Approval of Kansas Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Construction Permits and Approvals Program, 49826-49832 [2018-21434]
Download as PDF
49826
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Determining whether a specific use
is subject to this section. The provisions
of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph
(a)(2)(iii) of this section.
■ 24. Add § 721.11170 to subpart E to
read as follows:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
§ 721.11170 Naphthalene trisulfonic acid
sodium salt (generic).
(a) Chemical substance and
significant new uses subject to reporting.
(1) The chemical substance identified
generically as naphthalene trisulfonic
acid sodium salt (P–17–321) is subject
to reporting under this section for the
significant new uses described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Protection in the workplace.
Requirements as specified in
§ 721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (iv), (a)(3), (a)(4),
(a)(5)(respirators must provide a
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health assigned protection
factor of at least 50), (when determining
which persons are reasonable likely to
be exposed as required for
§ 721.63(a)(1), engineering control
measures (e.g., enclosure or
confinement of the operation, general
and local ventilation) or administrative
control measures (e.g., workplace
policies and procedures) shall be
considered and implemented to prevent
exposures, where feasible),
(b)(concentration set at 1.0%), and (c).
(ii) Hazard communication.
Requirements as specified in § 721.72(a)
through (e)(concentration set at 1.0%),
(f), (g)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), (ix), (g)(2)(i), (ii),
(iii), (iv), (v), and (g)(5). Alternative
hazard and warning statements that
meet the criteria of the Globally
Harmonized System and OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard may be used.
(iii) Industrial, commercial, and
consumer activities. Requirements as
specified in § 721.80(q) and (t). It is a
significant new use to manufacture,
process, or use the substance in any
manner that generates a vapor, mist, or
aerosol.
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph (b).
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in
§ 721.125(a) through (i) are applicable to
manufacturers, importers, and
processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
(3) Determining whether a specific use
is subject to this section. The provisions
of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph
(a)(2)(iii) of this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Oct 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
25. Add § 721.11171 to subpart E to
read as follows:
■
§ 721.11171 Polymer of aliphatic
dicarboxylic acid and dicyclo alkane amine
(generic).
(a) Chemical substance and
significant new uses subject to reporting.
(1) The chemical substance identified
generically as polymer of aliphatic
dicarboxylic acid and dicyclo alkane
amine (P–17–327) is subject to reporting
under this section for the significant
new uses described in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section. The requirements of this
section do not apply to quantities of the
substance after they have been reacted
(cured).
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Industrial, commercial, and
consumer activities. Requirements as
specified in § 721.80. It is a significant
new use to manufacture (includes
import) the substance to have an average
molecular weight of greater than 10,000
Daltons.
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph (b).
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in
§ 721.125(a) through (c) and (i) are
applicable to manufacturers, importers,
and processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
■ 26. Add § 721.11172 to subpart E to
read as follows:
§ 721.11172 Hexanedioic acid, polymer
with trifunctional polyol, 1,1′-methylenebis
[isocyanatobenzene], and 2,2′-oxybis
[ethanol] (generic).
(a) Chemical substance and
significant new uses subject to reporting.
(1) The chemical substance identified
generically as hexanedioic acid,
polymer with trifunctional polyol, 1,1′methylenebis [isocyanatobenzene], and
2,2′-oxybis [ethanol] (P–17–330) is
subject to reporting under this section
for the significant new uses described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The
requirements of this section do not
apply to quantities of the substance after
they have been reacted (cured).
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Protection in the workplace.
Requirements as specified in
§ 721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv),
(a)(3), (when determining which
persons are reasonable likely to be
exposed as required for § 721.63(a)(1),
engineering control measures (e.g.,
enclosure or confinement of the
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
operation, general and local ventilation)
or administrative control measures (e.g.,
workplace policies and procedures)
shall be considered and implemented to
prevent exposures, where feasible), and
(c).
(ii) Hazard communication.
Requirements as specified in § 721.72(a)
through (d), (f), (g)(1)(i), (eye and
respiratory irritation), (g)(2)(i), (ii), (iii),
(v), and (g)(5). Alternative hazard and
warning statements that meet the
criteria of the Globally Harmonized
System and OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard may be used.
(iii) Industrial, commercial, and
consumer activities. Requirements as
specified in § 721.80. It is a significant
new use to manufacture, process, or use
the substance for consumer use or for
commercial uses that could introduce
the substance into a consumer setting. It
is a significant new use to manufacture,
process, or use the substance in any
manner that generates a dust, mist, or
aerosol.
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph (b).
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in
§ 721.125(a) through (i) are applicable to
manufacturers, importers, and
processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
[FR Doc. 2018–21194 Filed 10–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0512; FRL–9984–
66—Region 7]
Approval of Kansas Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Construction
Permits and Approvals Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve revisions to the Kansas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and the
Clean Air Act (CAA) 112(l) program.
Specifically, these revisions implement
the revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine
particulate matter; clarify and refine
applicable criteria for sources subject to
the Kansas minor New Source Review
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
permitting program; update the
construction permitting program fee
structure and schedule; and make minor
revisions and corrections. Approval of
these revisions ensures consistency
between the State and federallyapproved rules and ensures Federal
enforceability of the State’s rules.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
November 2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0512. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Bredehoft, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
(913) 551–7164, or by email at
Bredehoft.Deborah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section
provides additional information by
addressing the following:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
I. Background
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. What Part 52 revision is EPA approving?
IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approving?
V. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
VI. EPA’s Response to Comments
VII. What action is EPA taking?
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
EPA received Kansas’s SIP
submission on December 5, 2016. On
September 21, 2017, EPA proposed in
the Federal Register approval of the SIP
submission. See 82 FR 44131. In
conjunction with the September 21,
2017 notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR), EPA issued a direct final rule
(DFR) approving the same SIP
submission. See 82 FR 44103. However,
in the DFR, EPA stated that if EPA
received adverse comments by October
23, 2017, the action would be
withdrawn and not take effect. EPA
received adverse comments prior to the
close of the comment period, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Oct 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
therefore, EPA withdrew in the Federal
Register, the DFR on November 17,
2017. See 82 FR 54300.
This final rule action will include the
updated docket, address comments
received, and finalize the approval of
Kansas’s SIP submission.
II. What is being addressed in this
document?
