 2 and 3).
                                                      Evans.
                                            1550033  Westar Energy--        Unit 4 (Stacks A and B).
                                                      Hutchinson.
                                            1490001  Westar Energy--        Unit 1
                                                      Jeffrey.              Unit 2.
                                            0450014  Westar Energy--        Unit 5.
                                                      Lawrence.
                                            0350012  Winfield Municipal     Unit 4.
                                                      Power Plant 2.
Portland Cement Plants.............         0010009  Monarch Cement Co....  No. 4 Kiln Stack, No. 4 Kiln Clinker
                                                                             Cooler, No. 5 Kiln Stack, No. 5
                                                                             Kiln Clinker Cooler, Raw Material
                                                                             Unloading, Clinker Grinding and
                                                                             Cement Handling, Stone Quarry
                                                                             Processing.
Petroleum Refineries...............         0150004  Frontier El Dorado     Boiler B-105, Boiler B-107, Plant
                                                      Refining Co.           Process Heaters, Refinery Flare
                                                                             System B-1303, Plant Cooling
                                                                             Towers, Storage Tanks, Gas Oil
                                                                             Hydrotreater.
                                            1130003  National Cooperative   Alky Heater HA-002, No. 9 Boiler SB-
                                                      Refinery Assoc.        009, No.12 Boiler SB-012, Coker IR
                                                      (NCRA).                Comp. CR-003, Plat Stab Boil Htr HP-
                                                                             003, Plat Charge Htr HP-006,
                                                                             Fugitive Emissions.
Chemical Processing Plants.........         1730070  Basic Chemicals (now   Boiler 1; Boiler 2; Boiler 3;
                                                      OxyChem--Wichita).     Chloromethanes.
                                            0570003  Koch Nitrogen........  Ammonia plant--primary reformer;
                                                                             Ammonia plant--other; Nitric acid
                                                                             plant--absorber tail gas; Ammonium
                                                                             nitrate plant--neutralizer.
Glass Fiber Processing Plants......         2090010  Owens Corning........  70 furnace--N exhaust; 70 furnace--S
                                                                             exhaust; 70 riser/channel/
                                                                             forehearth; 70 A forming; 70 B
                                                                             forming; 70 C forming; 70 D
                                                                             forming; 70 curing oven charge end;
                                                                             70 curing oven discharge end; J5
                                                                             furnace; J5 riser/channel/
                                                                             forehearth; J6 A forming; J6 B
                                                                             forming; J6 C forming; J6 curing
                                                                             oven charge end; J6 curing oven
                                                                             discharge end; J6 smoke stripper;
                                                                             J6 north cooling (A); J6 south
                                                                             cooling (B); J6 asphalt coating;
                                                                             Raw material processing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas appropriately 
identified its BART-eligible sources in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines.
2. 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, and using air quality data provided by 
CENRAP, Kansas

[[Page 52615]]

completed a modeling analysis of all nineteen sources determined to be 
BART-eligible, using CALPUFF.\18\ The BART guidelines indicate that 
CALPUFF, or other appropriate models, can be used to determine if an 
individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment 
of visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species non-steady-state 
puff dispersion model that simulates the effects of time- and space-
varying meteorological conditions on pollution transport, 
transformation and removal. CALPUFF can be applied on scales of tens 
to hundreds of kilometers. It includes algorithms for subgrid scale 
effects (such as terrain impingement), as well as longer range 
effects (such as pollutant removal due to wet scavenging and dry 
deposition, chemical transformation, and visibility effects of 
particulate matter concentrations). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess contribution to visibility impairment at a Class I area, 
the states must establish a contribution threshold. The BART Guidelines 
state that a single source that is responsible for a 1.0 dv change or 
more should be considered to `cause' visibility impairment at a Class I 
area and that a source that is responsible for a 0.5 dv change should 
be considered to `contribute' to visibility impairment at a Class I 
area. The Guidelines state that a lower threshold can be chosen under 
certain circumstances (e.g., many contributing emission sources close 
to a Class I area).
    As set forth in Appendix 9.2 of the SIP, the State utilized a 
contribution threshold of 0.5 dv. The State selected this contribution 
threshold in accordance with the BART Guidelines, section III.A.1., 
based upon the relatively large distances between the State's BART-
eligible sources, and the Class I areas outside the State. Use of the 
screening threshold of 0.5 dv is further justified because the 
visibility impacts of sources excluded at this screening stage of the 
analysis are well below 0.5 dv. If the modeling results showed that a 
source had at least a 0.5 dv or greater visibility impact on at least 
one day in a three year period (2001-2003), then further BART-subject 
analysis was required. The nine Class I areas that were determined to 
be significant for determining impacts from potential BART-subject 
sources were:

 Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Arkansas (CACR)
 Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Arkansas (UPBU)
 Great Sand Dunes Wilderness Area, Colorado (GRSA)
 Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado (ROMO)
 Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, Missouri (HEGL)
 Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri (MING)
 Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area, Oklahoma (WIMO)
 Badlands National Park, South Dakota (BADL)
 Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota (WICA)

    This preliminary modeling was completed using general assumptions 
made by the State. The modeling showed that eight of the nineteen BART-
eligible sources exceeded the contribution screening threshold of 0.5 
dv or greater visibility impact on at least one day in a three year 
period. Those sources are identified in Table 4.

 Table 4--Kansas BART-Eligible Emission Units With at Least One > 0.5 dv Visibility Impact Day on Selected Class
                                            I Areas During 2001-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of days during 2001-2003 with visibility impact > 0.5 dv
             Source             --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   CACR     UPBU     GRSA     ROMO     HEGL     MING     WIMO     BADL     WICA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City BPU--Nearman Unit 1       23       21        3        1       30       16       15        3        2
Kansas City BPU--Quindaro Units       13       13        1        1       18        6        9        0        0
 1 & 2.........................
KCP&L--La Cygne Units 1 & 2....      204      249       17       21      278      233      142       46       38
Monarch Cement Kilns 4 & 5.....        0        0        0        0        0        0        1        0        0
Westar Energy--Gordon Evans           33       30       11       13       28       17      102       32       24
 Unit 2........................
Westar Energy--Hutchinson Unit        14        7        6        5        6        3       17        9        4
 4.............................
Westar Energy--Jeffrey Units 1       150      161       27       28      182      158      165       82       55
 & 2...........................
Westar Energy--Lawrence Unit 5.       14       14        1        1       17        7        9        2        1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State required each of those eight sources to submit refined 
modeling for further review. The refined modeling analysis for each 
source is given in Appendix 9.8 of the State's Regional Haze SIP and 
was used by the State to assess each of the eight sources' potential 
visibility impacts in more accurate detail (e.g. revised emission 
rates, stack parameters, etc., as provided by each source). Based on 
the refined modeling results, the State determined that five units at 
three sources were BART-subject and required BART determinations as 
outlined in CAA section 169A(g)(2) for each of those units. Those five 
units are given below:

 Unit 1 at Kansas City Power and Light, La Cygne, Facility ID 
1070005
 Unit 2 at Kansas City Power and Light, La Cygne, Facility ID 
1070005
 Unit 1 at Westar Energy, Jeffrey Energy Center, Facility ID 
1490001
 Unit 2 at Westar Energy, Jeffrey Energy Center, Facility ID 
1490001
 Unit 2 at Westar Energy, Gordon Evans Energy Center, Facility 
ID 1730012

    After review of the State's method for determining BART-subject 
sources and the refined analysis of those sources, the EPA is proposing 
to find that the State appropriately identified all of the units in the 
State that are BART-subject in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) 
the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines.
3. BART Determinations
    In making BART determinations, CAA section 169A(g)(2) and 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) require 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. 
This five step analysis is commonly referred to as a ``five factor 
analysis''.
    As discussed in the TSD to this notice, Kansas found the most 
significant visibility impairment attributable to the units identified 
as subject to BART is dominated by contributions from NOX 
and SO2 emissions. PM visibility impairment attribution from 
these units is not significant. Because visibility

[[Page 52616]]

impairment from PM is insignificant, the remainder of this notice will 
focus the State's NOX and SO2 BART 
determinations.
    Each of the five units listed above is a ``presumptive unit'' \19\ 
\20\. For EGUs greater than 200 MW in capacity and located at power 
plants with a total capacity greater than 750 MW, EPA established 
presumptive BART emission limits.\21\ Each of the units that Kansas 
concluded was subject to BART falls within this category of sources. As 
presumptive units, each of the five units must as a general matter at 
least meet the presumptive emission limits as described in the BART 
Guidelines. As explained in the BART Guidelines, regardless of fuel 
type, for SO2 control, each unit must at least meet a 
specific control level of 95 percent or an emission rate of 0.15 lbs/
MMBtu unless an alternative control was determined to be justified 
through the five factor analysis. The presumptive control for 
NOX is expressed as either an emission limit, or the 
installation of current combustion control technology. The decision to 
assign either a presumptive NOX emission limit or a 
combustion control strategy is determined by the type of fuel combusted 
at the EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Appendix Y to Part 51-E.1.2.3.4--States must require 750 MW 
power plants to meet specific control levels for SO2 of 
either 95 percent control or 0.15 lbs/MMBtu, for each EGU greater 
than 200 MW that is currently uncontrolled unless the State 
determines that an alternative control level is justified based on a 
careful consideration of the statutory factors.
    \20\ Appendix Y to Part 51-E.1.2.3.5.--For power plants with a 
generating capacity in excess of 750 MW currently using selective 
catalytic reduction (SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction 
(SNCR) for part of the year, the State should presume that use of 
those same controls year-round is BART. For other sources currently 
using SCR or SNCR to reduce NOX emissions during part of 
the year, the State should carefully consider requiring the use of 
these controls year-round as the additional costs of operating the 
equipment throughout the year would be relatively modest. For coal-
fired EGUs greater than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power 
plants and operating without post-combustion controls (i.e. SCR or 
SNCR), the EPA has provided presumptive NOX limits, 
differentiated by boiler design and type of coal burned. The State 
may determine that an alternative control level is appropriate based 
on a careful consideration of the statutory factors.
    \21\ Appendix Y to Part 51-E.4. and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's BART determination resulted in a limit which is more 
restrictive than the presumptive BART NOX emission rates for 
Kansas City Power and Light's Units 1 and 2 of 0.10 lb/MMBtu and 0.23 
lb/MMBtu, respectively (and 0.16 lb/MMBtu weighted average), to 0.13 
lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling weighted average using the already 
permitted selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control for Unit 1 and 
combustion control for Unit 2 (described in more detail below and 
beginning on page 47 of the TSD to this rulemaking). The average must 
remain below 0.13 lb/MMBtu. In the event Unit 2 suffers an outage in 
excess of 10 weeks, the State has determined that the facility shall 
meet the 0.10 lb/MMBtu limit for NOX at Unit 1.
    EPA has previously stated that most EGUs can meet the presumptive 
NOX limits through the use of current combustion control 
technology, i.e. low NOx burners (LNB).\22\ States must also 
consider advanced combustion control technology (SCR) in their BART 
analyses. Even though the presumptive NOx emission rate could be met 
through use of LNB, through its five factor analysis, the State 
considered the costs and benefits of SCR deployment on Kansas City 
Power and Light's Unit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Appendix Y to Part 51-E.5.--Most EGUs can meet these 
presumptive NOX limits through the use of current 
combustion control technology, i.e. the careful control of 
combustion air and low-NOX burners. For units that cannot 
meet these limits using such technologies, you should consider 
whether advanced combustion control technologies such as rotating 
opposed fire air should be used to meet these limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State determined that the NOX BART presumptive 
emission rates of 0.10 lb/MMBtu and 0.23 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and Unit 
2, respectively (or 0.16 lb/MMBtu as a weighted average), resulted in a 
combined (SO2 and NOX) modeled visibility 
improvement of 78-81% at Class I areas (98th percentile visibility 
impact) and a reduction of the number of days with a visibility impact 
greater than 0.5 dv from a range of 57-138 days to 3-14 days at Class I 
areas. During the course of negotiating an enforceable BART agreement, 
Kansas City Power and Light proposed limits that were more restrictive 
than the presumptive BART limits. As provided above, these limits 
consist of an emission rate of 0.13 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling 
weighted average between the two units.\23\ At the 0.13 lb/MMBtu 
weighted average rate for both units, which is beyond the presumptive 
NOX rate of 0.23 lb/MMBtu, EPA would not anticipate 
additional significant visibility improvement for the additional 
significant cost of installing SCR on Unit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The weighted average limit is to be met by utilizing the 
already permitted SCR control for Unit 1 and pre- or post-combustion 
control (e.g., low NOX burner, low NOX burner 
with overfire air, or SCR) for Unit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's BART determination for Kansas City Power and Light's 
Units 1 and 2 also resulted in a more restrictive limit than the 
presumptive BART SO2 emission rates. The State has 
determined that an emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling 
weighted average (through the use of scrubbing technology) is 
SO2 BART for these units.
    The State has determined that Westar Energy must meet the 
presumptive BART NOX emission rates for the Jeffrey Energy 
Center's Units 1 and 2 of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. As determined through its five 
factor analysis, and explained in greater detail in the TSD to this 
rulemaking, these emission rates will be met through the use of LNB 
systems for each unit. As part of the five factor analysis, the State 
considered the costs and benefits of deployment of SCR at Jeffrey Units 
1 and 2. Given the high cost and relatively low visibility improvements 
resulting from use of SCR as compared to LNB at Jeffrey, the State 
determined, and EPA agrees, that LNB operated at the presumptive rate 
satisfy NOX BART for Jeffrey Units 1 and 2. For Gordon Evans 
Unit 2, which is an oil-burning unit (that can burn natural gas) that 
meets the presumptive plant and unit size threshold, there is no 
prescribed presumptive limit for NOX but reductions should 
be gained through the deployment of ``current combustion control 
technology'' \24\ which has already been defined by EPA as the 
implementation of LNB or LNB with overfire air. A five factor analysis 
resulted in identification of a low NOX burner system as 
BART for the unit. However, since the concurrent analysis for 
SO2 reduction (discussed below) demonstrated that control 
through fuel switching to natural gas resulted in both SO2 
and NOX emission reductions, and in visibility improvements 
beyond those gained by presumptive BART, Kansas has determined and EPA 
agrees that the fuel switch to natural gas meets the NOX 
BART requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Appendix Y to Part 51 section IV.E.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State has determined that Westar Energy must meet the 
presumptive SO2 BART emission rate at the Jeffrey Energy 
Center's Units 1 and 2 of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. These emission rates will be 
met by rebuilding the wet scrubber on each unit. For Gordon Evans, use 
of low sulfur fuel was originally determined to be BART, however, 
analysis of fuel switching to natural gas revealed greater, cost 
effective emission reductions, and greater visibility improvement. 
Therefore, the State determined that switching fuel to natural gas, 
with 1 percent sulfur fuel oil available for emergency backup use only, 
meets the SO2 BART. Westar currently has an existing supply 
of No.6 fuel oil on site and will be allowed to exhaust this emergency 
backup supply, with any future fuel oil purchases being 1 percent 
sulfur content or less by weight. Kansas has determined that this

[[Page 52617]]

``alternative BART control for SO2'' would virtually 
eliminate SO2 emissions from Gordon Evans Energy Center's 
Unit 2, the exception being an emergency when fuel oil would be allowed 
only for the duration of the emergency. The State has demonstrated, and 
EPA agrees, as shown in Table 5, that a switch to natural gas provides 
less visibility impairment than presumptive BART for Unit 2 for both 
SO2 and NOX.

           Table 5--Comparison of Presumptive BART Visibility Impact and Fuel Switch Visibility Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Presumptive case  Presumptive case
                                                            1 percent S oil,  1 percent S oil,  Alternative BART
                                                             LNB at 0.8 lb/    LNB at 0.2 lb/   case natural gas
                                                                  MMBtu             MMBtu           (deciview)
                                                               (deciview)        (deciview)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum visibility impact.................................             1.575              1.02             0.774
98 percent visibility impact..............................             0.804             0.474             0.334
NOX (lb/hr)...............................................             3,288               822              2136
SO2 (lb/hr)...............................................             3,844             3.844               1.7
PM10 (lb/hr)..............................................               325               326              30.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above analysis, in which the State carefully 
considered the five factors, and which is fully detailed in the TSD to 
this proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to find that the State of 
Kansas appropriately determined BART for each BART-subject unit in 
accordance with the CAA section 169A, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(ii)(A) and (B) 
and (iii) of the Regional Haze Rule, and the BART Guidelines.

                  Table 6--Total 2018 Reductions in NOX and SO2 From Kansas BART-Subject Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       tons/yr
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Subject-to-BART unit                                                                 NOX          SO2
                                    2002 NOX\1\  2002 SO2\1\  2018 NOX\2\  2018 SO2\2\   reduction    reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCP&L--La Cygne 1.................       30,058        6,648        2,576        3,948       27,482        2,700
KCP&L--La Cygne 2.................        8,362       19,355        6,229        3,993        2,133       15,362
Westar--Gordon Evans 2............        2,023        3,211          138          0.0        1,886        3,211
Westar--Jeffrey 1.................        9,602       20,459        4,268        3,532        5,334       16,927
Westar--Jeffrey 2.................       10,892       23,715        4,040        3,465        6,852       20,251
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total BART reductions.........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........       43,687       58,451
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To incorporate the emission rates, compliance schedule, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and enforceability requirements, as defined 
by the CAA and Federal regulations promulgated at 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(iv) and (v) as well as the BART Guidelines, the State 
entered into Consent Agreements with Kansas City Power and Light and 
Westar Energy on November 19, 2007 (amended February 18, 2009) and 
August 30, 2007 (amended February 20, 2009) respectively. These Consent 
Agreements were submitted to EPA for SIP approval as part of the 
State's RH SIP submittal, which we are proposing to approve in this 
notice. The Agreements are enforceable by the State, and upon approval 
into the State's SIP, are enforceable by EPA as well. The emission 
rates, or work practices, included in those agreements are summarized 
below. The Agreements require the facilities to meet these rates, or 
work practices, within 3 to 5 years after EPA approves the State's RH 
SIP):
    1. The facilities must meet the emission rates on a 30-day rolling 
average
    2. the facilities must monitor via the use of CEMS or stack test 
(with the exception of Unit 2 at Gordon Evans Energy Center)
    3. the facilities must keep continuous record of monitoring data in 
accordance with 40 CFR Part 75, and
    4. the facilities must report emissions data to the State in 
accordance with 40 CFR Parts 60 or 75. Westar Energy is required to 
report to the State fuel oil usage at Gordon Evans Unit 2 in accordance 
with K.A.R. 28-19-512.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas has 
met the requirements for compliance schedules, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and enforceability in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(iv) and (v) and the BART Guidelines.
    In its Consent Agreement, Kansas City Power and Light, is required 
to meet NOX and SO2 rates based on a 30-day 
rolling average of both subject-to-BART La Cygne Units 1 and 2, except 
during periods of startup and shutdown. In the second Consent 
Agreement, Westar Energy is required to meet NOX and 
SO2 rates based on a 30-day rolling average at subject-to-
BART Jeffrey Energy Center Units 1 and 2, except during periods of 
startup, shutdown and malfunction. In the Regional Haze SIP, the State 
also committed, on page 52, to assess the visibility impacts of 
emissions from these BART-subject units during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction as part of its five-year review. Should the 
actual emission rates, including during startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction periods, exceed the agreed upon emission limits, and be 
found to negatively impact visibility at a Class I area, the State 
commits to address these issues with a SIP revision.
    In the preamble to the BART rule, EPA offered guidance suggesting 
that states should exclude emissions attributable to startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction periods in modeling to determine which sources should 
apply BART controls. EPA did not, however, suggest that emission 
limitations for sources subsequently determined to be subject to BART 
should be applicable only during steady-state operations. Our review of 
the Kansas submittal indicates that the startup, shutdown, malfunction 
language in the Agreements appears to be inconsistent with EPA's 
September

[[Page 52618]]

20, 1999, guidance, ``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 
Excess Emissions during Malfunctions, Startup and Shutdown,'' because 
the Agreements provide an automatic exemption for startup, shutdown and 
malfunction emissions, and the exemptions for startup and shutdown are 
not narrowly defined.\25\ Because the Consent Agreements exempt periods 
of startup and shutdown for both facilities from compliance with 
applicable emission limits and exempt periods of malfunction at Westar 
Energy, they raise approvability issues. In this action, EPA is 
proposing to approve the NOX and SO2 BART 
emission rates, compliance schedules, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements for the Kansas City Power and Light and Westar 
Energy subject-to-BART units, and to disapprove the startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction provisions in the respective Consent Agreements and the 
State's Regional Haze SIP.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy 
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and 
Shutdown,'' September 20, 1999; and 52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987).
    \26\ The specific startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions 
in the Kansas Regional Haze SIP that are being disapproved include: 
all references to ``excluding periods of startup and shutdown'' in 
Paragraph 23 of the Kansas City Power and Light Company Regional 
Haze Agreement; the reference to ``excluding periods of startup, 
shutdown and malfunction'' in footnote 1 of Appendix A to the Westar 
Energy, Inc. Regional Haze Agreement; all references to ``excluding 
periods of startup and shutdown'' in Chapter 9.3.1 of the Kansas 
Regional Haze SIP; and the sentence ``The Agreements between KDHE 
and the affected BART sources currently exclude emissions associated 
with startup, shutdowns, and malfunctions (SSM) in the agreed upon 
emission limits.'' in Chapter 9.5 of the Kansas Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above, EPA is proposing to find that the State of 
Kansas has met the requirements for establishing BART emission 
limitations and schedules for compliance with those emission 
limitations for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in 
any Class I area, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e) and the BART 
Guidelines. EPA's disapproval of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
provisions from EPA's approval of the SO2 and NOX 
BART emission rates in the Kansas City Power and Light and Westar 
Energy Consent Agreements and Regional Haze SIP does not trigger an 
obligation on the part of EPA to issue a FIP pursuant to section 110(c) 
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(c). Kansas' inclusion of the startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction provisions as exemptions from the BART 
emission rates are not required elements of the Regional Haze SIPs to 
be developed and submitted by States pursuant to section 169 of the 
CAA. EPA is proposing to approve all required elements of Kansas' 
Regional Haze SIP, including, in particular, the BART emission rates, 
compliance schedules, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting as 
required by 40 CFR 51.308(e) and the BART Guidelines, for Kansas City 
Power and Light and Westar Energy. Therefore, because EPA is proposing 
to find that all required Regional Haze SIP elements have been met, 
including BART for subject to BART units, and is proposing to approve 
those elements, EPA has met its obligation to take action on Kansas's 
Regional Haze SIP.

H. Long Term Strategy

    As described in section II.G. of this notice, the LTS is a 
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state 
for achieving its reasonable progress goals. When a state's emissions 
are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment in a 
Class I area located in another state, the Regional Haze Rule requires 
the states to consult, state to state, in order to develop coordinated 
emission management strategies. This is addressed in section IV.C. 
above and in the TSD to this notice. In such cases, the State must 
demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all measures necessary to 
obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the 
reasonable progress goal for the Class I area, as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii). States must consider all types of anthropogenic 
sources of visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including 
stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources, as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(iv). For more discussion on the State's evaluation of 
potential sources of visibility impairment please see the discussion 
regarding the State's emissions inventory provided in section IV.E.2. 
and the TSD to this notice.
    The State is also required to consider a number of emission 
reductions and sources listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v):
1. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    EPA is proposing to find that the State considered emission 
reductions for ongoing air pollution control programs as required by 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A). In Chapter 10 (section 10.4.3.1) of the State's 
SIP, the State outlines ongoing air pollution control programs that can 
be expected to result in visibility impairing pollutant reductions as 
follows: On Board Vapor Recovery (a 1994 Federal standard); On-board 
Diagnostics (a 1988 Federal standard and revised with the 1990 CAA 
amendments); Federal on-road and nonroad emissions standards such as 
Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program (a 1999 Federal standard), 
the Clean Air On-Road Diesel Rule (a 2007 Federal standard), the Clean 
Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (a 2004 Federal standard), the Locomotive 
Emission Standards (a 2007 Federal standard), the Large Spark-Ignition 
and Recreational Vehicle Rule (a 2002 Federal standard); the Kansas 
City Ozone Maintenance Plan (required under CAA section 110(a)(1) and 
Federal regulations promulgated at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3) and (4)); CAIR 
(only as it relates to determination of source apportionment--please 
see discussion in section III. of this proposed rulemaking); National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAP) and Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards (Federal standards); and 
Visibility Requirements under the New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21(o).
2. Measures To Mitigate Construction Activities
    EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas has considered 
measures to mitigate construction activities as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v)(B). The State proposed that it already meets this 
requirement by meeting the Visibility Requirements under the NSPS 
promulgated at 40 CFR Sec.  52.21(o). Emissions such as windblown dust 
and nonroad diesel emissions related to commercial and residential 
construction activities were also considered by the State. The SIP 
explains (on page 81) that rapid growth is not projected for the State. 
In fact only minor growth is expected for the State, from about 2,700 
people to 2,950 people (given in thousands) from 2005-2020.
    Additionally, emissions from diesel engines (used in construction 
equipment) are expected to decline with the Federal standards for both 
on-road and nonroad engines (please see the emission inventory section 
(IV.E.2.) of this proposed rulemaking). Because commercial and 
residential growth is not expected to grow significantly in the coming 
years, and reductions are expected in non-road diesel engines (commonly 
used equipment during commercial and residential construction) from 
Federal programs and because emissions from commercial and/or 
residential construction were not

[[Page 52619]]

identified as major sources of visibility impairing pollutants, EPA 
does not expect emissions from commercial or residential construction 
activities taking place within the State to have a significant impact 
on visibility impairment in Class I areas hosted by other States.
3. Emissions Limitations and Schedules for Compliance To Achieve the 
Reasonable Progress Goal
    EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas has completed an 
analysis of the emissions reductions needed from sources in the State 
to obtain its share of the emissions reductions needed to meet the RPGs 
for Class I areas impacted by those emissions as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii). The EPA also believes the State has established 
enforceable emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to meet 
the RPGs for those Class I areas as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) and (F). EPA also believes the Consent Agreements, 
discussed in section IV.G.3. of this proposal, incorporate those 
emission limits and establish a schedule for compliance in order to 
meet the RPGs of impacted Class I areas as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) and (F).
    The State conducted an analysis of emission reductions that could 
be required of sources not already identified as BART-subject. The 
analysis was conducted in 6 steps. The TSD to this proposed rulemaking 
provides a detailed analysis of the steps used to identify emission 
reductions needed from sources in Kansas to meet the RPGs of impacted 
Class I areas in other states. The process is also discussed briefly 
below. The results of each step of the process are described in detail 
on the TSD to this proposed rulemaking.
    Step 1: Identify all emission units in the State that emitted equal 
to 500 tons per year (tpy) of NOX and/or SO2 
using the 2002 emissions inventory.
    Step 2: Identify the most effective control technologies and 
screening for excessive costs.
    Step 3: Model visibility impacts and screening of low-impact 
facilities.
    Step 4: Screen and rank facilities based on cost per ton per 
deciviews improvement.
    Step 5: Screen for non-cost regulatory factors, i.e. time necessary 
for compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance, and remaining useful life.
    Step 6: Sort and final list of facilities with the potential to 
need further emissions reductions.
    Kansas identified a total of 30 units that emitted at least 500 tpy 
of NOX and 28 units that emitted at least 500 tpy of 
SO2. Of this set of units, 8 of the NOX units and 
10 of the SO2 units were removed from further review for the 
following reasons:
     6 of the NOX units and 6 of the SO2 
units were already identified as BART-subject;
     2 of the NOX units and 2 of the SO2 
units had installed controls since 2002 and emitted less than 500 tpy 
of either pollutant.
     2 of the SO2 units were determined to have no 
commercially available controls.
    The remaining set of 22 NOX units included 11 EGUs, 6 
cement kilns, 2 gas compressor engines, 1 refinery fluid-bed catalytic 
cracking unit (FCCU), 1 ammonia plant, and 1 glass furnace, all located 
at 15 separate facilities. The 18 SO2 units were comprised 
of 13 EGUs, 4 cement kilns, and 1 refiner FCCU, all located at 12 
facilities.
    In the second step each of the remaining units, described above, 
were matched with the emission control technology selected for it by a 
CENRAP contractor utilizing the least marginal cost.\27\ For units that 
were not identified by the contractor, the units were matched with 
control technologies, control efficiencies and control cost as 
determined by EPA's AirControlNET version 4.1.\28\ Units whose cost of 
control was determined to be $10,000/ton reduced or greater were 
screened out in this step.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ``Final CENRAP Control Strategy Analysis Plan--9 May 2006'' 
page 36. http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
    \28\ ``Final CENRAP Control Strategy Analysis Plan--9 May 2006'' 
page 36. http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the third step the visibility impacts at the Class I areas 
(previously identified in section IV.B. of this proposal) were 
evaluated for the remaining units using the CALPUFF protocol 
(previously described in section IV.G.2. of this proposal). Modeling 
was conducted on a facility-by-facility basis and NOX and 
SO2 emissions impacts were calculated in combination. The 
modeling was conducted analyzing pre- and post-control's (controls 
identified in Step 2 of the analysis) 98th percentile visibility 
impacts. Facilities whose highest pre-control 98th percentile impact 
was less than 0.100 dv were screened out in this step.
    As a refinement to Step 3, the State re-ran CALPUFF for the 
remaining sources considering the impacts of NOX and 
SO2 separately. The State considered the pollutant 
emissions' visibility impacts separately because potential controls for 
a facility, to meet reasonable progress goals in a Class I area hosted 
by another State, could be pollutant dependent.
    In the fourth step the State calculated the cost per ton per unit 
of dv improvement ($/ton/dv). The State estimated that the single value 
of $/ton/dv combined the cost and visibility improvement in a way that 
its numerical value increases: (a) As the cost of controls increases 
and (b) as the visibility improvement decreases. The State determined 
that the facility with the lowest $/ton/dv would be the first to be 
reviewed for possible controls to meet reasonable progress goals in 
Class I areas hosted by other States.
    In the fifth step the State evaluated the energy and non-cost 
factors for each of the remaining facilities. Two units were screened 
out in this step due to the units' startup dates, 1950 and 1954, and 
the likelihood that they would be retired by 2018.
    In the sixth step the State ranked all of the remaining facilities 
in increasing order of $/ton/dv. The State used a cost of $15,000/ton/
dv as an exclusion threshold from further consideration.
    Based on its six step analysis, the State determined that the 
implementation of controls or work practices, provided in Table 7, were 
required to meet RPGs in Class I areas hosted by other states.

  Table 7--Control or Work Practice Strategies for Westar Units To Meet
                 Kansas Long Term Strategy Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility/unit               Emission rate or work practice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Evans Energy Center--Unit 1  A fuel switch to natural gas at all
                                     times, with the exception of a gas
                                     curtailment order from the gas
                                     supplier, in which case the
                                     facility will be allowed to utilize
                                     backup 6 fuel oil.
Hutchinson--Unit 4................  A fuel switch to natural gas at all
                                     times, with the exception of a gas
                                     curtailment order from the gas
                                     supplier, in which case the
                                     facility will be allowed to utilize
                                     backup 6 fuel oil.

[[Page 52620]]

 
Murray Gill--Units 1, 2, 3 and 4..  A fuel switch to natural gas at all
                                     times, with the exception of a gas
                                     curtailment order from the gas
                                     supplier, in which case the
                                     facility will be allowed to utilize
                                     backup 6 fuel oil.
Neosho--Unit 7....................  A fuel switch to natural gas at all
                                     times, with the exception of a gas
                                     curtailment order from the gas
                                     supplier, in which case the
                                     facility will be allowed to utilize
                                     backup 6 fuel oil.
Jeffery Energy Center--Unit 3.....  An emission limit of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu
                                     for both SO2 and NOX.
Lawrence--Unit3...................  An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu
                                     for SO2.
Lawrence--Unit 4..................  An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu
                                     for SO2; an emission limit of 0.15
                                     lbs/MMBtu for NOX.
Lawrence--Unit 5..................  An emission limit of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu
                                     for both SO2 and NOX.
Tecumseh--Unit 7/9................  An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu
                                     for SO2.
Tecumseh--Units 8/10..............  An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu
                                     for SO2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed in this section of this proposal, Consent 
Agreements (given in Appendix 9.7 of the SIP) provide a mechanism to 
enforce these determinations and set the compliance schedules for these 
measures. The controls detailed above are expected to achieve 
approximately 10,409 tpy of NOX and 22,812 tpy of 
SO2 reductions.

       Table 8--Estimated NOX and SO2 Emission Reductions for Implementation of Controls or Work Practices Required by Kansas' Long Term Strategy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              2002 NOX     2002 SO2       Post         Post         NOX          SO2
                           Facility                                Unit      Emissions    Emissions     control      control     Reductions   Reductions
                                                                               (tpy)        (tpy)      NOX  (tpy)   SO2  (tpy)     (tpy)        (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Evans.................................................            1        258.7        617.7        211.9          0.5         46.8        617.2
Hutchinson...................................................            4        267.1        734.3        158.5          0.6        108.5        733.7
Jeffrey......................................................            3     10,807.4     23,206.0      4,913.1      4,913.1      5,894.3     18,292.9
Lawrence.....................................................            3        728.4      1,965.4          0.0      1,965.4        728.4          0.0
Lawrence.....................................................            4      1,986.5      1,430.0        835.4        835.4        984.1        594.7
Lawrence.....................................................            5      3,546.3      4,546.3      2,564.7      2,564.7        981.6      1,789.0
Gill.........................................................            1          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
Gill.........................................................            2          4.5          0.0          4.0          0.0          0.5          0.0
Gill.........................................................            3        181.6        452.1        148.6          0.3         33.0        451.8
Gill.........................................................            4        103.8        333.3         85.2          0.2         18.7        333.1
Neosho.......................................................            7          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
Tecumseh.....................................................            7      1,530.6      2,692.7        691.6      2,692.7        839.0          0.0
Tecumseh.....................................................            8      1,876.9      4,514.9      1,103.1      4,514.9        773.8          0.0
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........     10,408.7     22,812.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary and as further detailed beginning on page 48 of the TSD, 
the State utilized a six-step process to determine emission reductions 
needed from sources within the State that are necessary to meet PRGs of 
Class I areas hosted by other states. In doing so, the State carefully 
considered and eliminated further controls based upon the factors. 
Balancing these factors, and elimination of controls based particularly 
on high cost of control coupled with minimal contribution to visibility 
impacts at Class I areas hosted by other states, and remaining useful 
life, resulted in the list controls required to meet RPGs in Class I 
areas hosted by other states, as set forth above. The State found in 
particular that for BPU Nearman Unit 1, although additional controls 
were found to be cost effective, in light of the source's relatively 
minor contribution to visibility impacts at Class I areas, no further 
controls would be required. In addition, as previously discussed in 
section IV.C. of this proposed rule, the State of Kansas consulted with 
the States of Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, and determined 
that these states were not relying on additional Kansas controls beyond 
BART and ``on the books'' controls to meet the RPGs for the Class I 
areas in those states. In addition, as described in section IV.E.4. of 
this proposed rule, the State will again consider whether further 
controls are necessary as part of the State's five year review of the 
SIP.
    Based on the analysis above, EPA is proposing to find that the 
State of Kansas has completed an analysis of the emissions reductions 
needed for source in the State in order to obtain its share of the 
emissions reductions needed to meet the RPGs for Class I areas impacted 
by emissions from the State, and has established enforceable emissions 
limitations and schedules for compliance necessary to meet the RPGs for 
those Class I areas as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) and 
(d)(3)(v)(C) and (F).
4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas has considered 
source retirement and replacement schedules as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v)(D). The IPM runs (previously discussed in section 
IV.E.4. of this proposal) projected closure of several gas-fired 
boilers in the State. However, when the State communicated directly 
with those facilities they found that this assumption was incorrect. 
The State is aware of only two coal-fired EGUs that may be retired 
within the next 10 years: Kansas City BPU-KAW, units 1 and 3; and 
Empire District Electric-Riverton, units 7 and 8. Kansas

[[Page 52621]]

City BPU-KAW units 1 and 3 have been on cold stand-by since 2001 and 
2003 respectively. Units 1 and 3 would be subject to Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements if the facility 
were to restart them. Empire District Electric- Riverton units 7 and 8 
have start-up dates of 1950 and 1954 respectively, and will likely be 
retired by 2018. The State has included a commitment, on page 83 of the 
State's Regional Haze SIP, to address any other sources that are 
retired or are replaced in conformance with existing State SIP 
requirements pertaining to PSD and NSR permitting, in the next SIP 
planning period.
5. Smoke Management
    EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas has considered 
smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management as 
required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) and that it has considered 
emissions control strategies as outlined in the Agency's ``Interim Air 
Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires''.\29\ Emissions from 
area source fires, by burn type and pollutant are provided in Table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed 
Fires--http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf.

                                                Table 9--2002 Kansas Emissions by Burn Type and Pollutant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       2002 tons
                    Burn type                        Acres    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     burned        PM10        PM2.5          CO          NOX          SO2          NH3          VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangeland.......................................    3,625,270       75,943       52,901      652,250       23,185       10,160        7,487       43,483
Cropland........................................    1,390,520       23,227       22,156      153,313        5,909          777        3,950       11,401
Prescribed......................................       38,106        1,450        1,226       14,424          228          114          143          881
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................    5,053,896      100,620       76,283      819,987       29,322       11,052       11,579       55,765
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The impact of planned burning to visibility at Class I areas was 
evaluated by a contractor during the development of both the planned 
burning emissions inventory and the ``Causes of Haze Assessment'' for 
the CENRAP region.\30\ The July 30, 2004 \31\ study conducted as part 
of the planned burning inventory analyzed ambient speciated 
PM2.5 data from the IMPROVE network at two Class I areas 
(Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Areas) to determine which 
chemical compositions characterize prescribed burning activity. The 
study found that levels of elemental carbon and non-soil potassium were 
elevated on days during or after agricultural burning in the area. 
However, the contribution of elemental carbon, the primary marker of 
smoke, is a small part of the PM2.5 mass. While elemental 
carbon has relatively high extinction efficiency, the mass 
concentrations are small and do not contribute significantly to light 
extinction. The State has committed to continue support of the Kansas 
Smoke Management Plan initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
    \31\ ``Sonoma Technology, Inc. Research and Development of 
Planned Burning Emission Inventories for the Central States Regional 
Air Planning Association--July 30, 2004''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Resulting From Projected 
Changes to Emissions
    EPA is proposing to find that the States evaluation of the net 
effects on visibility resulting from projected emission reduction from 
Kansas sources meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G). The 
2002 to 2018 projected visibility improvement at the nine Class I 
areas, from emission reductions in Kansas, result mostly from the 
implementation of NOX and SO2 controls on the 
five BART-subject EGUs. The projected visibility improvements from 
these reductions are shown in Table 10 and are shown in terms of light 
extinction.
    The impact on the WIMO is expected to be reduced by 1.03715 
Mm-\1\, which represents a 23 percent change in Kansas' 
impact on the WIMO between 2002 and 2018. Further improvement will come 
from the control of sources identified in Table 7 above. Discussion of 
any potential emission increases by the year 2018 is discussed in 
detail in the TSD to this notice.

Table 10--Net 2002 to 2018 Improvement in Visibility at Selected Class I
                  Areas Due to BART Controls in Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Net 2002-2018 light
                                                  extinction difference
                  Class I area                      (improvement) from
                                                 Kansas sources (Mm-\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caney Creek (Arkansas).........................                  0.63493
Upper Buffalo (Arkansas).......................                  0.44533
Great Sand Dunes (Colorado)....................                  0.03322
Rocky Mountain (Colorado)......................                  0.06051
Hercules-Glades (Missouri).....................                  0.56911
Mingo (Missouri)...............................                  0.58719
Wichita Mountains (Oklahoma)...................                  1.03715
Badlands (South Dakota)........................                  0.12856
Wind Cave (South Dakota).......................                  0.16741
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve the State of Kansas' Regional Haze SIP, 
submitted on November 9, 2009, with the exception of certain provisions 
related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction, as explained in section 
IV.G.3. of this notice. EPA is proposing to find that the submittal 
meets all of the applicable

[[Page 52622]]

Regional Haze requirements set forth in section 169A and 169B of the 
Act and in the Federal regulations codified at 40 CFR Sec.  51.300-308, 
and the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart F and Appendix V.

VI. 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 flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

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 the approval action proposed 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 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.

[[Page 52623]]

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

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 15, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-21567 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P