Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Kansas, 4472-4475 [E7-1518]
Download as PDF
4472
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Proposed Rules
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
under No. 10.025 and is subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part
3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. It is not intended to
have retroactive effect. This rule would
not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with
this rule. The Virus-Serum-Toxin Act
does not provide administrative
procedures which must be exhausted
prior to a judicial challenge to the
provisions of this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no new
information or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
tested by inoculating eight mice
intraperitoneally or subcutaneously
with 0.5 mL, and the animals observed
for 7 days.
(2) If unfavorable reactions
attributable to the product occur in any
of the mice during the observation
period, the serial or subserial is
unsatisfactory. If unfavorable reactions
which are not attributable to the product
occur, the test shall be declared
inconclusive and may be repeated:
Provided, That, if the test is not
repeated, the serial or subserial shall be
declared unsatisfactory.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 113.310
§§ 113.66, 113.68, and 113.69
§§ 113.313 and 113.328
[Amended]
§ 113.70
[Amended]
6. In § 113.70, paragraph (b)(5) would
be removed.
PART 113—STANDARD
REQUIREMENTS
8. In § 113.303, paragraph (c)(6)
would be removed.
1. The authority citation for part 113
would continue to read as follows:
§ 113.302, 113.304, 113.314, 113.315,
113.317, 113.327, 113.331, and 113.332
[Amended]
mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Extending the dating of a
reference. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 113.33, paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) would be revised to read as
follows:
§ 113.33
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) Vaccine prepared for use as
recommended on the label shall be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 30, 2007
§ 113.303
Jkt 211001
[Amended]
[Amended]
9. In §§ 113.302, 113.304, 113.314,
113.315, 113.317, 113.327, 113.331, and
113.332, paragraph (c)(4) would be
removed and paragraph (c)(5) would be
redesignated as paragraph (c)(4).
§ 113.305
[Amended]
10. In § 113.305, paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)
and (b)(2)(iii) would be removed and
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) would be
redesignated as paragraph (b)(2)(iii).
§§ 113.308 and 113.316
[Amended]
11. In §§ 113.308 and 113.316,
paragraph (b)(5) would be removed and
paragraph (b)(6) would be redesignated
as paragraph (b)(5).
§ 113.309
Mouse safety tests.
[Amended]
15. In § 113.312, paragraphs (b)(5)
and(b)(6) would be removed and
paragraph (b)(7) would be redesignated
as paragraph (b)(5).
[Amended]
§§ 113.325 and 113.326
[Amended]
5. In § 113.67, paragraph (b)(7) would
be removed and paragraph (b)(8) would
be redesignated as paragraph (b)(7).
7. In §§ 113.71, 113.306, and 113.318,
paragraph (b)(4) would be removed and
paragraph (b)(5) would be redesignated
as paragraph (b)(4).
In vitro tests for serial release.
§ 113.312
§ 113.67
Animal biologics, Exports, Imports,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9
CFR part 113 as follows:
§ 113.8
[Amended]
14. In § 113.311, paragraph (c)(7)
would be removed and paragraph (c)(8)
would be redesignated as paragraph
(c)(7).
16. In §§ 113.313 and 113.328,
paragraph (c)(6) would be removed and
paragraph (c)(7) would be redesignated
as paragraph (c)(6).
§§ 113.71, 113.306, and 113.318
2. In § 113.8, paragraph (d) would be
amended as follows:
a. By revising the heading to
paragraph (d).
b. By removing paragraph (d)(1).
c. By removing the paragraph
designation ‘‘(d)(2)’’.
§ 113.311
4. In §§ 113.66, 113.68, and 113.69,
paragraph (b)(6) would be removed and
paragraph (b)(7) would be redesignated
as paragraph (b)(6).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 113
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151–159; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.4.
[Amended]
13. In § 113.310, paragraph (c)(8)
would be removed and paragraph (c)(9)
would be redesignated as paragraph
(c)(8).
[Amended]
12. In § 113.309, paragraph (c)(9)
would be removed and paragraph (c)(10)
would be redesignated as paragraph
(c)(9).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[Amended]
17. In §§ 113.325 and 113.326,
paragraph (c)(5) would be removed and
paragraph (c)(6) would be redesignated
as paragraph (c)(5).
§ 113.329
[Amended]
18. In § 113.329, paragraph (c)(5)
would be removed and paragraphs (c)(6)
and (c)(7) would be redesignated as
paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6),
respectively.
Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of
January 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7–1531 Filed 1–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2006–0973; FRL–8274–8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of Kansas
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a request to revise the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) made by the
state of Kansas to include updates to its
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) of Air Quality rule. The Kansas
revision adopts by reference provisions
of 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect July 1, 2004,
except for subsections with references to
Clean Unit Exemptions, Pollution
Control Projects, and the record keeping
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Proposed Rules
provisions for the actual-to-projectedactual emissions projections. Kansas did
not adopt the latter provisions because
of the June 24, 2005, United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit’s decision, which vacated the
Clean Unit Exemption and Pollution
Control Project provisions and
remanded back to EPA the record
keeping provisions for the actual-toprojected-actual emissions projections
standard for when a source must keep
certain project related records. If
approved, EPA would incorporate the
revisions into the Kansas SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 2, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2006–0973, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: grier.gina@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Gina Grier, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
your comments to: Gina Grier,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2006–
0973. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Planning and Development Branch,
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas. EPA requests that you contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The
interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina
Grier at (913) 551–7078, or by e-mail at
grier.gina@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This section provides additional
information by addressing the following
questions:
What is the Federal approval process for a
SIP?
What is being addressed in this document?
What is the background for EPA’s New
Source Review (NSR) Reform rule?
What is Kansas’s NSR Reform rule and what
action has Kansas requested on the rule?
Have the requirements for approval of a SIP
revision been met?
What action is EPA proposing?
What is the Federal approval process
for a SIP?
In order for State regulations to be
incorporated into the Federallyenforceable SIP, States must formally
adopt the regulations and control
strategies consistent with State and
Federal requirements. This process
generally includes a public notice,
public hearing, public comment period,
and a formal adoption by a Stateauthorized rulemaking body.
Once a State rule, regulation, or
control strategy is adopted, the State
submits it to us for inclusion into the
SIP. We must provide public notice and
seek additional public comment
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4473
regarding the proposed Federal action
on the State submission. If adverse
comments are received, they must be
addressed prior to any final Federal
action by us.
All State regulations and supporting
information approved by EPA under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) are incorporated into the
Federally-approved SIP. Records of such
SIP actions are maintained in the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40,
part 52, entitled ‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.’’
The actual State regulations which are
approved are not reproduced in their
entirety in the CFR outright but are
‘‘incorporated by reference,’’ which
means that we have approved a given
State regulation with a specific effective
date.
What is being addressed in this
document?
We are proposing to approve the
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment’s (KDHE) revision to
Kansas Administrative Regulation
(K.A.R.) 28–19–350, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.
Kansas adopted the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR 52.21, except for
subsections that are not applicable to
Kansas or are stayed, vacated, or
remanded by Federal court order, or are
reserved for future use.
The rules were submitted to EPA on
July 25, 2006. The submission included
comments on the rules made during the
state’s adoption process, the state’s
response to comments and other
information necessary to meet EPA’s
completeness criteria. For additional
information on completeness criteria,
the reader should refer to 40 CFR part
51, appendix V.
What is the background for EPA’s New
Source Review (NSR) Reform rule?
The 2002 NSR Reform rules are part
of EPA’s implementation of Parts C and
D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470–
7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7470–7492, is the PSD program,
which applies in areas that meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), also known as ‘‘attainment
areas’’ and in areas for which there is
insufficient information to determine
whether the area meets the NAAQS,
also known as, ‘‘unclassifiable’’ areas.
Part D of Title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7501–7515, is the nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR) program, which
applies in areas that are not in
attainment of the NAAQS, also known
as ‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ Collectively,
the PSD and NNSR programs are
referred to as the ‘‘New Source Review’’
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
4474
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Proposed Rules
or NSR programs. EPA regulations
implementing these programs are
contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166,
52.21, 52.24, and part 51, appendix S.
The CAA NSR programs are
preconstruction review and permitting
programs applicable to new and
modified stationary sources of air
pollutants regulated under the CAA.
The NSR programs of the CAA include
a combination of air quality planning
and air pollution control technology
program requirements. Briefly, section
109 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7409, requires
EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to
protect public health and secondary
NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once
EPA sets those standards, States must
develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for
approval, a SIP that contains emissions
limitations and other control measures
to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each
SIP is required to contain a
preconstruction review program for the
construction and modification of any
stationary source of air pollution to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved
and maintained; to protect areas of clean
air; to protect air quality related values
(such as visibility) in national parks and
other areas; to assure that appropriate
emissions controls are applied, to
maximize opportunities for economic
development consistent with the
preservation of clean air resources; and
to ensure that any decision to increase
air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of the
consequences of the decisions.
The 2002 NSR Reform rules made
changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 rules:
(1) Provide a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions;
(2) adopt an actual-to-projected-actual
methodology for determining whether a
major modification has occurred; (3)
allow major stationary sources to
comply with plant-wide applicability
limits (PALs) to avoid having a
significant emission increase that
triggers the requirements of the major
NSR program; (4) provide a new
applicability provision for emissions
units that are designated clean units;
and (5) exclude pollution control
projects (PCPs) from the definition of
physical change or change in the
method of operation.
After the 2002 NSR Reform rules were
finalized and effective, various
petitioners challenged numerous
aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform rules,
along with portions of EPA’s 1980 NSR
rules (45 FR 5276 August 7, 1980). On
June 24, 2005, the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals issued a decision on
the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules. New York v. United States, 413
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
F.3d (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia vacated portions of the rules
pertaining to clean units and pollution
control projects, remanded a portion of
the rules regarding exemption from
record keeping, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)
and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and let stand
the other provisions included as part of
the 2002 NSR Reform rules. EPA has not
yet responded to the Court’s remand
regarding record keeping provisions.
What is Kansas’s NSR Reform rule and
what action has Kansas requested on
the rule?
In this action, we propose approval of
revisions to Kansas’s Air Quality
Regulation, K.A.R. 28–19–350,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
of Air Quality, into the SIP. This rule
incorporates by reference the Federal
PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, including
the 2002 NSR Reform rules described
above, with the exception of portions of
the rule relating to provisions vacated or
remanded by the court.
Under Part C of Title I of the CAA,
states have the primary responsibility
for developing a SIP and issuing permits
subject to the emission limits and other
control measures developed in the plan.
NSR ensures the protection of air
quality because it designates a specific
plan customized to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality from
individual major source emitters of air
pollutants, such as power plants,
refineries or manufacturing facilities.
The permit also requires the application
of Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) to new or modified facilities.
The NSR permit program encompassed
by K.A.R. 28–19–350 is for sources
located in areas where the air is
designated ‘‘attainment’’ or
unclassifiable and meets the
requirement to protect human health. A
major stationary source is required to
obtain a permit before it can begin
construction or make a major
modification if the modification or
construction will increase emissions by
an amount large enough to trigger NSR
requirements.
A PSD permit places allowable limits
on pollution emissions from a newly
constructed or newly modified
stationary source. As part of the PSD
permitting process, Kansas completes
required air quality modeling analysis of
the project to ensure the project
maintains compliance with the NAAQS.
Kansas also tracks and controls the
emission of air pollutants by calculating
the maximum increase concentration
allowed to occur above an established
background level, known as a PSD
increment.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The revision to K.A.R. 28–19–350
incorporates by reference the provisions
of the EPA NSR reform rule referenced
above. This includes (1) the new
methodology for determining baseline
actual emissions; (2) the option of using
the actual-to-projected-actual emissions
for determining emissions increases;
and (3) the provisions relating to plantwide applicability limits. It does not
incorporate the provisions vacated or
remanded by the court, described
previously. In addition, the state
revision adds titles to each subsection
for ease of reading. Subsection (c)
clarifies the term ‘‘Administrator’’ in the
Federal rule, to indicate where it means
Administrator of EPA and where it
means KDHE, as separate from state
agency administration. Subsection (h)
specifies that the state construction
approval requirements also apply to the
PSD permit issued under the regulation.
Subsection (k) ensures that the public
notice of PSD permit actions state
whether the action will adversely
impact Federal class I areas.
Because the Kansas rule adopts by
reference relevant portions of the
Federal rule, EPA believes it meets the
requirement of the CAA.
Have the requirements for approval of
a SIP revision been met?
The state submittal has met the public
notice requirements for SIP submissions
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The
submittal also satisfied the
completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. In addition, as explained
above and in more detail in the
technical support document that is part
of this docket, EPA believes that the
revisions meet the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing
regulations.
What action is EPA proposing?
We propose to approve revisions to
Kansas’s Air Quality Regulation, K.A.R.
28–19–350, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Proposed Rules
beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that the proposed approvals in this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). Because this rule proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by State law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
This proposed rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply. This proposed rule does not
impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 Jan 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
4475
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Washington, DC 20522–0602; e-mail
address: ginesgg@state.gov.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: January 24, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. E7–1518 Filed 1–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
48 CFR Part 601
[Public Notice 5684]
RIN 1400–AB98
Department of State Acquisition
Regulation
State Department.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This proposed rule makes one
change to the DOSAR. It revises the
DOSAR to expand contracting authority
to non-U.S. citizen locally employed
staff, i.e., Foreign Nationals and Third
Country Nationals. Presently, only U.S.
citizens who are Government employees
may be appointed as contracting
officers.
The Department will accept
comments from the public up to April
2, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by any of the following
methods:
• E-mail: ginesgg@state.gov. You
must include the RIN in the subject line
of your message.
• Mail (paper, disk, or CD–ROM
submissions): Gladys Gines,
Procurement Analyst, Department of
State, Office of the Procurement
Executive, 2201 C Street, NW., Suite
603, State Annex Number 6,
Washington, DC 20522–0602.
• Fax: 703–875–6155.
Persons with access to the Internet may
also view this notice and provide
comments by going to the
regulations.gov Web site at https://
www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gladys Gines, Procurement Analyst,
Department of State, Office of the
Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street,
NW., Suite 603, State Annex Number 6,
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The
Department of State initiated a pilot
program in which a non-U.S. citizen
locally employed staff (LES) member at
an Embassy was given contracting
authority at $2,500 (the micro-purchase
threshold). The pilot resulted in savings
in time to process transactions, allowed
the Contracting Officer at the Embassy
additional time to concentrate on other
procurement and non-procurement
issues, and increased morale among LES
staff through a sense of greater
empowerment. Although the pilot did
not identify specific cost or headcount
savings, the Department believes that
further dissemination of contracting
authority at increased levels up to
$25,000 presents an opportunity for
overseas posts (Embassies and
Consulates) to achieve reductions in
cost and headcount while improving
service, largely by providing
management flexibility to reconfigure
the work portfolios of overseas
contracting officers. Approximately
97% of all overseas procurement
transactions are below $25,000.
Effective management controls will
minimize the risks associated with
providing contracting authority to nonU.S. citizen LES. These controls are
similar to those currently used
successfully in the purchase card
program for similar transactions. They
consist of:
• Review of LES transactions on a
monthly basis by a U.S. citizen
contracting officer;
• Determination and approval of
adequate local conditions such as rule
of law and level of corruption as well as
the integrity of LES staff recommended
for the contracting authority;
• Evaluation of LES delegated
procurement by the Office of the
Procurement Executive;
• Certification by the Ambassadors on
an annual basis that the management
controls are sufficient; and
• Time-limited contracting officer
authority to LES to permit periodic
revalidation of management controls.
Because the current DOSAR language
states that all contracting officers must
be U.S. citizens, a change to the
regulation is required. Because the
rulemaking process will take some time,
the Department will select several
additional pilot posts to continue the
deployment process during the
rulemaking timeframe.
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 31, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4472-4475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1518]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0973; FRL-8274-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Kansas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a request to revise the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) made by the state of Kansas to include
updates to its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air
Quality rule. The Kansas revision adopts by reference provisions of 40
CFR 52.21 as in effect July 1, 2004, except for subsections with
references to Clean Unit Exemptions, Pollution Control Projects, and
the record keeping
[[Page 4473]]
provisions for the actual-to-projected-actual emissions projections.
Kansas did not adopt the latter provisions because of the June 24,
2005, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit's decision, which vacated the Clean Unit Exemption and
Pollution Control Project provisions and remanded back to EPA the
record keeping provisions for the actual-to-projected-actual emissions
projections standard for when a source must keep certain project
related records. If approved, EPA would incorporate the revisions into
the Kansas SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 2, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2006-0973, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: grier.gina@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Gina Grier, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning
and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Gina Grier,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2006-0973. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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.
Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas. EPA requests that you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Grier at (913) 551-7078, or by e-
mail at grier.gina@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:
What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
What is being addressed in this document?
What is the background for EPA's New Source Review (NSR) Reform
rule?
What is Kansas's NSR Reform rule and what action has Kansas
requested on the rule?
Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
What action is EPA proposing?
What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
In order for State regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, States must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with State and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a State-authorized rulemaking
body.
Once a State rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
State submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the State submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
All State regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) are incorporated
into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are
maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part
52, entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The
actual State regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their
entirety in the CFR outright but are ``incorporated by reference,''
which means that we have approved a given State regulation with a
specific effective date.
What is being addressed in this document?
We are proposing to approve the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment's (KDHE) revision to Kansas Administrative Regulation
(K.A.R.) 28-19-350, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality. Kansas adopted the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 52.21,
except for subsections that are not applicable to Kansas or are stayed,
vacated, or remanded by Federal court order, or are reserved for future
use.
The rules were submitted to EPA on July 25, 2006. The submission
included comments on the rules made during the state's adoption
process, the state's response to comments and other information
necessary to meet EPA's completeness criteria. For additional
information on completeness criteria, the reader should refer to 40 CFR
part 51, appendix V.
What is the background for EPA's New Source Review (NSR) Reform rule?
The 2002 NSR Reform rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts
C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in
areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
also known as ``attainment areas'' and in areas for which there is
insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS,
also known as, ``unclassifiable'' areas. Part D of Title I of the CAA,
42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the
NAAQS, also known as ``nonattainment areas.'' Collectively, the PSD and
NNSR programs are referred to as the ``New Source Review''
[[Page 4474]]
or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are
contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, appendix
S.
The CAA NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting
programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air
pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include
a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control
technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public
health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets
those standards, States must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for
approval, a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to
contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and
modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that
the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air;
to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national
parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls
are applied, to maximize opportunities for economic development
consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of the consequences of the decisions.
The 2002 NSR Reform rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 rules: (1) Provide a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-
projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major
modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply
with plant-wide applicability limits (PALs) to avoid having a
significant emission increase that triggers the requirements of the
major NSR program; (4) provide a new applicability provision for
emissions units that are designated clean units; and (5) exclude
pollution control projects (PCPs) from the definition of physical
change or change in the method of operation.
After the 2002 NSR Reform rules were finalized and effective,
various petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform
rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR rules (45 FR 5276 August
7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. New
York v. United States, 413 F.3d (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated portions of the rules
pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a
portion of the rules regarding exemption from record keeping, e.g., 40
CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and let stand the other
provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform rules. EPA has not
yet responded to the Court's remand regarding record keeping
provisions.
What is Kansas's NSR Reform rule and what action has Kansas requested
on the rule?
In this action, we propose approval of revisions to Kansas's Air
Quality Regulation, K.A.R. 28-19-350, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality, into the SIP. This rule incorporates by
reference the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, including the 2002
NSR Reform rules described above, with the exception of portions of the
rule relating to provisions vacated or remanded by the court.
Under Part C of Title I of the CAA, states have the primary
responsibility for developing a SIP and issuing permits subject to the
emission limits and other control measures developed in the plan. NSR
ensures the protection of air quality because it designates a specific
plan customized to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
from individual major source emitters of air pollutants, such as power
plants, refineries or manufacturing facilities. The permit also
requires the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to
new or modified facilities. The NSR permit program encompassed by
K.A.R. 28-19-350 is for sources located in areas where the air is
designated ``attainment'' or unclassifiable and meets the requirement
to protect human health. A major stationary source is required to
obtain a permit before it can begin construction or make a major
modification if the modification or construction will increase
emissions by an amount large enough to trigger NSR requirements.
A PSD permit places allowable limits on pollution emissions from a
newly constructed or newly modified stationary source. As part of the
PSD permitting process, Kansas completes required air quality modeling
analysis of the project to ensure the project maintains compliance with
the NAAQS. Kansas also tracks and controls the emission of air
pollutants by calculating the maximum increase concentration allowed to
occur above an established background level, known as a PSD increment.
The revision to K.A.R. 28-19-350 incorporates by reference the
provisions of the EPA NSR reform rule referenced above. This includes
(1) the new methodology for determining baseline actual emissions; (2)
the option of using the actual-to-projected-actual emissions for
determining emissions increases; and (3) the provisions relating to
plant-wide applicability limits. It does not incorporate the provisions
vacated or remanded by the court, described previously. In addition,
the state revision adds titles to each subsection for ease of reading.
Subsection (c) clarifies the term ``Administrator'' in the Federal
rule, to indicate where it means Administrator of EPA and where it
means KDHE, as separate from state agency administration. Subsection
(h) specifies that the state construction approval requirements also
apply to the PSD permit issued under the regulation. Subsection (k)
ensures that the public notice of PSD permit actions state whether the
action will adversely impact Federal class I areas.
Because the Kansas rule adopts by reference relevant portions of
the Federal rule, EPA believes it meets the requirement of the CAA.
Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical
support document that is part of this docket, EPA believes that the
revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.
What action is EPA proposing?
We propose to approve revisions to Kansas's Air Quality Regulation,
K.A.R. 28-19-350, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements
[[Page 4475]]
beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that the proposed approvals in this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: January 24, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. E7-1518 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P