EPA is taking final action to approve
revisions to the Kansas SIP and CAA
112(l) program submitted by the State of
Kansas on December 5, 2016. The SIP
submission requests revisions to Kansas
Administrative Regulation (K.A.R.) 28–
19–300 that include: implementation of
the New Source Review permitting
component of section 110(a)(2)(C) for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
pursuant to EPA’s NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule (2008 NSR Rule)
(73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008); and
clarification of and refining
applicability criteria for sources subject
to the minor New Source Review
permitting program. Specific revisions
include: (1) Eliminating the
requirements for all Title IV Acid Rain
sources to obtain construction permits
that would not have otherwise been
required; (2) clarifying the construction
review requirements for sources
emitting hazardous air pollutants, or
sources subject to standards
promulgated by the EPA; (3) eliminating
the requirement for sources to obtain an
approval solely due to being subject to
standards promulgated by the EPA
without regard to emissions for
insignificant activities; and making
minor revisions and corrections. The
SIP submission also includes the
following revisions to K.A.R. 28–19–
304: (1) Updating the construction
permitting program fee structure from
an estimated capital cost mechanism to
one based on complexity of source and
permit type and (2) updating the fee
schedule to bring in sufficient revenue
to adequately administer the Kansas Air
Quality Act.
III. What Part 52 revision is EPA
approving?
EPA is approving requested revisions
to the Kansas SIP relating to the
following:
• Construction Permits and
Approvals. Kansas Administrative
Regulations 28–19–300. Applicability;
and
• Construction Permits and
Approvals. Kansas Administrative
Regulations 28–19–304. Fees.
EPA has conducted analysis on the
State’s revisions and has found that the
revisions ensure consistency between
the State and federally-approved rules
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49827
and ensures Federal enforceability of
the State’s rules. Additional information
on the EPA’s analysis can be found in
the Technical Support Document (TSD)
included in this docket.
IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA
approving?
EPA is also taking final action to
approve a portion of K.A.R. 28–19–300
under the CAA 112(l) program pursuant
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, as
requested by the State of Kansas on
April 19, 2017. The State of Kansas is
requesting that the applicable portions
of K.A.R. 28–19–300 pertaining to
limiting the potential-to-emit of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) be
approved under CAA 112(l) and 40 CFR
part 63, subpart E, in addition to being
approved under the SIP.1 Specifically,
K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2) and (3) as well
as K.A.R. 28–19–300(b)(4) through (6)
are also approved under CAA section
112(l) because they require permits or
approvals for hazardous air pollutants
that may limit the potential-to-emit of
hazardous air pollutants by establishing
permit conditions that are federallyenforceable.
V. Have the requirements for approval
of a SIP revision been met?
The State submission has met the
public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR
51.102. The submission also satisfied
the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. The State provided
public notice of this SIP revision from
August 11, 2016, to October 13, 2016,
and received one comment letter. The
SIP revision was not further revised by
the State based on public comment prior
to its submission to EPA. In addition, as
explained above and in more detail in
the technical support document which
is part of this docket, the revision meets
the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and the
implementing regulations.
VI. EPA’s Response to Comments
The public comment period on EPA’s
proposed rule opened September 21,
2017, the date of its publication in the
Federal Register, and closed on October
23, 2017. During this period, EPA
received adverse comments, which are
addressed below.
Comment 1:
The commenter stated that SIPs are
required to have legally enforceable
procedures to prevent the construction
1 State Implementation Plan provisions approved
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act are for
criteria pollutants. Provisions related to hazardous
air pollutants are approved under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act.
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
49828
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
or modification of a source that would
violate the control strategy or interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.160(a). The
commenter is specifically concerned
about the EPA approval of a new
emissions threshold, in K.A.R. 28–19–
300(a)(1)(G), of 10 tons per year of
directly emitted PM2.5 without
additional analysis by the State on
whether the emissions threshold would
allow sources to construct or modify,
resulting in interference with attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS or a
violation of the control strategy, as
required by 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b).
Further, the commenter is concerned
regarding applicability of the minor
NSR rules for modifications of existing
sources based on increases in potential
to emit (PTE). The commenter is
concerned that the actual emissions
increase of PM2.5 could be much greater
than 10 tons per year and would not
trigger minor NSR permitting
requirements. According to the
commenter, the revisions will
essentially exempt minor modifications
from permitting requirements at existing
major sources, and only major
modifications under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) or
nonattainment NSR programs will
obtain review for impacts on the
NAAQS.
The commenter asserts that States are
required to have NSR programs that
include, but are not limited to, major
NSR and PSD programs pursuant to
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA. The
commenter is concerned that Kansas’ 10
ton per year PM2.5 applicability
emissions threshold could allow for
increased deterioration in air quality
over PSD baseline concentrations. Thus,
the commenter believes that the EPA
cannot approve such a SIP revision
without a demonstration that the SIP
revision will not cause or contribute to
a violation of the applicable PSD
increment pursuant to section 110(l) of
the CAA and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(2).
For these reasons, the commenter
believes that the EPA must disapprove
the 10 ton per year PM2.5 applicability
emission thresholds for Kansas’s minor
NSR permitting program.
Response 1:
In this SIP revision, Kansas is
modifying its regulations to implement
the fine particulate matter standard by
clarifying and refining the applicability
criteria for sources subject to the Kansas
minor New Source Review permitting
program. Kansas’s addition of the 10 ton
per year threshold for directly emitted
PM2.5 in the minor source New Source
Review program requires a facility to
obtain a construction permit for directly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Oct 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
emitted PM2.5 is consistent with the
previously approved approach of using
a potential-to-emit (or the increase in
the potential-to-emit) basis EPA
considers a 10 ton per year threshold for
direct PM2.5 to be reasonable because
the State is consistent with the
significant emission rates 2 included in
EPA’s PSD preconstruction permitting
program.3
Prior to this action, Kansas used the
threshold value of 25 tons per year or
PM10 threshold value of 15 tons per year
(K.A.R. 28–19–300(1)(A)) to evaluate
direct PM2.5. With this rulemaking,
Kansas has created a separate threshold
for directly emitted PM2.5 of 10 tons per
year.
Although Kansas’s minor New Source
Review permitting program did not
previously include a direct PM2.5
threshold value, Kansas does have
overarching infrastructure to implement
PM2.5 throughout the State. Such
infrastructure, as previously stated,
includes a SIP approved major source
New Source Review program and a
monitoring network consistent with
EPA’s monitoring regulations. In fact,
based on a review of certified design
values from the 2005–2007 to 2014–
2016 timeframes, Kansas has been
continuously monitoring attainment for
both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS EPA believes that the addition
of the direct PM2.5 threshold in the
Kansas Minor New Source Review
permitting program strengthens
Kansas’s air quality regulations.
The commenter also stated that the
EPA must disapprove such a high minor
NSR PM2.5 applicability emission
threshold as the program could interfere
with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. As stated above, prior to this
action, Kansas did not have a specific
minor source threshold for directly
emitted PM2.5. Therefore, the PM2.5
threshold value would have been the
same as the PM threshold value of 25
tons per year (K.A.R. 28–19–300–(1)(A)).
As discussed above, even at this higher
threshold value, the PM2.5 NAAQS was
protected.
Furthermore, in the EPA’s previously
referenced Technical Support
Document 4 for the 2012 PM2.5
infrastructure SIP, the EPA stated that
‘‘[w]ith respect to smaller sources that
meet the criteria listed in KAR 28–19–
300(b) ‘‘Construction Permits and
Approvals,’’ Kansas has a SIP-approved
permitting program.’’ It further states
2 See
73 FR 28332.
CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i).
4 Pages 5 and 6 of the Technical Support
Document found in docket number: EPA–R07–
OAR–2016–0313–0004.
3 40
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that in the Technical Support
Document, ‘‘[i]f the [Air Permitting
Section] staff determines that air
contaminant emissions from a source
will interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, it cannot
issue an approval to construct or modify
that source (KAR 28–19–301(d)
‘‘Construction Permits and Approvals;
Application and Issuance’’). This
authority is granted by [Kansas Statutes
Annotated] 65–3008.’’ EPA later stated
its belief ‘‘that the Kansas SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.’’
Based upon all the above factors, the
EPA believes that this action does not
relax the SIP and that the air quality
will be maintained with the addition of
the PM2.5 threshold value requiring
facilities to obtain a construction
permit.
Comment 2:
The commenter stated that by
removing the term ‘‘affected source’’
from K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2) of the
currently-approved Kansas SIP, the EPA
is significantly relaxing the Kansas
minor New Source Review permitting
rules. ‘‘Affected source’’ is defined in
K.A.R. 28–19–200 of the EPA-approved
SIP as ‘‘a stationary source that includes
one or more affected units subject to
emission reduction requirements or
limitations under title IV of the Federal
clean air act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.,
‘acid deposition control.’ ’’ The
commenter is concerned that the revised
permitting rules for modifications of
construction permits will increase the
potential-to-emit of an electrical
generating unit (EGU) to the level of a
PSD major modification significance
level or greater, when historically, the
permitting rules required permits for
modifications at any EGU.
The commenter stated that all
modifications at most EGUs were
subject to Kansas’ minor NSR permitting
program pursuant to K.A.R. 28–19–
300(a)(2) of the currently-approved
Kansas SIP, irrespective of the tons per
year emission thresholds defining minor
NSR applicability in K.A.R. 28–19–
300(a)(1).
The commenter was concerned that
modifications at existing EGUs will go
entirely unreviewed unless such
modifications are a major modification
under PSD or nonattainment NSR
permitting. The commenter further
stated that the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment (KDHE) has
not submitted any assessment of
impacts on the NAAQS or on other
requirements of the CAA to support
approval of such a significant SIP
relaxation, pursuant to section 110(l) of
the CAA and thus, EPA must
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
disapprove the revisions to K.A.R. 28–
19–300 that remove the provision in
K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2).
Response 2:
Kansas has a long-standing
interpretation that was articulated in a
2015 technical guidance document.5
The guidance states ‘‘[K.A.R. 28–19–
300] was originally written in 1993. The
purpose of this guidance document is to
ensure that the rule is consistently
applied in accordance with the original
intent of the regulation.’’ The document
further states KDHE’s interpretation that
‘‘K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2) does not
require a permit for a modification to an
Acid Rain Source solely due to the unit
already being an Acid Rain Source,
although requirements for construction
permits or approvals can be triggered by
emission increases above permit or
approval thresholds, requirements of
K.A.R. 28–19–350, or other permit or
approval triggers.’’ Thus, KDHE has
interpreted K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2) to
only apply to constructions or
modifications that result in emission
increases. KDHE did not intend to
require Title IV acid rain sources to
obtain construction permits for any
modification, including modifications
that result in emission decreases.
Therefore, this SIP revision is an
administrative change to align the
Federally-approved SIP with Kansas’s
current practices. Additionally, the CAA
does not require construction permits
for every modification at acid rain
sources. Because Kansas’s monitoring
network is currently monitoring
attainment for all NAAQS, the EPA does
not believe this revision will cause air
quality to degrade in Kansas.
Comment 3:
The commenter stated that Kansas has
changed the requirements for
preconstruction approval to only apply
to ‘‘construction,’’ ‘‘modification,’’ or
‘‘reconstruction’’ of such sources subject
to New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS), National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs), or Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) as those
terms are defined in 40 CFR parts 60,
61, and 63, respectively. The commenter
further focused on the terms
‘‘modification’’ and ‘‘modify’’ and
expressed concern that this change in
the definition of ‘‘modification’’ will
significantly reduce the number of
sources subject to Kansas
preconstruction approval and
significantly decreases the likelihood
that Kansas will identify a modified
source as potentially contributing to air
5 Kansas
Technical Guidance Document—BOA
2015–01.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Oct 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
pollution within the State and require a
minor NSR permit pursuant to K.A.R.
28–19–300(b)(2) and 28–19–300(a)(5).
Specifically, the commenter stated that
the definition of ‘‘modification’’ under
40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 is much less
inclusive than the definition of
‘‘modification’’ as that term is used in
Kansas’ minor NSR rules. Thus, the
commenter asserts, with the proposed
revisions to K.A.R. 28–19–300(b)(3), the
large majority of modifications at
existing sources subject to NSPS,
NESHAPs, or MACT standards will no
longer need to receive KDHE approval
prior to construction, and the public
will lose KDHE’s preconstruction
evaluation of whether a modified source
should still be required to obtain a
preconstruction permit pursuant to
K.A.R. 28–19–300(b)(2) and 28–19–
300(a)(5) despite being exempt under
K.A.R. 28–19–300(a). The commenter
believes that this reflects a significant
relaxation in Kansas’ minor NSR
permitting rules. Therefore, the
commenter believes that the EPA must
disapprove the revisions to K.A.R. 28–
19–300 that revises and relaxes K.A.R.
28–19–300(b)(3).
Response 3:
EPA disagrees with the commenter
that Kansas definition of ‘‘modification’’
represents a relaxation in Kansas’
permitting rules. The revision to the
definition simply excludes
modifications which do not increase
emissions at or above the listed
thresholds. Kansas had a 2015 technical
guidance document 6 which states that
Kansas’s intent was to require a
construction approval if the proposed
project ‘‘includes construction or
modification that will cause an increase
in emissions in an amount equal to or
in excess of any of these listed
thresholds.’’ 7 Within Kansas’s public
hearing statement from October 13,
2016, it was stated that the proposed
change is being done to ‘‘eliminate the
requirement for sources to obtain an
approval solely due to being subject to
standards promulgated by the EPA
without regard to emissions for
insignificant activities.’’ Due to Kansas’s
long-standing interpretation, the EPA
believes that this revision will not result
in air quality degradation and thus will
not result in a relaxation in how Kansas
has applied the SIP rules. The EPA has
concluded that this revision to Kansas
SIP will not interfere with attainment of
6 Kansas Technical Guidance Document—BOA
2015–01.
7 Page 5 of Construction Permits and Approvals,
K.A.R. 28–19–300, Technical Guidance
Document—BOA 2015–01.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49829
the NAAQS or with any other
requirement of the Act.
Comment 4:
The commenter is concerned that the
revisions to K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2) and
K.A.R. 28–19–300(b)(3) will relax the
SIP. The commenter further expressed
other concerns: (1) With respect to the
minor NSR program, the applicability to
the minor NSR permitting program in
Kansas will be whittled down to just
those new sources and modifications to
existing sources that increase the PTE to
emissions levels at or above the tons per
year thresholds in K.A.R. 28–19–
300(a)(1) which are the same as the PSD
significance emission levels; 8 (2)
several new and revised NAAQS have
been promulgated since the EPA’s
initial 1995 9 approval of this section,
and there has been no analysis as to
whether the emission applicability
thresholds in Kansas’ minor NSR
permitting program are adequate to
ensure that no new or modified source
will be constructed if it would interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS or violate the control strategy;
(3) if EPA’s determination that the tons
per year emissions thresholds are ‘‘de
minimis’’ under PSD permitting, it does
not address EPA’s obligation to ensure
that Kansas’ minor NSR program will
not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. The
commenter stated that the NSR program
was intended to be a basic backstop on
threats to attaining and maintaining the
NAAQS and thus is an important
component of the SIP and the EPA
cannot approve exemptions from such a
minor NSR program unless it is shown
that the exemptions are truly de
minimis to the purposes of that
program; and (4) EPA has previously
required minor NSR programs to use
much smaller emission thresholds for
applicability than the major
modification significant impact levels.
The commenter referenced a 2012
Montana Federal Register action10
regarding a ‘‘de minimis’’ increase to
Montana’s minor NSR program where
EPA received and reviewed CAA
section 110(l) and 193 demonstrations.
For these reasons, the commenter
believes that the EPA cannot approve
these Kansas minor NSR revisions
without evaluating and demonstrating
to the public that Kansas’ minor NSR
program, as revised, will still meet the
mandates of section 110(a)(2)(C) and 40
CFR 51.160.
Response 4:
8 40
CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i).
FR 36361–36364 (July 17, 1995)
10 77 FR 7531–7534.
9 50
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
49830
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
EPA does not believe the proposed
changes constitute a relaxation to
Kansas’s SIP. As noted by the
commenter, these thresholds, with the
exception of PM2.5, were approved into
the SIP in 1995. Even though Kansas did
not provide any modeling to support
this action, with the exception of the
2008 lead ambient air quality standard,
Kansas is designated attainment or
unclassifiable for all ambient air quality
standards, including the 2012 PM2.5
standard. EPA views this action as the
State’s effort to ensure consistency
between the State’s regulations, which
use the major NSR significance levels as
minor NSR applicability thresholds, and
the EPA’s significance levels for specific
pollutants, such as PM2.5.
The proposed revisions are to
Kansas’s minor source NSR program
and States are allowed discretion in
how they develop their own minor
source NSR program. With regard to the
commenter’s assertion that there was no
analysis as to whether the emissions
applicability thresholds in Kansas’
minor NSR permitting program are
adequate to ensure it will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, the EPA reviews the State’s
minor NSR program routinely as part of
the ‘infrastructure’ SIPs. For instance, as
recently as September 9, 2016,11 the
EPA stated that ‘‘[i]f the [Air Permitting
Section] staff determines that air
contaminant emissions from a source
will interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, it cannot
issue an approval to construct or modify
that source.’’ EPA further stated that
‘‘EPA is proposing to approve Kansas’
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
general requirements in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include the program in
the SIP that regulates the modification
and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the
NAAQS are achieved.’’ 12
With respect to the commenter’s
assertion that the State’s minor NSR
program needs to comply with CAA
110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160 as a
backstop, in the same September 9, 2016
TSD,13 the EPA has also determined that
the State has in place the ability to
regulate NSR to comply with CAA
110(a)(2)(C). See the Technical Support
Document associated with that
rulemaking and EPA’s response to
Comment 1.
With regard to the commenter’s
reference to Montana’s SIP revision,
EPA approval of one de minimis
11 81
FR 62373.
12 EPA–R07–OAR–2016–0313–0003.
13 81
FR 62373.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Oct 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
exemption threshold level in Montana
does not preclude the approval of a
different threshold in another State.
Each State’s universe of minor NSR
sources, topography, meteorology, and
ambient air quality conditions are
unique and influence the types of
exemptions that would not interfere
with the minor NSR program’s ability to
meet the applicable Federal
requirements. See, e.g., June 29, 2018,
83 FR 30553 (Arkansas’ SIP revision).
In response to the comment that EPA
cannot approve exemptions without
proving the exemptions are ‘‘de
minimis,’’ the minor NSR SIP rules do
not preclude EPA from approving
exemptions from a minor NSR program,
provided that the proposed revisions to
the Kansas minor NSR program are
approvable and do not result in a
violation of the control strategy or
interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of a national standard. The
CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires
regulation of the modification or
construction of any stationary source
within the area as necessary (emphasis
added) to assure that the standards are
achieved. As such, the CAA at section
110(a)(2)(C) and the minor NSR SIP
rules found at 40 CFR 51.160 through
51.165, as well as case law,14 allow
exemptions from a minor NSR
permitting program. In cases such as
this, where the minor NSR SIP is being
revised, the State must also demonstrate
that the revisions meet the requirements
of CAA section 110(l). Similar to the
provisions of the Act and rules
discussed above, section 110(l) requires
that EPA cannot approve revisions to
the Kansas minor NSR SIP unless EPA
finds that the changes would not
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, as well as
any other applicable statutory
requirement. The clear reading of the
Act and the EPA rules are that EPA can
approve exemptions to the Kansas
minor NSR SIP program as long as it
finds these exemptions will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of a
NAAQS or other control strategy. See,
e.g., June 29, 2018, 83 FR 30553
(approving Arkansas’ SIP revision).
For these reasons and those outlined
in the EPA’s responses to comments 2
and 3 above, the EPA is approving the
SIP revisions.
Comment 5:
EPA failed to address the March 28,
2017 Executive Order on promoting
14 Alabama Power Company, et al., Petitioners,*
v. Douglas M. Costle, As Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,
Respondents,*Sierra Club, et al., Intervenors.*, 636
F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
energy independence and economic
growth. This order requires EPA to
assess whether this new regulation
imposes burdens on the energy sector or
economic growth in general. The
commenter asserts that requiring
construction permits for sources will
cause an impact in the energy sector and
impose economic burdens on regulated
facilities.
Response 5:
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve State actions,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. The EPA cannot consider
disapproving a SIP submission or
require any changes based on the March
28, 2017, executive order.
VII. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking final action to amend
the Kansas SIP and CAA 112(l) program
by approving the State’s request to
amend K.A.R. 28–19–300 Construction
Permits and Approvals—Applicability
and to amend the Kansas SIP by
approving K.A.R. 28–19–304
Construction Permits and Approvals—
Fees. Approval of these revisions will
ensure consistency between State and
federally approved rules. EPA has
determined that these changes will not
adversely impact air quality.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of the Kansas
Regulations described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
State implementation plan, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.15
15 62
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
03OCR1
49831
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTA) because this
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by December 3, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: September 26, 2018.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart R Kansas
2. Amend § 52.870 by revising the
table entries in paragraph (c) for ‘‘K.A.R.
28–19–300’’ and ‘‘K.A.R 28–19–304’’ to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.870
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED KANSAS REGULATIONS
Kansas citation
State
effective
date
Title
EPA approval
date
Explanation
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Construction Permits and Approvals
K.A.R. 28–19–300 .......................
Applicability ..................................
*
*
K.A.R. 28–19–304 .......................
*
Fees .............................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Oct 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
11/18/2016
*
11/18/2016
Sfmt 4700
11/3/2018, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
*
11/3/2018, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
*
49832
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED KANSAS REGULATIONS—Continued
Kansas citation
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Parts 411, 413, and 424
[CMS–1696–CN]
RIN 0938–AT24
Medicare Program; Prospective
Payment System and Consolidated
Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities
(SNF) Final Rule for FY 2019, SNF
Value-Based Purchasing Program, and
SNF Quality Reporting Program;
Correction
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
This document corrects
technical errors in the final rule that
appeared in the August 8, 2018 Federal
Register (83 FR 39162) entitled
‘‘Medicare Program; Prospective
Payment System and Consolidated
Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities
(SNF) Final Rule for FY 2019, SNF
Value-Based Purchasing Program, and
SNF Quality Reporting Program.’’
DATES: The corrections in this document
are effective October 1, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Kane, (410) 786–0557.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
I. Background
In FR Doc. 2018–16570 of August 8,
2018 (83 FR 39162 through 39290),
there were a number of technical errors
that are identified and corrected in
Correction of Errors section (section IV.
of this correction notice). The
provisions in this correcting document
are effective as if they had been
included in the document that appeared
in the August 8, 2018 Federal Register
(83 FR 39162 through 39290)
(hereinafter referred to as the FY 2019
SNF PPS final rule).
Accordingly, the corrections in this
document are effective October 1, 2018.
16:40 Oct 02, 2018
*
EPA approval
date
*
II. Summary of Errors
*
[FR Doc. 2018–21434 Filed 10–2–18; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
State
effective
date
Title
Jkt 247001
A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble
On pages 39170 through 39172,
39222, 39285 and 39287, we made
inadvertent technical errors.
Specifically, in Tables 6 and 7 on pages
39170 through 39172 of the FY 2019
SNF PPS final rule, we made errors in
copying values into the ‘‘total rate’’
column of the tables used in the final
rule preamble, so the numbers in this
column did not accurately reflect the
total case-mix adjusted federal per diem
rates. On page 39222, we made a
typographical error in Table 27 in the
MDS item number reference (column 2)
associated with one of the conditions
and extensive services used for NTA
classification. Additionally, in Table 45
on page 39285 of the FY 2019 SNF PPS
final rule, we misordered the ownership
labels in the table as ‘‘Government,
Profit, Non-Profit’’, instead of ‘‘Profit,
Non-Profit, Government.’’ Finally, on
page 39287, we inadvertently typed
‘‘urban rural West South Central
region,’’ when we intended to state
‘‘rural West South Central region.’’
The corrections to these errors are
found in section IV. of this document.
B. Summary of Errors in and Corrections
to Tables Posted on the CMS Website
We are correcting the wage indexes in
Tables A and B setting forth the wage
indexes for urban areas based on CBSA
labor market areas (Table A) and the
wage indexes for rural areas based on
CBSA labor market areas (Table B),
which are available exclusively on the
CMS website at https://www.cms.gov/
Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-ServicePayment/SNFPPS/WageIndex.html. As
discussed in the FY 2019 SNF PPS final
rule (83 FR 39172 through 39178), in
developing the wage index to be applied
to SNFs under the SNF PPS, we use the
updated, pre-reclassified, pre-rural floor
hospital inpatient PPS (IPPS) wage data,
exclusive of the occupational mix
adjustment. For FY 2019, the updated,
unadjusted, pre-reclassified, pre-rural
floor IPPS wage data used under the
SNF PPS are for cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2014
and before October 1, 2015 (FY 2015
cost report data), as discussed in the
final rule entitled, ‘‘Medicare Program;
Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
*
Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and
the Long Term Care Hospital
Prospective Payment System and Policy
Changes and Fiscal Year 2019 Rates;
Quality Reporting Requirements for
Specific Providers; Medicare and
Medicaid Electronic Health Record
(EHR) Incentive Programs (Promoting
Interoperability Programs) Requirements
for Eligible Hospitals, Critical Access
Hospitals, and Eligible Professionals;
Medicare Cost Reporting Requirements;
and Physician Certification and
Recertification of Claims’’ (83 FR 41144,
41364) (hereinafter referred to as the FY
2019 IPPS final rule). In calculating the
wage index under the FY 2019 IPPS
final rule, we made inadvertent errors
related to the calculation of the wage
index. These errors are identified,
discussed and corrected in the
correction notice entitled, ‘‘Medicare
Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective
Payment Systems for Acute Care
Hospitals and the Long Term Care
Hospital Prospective Payment System
and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year
2019 Rates; Quality Reporting
Requirements for Specific Providers;
Medicare and Medicaid Electronic
Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs
(Promoting Interoperability Programs)
Requirements for Eligible Hospitals,
Critical Access Hospitals, and Eligible
Professionals; Medicare Cost Reporting
Requirements; and Physician
Certification and Recertification of
Claims; Correction.’’ Among the errors
discussed there, the two errors that
affect the unadjusted, pre-reclassified,
pre-rural floor IPPS wage data, and
thereby affect the SNF PPS wage data
were errors in the wage data collected
from the Medicare cost reports of one
hospital (CMS Certification Number
(CCN) 100044—CBSA 38940 Port St.
Lucie, Florida) and the mistaken
inclusion of a Critical Access Hospital
(CAH) in the wage data (CCN 060016—
CBSA 06 Colorado). Finally, in
constructing Table A, we made errors in
copying values into the ‘‘wage index’’
column of the table posted to the CMS
website.
Given these errors, we are
republishing the wage indexes in Tables
A and B accordingly on the CMS
website at https://www.cms.gov/
Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-ServicePayment/SNFPPS/WageIndex.html.
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49826-49832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21434]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0512; FRL-9984-66--Region 7]
Approval of Kansas Air Quality State Implementation Plans;
Construction Permits and Approvals Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the Kansas State Implementation Plan
(SIP) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) 112(l) program. Specifically, these
revisions implement the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter; clarify and refine applicable
criteria for sources subject to the Kansas minor New Source Review
[[Page 49827]]
permitting program; update the construction permitting program fee
structure and schedule; and make minor revisions and corrections.
Approval of these revisions ensures consistency between the State and
federally-approved rules and ensures Federal enforceability of the
State's rules.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0512. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Bredehoft, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7164, or by email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:
I. Background
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. What Part 52 revision is EPA approving?
IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approving?
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
VI. EPA's Response to Comments
VII. What action is EPA taking?
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
EPA received Kansas's SIP submission on December 5, 2016. On
September 21, 2017, EPA proposed in the Federal Register approval of
the SIP submission. See 82 FR 44131. In conjunction with the September
21, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), EPA issued a direct final
rule (DFR) approving the same SIP submission. See 82 FR 44103. However,
in the DFR, EPA stated that if EPA received adverse comments by October
23, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA
received adverse comments prior to the close of the comment period, and
therefore, EPA withdrew in the Federal Register, the DFR on November
17, 2017. See 82 FR 54300.
This final rule action will include the updated docket, address
comments received, and finalize the approval of Kansas's SIP
submission.
II. What is being addressed in this document?
EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Kansas SIP
and CAA 112(l) program submitted by the State of Kansas on December 5,
2016. The SIP submission requests revisions to Kansas Administrative
Regulation (K.A.R.) 28-19-300 that include: implementation of the New
Source Review permitting component of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, pursuant to EPA's NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule (2008 NSR Rule) (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008); and
clarification of and refining applicability criteria for sources
subject to the minor New Source Review permitting program. Specific
revisions include: (1) Eliminating the requirements for all Title IV
Acid Rain sources to obtain construction permits that would not have
otherwise been required; (2) clarifying the construction review
requirements for sources emitting hazardous air pollutants, or sources
subject to standards promulgated by the EPA; (3) eliminating the
requirement for sources to obtain an approval solely due to being
subject to standards promulgated by the EPA without regard to emissions
for insignificant activities; and making minor revisions and
corrections. The SIP submission also includes the following revisions
to K.A.R. 28-19-304: (1) Updating the construction permitting program
fee structure from an estimated capital cost mechanism to one based on
complexity of source and permit type and (2) updating the fee schedule
to bring in sufficient revenue to adequately administer the Kansas Air
Quality Act.
III. What Part 52 revision is EPA approving?
EPA is approving requested revisions to the Kansas SIP relating to
the following:
Construction Permits and Approvals. Kansas Administrative
Regulations 28-19-300. Applicability; and
Construction Permits and Approvals. Kansas Administrative
Regulations 28-19-304. Fees.
EPA has conducted analysis on the State's revisions and has found
that the revisions ensure consistency between the State and federally-
approved rules and ensures Federal enforceability of the State's rules.
Additional information on the EPA's analysis can be found in the
Technical Support Document (TSD) included in this docket.
IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approving?
EPA is also taking final action to approve a portion of K.A.R. 28-
19-300 under the CAA 112(l) program pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
E, as requested by the State of Kansas on April 19, 2017. The State of
Kansas is requesting that the applicable portions of K.A.R. 28-19-300
pertaining to limiting the potential-to-emit of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) be approved under CAA 112(l) and 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, in addition to being approved under the SIP.\1\
Specifically, K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) and (3) as well as K.A.R. 28-19-
300(b)(4) through (6) are also approved under CAA section 112(l)
because they require permits or approvals for hazardous air pollutants
that may limit the potential-to-emit of hazardous air pollutants by
establishing permit conditions that are federally-enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State Implementation Plan provisions approved under section
110 of the Clean Air Act are for criteria pollutants. Provisions
related to hazardous air pollutants are approved under section 112
of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice of this SIP revision from August 11, 2016,
to October 13, 2016, and received one comment letter. The SIP revision
was not further revised by the State based on public comment prior to
its submission to EPA. In addition, as explained above and in more
detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket,
the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA,
including section 110 and the implementing regulations.
VI. EPA's Response to Comments
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened September
21, 2017, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and
closed on October 23, 2017. During this period, EPA received adverse
comments, which are addressed below.
Comment 1:
The commenter stated that SIPs are required to have legally
enforceable procedures to prevent the construction
[[Page 49828]]
or modification of a source that would violate the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. 40 CFR
51.160(a). The commenter is specifically concerned about the EPA
approval of a new emissions threshold, in K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(1)(G), of
10 tons per year of directly emitted PM2.5 without
additional analysis by the State on whether the emissions threshold
would allow sources to construct or modify, resulting in interference
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or a violation of the
control strategy, as required by 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b). Further, the
commenter is concerned regarding applicability of the minor NSR rules
for modifications of existing sources based on increases in potential
to emit (PTE). The commenter is concerned that the actual emissions
increase of PM2.5 could be much greater than 10 tons per
year and would not trigger minor NSR permitting requirements. According
to the commenter, the revisions will essentially exempt minor
modifications from permitting requirements at existing major sources,
and only major modifications under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment NSR programs will obtain review
for impacts on the NAAQS.
The commenter asserts that States are required to have NSR programs
that include, but are not limited to, major NSR and PSD programs
pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA. The commenter is concerned
that Kansas' 10 ton per year PM2.5 applicability emissions
threshold could allow for increased deterioration in air quality over
PSD baseline concentrations. Thus, the commenter believes that the EPA
cannot approve such a SIP revision without a demonstration that the SIP
revision will not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable
PSD increment pursuant to section 110(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR
51.166(a)(2).
For these reasons, the commenter believes that the EPA must
disapprove the 10 ton per year PM2.5 applicability emission
thresholds for Kansas's minor NSR permitting program.
Response 1:
In this SIP revision, Kansas is modifying its regulations to
implement the fine particulate matter standard by clarifying and
refining the applicability criteria for sources subject to the Kansas
minor New Source Review permitting program. Kansas's addition of the 10
ton per year threshold for directly emitted PM2.5 in the
minor source New Source Review program requires a facility to obtain a
construction permit for directly emitted PM2.5 is consistent
with the previously approved approach of using a potential-to-emit (or
the increase in the potential-to-emit) basis EPA considers a 10 ton per
year threshold for direct PM2.5 to be reasonable because the
State is consistent with the significant emission rates \2\ included in
EPA's PSD preconstruction permitting program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 73 FR 28332.
\3\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to this action, Kansas used the threshold value of 25 tons
per year or PM10 threshold value of 15 tons per year (K.A.R.
28-19-300(1)(A)) to evaluate direct PM2.5. With this
rulemaking, Kansas has created a separate threshold for directly
emitted PM2.5 of 10 tons per year.
Although Kansas's minor New Source Review permitting program did
not previously include a direct PM2.5 threshold value,
Kansas does have overarching infrastructure to implement
PM2.5 throughout the State. Such infrastructure, as
previously stated, includes a SIP approved major source New Source
Review program and a monitoring network consistent with EPA's
monitoring regulations. In fact, based on a review of certified design
values from the 2005-2007 to 2014-2016 timeframes, Kansas has been
continuously monitoring attainment for both the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS EPA believes that the addition of the direct
PM2.5 threshold in the Kansas Minor New Source Review
permitting program strengthens Kansas's air quality regulations.
The commenter also stated that the EPA must disapprove such a high
minor NSR PM2.5 applicability emission threshold as the
program could interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
As stated above, prior to this action, Kansas did not have a specific
minor source threshold for directly emitted PM2.5.
Therefore, the PM2.5 threshold value would have been the
same as the PM threshold value of 25 tons per year (K.A.R. 28-19-300-
(1)(A)). As discussed above, even at this higher threshold value, the
PM2.5 NAAQS was protected.
Furthermore, in the EPA's previously referenced Technical Support
Document \4\ for the 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP, the EPA
stated that ``[w]ith respect to smaller sources that meet the criteria
listed in KAR 28-19-300(b) ``Construction Permits and Approvals,''
Kansas has a SIP-approved permitting program.'' It further states that
in the Technical Support Document, ``[i]f the [Air Permitting Section]
staff determines that air contaminant emissions from a source will
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, it cannot issue
an approval to construct or modify that source (KAR 28-19-301(d)
``Construction Permits and Approvals; Application and Issuance''). This
authority is granted by [Kansas Statutes Annotated] 65-3008.'' EPA
later stated its belief ``that the Kansas SIP meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pages 5 and 6 of the Technical Support Document found in
docket number: EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0313-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon all the above factors, the EPA believes that this action
does not relax the SIP and that the air quality will be maintained with
the addition of the PM2.5 threshold value requiring
facilities to obtain a construction permit.
Comment 2:
The commenter stated that by removing the term ``affected source''
from K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) of the currently-approved Kansas SIP, the
EPA is significantly relaxing the Kansas minor New Source Review
permitting rules. ``Affected source'' is defined in K.A.R. 28-19-200 of
the EPA-approved SIP as ``a stationary source that includes one or more
affected units subject to emission reduction requirements or
limitations under title IV of the Federal clean air act, 42 U.S.C. 7401
et seq., `acid deposition control.' '' The commenter is concerned that
the revised permitting rules for modifications of construction permits
will increase the potential-to-emit of an electrical generating unit
(EGU) to the level of a PSD major modification significance level or
greater, when historically, the permitting rules required permits for
modifications at any EGU.
The commenter stated that all modifications at most EGUs were
subject to Kansas' minor NSR permitting program pursuant to K.A.R. 28-
19-300(a)(2) of the currently-approved Kansas SIP, irrespective of the
tons per year emission thresholds defining minor NSR applicability in
K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(1).
The commenter was concerned that modifications at existing EGUs
will go entirely unreviewed unless such modifications are a major
modification under PSD or nonattainment NSR permitting. The commenter
further stated that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
(KDHE) has not submitted any assessment of impacts on the NAAQS or on
other requirements of the CAA to support approval of such a significant
SIP relaxation, pursuant to section 110(l) of the CAA and thus, EPA
must
[[Page 49829]]
disapprove the revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300 that remove the provision
in K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2).
Response 2:
Kansas has a long-standing interpretation that was articulated in a
2015 technical guidance document.\5\ The guidance states ``[K.A.R. 28-
19-300] was originally written in 1993. The purpose of this guidance
document is to ensure that the rule is consistently applied in
accordance with the original intent of the regulation.'' The document
further states KDHE's interpretation that ``K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) does
not require a permit for a modification to an Acid Rain Source solely
due to the unit already being an Acid Rain Source, although
requirements for construction permits or approvals can be triggered by
emission increases above permit or approval thresholds, requirements of
K.A.R. 28-19-350, or other permit or approval triggers.'' Thus, KDHE
has interpreted K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) to only apply to constructions
or modifications that result in emission increases. KDHE did not intend
to require Title IV acid rain sources to obtain construction permits
for any modification, including modifications that result in emission
decreases. Therefore, this SIP revision is an administrative change to
align the Federally-approved SIP with Kansas's current practices.
Additionally, the CAA does not require construction permits for every
modification at acid rain sources. Because Kansas's monitoring network
is currently monitoring attainment for all NAAQS, the EPA does not
believe this revision will cause air quality to degrade in Kansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Kansas Technical Guidance Document--BOA 2015-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3:
The commenter stated that Kansas has changed the requirements for
preconstruction approval to only apply to ``construction,''
``modification,'' or ``reconstruction'' of such sources subject to New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), or Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) as those terms are defined in 40 CFR parts 60, 61,
and 63, respectively. The commenter further focused on the terms
``modification'' and ``modify'' and expressed concern that this change
in the definition of ``modification'' will significantly reduce the
number of sources subject to Kansas preconstruction approval and
significantly decreases the likelihood that Kansas will identify a
modified source as potentially contributing to air pollution within the
State and require a minor NSR permit pursuant to K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(2)
and 28-19-300(a)(5). Specifically, the commenter stated that the
definition of ``modification'' under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 is
much less inclusive than the definition of ``modification'' as that
term is used in Kansas' minor NSR rules. Thus, the commenter asserts,
with the proposed revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(3), the large
majority of modifications at existing sources subject to NSPS, NESHAPs,
or MACT standards will no longer need to receive KDHE approval prior to
construction, and the public will lose KDHE's preconstruction
evaluation of whether a modified source should still be required to
obtain a preconstruction permit pursuant to K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(2) and
28-19-300(a)(5) despite being exempt under K.A.R. 28-19-300(a). The
commenter believes that this reflects a significant relaxation in
Kansas' minor NSR permitting rules. Therefore, the commenter believes
that the EPA must disapprove the revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300 that
revises and relaxes K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(3).
Response 3:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that Kansas definition of
``modification'' represents a relaxation in Kansas' permitting rules.
The revision to the definition simply excludes modifications which do
not increase emissions at or above the listed thresholds. Kansas had a
2015 technical guidance document \6\ which states that Kansas's intent
was to require a construction approval if the proposed project
``includes construction or modification that will cause an increase in
emissions in an amount equal to or in excess of any of these listed
thresholds.'' \7\ Within Kansas's public hearing statement from October
13, 2016, it was stated that the proposed change is being done to
``eliminate the requirement for sources to obtain an approval solely
due to being subject to standards promulgated by the EPA without regard
to emissions for insignificant activities.'' Due to Kansas's long-
standing interpretation, the EPA believes that this revision will not
result in air quality degradation and thus will not result in a
relaxation in how Kansas has applied the SIP rules. The EPA has
concluded that this revision to Kansas SIP will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS or with any other requirement of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Kansas Technical Guidance Document--BOA 2015-01.
\7\ Page 5 of Construction Permits and Approvals, K.A.R. 28-19-
300, Technical Guidance Document--BOA 2015-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4:
The commenter is concerned that the revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-
300(a)(2) and K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(3) will relax the SIP. The commenter
further expressed other concerns: (1) With respect to the minor NSR
program, the applicability to the minor NSR permitting program in
Kansas will be whittled down to just those new sources and
modifications to existing sources that increase the PTE to emissions
levels at or above the tons per year thresholds in K.A.R. 28-19-
300(a)(1) which are the same as the PSD significance emission levels;
\8\ (2) several new and revised NAAQS have been promulgated since the
EPA's initial 1995 \9\ approval of this section, and there has been no
analysis as to whether the emission applicability thresholds in Kansas'
minor NSR permitting program are adequate to ensure that no new or
modified source will be constructed if it would interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or violate the control strategy;
(3) if EPA's determination that the tons per year emissions thresholds
are ``de minimis'' under PSD permitting, it does not address EPA's
obligation to ensure that Kansas' minor NSR program will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. The commenter stated that
the NSR program was intended to be a basic backstop on threats to
attaining and maintaining the NAAQS and thus is an important component
of the SIP and the EPA cannot approve exemptions from such a minor NSR
program unless it is shown that the exemptions are truly de minimis to
the purposes of that program; and (4) EPA has previously required minor
NSR programs to use much smaller emission thresholds for applicability
than the major modification significant impact levels. The commenter
referenced a 2012 Montana Federal Register action\10\ regarding a ``de
minimis'' increase to Montana's minor NSR program where EPA received
and reviewed CAA section 110(l) and 193 demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i).
\9\ 50 FR 36361-36364 (July 17, 1995)
\10\ 77 FR 7531-7534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the commenter believes that the EPA cannot
approve these Kansas minor NSR revisions without evaluating and
demonstrating to the public that Kansas' minor NSR program, as revised,
will still meet the mandates of section 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160.
Response 4:
[[Page 49830]]
EPA does not believe the proposed changes constitute a relaxation
to Kansas's SIP. As noted by the commenter, these thresholds, with the
exception of PM2.5, were approved into the SIP in 1995. Even
though Kansas did not provide any modeling to support this action, with
the exception of the 2008 lead ambient air quality standard, Kansas is
designated attainment or unclassifiable for all ambient air quality
standards, including the 2012 PM2.5 standard. EPA views this
action as the State's effort to ensure consistency between the State's
regulations, which use the major NSR significance levels as minor NSR
applicability thresholds, and the EPA's significance levels for
specific pollutants, such as PM2.5.
The proposed revisions are to Kansas's minor source NSR program and
States are allowed discretion in how they develop their own minor
source NSR program. With regard to the commenter's assertion that there
was no analysis as to whether the emissions applicability thresholds in
Kansas' minor NSR permitting program are adequate to ensure it will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, the EPA reviews
the State's minor NSR program routinely as part of the `infrastructure'
SIPs. For instance, as recently as September 9, 2016,\11\ the EPA
stated that ``[i]f the [Air Permitting Section] staff determines that
air contaminant emissions from a source will interfere with attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS, it cannot issue an approval to construct
or modify that source.'' EPA further stated that ``EPA is proposing to
approve Kansas' infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS with respect to the general requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C)
to include the program in the SIP that regulates the modification and
construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the
NAAQS are achieved.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 81 FR 62373.
\12\ EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0313-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the commenter's assertion that the State's minor
NSR program needs to comply with CAA 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160 as
a backstop, in the same September 9, 2016 TSD,\13\ the EPA has also
determined that the State has in place the ability to regulate NSR to
comply with CAA 110(a)(2)(C). See the Technical Support Document
associated with that rulemaking and EPA's response to Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 81 FR 62373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the commenter's reference to Montana's SIP revision,
EPA approval of one de minimis exemption threshold level in Montana
does not preclude the approval of a different threshold in another
State. Each State's universe of minor NSR sources, topography,
meteorology, and ambient air quality conditions are unique and
influence the types of exemptions that would not interfere with the
minor NSR program's ability to meet the applicable Federal
requirements. See, e.g., June 29, 2018, 83 FR 30553 (Arkansas' SIP
revision).
In response to the comment that EPA cannot approve exemptions
without proving the exemptions are ``de minimis,'' the minor NSR SIP
rules do not preclude EPA from approving exemptions from a minor NSR
program, provided that the proposed revisions to the Kansas minor NSR
program are approvable and do not result in a violation of the control
strategy or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a national
standard. The CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires regulation of the
modification or construction of any stationary source within the area
as necessary (emphasis added) to assure that the standards are
achieved. As such, the CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) and the minor NSR
SIP rules found at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165, as well as case
law,\14\ allow exemptions from a minor NSR permitting program. In cases
such as this, where the minor NSR SIP is being revised, the State must
also demonstrate that the revisions meet the requirements of CAA
section 110(l). Similar to the provisions of the Act and rules
discussed above, section 110(l) requires that EPA cannot approve
revisions to the Kansas minor NSR SIP unless EPA finds that the changes
would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, as well as any other
applicable statutory requirement. The clear reading of the Act and the
EPA rules are that EPA can approve exemptions to the Kansas minor NSR
SIP program as long as it finds these exemptions will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS or other control strategy.
See, e.g., June 29, 2018, 83 FR 30553 (approving Arkansas' SIP
revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Alabama Power Company, et al., Petitioners,* v. Douglas M.
Costle, As Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,
Respondents,*Sierra Club, et al., Intervenors.*, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C.
Cir. 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons and those outlined in the EPA's responses to
comments 2 and 3 above, the EPA is approving the SIP revisions.
Comment 5:
EPA failed to address the March 28, 2017 Executive Order on
promoting energy independence and economic growth. This order requires
EPA to assess whether this new regulation imposes burdens on the energy
sector or economic growth in general. The commenter asserts that
requiring construction permits for sources will cause an impact in the
energy sector and impose economic burdens on regulated facilities.
Response 5:
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State actions,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. The EPA cannot
consider disapproving a SIP submission or require any changes based on
the March 28, 2017, executive order.
VII. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking final action to amend the Kansas SIP and CAA 112(l)
program by approving the State's request to amend K.A.R. 28-19-300
Construction Permits and Approvals--Applicability and to amend the
Kansas SIP by approving K.A.R. 28-19-304 Construction Permits and
Approvals--Fees. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency
between State and federally approved rules. EPA has determined that
these changes will not adversely impact air quality.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Kansas Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion
in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference
by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections
110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking
of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49831]]
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 3, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 26, 2018.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart R Kansas
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.870 by revising the table entries in paragraph (c)
for ``K.A.R. 28-19-300'' and ``K.A.R 28-19-304'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Kansas Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Kansas citation Title effective date EPA approval date Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Permits and Approvals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K.A.R. 28-19-300.................. Applicability........ 11/18/2016 11/3/2018, [Insert Federal Register .....................................
citation].
* * * * * * *
K.A.R. 28-19-304.................. Fees................. 11/18/2016 11/3/2018, [Insert Federal Register .....................................
citation].
[[Page 49832]]
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-21434 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P