52604 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 117.253(b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.253 Anacostia River. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) * * * 

(iv) At all other times, if at least 48 

hours of notice is given to the controller 

at the Benning Yard Office. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 22, 2011. 

William D. Lee, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21457 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52605 

1Eutrophication is defined as excessive richness 

of nutrients in a lake or other body of water, 

Continued 

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: 

Wolfersberger.Chris@epa.gov. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52606 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

frequently due to runoff from the land, which 

causes a dense growth of plant life and death of 

animal life from lack of oxygen. 

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. 

4Areas 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.’’ 

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). 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52607 

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. 

6The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule 

provides additional details about the deciview. See 

64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999). 

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. 

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

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; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

7The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). The 26 source categories are: (1) Fossilfuel 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. 

8Appendix 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. 

• 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52609 

encouraged, but not required to follow 

the BART Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibility 

impairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOx, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

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 capand-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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52610 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

9 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. 

10 Visibility Monitoring Guidance: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/visible/r-99- 

003.pdf. 

11A 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. 

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. 

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: 

• 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52611 

12This information was provided on the CENRAP 

Web site, http://cenrap.org or CENRAP’s FTP site. 

the highest visibility impact at the 

WIMO. 

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 nontechnical 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. 

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 nonvoting members of CENRAP) the 

development of technical and nontechnical 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52612 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

13Emissions 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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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

Source category 

Tons/yr 

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

Source category 

Tons/yr 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52613 

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. 

17Appendix 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. 

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 fiveyear 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. 

G. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

EPA has reviewed and proposes that 

the State’s process to identify BARTeligible 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 BARTeligible. 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 visibilityimpairing 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52614 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

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 

Generating Units.

0090002 Aquila (now Sunflower 

Electric)—Arthur 

Mullergren.

Unit 3 (Stacks 1 and 2). 

1750001 Aquila (now Sunflower 

Electric)—Cimarron 

River.

Unit 1. 

0570001 Aquila (now Sunflower 

Electric)—Judson 

Large.

Unit 4. 

2090008 Kansas City BPU— 

Nearman.

Unit 1. 

2090048 Kansas City BPU— 

Quindaro.

Unit 1 

Unit 2. 

1070005 KCP&L—La Cygne ....... Unit 1 

Unit 2. 

1130014 McPherson Municipal 

Power Plan #2.

Unit 1. 

0550026 Sunflower Electric—Garden City.Unit S2. 

1730012 Westar Energy—Gordon 

Evans.

Unit 2 (Stacks 2 and 3). 

1550033 Westar Energy—Hutchinson.Unit 4 (Stacks A and B). 

1490001 Westar Energy—Jeffrey Unit 1 

Unit 2. 

0450014 Westar Energy—Lawrence.Unit 5. 

0350012 Winfield Municipal 

Power Plant #2.

Unit 4. 

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 Refining Co.Boiler B–105, Boiler B–107, Plant Process Heaters, Refinery Flare System B–1303, Plant Cooling Towers, Storage Tanks, Gas Oil 

Hydrotreater. 

1130003 National Cooperative 

Refinery Assoc. 

(NCRA).

Alky Heater HA–002, No. 9 Boiler SB–009, No.12 Boiler SB–012, Coker 

IR Comp. CR–003, Plat Stab Boil Htr HP–003, Plat Charge Htr HP– 

006, Fugitive Emissions. 

Chemical Processing 

Plants.

1730070 Basic Chemicals (now 

OxyChem—Wichita).

Boiler 1; Boiler 2; Boiler 3; 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 BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e. those sources that are ‘‘subject to 

BART.’’ The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, and using air quality 

data provided by CENRAP, Kansas 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52615 

18CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species nonsteady-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. 

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. 

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 

Source 

Number of days during 2001–2003 with visibility impact > 0.5 dv 

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 1 & 2 ........................ 13 13 1 1 18 6 9 0 0 

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 Unit 2 ............................ 33 30 11 13 28 17 102 32 24 

Westar Energy—Hutchinson Unit 4 ................................. 14 7 6 5 6 3 17 9 4 

Westar Energy—Jeffrey Units 1 & 2 ................................ 150 161 27 28 182 158 165 82 55 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52616 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

19Appendix 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. 

20Appendix 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. 

21Appendix Y to Part 51–E.4. and 5. 

22Appendix 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. 

23The 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. 24Appendix Y to Part 51 section IV.E.5. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 1 percent S 

oil, LNB at 0.8 lb/ 

MMBtu 

(deciview) 

Presumptive 

case 1 percent S 

oil, LNB at 0.2 lb/ 

MMBtu 

(deciview) 

Alternative BART 

case natural gas 

(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

Subject-to-BART unit 

tons/yr 

2002 NOX1 2002 SO2

1 2018 NOX2 2018 SO22 NOX

reduction 

SO2

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52618 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

25Steven 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). 

26The 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. 

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

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 statespecific 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); Onboard 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52619 

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. 

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 BARTsubject; 

• 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. 

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 facilityby-facility basis and NOX and SO2

emissions impacts were calculated in 

combination. The modeling was 

conducted analyzing pre- and postcontrol’s (controls identified in Step 2 of 

the analysis) 98th percentile visibility 

impacts. Facilities whose highest precontrol 98th percentile impact was less 

than 0.100 dv were screened out in this 

step. 

As a refinement to Step 3, the State reran 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52620 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—CONTROL OR WORK PRACTICE STRATEGIES FOR WESTAR UNITS TO MEET KANSAS LONG TERM STRATEGY

REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Facility/unit Emission rate or work practice 

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

Facility Unit 

2002 NOX

Emissions 

(tpy) 

2002 SO2

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Post 

control 

NOX

(tpy) 

Post 

control 

SO2

(tpy) 

NOX

Reductions 

(tpy) 

SO2

Reductions 

(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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52621 

29 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and 

Prescribed Fires—http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

memoranda/firefnl.pdf. 

30http://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’’. 

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 ElectricRiverton 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. 

TABLE 9—2002 KANSAS EMISSIONS BY BURN TYPE AND POLLUTANT

Burn type Acres 

burned 

2002 tons 

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. 

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

Class I area 

Net 2002–2018 light 

extinction difference 

(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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52622 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Regional Haze requirements set forth in 

section 169A and 169B of the Act and 

in the Federal regulations codified at 40 

CFR § 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 costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0601; FRL–9453–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx), and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from flares. We are approving 

a local rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0601, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the date that it was 

amended by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ............................. 4311 Flares ...................................................................................... 06/18/09 01/10/10 

On February 4, 2010, EPA determined 

that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 

4311 met the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be 

met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 4311 into the SIP on February 26, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS