32874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land in 

Washington except for as specifically 

noted below and is also not approved to 

apply in any other area where the EPA 

or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that 

a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Washington’s SIP is approved to apply 

on non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided state and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: May 29, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14225 Filed 6–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0299; FRL–9928–91- 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Kansas Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan Revision and 

2014 Five-Year Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the Kansas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted to EPA by the 

State of Kansas on March 10, 2015, 

documenting that the State’s existing 

plan is making adequate progress to 

achieve visibility goals by 2018. The 

Kansas SIP revision addressed the 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

to submit a report describing progress in 

achieving reasonable progress goals 

(RPGs) to improve visibility in Federally 

designated areas in nearby states that 

may be affected by emissions from 

sources in Kansas. EPA is proposing to 

approve Kansas’ determination that the 

existing RH SIP is adequate to meet the 

visibility goals and requires no 

substantive revision at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 10, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0299, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: krabbe.stephen@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Stephen 

Krabbe, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 

0299. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, 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. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32875 

1Please refer to 40 CFR 51.308(g) for the exact 

Rule requirements. 

2Please refer to 40 CFR 51.308(h) for the exact 

Rule requirements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Krabbe, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

913–551–7991, or by email at 

krabbe.stephen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

A. Background on Regional Haze 

B. Background on Regional Haze Plans 

C. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Progress Reports 

II. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

A. EPA’s Evaluation of Kansas’ Progress 

Report 

1. Status of Control Measures 

2. Emissions Reductions and Progress 

3. Visibility Progress 

4. Emissions Tracking 

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

6. Assessment of Current Strategy 

7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy 

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing 

Regional Haze Plan 

C. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment’s (KDHE) determination 

that the existing Kansas RH SIP is 

adequate to achive the established 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for 

Class I areas affected by Kansas sources, 

and therefore requires no substantive 

revision at this time. EPA’s proposed 

approval is based on the Kansas State 

Implementation Plan Revision for the 

Attainment and Maintenance of NAAQS 

for Regional Haze (2014 Progress 

Report) (‘‘Progress Report or ‘‘Report’’) 

submitted by KDHE to EPA on March 

10, 2015, that addresses 51.308(g) and 

(h) of the RHR. The Progress Report 

demonstrates that the emission control 

measures in the existing RH SIP are 

sufficient to enable other states with 

Class I areas affected by emissions from 

sources in Kansas to meet all 

established RPGs for 2018. We are also 

proposing to find that Kansas fulfilled 

the requirements in 51.308(i)(2), (3), and 

(4) to provide Federal Land Managers 

(FLMs) with an opportunity to consult 

on the RH SIP revision, describe how 

KDHE addressed the FLMs’ comments, 

and provide procedures for continuing 

consultation. 

A. Background on Regional Haze 

Regional haze is a visibility 

impairment produced by many sources 

and activities located across a broad 

geographic area that emit fine 

particulates that impair visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light, thereby 

reducing the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. These fine 

particles also can cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contribute to environmental impacts, 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication of water bodies. 

The RHR uses the deciview as the 

principle metric for measuring visibility 

and for the RPGs that serve as interim 

visibility goals toward meeting the 

national visibility goal of reaching 

natural conditions by 2064. A deciview 

expresses uniform changes in haziness 

in terms of common increments across 

the entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy 

conditions. Deciviews are determined 

by using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction, and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithmic function. 

Deciview is a more useful measure for 

tracking progress in improving visibility 

than light extinction 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. 

B. Background on Regional Haze Plans 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA 

amendmnets of 1977, Congress created 

a program to protect visibility in 

designated national parks and 

wilderness areas, establishing as a 

national goal the ‘‘prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ In accordance with section 

169A of the CAA and after consulting 

with the Departmnet of Interior, EPA 

promulgated a list of 156 mandatory 

Class I Federal areas where visibility is 

identified as an important value (44 FR 

69122, November 30, 1979). In this 

notice, we refer to mandatory Class I 

Federal areas as ‘‘Class I areas.’’ Kansas 

does not have any Class I areas within 

the state. 

With the CAA amendments of 1990, 

Congress added section 169B to address 

regional haze issues. EPA promulgated 

a rule to address regional haze on July 

1, 1999, known as the Regional Haze 

Rule (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised 

the existing visibility regulations in 40 

CFR 51.308 to integrate provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and to establish a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. 

KDHE submitted its initial RH SIP to 

EPA on October 26, 2009, in accordance 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 

for the first regional haze planning 

period ending in 2018. EPA approved 

the Kansas RH SIP for the first planning 

period on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 

80754). The Progress Report from KDHE 

is the first evaluation of whether the 

existing Kansas RH SIP is sufficient to 

enable other states affected by emissions 

from sources in Kansas to meet the 

established visibility goals for 2018. 

C. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Progress Reports 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area within 

the state and in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area outside the state which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

States are also required to submit, at the 

same time as the progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing regional haze SIP. 40 

CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report 

SIP is due five years after submittal of 

the initial regional haze SIP. In 

summary,1 the seven elements are: (1) A 

description of the status of measures in 

the approved regional haze SIP; (2) a 

summary of emissions reductions 

achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility 

conditions for each Class I area in the 

state; (4) an analysis of changes in 

emissions from sources and activities 

within the state; (5) an assessment of 

any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have limited or 

impeded progress in Class I areas 

impacted by the state’s sources; (6) an 

assessment of the sufficiency of the 

approved regional haze SIP; and (7) a 

review of the state’s visibility 

monitoring strategy. 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to submit, at the same time as 

the progress report SIP, a determination 

of the adequacy of their existing 

regional haze SIP and to take one of four 

possible actions based on information in 

the progress report. In summary,2 these 

actions are to: (1) Submit a negative 

declaration to EPA that no further 

substantive revision to the state’s 

existing regional haze SIP is needed; (2) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32876 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3U.S. v. Westar Energy, Inc. 09–CV–2059 (D. 

Kan.) 

provide notification to EPA (and other 

state(s) that participated in the regional 

planning process) if the state determines 

that its existing regional haze SIP is or 

may be inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress at one or more Class I areas due 

to emissions from sources in other 

state(s) that participated in the regional 

planning process, and collaborate with 

these other state(s) to develop additional 

strategies to address deficiencies; (3) 

provide notification with supporting 

information to EPA if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze SIP is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress at one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources in another country; or (4) revise 

its regional haze SIP to address 

deficiencies within one year if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze SIP is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress in one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources within the state. 

A state must document that it 

provided FLMs with an opportunity for 

consultation prior to holding a public 

hearing on an RH SIP or plan revision 

as required in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In 

addition, a state must include a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments from the FLMs, and provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

with the FLMs as required in 40 CFR 

51.208(i)(3) and (4). 

II. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The state submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. In addition, as 

explained above, the revision meets the 

substantive SIP requirements of the 

CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

A. EPA’s Evaluation of Kansas’ Progress 

Report 

This section describes Kansas’ 

Progress Report and EPA’s evaluation of 

the Report in relation to the seven 

elements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

the determination of adequacy in 40 

CFR 51.308(h). We also review the 

requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) for 

state and FLM coordination on a plan 

revision. 

1. Status of Control Measures 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a 

description of the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the regional haze SIP for 

achieving RPGs for Class I areas both 

within and outside the state. Kansas 

evaluated the status of all measures 

included in its 2009 regional haze SIP 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

In its Progress Report, Kansas 

summarizes the long-term strategy for 

emissions reductions of all air 

pollutants that may affect visibility. The 

state notes that Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 

and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) are the most 

important pollutants in reducing 

visibility and includes details of the 

strategies implemented to reduce those 

pollutants. The measures include both 

state and Federal programs. The state 

programs include unit-specific 

emissions limits for the five electric 

generating units that are subject to 

BART and were included in agreements 

between KDHE and the owners of the 

EGU’s, which were later modified by an 

enforcement settlement between EPA 

and Westar Energy. The measures also 

include applicable Federal programs 

(e.g., Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standards, the 2007 

Heavy-Duty Highway Rule, Tier 2 

Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, 

and the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule). 

The state documents the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze SIP as well as describes 

significant measures resulting from EPA 

regulations other than the regional haze 

program as they pertain to the state’s 

sources. Kansas describes the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze SIP, including the 

status of control measures to meet BART 

and reasonable progress requirements, 

as well as the status of significant 

measures resulting from EPA 

regulations. 

EPA proposes to find that Kansas’ 

analysis adequately addresses 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1) for reasons discussed 

above. 

