[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52604-52623]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21567]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Kansas on November 9, 2009, that
addresses Regional Haze for the first implementation period. In so
doing, EPA is proposing to determine that the plan submitted by Kansas
satisfies the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), for
states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions
of air pollutants located over a wide geographic area (also referred to
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is taking this action
pursuant to those provisions of the CAA that obligate the Agency to
take action on submittals of SIPs. You may submit written comments on
this proposed rule as per the instructions given under the section
Instructions for Comment Submittal.

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

ADDRESSES: Instructions for Comment Submittal: Submit your comments,
which must be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0675, by one
of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
    4. Mail: Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and Development
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    5. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention: Chrissy
Wolfersberger. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday,
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7 Office, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of
the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional Haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a wide
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react
in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. PM2.5 can also
cause serious health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes
to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'', or IMPROVE
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas (e.g.,
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the Western United States is
100-150 kilometers (13.6-9.6 deciviews (dv)) 2 3, or about
one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without
anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of
the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers
(25 dv or more), or about one-fifth of the visual range that would
exist under estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1,
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments CAA, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \4\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e. ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address Regional
Haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713) (Regional Haze Rule or Rule). The Regional Haze Rule
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the Federal visibility protection regulations
at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized below in section II. The requirement to
submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of
Columbia and the Virgin Islands. States are required by 40 CFR
51.308(b) to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional
haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.

C. Roles Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the Regional Haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on air quality in another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other
pollutants leading to regional haze. The State of Kansas participated
in the planning efforts of the Central Regional Air Planning
Association (CENRAP) which is affiliated with the Central States Air
Resource Agencies (CENSARA). This RPO includes nine states--Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and
Louisiana.
    States were also required (40 CFR 51.308(i)) to coordinate with
FLMs during the development of the state's strategies to address
Regional Haze. FLMs include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, and the National Park Service.

II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze Rule

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

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

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

    The Regional Haze Rule requires that states consult with other
states and FLMs before adopting and submitting their SIPs (40 CFR
51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation,
in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on
the SIP. This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to
discuss their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I
area and to offer recommendations on the development of reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) \5\ and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

    The Regional Haze Rule establishes the deciview as the principle
metric or unit for expressing visibility. This visibility metric
expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments
across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is
determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light
extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a
logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking
progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because
each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility
perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in
visibility at one deciview.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals (which
are interim visibility goals toward meeting the national visibility
goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The Regional Haze SIPs must contain measures
that make ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program, and as part of the process for
determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree of
existing visibility impairment at each Class I area at the time of each
Regional Haze SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five
years midway through each 10-year implementation period. To do this,
the Regional Haze Rule requires states to determine the degree of
impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In
addition, states must develop an estimate of natural visibility
conditions for purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal.
Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has
provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline,
natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA's
Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility conditions under the
Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter
referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance''), and
Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-
03-004 September 2003, located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003
Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting point for
assessing current visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions
represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 percent least
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states
are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment
for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the
five year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future
comparison of baseline conditions to then current conditions will
indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.

D. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule includes the
requirement for a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing,
and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state.
Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Vital Environments (IMPROVE)
network, i.e. review and use of monitoring data from the network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it
must be reviewed every five years.
    The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
reasonable progress goals will be met. The SIP must also provide for
the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     For a state with no mandatory Class I areas, procedures
for using monitoring data and other information to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;

     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, the most recent year for which data are
available, and estimates of future projected emissions, along with a
commitment to update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The Regional Haze Rule requires control strategies to cover an
initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must
meet the core requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of
BART. The requirement to evaluate BART applies only to the first
Regional Haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will be continue to be met.

E. Reasonable Progress Goals

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress toward achieving the
national visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs that establish two reasonable progress goals (i.e., two distinct
goals, one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every
Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period.
The Regional Haze Rule does not mandate specific milestones or rates of
progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that provide
for ``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e.
``background'') visibility conditions. In setting reasonable progress
goals, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for the
most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP,
and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing reasonable
progress goals, but are required to consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's Regional Haze Rule
at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) the costs of compliance; (2) the time
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life
of any potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their
SIPs how these factors are considered when selecting the reasonable
progress goal for the best and worst days for each applicable Class I
area in the state (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have considerable
flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted
in EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July
1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators,
EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1). In setting the reasonable progress
goals, states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach
natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform
rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') and the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the ten year
period of the SIP. Uniform progress toward achievement of natural
visibility conditions by 2064 represents a rate of progress which
states are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress
they expect to achieve. In setting reasonable progress goals, each
state with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also
consult with potentially ``contributing states'', i.e. other nearby
states with emission sources that may be affecting visibility
impairment at the Class I state's areas (51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
    States without Class I areas are required to submit Regional Haze
SIPs to address their contribution to visibility impairment. As per the
previous discussion in this proposed rulemaking, the ability of the
long range transport of pollutants to affect visibility conditions
areas makes it imperative that each state evaluate how emissions from
within its borders affect visibility impairment in Class I areas in
other states. However, states without Class I areas, such as Kansas,
are not required to (a) establish reasonable progress goals, (b)
calculate baseline and natural visibility conditions at Class I areas,
or (c) monitor and report visibility data for each Class I area within
the state.

F. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that
certain categories of existing stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``best available retrofit
technology'' as determined by the state.\7\ Under the Regional Haze
Rule, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such
``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
toward improving visibility than BART. This is discussed in more detail
in section III. of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule \8\ at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emissions limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired generating plant with a total generating capacity in excess
of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set forth in the
BART Guidelines. A state is

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

    \8\ Appendix Y to part 51--F.1. The guidelines provide a process
for making BART determinations that states can use in implementing
the regional haze BART requirements on a source-by-source basis, as
provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). States must follow the guidelines
in making BART determinations on a source-by-source basis for 750
megawatt (MW) power plants but are not required to use the process
in the guidelines when making BART determinations for other types of
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States must address all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOx, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOCs or ammonia compounds impair visibility in
Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. As a
general matter, any exemption threshold set by the state should not be
higher than 0.5 deciviews (70 FR 39161).
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the Regional Haze Rule and
document their BART control determination analyses. In making BART
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states
consider the following five factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2)
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3)
any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the
remaining useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
use of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A Regional Haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, controls must be installed and
in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years
after EPA's approval of the regional haze SIP. See CAA section
169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by
the Regional Haze Rule, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP
must also include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source.
    As noted above, the Regional Haze Rule allows states to implement
an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative
program can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations
issued in 2005 revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a
demonstration for CAIR. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations
provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program
under 40 CFR part 96 or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected
BART-eligible electricity generating units (EGUs) to install, operate,
and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX.
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM,
states were still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions
from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant.

G. Long Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10- to 15-year strategy for
making reasonable progress, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze
Rule requires that states include a LTS in their SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet reasonable
progress goals. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within,
or affected by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment in a Class I area located in another state,
the Regional Haze Rule requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emission
management strategies (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the reasonable progress goal for the Class I area. The
RPOs have provided forums for significant interstate consultation, but
additional consultations between states may be required to sufficiently
address interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two
states belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors are taken into account in
developing their LTS (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)):
     Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control
programs,
     Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities;
     Emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to
achieve the reasonable progress goal;
     Source retirement and replacement schedules;
     Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state
for these purposes;
     Enforceability of emissions limitations and control
measures; and
     The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected
changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS.

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

A. Overview of EPA's CAIR

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

B. Remand of the CAIR

    On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit issued its decision to vacate and
remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008). However, in
response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued an order
remanding CAIR to EPA without

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. The Court thereby left CAIR in
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR'' until EPA could replace it with a rule consistent
with the court's opinion. 550 F.3d at 1178. The Court directed EPA to
``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 11, 2008, opinion but
declined to impose a schedule on EPA for completing that action.
Because CAIR accordingly has been remanded to the Agency without
vacatur, CAIR and the CAIR FIPs are currently in effect in subject
states.
    Many states relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for
SO2 and NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed under
the BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several
states established RPGs that reflect the improvement in visibility
expected to result from controls planned for or already installed on
sources within the state to meet the CAIR provisions for this
implementation period for specified pollutants. Many states relied upon
their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs for their states to provide the
legal requirements which leads to these planned controls, and did not
include enforceable measures in the LTS in the regional haze SIP
submission to ensure these reductions. States also submitted
demonstrations showing that no additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR
would be reasonable for this implementation period.
    On July 6, 2011, EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR).\9\ This rule responds to the court ruling remanding the 2005
CAIR, and achieves emission reductions beyond those originally required
by CAIR through additional air pollution reductions from power plants
beginning in 2012. On July 11, 2011, in conjunction with EPA's
finalization of CSAPR, EPA issued a supplemental proposal requesting
comment on inclusion of additional states in the CSAPR ozone season
program. (76 FR 40662) EPA intends to finalize the supplemental
proposal by October 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze Rule

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

B. Affected Class I Areas

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Consultation With States and FLMs

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

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

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

D. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

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

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

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

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

G. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    EPA has reviewed and proposes that the State's process to identify
BART-eligible sources, BART-subject sources and the emission rates it
has determined to be BART for five BART-subject units at three sources
in Kansas meets the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR
51.308(e) and is consistent with the Guidelines for BART Determinations
under the Regional Haze Rule. The TSD to this proposal provides a
detailed analysis of the State's BART determinations.
    As previously mentioned in this proposal, on July 6, 2005, EPA
published the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional
Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as
the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist states in determining which of their
sources should be subject to the BART requirements and determining
appropriate emissions limits for each BART-subject source. The BART
evaluation process consists of three components: (a) Identification of
all the BART-eligible sources; (b) assessment of whether the BART-
eligible sources are subject to BART; and (c) determination of the BART
controls. The components, as addressed by the State's findings, are
discussed below, and further discussed in the TSD for this proposed
rulemaking.
    In making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired generating
plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a
state must use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state
is not required to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of sources. The BART Guidelines provide
five steps toward identifying BART control for these very large EGUs.
Step 1: Identify all available retrofit control technologies; Step 2:
Eliminate technically infeasible control technologies; Step 3: Evaluate
the control effectiveness of remaining control technologies; Step 4:
Evaluate impacts and document the results; Step 5: Evaluate visibility
impact.
1. BART Eligible Sources
    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the State's boundaries. The State utilized the
methodology in the BART Guidelines and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
51.301, for determining which sources were BART-eligible. For an
emission source to be identified as BART-eligible, the State used these
criteria from the BART Guidelines:
     One or more emissions units at the facility fit within one
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines;
     The emission unit was in existence on August 7, 1977 and
began operation at some point on or after August 7, 1962; and
     The limited potential emissions from all emission units
identified in the previous two bullets were 250 tons or more per year
of any of these visibility-impairing pollutants: SO2,
NOX, or PM10.
    In the BART determination process, states must address all
significant visibility impairing pollutants. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. As indicated by the BART Guidelines, a state should use its best
judgment in determining whether VOCs, ammonia or ammonia compounds
impair visibility in particular Class I areas. Kansas determined that
it did not need to evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions as part of its
BART analyses.\17\ The TSD to this proposal includes EPA's analysis and
confirmation of the state's conclusion that neither VOC nor ammonia
needed to be evaluated as part of the State's BART determinations.

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

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

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

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

    EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas appropriately
identified its BART-eligible sources in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines.
2. BART Subject Sources
    The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e. those
sources that are ``subject to BART.'' The BART Guidelines allow states
to consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART
review because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent
with the BART Guidelines, and using air quality data provided by
CENRAP, Kansas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    After review of the State's method for determining BART-subject
sources and the refined analysis of those sources, the EPA is proposing
to find that the State appropriately identified all of the units in the
State that are BART-subject in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)
the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines.
3. BART Determinations
    In making BART determinations, CAA section 169A(g)(2) and 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) require that states consider the following factors:
(1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing pollution control
technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining useful life of the
source, and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
This five step analysis is commonly referred to as a ``five factor
analysis''.
    As discussed in the TSD to this notice, Kansas found the most
significant visibility impairment attributable to the units identified
as subject to BART is dominated by contributions from NOX
and SO2 emissions. PM visibility impairment attribution from
these units is not significant. Because visibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H. Long Term Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City BPU-KAW units 1 and 3 have been on cold stand-by since 2001 and
2003 respectively. Units 1 and 3 would be subject to Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements if the facility
were to restart them. Empire District Electric- Riverton units 7 and 8
have start-up dates of 1950 and 1954 respectively, and will likely be
retired by 2018. The State has included a commitment, on page 83 of the
State's Regional Haze SIP, to address any other sources that are