2. Emissions Reductions and Progess 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a 

summary of the emissions reductions 

achieved in the state through the 

measures subject to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

In its regional haze SIP and Progress 

Report, Kansas focuses its assessment 

on NOX and SO2 emissions from 

stationary sources because the state 

determined that these sources 

accounted for the majority of the 

visibility-impairing pollution from 

Kansas. SO2 emissions from subject-toBART facilities decreased in Kansas 

from 80,828 tons in 2003 to 17,026 tons 

in 2012, a 79 percent decrease. Also, 

NOX emissions decreased from 60,936 

tons in 2002 to 16,434 tons in 2012, a 

73 percent decrease. Kansas noted that 

reasonable progress units declined 60 

percent for NOX and 77 percent for SO2

from 2002 to 2012. Much of these 

reductions were not mandated by the 

Regional Haze SIP, but by the 2010 

Westar Energy settlement 3 and closure 

of the Lafarge Midwest–Fredonia 

Portland cement kilns. 

EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas 

has adequately addressed 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(2). The state provides actual 

emissions reductions of NOX and SO2

from EGUs and other large NOX and SO2

sources in Kansas that have occurred 

since Kansas submitted its regional haze 

SIP. The state also provides estimates of 

emissions of NOX and SO2 for 2018. 

Kansas appropriately focused on NOX

and SO2 emissions from its EGUs and 

other stationary sources in its progress 

report SIP because it previously 

identified these emissions as the most 

significant contributors to visibility 

impairment at those Class I areas that 

Kansas sources impact. 

Given the large NOX and SO2

reductions at subject-to-BART EGUs and 

other sources that have actually 

occurred, further analysis of emissions 

from other sources or other pollutants 

was ultimately unnecessary in this first 

implementation period. Because no 

additional controls were found to be 

necessary for reasonable progress for the 

first implementation period for 

evaluated sources in Kansas, EPA 

proposes to find that no further 

discussion of emissions reductions from 

controls was necessary in the Progress 

Report. 

3. Visibility Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that 

states with Class I areas provide the 

following information for the most 

impaired and least impaired days for 

each area, with values expressed in 

terms of five-year averages of these 

annual values: current visibility 

conditions; the difference between 

current visibility conditions and 

baseline visibility conditions; and the 

change in visibility impairment over the 

past five years. 

Kansas does not have any Class I areas 

within its boundaries, and as this 

section pertains only to states 

containing Class I areas, therefore, no 

further discussion is necessary. 

However, Kansas noted in its Progress 

Report that it is beneficial to have a 

record of visibility conditions at the 

Class I areas that are most affected by 

Kansas sources. The state analyzed four 

Class I areas, with a focus on the 

Wichita Mountains Wilderness area (the 

nearest Class I area to Kansas and most 

impacted by Kansas sources). The state 

compared the slope of the glide path of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32877 

natural visibility conditions in 2064 to 

the slope of the best-fit line of five-year 

visibility averages from 2002 to 2011 (in 

deciviews) for the 20 percent worst days 

and 20 percent best days. The analysis 

showed that visibility at all four Class 

I areas was improving at a rate faster 

than the glide path for the 20 percent 

worst days. Only the Wichita Mountains 

Wilderness area was not improving 

faster than the glidepath for the 20 

percent best days, although visibility 

was still improving in the area. 

EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas 

has adequately addressed 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3). 

4. Emissions Tracking 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an 

analysis tracking emissions changes of 

visibility-impairing pollutants from the 

state’s sources by type or category over 

the past five years based on the most 

recent updated emissions inventory. In 

its Progress Report, Kansas presents data 

from a statewide emissions inventory 

developed for the year 2002 and 

compares this data to the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) 2011 version 

1 (dated September 30, 2013), or simply 

the 2011 NEIv1. For both the 2002 

dataset and the 2011 NEIv1 data, 

pollutants inventoried include NOX, 

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Coarse 

Particulate Matter (PM10), Ammonia 

(NH3), and SO2. The emissions 

inventories from both the 2002 dataset 

and the 2011 NEIv1 include all point, 

nonpoint, onroad, and nonroad sources. 

The state interpolated values for 2009 

through 2013 based on emissions 

inventory data. This shows that 

emissions of the key visibility-impairing 

pollutants identified by Kansas, NOX

and SO2, continued to drop from 2009 

to 2013 (decreasing 32,227 and 64,359 

tons, respectively). Kansas noted that 

emissions of NOX and SO2, the primary 

contributors to visibility impairment 

from anthropogenic sources, are down 

significantly (10 percent for NOX and 

59.6 percent for SO2). However, the state 

noted that NH3 and particulate matter 

(PM) emissions were reported up from 

the 2002 to 2011 inventories and need 

to be addressed. The state cited changes 

in the way that these pollutants were 

reported for each inventory as the 

reason for most of the reported increases 

in NH3 and PM. Accounting for the 

differing reporting methods shows that 

PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from fires is 

slightly up by 2011, however, this 

pollutant source is highly variable. 

While ideally the five-year period to 

be analyzed for emissions inventory 

changes is the time period since the 

current regional haze SIP was 

submitted, there is an inevitable time 

lag in developing and reporting 

complete emissions inventories once 

equality-assured emissions data 

becomes available. Therefore, EPA 

believes that there is some flexibility in 

the five-year time period that states can 

select. Kansas tracked changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants using the 2011 NEIv1, which 

was the most recent updated inventory 

of actual emissions for the state at the 

time that it developed the progress 

report SIP. EPA believes that Kansas’s 

use of the five-year period from 2009 to 

2013 reflects an accurate picture of the 

actual emissions realized between 

2002–2013, and as in many cases, 

Kansas had already reached or 

surpassed their 2018 goals by 2013. EPA 

proposes to conclude that Kansas has 

adequately addressed 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(4). 

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visbility Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have occurred over 

the past five years that have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility in 

Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources. 

In its Progress Report, Kansas 

addresses the changes in anthropogenic 

emissions between 2009 and 2013 

throughout the Midwest, especially due 

to sources installing controls to comply 

with present and near-future air quality 

standards (the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards Rule and the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule). Kansas noted that there 

have been significant reductions among 

anthropogenic emissions source 

categories, especially EGU’s, with 

decreases in SO2 of 17.5 percent and 

NOX of 30.9 percent in Kansas and 

bordering states combined. 

Kansas demonstrated that there are no 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions that have impeded progress 

in reducing emissions and improving 

visibility in Class I areas impacted by 

Kansas and bordering state sources. The 

state referenced its analyses in the 

progress report SIP identifying an 

overall downward trend in these 

emissions from 2009 to 2013 in Kansas. 

Further, the progress report SIP shows 

that Kansas is on track to meeting its 

2018 emissions projections. 

EPA proposes to find that Kansas has 

adequately addressed 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(5). 

6. Assessment of Current Strategy 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an 

assessment of whether the current 

regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable 

Kansas, or other states, to meet the RPGs 

for Class I areas affected by emissions 

from the state. In its Progress Report, 

Kansas states that it believes that the 

elements and strategies outlined in its 

original regional haze SIP are sufficient 

to enable Kansas and other neighboring 

states to meet all of the established 

RPGs and no further revision to the 

initial Kansas Regional Haze SIP is 

needed at this time. To support this 

conclusion, Kansas notes that 

anthropogenic emissions of NOX has 

dropped 10 percent and SO2 has 

dropped 59.6 percent. 

EPA views this requirement as a 

qualitative assessment that should 

evaluate emissions and visibility trends 

and other readily available information, 

including expected emissions 

reductions associated with measures 

with compliance dates that have not yet 

become effective. Kansas referenced the 

improving visibility trends at affected 

Class I areas and the downward 

emissions trends in the state, with a 

focus on NOX and SO2 emissions from 

Kansas’ EGUs that support Kansas’ 

determination that its regional haze SIP 

is sufficient to meet RPGs for Class I 

areas outside the state impacted by 

Kansas sources. EPA believes that 

Kansas’ conclusion regarding the 

sufficiency of the regional haze SIP is 

appropriate because of the calculated 

visibility improvement using the latest 

available data and the downward trend 

in NOX and SO2 emissions from sources 

in Kansas. EPA proposes to conclude 

that Kansas has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(6). 

7. Review of Current Monitoring 

Strategy 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review 

of the state’s visibility monitoring 

strategy and an assessment of whether 

any modifications to the monitoring 

strategy are necessary. In its progress 

report SIP, Kansas summarizes the 

existing IMPROVE monitoring network 

and its intended continued reliance on 

IMPROVE for visibility planning. 

Kansas operates two IMPROVE Protocol 

sampling sites, one at Cedar Bluff State 

Park in Trego County and the other at 

Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in 

the Flint Hills region of eastern Kansas. 

Kansas has updated its monitoring plan 

annually and will consider the need to 

operate two IMPROVE sites with 

increasingly constrained finances. 

EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas 

has adequately addressed the 

sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32878 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to take one of four possible 

actions based on the information 

gathered and conclusions made in the 

progress report SIP. The following 

section summarizes: (1) The action 

taken by Kansas under 40 CFR 

51.308(h); (2) Kansas’s rationale for the 

selected action; and (3) EPA’s analysis 

and proposed determination regarding 

the state’s action. 

In its Progress Report, Kansas took the 

action provided for by 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to 

submit a negative declaration to EPA if 

the state determines that the existing 

regional haze SIP requires no further 

substantive revision at this time to 

achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the state’s sources. The basis 

for Kansas’ negative declaration is the 

findings from the progress report (as 

discussed in section II. A. of this 

action), including the findings that: NOX

and SO2 emissions from Kansas’s 

sources have decreased beyond original 

projections; and the NOX and SO2

emissions from EGUs in Kansas are 

already below the levels projected for 

2018 in the regional haze SIP and are 

expected to continue to trend 

downward for the next five years. 

Based on these findings, EPA 

proposes to agree with Kansas’ 

conclusion under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that 

no further substantive changes to its 

regional haze SIP are required at this 

time. 

C. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

On November 25, 2014, KDHE 

provided to the FLMs, a revision to 

Kansas’ SIP reporting on progress made 

during the first implementation period 

toward RPGs for Class I areas in the 

state and Class I areas outside the state 

that are affected by emissions from 

Kansas’s sources. Notification was 

published in the Kansas Register, 

regional newspapers, and the KDHE 

Web site on October 23, 2014. A public 

hearing was not held because KDHE 

received no requests for a public hearing 

and the public comment period ended 

on November 21, 2014. On March 10, 

2015, KDHE submitted the SIP to EPA. 

Kansas’ Progress Report includes the 

FLMs comments and KDHE’s response 

to those comments in Appendix I to the 

Progress Report. In the section 3.8 

Federal Land Manager (FLM) 

Coordination, KDHE commits to 

continuing policy discussions with the 

FLMs. 

EPA proposes to find that KDHE has 

addressed the requirements in 

51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide 

FLMs with an opportunity for 

consultation in person and at least 60 

days prior to a public hearing on the SIP 

revision; include a description in the 

SIP revision of how it addressed any 

comments from the FLMs; and provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between the State and FLMs. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing approval of a 

revision to the Kansas SIP, submitted by 

the State of Kansas on March 10, 2015, 

as meeting the applicable regional haze 

requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and 51.308(h). We are 

processing this as a proposed action 

because we are soliciting comments on 

this proposed action. Final rulemaking 

will occur after consideration of any 

comments. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this proposed action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This proposed action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 10, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this proposed rule 

does not affect the finality of this 

rulemaking for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such 

future rule or action. This proposed 

action may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32879 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 28, 2015. 

Mark Hague, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 52 as set forth below: 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart R—KANSAS 

■ 2. In § 52.870 the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding new entry (40) 

at the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

Nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(40) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for 

the Attainment and Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Regional Haze 

(2014 Five-Year Progress Report) 

Statewide ....................... 3/10/15 6/10/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

[FR Doc. 2015–13943 Filed 6–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0390; FRL–9927–60] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Significant New Use Rule on Certain 

Chemical Substances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing significant 

new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 30 

chemical substances which were the 

subject of premanufacture notices 

(PMNs). This action would require 

persons who intend to manufacture 

(including import) or process any of the 

chemical substances for an activity that 

is designated as a significant new use by 

this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 

90 days before commencing that 

activity. The required notification 

would provide EPA with the 

opportunity to evaluate the intended 

use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit 

the activity before it occurs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 10, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0390, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Kenneth 

Moss, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–9232; email address: 

moss.kenneth@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture, process, 

or use the chemical substances 

contained in this proposed rule. The 

following list of North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

to help readers determine whether this 

document applies to them. Potentially 

affected entities may include: 

• Manufacturers (including 

importers) or processors of one or more 

subject chemical substances (NAICS 

codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical 

manufacturing and petroleum refineries. 

This action may also affect certain 

entities through pre-existing import 

certification and export notification 

rules under TSCA. Chemical importers 

are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 

U.S.C. 2612) import certification 

requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 

12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 

127.28. Chemical importers must certify 

that the shipment of the chemical 

substance complies with all applicable 

rules and orders under TSCA. Importers 

of chemicals subject to these SNURs 

must certify their compliance with the 

SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in 

support of import certification appears 

at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In 

addition, any persons who export or 

intend to export a chemical substance to 

a proposed or final rule are subject to 

the export notification provisions of 

TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) 

(see § 721.20), and must comply with 

the export notification requirements in 

40 CFR part 707, subpart D. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS