9658 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 8, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by adding an entry for 

COMAR 26.11.19.09–1 to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP 

Code of Maryland 

administrative regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ 

citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 

*******

26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes 

*******

26.11.19.09–1 ................ Control of VOC 

Emissions from 

Industrial Solvent 

Cleaning Operations Other Than 

Cold and Vapor 

Degreasing.

4/19/10 .................... 2/22/11 ..........................................

[Insert page number where the 

document begins].

New Regulation. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–3719 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2010–0932; FRL–9268–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kansas: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permitting 

Authority and Tailoring Rule Revision; 

Withdrawal of Federal GHG 

Implementation Plan for Kansas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Kansas, 

submitted by the Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment (KDHE) to EPA 

on October 4, 2010, for parallel 

processing. KDHE submitted the final 

version of this SIP revision on December 

23, 2010. The SIP revision, which 

incorporates updates to KDHE’s air 

quality regulations, includes two 

significant changes impacting the 

regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

under Kansas’s New Source Review 

(NSR) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. First, the 

SIP revision provides the State of 

Kansas with authority to issue PSD 

permits governing GHGs. Second, the 

SIP revision establishes emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to Kansas’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions. The first provision is 

required under the GHG PSD SIP call, 

which EPA published on December 13, 

2010, and which required the state of 

Kansas to apply its PSD program to 

GHG-emitting sources. The second 

provision is consistent with the 

thresholds EPA established in the 

Tailoring Rule, published on June 3, 

2010. EPA is approving this SIP revision 

because this SIP revision meets the 

requirements of the GHG PSD SIP Call. 

In addition, as a result of this approval, 

EPA is rescinding the Federal 

implementation plan (FIP)—as it relates 

to Kansas only—that had previously 

been imposed on December 30, 2010. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective February 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R07–OAR– 

2010–0932. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information 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 either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning and Development 

Branch, Air and Waste Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, 

Kansas City, KS 66101. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for further 

information. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Kansas SIP, 

contact Mr. Larry Gonzalez, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, Air 

and Waste Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Mr. Gonzalez’s 

telephone number is (913) 551–7041; email address: gonzalez.larry@epa.gov. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 9659 

1 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

2 ‘‘Reconsideration of Interpretation of 

Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by 

Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 

(April 2, 2010). 

3 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

4 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ 

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 

5 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call; 

Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010). 

6See footnotes 9 and 10. 

7 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

8 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Federal Implementation Plan: Proposed Rule.’’ 75 

FR 53883 (September 2, 2010). 

9 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation 

Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases.’’ 75 

FR 81874 (December 29, 2010). 

10 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Federal Implementation Plan; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 

82246 (December 30, 2010). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

II. Analysis of Kansas’s SIP Revision 

III. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on the proposed action? 

IV. What is the effect of this final action? 

V. When is this action effective? 

VI. Final Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

distinct from one another, establish the 

overall framework for today’s final 

action for the Kansas SIP. The first four 

of these actions include, as they are 

commonly called, the ‘‘Endangerment 

Finding’’ and ‘‘Cause or Contribute 

Finding,’’ which EPA issued in a single 

final action,1 the ‘‘Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,’’ 2 the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,’’ 3 and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ 4 Taken together, these actions 

established regulatory requirements for 

GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles 

and new motor vehicle engines; 

determined that such regulations, when 

they took effect on January 2, 2011, 

subject GHGs emitted from stationary 

sources to PSD requirements; and 

limited the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG sources on a 

phased-in basis. 

In a separate action, the ‘‘GHG PSD 

SIP Call,’’ 5 EPA called on the State of 

Kansas and 12 other states with SIPs 

that do not provide authority to issue 

PSD permits governing GHGs to revise 

their SIPs to provide such authority. In 

that action—along with the ‘‘Finding of 

Failure to Submit SIP Revisions 

Required for Greenhouse Gases’’ and 

GHG PSD FIP,6 which EPA finalized for 

some states, including Kansas, on 

December 23, 2010—EPA took steps to 

ensure that in the 13 states that do not 

have authority to issue PSD permits to 

GHG-emitting sources at present, either 

the state or EPA would have the 

authority to issue such permits by 

January 2, 2011, or soon thereafter. EPA 

explained that although for most states, 

either the state or EPA is already 

authorized to issue PSD permits for 

GHG-emitting sources as of that date, 

Kansas and the other 12 states have 

EPA-approved PSD programs that do 

not include GHG-emitting sources and 

therefore do not authorize these states to 

issue PSD permits to such sources. 

Therefore, EPA issued a finding that 

Kansas and the other 12 states’ SIPs are 

substantially inadequate to comply with 

CAA requirements. Accordingly, and as 

part of the same action, EPA also issued 

a SIP Call to require a SIP revision that 

applies their SIP PSD programs to GHGemitting sources. EPA also established a 

SIP submittal deadline. In the proposed 

SIP call, EPA had stated that the 

deadline could range from as little as 

three weeks after the final SIP call was 

signed to as long as 12 months after the 

final SIP call was signed, and that each 

affected state was authorized to indicate 

to EPA a deadline to which it did not 

object. In the final SIP call, EPA 

established deadlines that ranged, for 

the various states, from December 23, 

2010 (three weeks after signature), to 

December 1, 2011 (12 months after 

signature), based, in general, on each 

state’s preference. Kansas was one of the 

states for which EPA proposed and 

finalized the SIP Call. The state’s 

comments regarding the proposed SIP 

call, submitted October 4, 2010, are 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. In the SIP call, EPA 

established a SIP submittal deadline for 

Kansas of December 22, 2010, in 

accordance with Kansas’s preferences in 

that letter. 

In addition, in the SIP call 

rulemaking, EPA stated certain 

requirements that the corrective SIP 

revision must meet, which are that the 

corrective SIP revision must— 

(i) Apply the SIP PSD program to GHGemitting sources; 

(ii) Define GHGs as the same pollutant to 

which the Light-Duty Vehicle Rule 7 (LDVR) 

applies, that is, a single pollutant that is the 

aggregate of the group of six gases (carbon 

dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide 

(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6)); and 

(iii) Either limit PSD applicability to GHGemitting sources by adopting the 

applicability thresholds included in the 

Tailoring Rule or adopt lower thresholds and 

show that the state has adequate personnel 

and funding to administer and implement 

those lower thresholds. 

In addition, if the corrective SIP revision 

adopts the Tailoring Rule thresholds, then it 

must either adopt the CO2e metric and use 

short tons (as opposed to metric tons) for 

calculating GHG emissions in order to 

implement those thresholds, or assure that its 

approach is at least as stringent as under the 

Tailoring Rule, so that the state does not 

exclude more sources than under the 

Tailoring Rule. 

75 FR 77713/1 to 77715/1. 

In the companion ‘‘proposed GHG 

PSD FIP’’ rulemaking,8 EPA proposed a 

FIP that would give EPA authority to 

apply EPA’s PSD program to GHGemitting sources in any state unable to 

submit a corrective SIP revision by its 

deadline. After Kansas did not meet its 

SIP submission deadline of December 

22, 2010, EPA issued a finding of 

Kansas’s failure to submit a SIP 

revision 9 and finalized the FIP for 

Kansas and six other states: Arizona, 

Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Oregon, and 

Wyoming.10 In this notice, EPA stated 

its intent to leave the GHG PSD FIP in 

place only as long as necessary for a 

state to submit and EPA to approve a 

SIP revision that includes PSD 

permitting for GHG-emitting sources. 

On October 4, 2010, in response to the 

Tailoring Rule and earlier GHG-related 

EPA rules, and in anticipation of the 

GHG PSD SIP Call rulemaking, KDHE 

submitted a draft revision of its air 

quality regulations to EPA for approval 

into the Kansas SIP to: (1) Provide the 

State of Kansas with the authority to 

regulate GHGs under its PSD program; 

and (2) establish appropriate emission 

thresholds and time-frames for 

determining which new or modified 

stationary sources become subject to 

Kansas’s PSD permitting requirements 

for GHG emissions. Subsequently, on 

November 18, 2010, EPA published a 

proposed rulemaking to approve 

KDHE’s October 4, 2010, SIP revision 

under parallel processing. 75 FR 70657. 

There, EPA stated that it ‘‘will not take 

final action on the GHG SIP Call for the 

state of Kansas if the state submits its 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

9660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

final SIP revision to EPA prior to the 

final rulemaking for the GHG SIP Call,’’ 

indicating that the proposed SIP 

revision would be sufficient to address 

the inadequacies that serve as the basis 

for the SIP Call, and later the final GHG 

PSD FIP. 75 FR at 70663. 

EPA’s November 18, 2010, proposed 

approval was contingent upon the State 

of Kansas providing a final SIP revision 

that was substantially the same as the 

draft revision proposed for approval. Id. 

After EPA issued a finding that Kansas 

did not submit a SIP revision by its 

December 22, 2010, deadline, and 

established a FIP for Kansas in actions 

signed on December 23, 2010, Kansas 

submitted its final SIP revision on 

December 23, 2010. This SIP revision is 

the same as the proposed revision KDHE 

submitted on October 4, 2010, for 

parallel processing. EPA is approving 

the final SIP revision in today’s action 

and is simultaneously withdrawing the 

FIP as it relates to the State of Kansas. 

II. Analysis of Kansas’s SIP Revision 

Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA provides 

that EPA shall approve a SIP revision as 

a whole if it meets all of the applicable 

requirements of the CAA. Kansas 

received a SIP call because its PSD 

program does not apply to GHGs, and as 

a result, Kansas is required to submit a 

SIP revision that applies PSD to GHGs 

and does so either at the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds or at lower thresholds, and, 

if the latter, then Kansas is required to 

demonstrate that it has adequate 

resources for implementation. 

Kansas has submitted a SIP revision 

that provides this authority. Kansas’s 

SIP revision updates the incorporation 

by reference to EPA’s definition in 40 

CFR 52.21(b)(49) for ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ to explicitly include GHG as 

a regulated NSR pollutant under the 

CAA. In addition, the Kansas rules 

incorporate the same thresholds and 

phase-in schedule as the Tailoring Rule 

and they adopt the carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2e) metric and use of 

short tons for determining the 

thresholds. 

EPA has determined that this change 

to Kansas’s regulation meets the 

requirements of the SIP call. Thus, this 

change is consistent with the CAA and 

its implementing regulations regarding 

GHG. The changes included in this 

submittal are the same as EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule, and therefore comply 

with the requirements of the SIP call. 

III. What is EPA’s response to 

comments received on the proposed 

action? 

EPA received a single set of comments 

on the November 18, 2010, proposed 

rulemaking to approve revisions to 

Kansas’s SIP. These comments, 

provided by the Air Permitting Forum 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Commenter’’), raised concerns with 

regard to EPA’s November 18, 2010, 

proposed action. A full set of these 

comments is provided in the docket for 

today’s final action. A summary of the 

comments and EPA’s responses are 

provided below. 

Generally, the adverse comments fall 

into five categories. First, the 

Commenter asserts that PSD 

requirements cannot be triggered by 

GHGs. Second, the Commenter 

characterizes EPA’s interpretation of the 

CAA by saying that Kansas will face a 

construction ban absent this SIP 

revision and asserts that this 

interpretation is incorrect. Furthermore, 

in a footnote, the Commenter expresses 

that EPA’s process of revising the state’s 

SIP is inconsistent with CAA section 

110 because it does not provide for 

notice and comment on the final state 

action. Third, the Commenter expresses 

concerns regarding EPA’s previously 

announced intention to narrow its prior 

approval of some SIPs to ensure that 

sources with GHG emissions that are 

less than the Tailoring Rule’s thresholds 

will not be obligated under federal law 

to obtain PSD permits prior to a SIP 

revision incorporating those thresholds. 

The Commenter explains that the 

planned SIP approval narrowing action 

is ‘‘inapplicable to this action and, if 

applicable, is illegal.’’ Fourth, the 

Commenter states that EPA has failed to 

meet applicable statutory and executive 

order review requirements. Lastly, the 

Commenter states: ‘‘If EPA proceeds 

with this action, it should make clear 

that any incorporation by reference 

conducted by Kansas would rest on the 

continued existence and validity of the 

federal regulations on which it [sic] the 

incorporation is based.’’ EPA’s response 

to these five categories of comments is 

provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter asserts 

that PSD requirements cannot be 

triggered by GHGs. In its letter, the 

Commenter states: ‘‘[N]o area in the 

State of Kansas has been designated 

attainment or unclassifiable for 

greenhouse gases (GHGs), as there is no 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for GHGs. Therefore, GHGs 

cannot trigger PSD permitting.’’ The 

Commenter notes that it made this 

argument in detail in comments 

submitted to EPA on the Tailoring Rule 

and other related GHG rulemakings. The 

Commenter attached those previously 

submitted comments to its comments on 

the proposed rulemaking related to this 

action. Finally, the Commenter states 

that ‘‘EPA should immediately provide 

notice that it is now interpreting the Act 

not to require that GHGs trigger PSD and 

allow Kansas to rescind that portion of 

its rules that would allow GHGs to 

trigger PSD.’’ 

Response 1: EPA established the 

requirement that PSD applies to all 

pollutants newly subject to regulation, 

including non-NAAQS pollutants, in 

earlier national rulemakings concerning 

the PSD program, and EPA has not reopened that issue in this rulemaking. 

Accordingly, these comments are not 

relevant to this rulemaking. In addition, 

EPA has explained in detail, in recent 

rulemakings concerning GHG PSD 

requirements, its reasons for disagreeing 

with these comments. 

In an August 7, 1980, rulemaking at 

45 FR 52676, 45 FR 52710–52712, and 

45 FR 52735, EPA stated that a ‘‘major 

stationary source’’ was one that emitted 

‘‘any air pollutant subject to regulation 

under the Act’’ at or above the specified 

numerical thresholds; and defined a 

‘‘major modification,’’ in general, as a 

physical or operational change that 

increased emissions of ‘‘any pollutant 

subject to regulation under the Act’’ by 

more than an amount that EPA 

variously termed as de minimis or 

significant. In addition, in EPA’s NSR 

Reform rule at 67 FR 80186 and 67 FR 

80240 (December 31, 2002), EPA added 

to the PSD regulations the new 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

(currently codified at 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50) and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49)); 

noted that EPA added this term based 

on a request from a commenter to 

‘‘clarify which pollutants are covered 

under the PSD program’’; and explained 

that in addition to criteria pollutants for 

which a NAAQS has been established, 

‘‘[t]he PSD program applies 

automatically to newly regulated NSR 

pollutants, which would include final 

promulgation of an NSPS [new source 

performance standard] applicable to a 

previously unregulated pollutant.’’ Id. at 

67 FR 80240 and 67 FR 80264. Among 

other things, the definition of ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant’’ includes ‘‘[a]ny 

pollutant that otherwise is subject to 

regulation under the Act.’’ See 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(d)(iv); see also 40 CFR 

51.166(a)(49)(iv). 

In any event, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s underlying premise that 

PSD requirements are not triggered for 

GHGs when GHGs become subject to 

regulation as of January 2, 2011. As just 

noted, this has been well-established 

and discussed in connection with prior 

EPA actions, including, most recently, 

the Johnson Memo Reconsideration and 

the Tailoring Rule. In addition, EPA’s 

November 18, 2010, proposed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 9661 

11For the period of January 2, 2011, to the 

effective date of this final action, EPA and KDHE 

have entered into a delegation agreement which 

delegated federal authority (established by the GHG 

PSD FIP for Kansas, as described above) to issue 

and modify PSD permits for sources of GHGs in 

Kansas to KDHE. 

rulemaking notice provides the general 

basis for the Agency’s rationale that 

GHGs, while not a NAAQS pollutant, 

can trigger PSD permitting 

requirements. The November 18, 2010, 

notice also refers the reader to the 

preamble to the Tailoring Rule for 

further information on this rationale. In 

that rulemaking, EPA addressed at 

length the comment that PSD can be 

triggered only by pollutants subject to 

the NAAQS and concluded that such an 

interpretation of the Act would 

contravene Congress’s unambiguous 

intent. See 75 FR 31560–31562. Further 

discussion of EPA’s rationale for 

concluding that PSD requirements are 

triggered by non-NAAQS pollutants 

such as GHGs appears in the Tailoring 

Rule Response to Comments document 

(‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule: EPA’s 

Response to Public Comments’’), pp. 34– 

41; and in EPA’s response to motions for 

a stay filed in the litigation concerning 

those rules (‘‘EPA’s Response to Motions 

for Stay,’’ Coalition for Responsible 

Regulation v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 09– 

1322 (and consolidated cases)), at pp. 

47–59, and are incorporated by 

reference here. These documents have 

been placed in the docket for today’s 

action. 

Comment 2: In its letter, the 

Commenter mentions that it provided 

comments on EPA’s GHG PSD SIP Call 

and GHG PSD FIP rulemakings 

expressing that ‘‘EPA’s interpretation of 

the Act to impose a construction ban 

based on Section 165(a) is incorrect.’’ 

Further, the Commenter states: ‘‘No 

statutory language addressing 

implementation plan requirements can 

be construed to produce self-executing 

changes to SIPs or FIPs approved or 

promulgated under section 110 of the 

Act unless Congress enacts statutory 

provisions explicitly amending those 

SIPs or FIPs to incorporate the new 

requirements, thereby obviating the 

need for rulemaking under section 

110(a) or (c) of the Act to effect revisions 

to those implementation plans.’’ The 

Commenter also contends that there is 

no support for EPA’s ‘‘permit 

moratorium’’ interpretation because the 

Commenter believes CAA section 165(a) 

is not self-executing, and approved SIPs 

and promulgated FIPs can only be 

changed through section 110 

rulemakings to revise those plans. In 

support of its position, the Commenter 

cites to United States v. Cinergy Corp., 

No. 09–3344 (7th Cir. October 12, 2010). 

The Commenter further states that 

Kansas would be able to issue PSD 

permits after January 2, 2011, even 

without GHG limits, because its current 

SIP is approved and it would be acting 

consistently with that approved SIP. 

Further, the Commenter states that 

‘‘EPA’s rule contemplated that states 

have 3 years to revise their SIPs when 

an NSR-related change occurs and, 

assuming without conceding that EPA 

could impose PSD on GHGs, EPA 

should have followed that procedure in 

this case.’’ Finally, the Commenter states 

that EPA’s notice-and-comment process 

associated with the proposed SIP 

revision is inconsistent with section 110 

because it does not provide for federal 

notice and comment on the final state 

action. 

Response 2: EPA established the 

requirement that Kansas submit a 

corrective SIP revision in the SIP call 

rulemaking. As a result, the only issues 

relevant to this rulemaking concern 

whether Kansas’s SIP submission meets 

the requirements of the SIP call and 

therefore should be approved. Issues 

concerning the validity of the SIP call, 

including the comments raised by the 

commenter, may have been relevant for 

the SIP call rulemaking but are not 

relevant for this rulemaking. 

Accordingly, these comments are not 

relevant for this rulemaking. EPA notes 

that the Agency provided an extensive 

response in the final GHG PSD SIP Call 

rulemaking to comments nearly 

identical to comments received on this 

rulemaking, 75 FR 77698. EPA 

incorporates by reference those 

responses, as contained in the GHG PSD 

SIP Call preamble and the Tailoring 

Rule Response to Comment document, 

into this rulemaking. The following 

gives examples of references in the GHG 

PSD SIP Call rulemaking preamble and 

record in which EPA responded to 

these, or substantially similar, 

comments: 

With respect to the comments that 

(i) ‘‘EPA’s interpretation of the Act to 

impose a construction ban based on 

Section 165(a) is incorrect’’; (ii) ‘‘No 

statutory language addressing 

implementation plan requirements can 

be construed to produce self-executing 

changes to SIPs or FIPs approved or 

promulgated under section 110 of the 

Act unless Congress enacts statutory 

provisions explicitly amending those 

SIPs or FIPs to incorporate new 

requirements, thereby obviating the 

need for rulemaking under section 

110(a) or (c) of the Act to effect revisions 

to those implementation plans’’; and (iii) 

there is no support for EPA’s ‘‘permit 

moratorium’’ interpretation because (in 

the Commenter’s opinion) CAA section 

165(a) is not self-executing and 

approved SIPs and promulgated FIPs 

can only be changed through section 

110 rulemakings to revise those plans, 

see, for example, 75 FR 77705 (footnote 

16), and 75 FR 77710–77711. EPA notes 

further that the requirement of CAA 

section 165(a)(1) that stationary sources 

that emit the requisite quantity of 

pollutants subject to regulation obtain a 

pre-construction permit is mandated by 

the CAA and is automatically updated 

to apply to any pollutant newly subject 

to regulation; thus, contrary to the 

Commenter’s statement, EPA is not 

construing the CAA to ‘‘produce selfexecuting changes to SIPs * * *.’’ In 

addition, today’s action does not create 

what the Commenter calls a ‘‘permit 

moratorium’’; in fact, today’s rule 

continues a permitting authority for 

GHG-emitting sources for Kansas that 

had already been established as of the 

GHG PSD permitting requirements 

effective date.11 Further, no ‘‘selfexecuting changes’’ to Kansas’s SIP are 

made in today’s action; EPA is simply 

approving Kansas’s SIP revision, 

submitted December 23, 2010, according 

to the proper process. 

With respect to the comment that a 

decision by Judge Posner in United 

States v. Cinergy Corp., No. 09–3344 

(7th Cir. October 12, 2010), directly 

addresses this issue, see 75 FR 77705– 

77706, footnote 16. 

With respect to the comment that 

Kansas would be able to issue PSD 

permits after January 2, 2011, even 

without GHG limits, because its current 

SIP is approved and it would be acting 

consistent with that approved SIP, EPA 

notes that it is true that as of January 2, 

2011, Kansas could issue such a permit 

to cover the non-GHG pollutants 

emitted by a source that is major for a 

pollutant other than GHGs. If the source 

emits GHGs in at least the amount 

specified in the Tailoring Rule, 

however, then the source would also 

need a PSD permit for its GHG 

emissions. Kansas already has authority 

to issue GHG permits by virtue of the 

FIP delegation described in footnote 10. 

With respect to the comment that 

‘‘EPA’s rule contemplated that states 

have 3 years to revise their SIPs when 

an NSR-related change occurs and, 

assuming without conceding that EPA 

could impose PSD on GHGs, EPA 

should have followed that procedure in 

this case,’’ see 75 FR 77707–77708. In 

any event, the proper length of time 

EPA must provide states to act is also 

irrelevant to this rule because this 

action deals with a SIP revision actually 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

9662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

submitted by Kansas to EPA for 

approval. In addition, EPA has also 

addressed the issue of whether a 

construction ban applies in states with 

approved PSD SIPs that do not cover 

GHGs in its Response in Opposition to 

Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for a 

Stay Pending Review, Texas v. EPA, No. 

10–1425 (DC Cir. filed January 6, 2011), 

and in its Response in Opposition to 

Motion of National Association of 

Manufacturers et al. to File a Response 

as Amicus Curiae in Support of 

Petitioners’ Stay Motion (also filed in 

the Texas case, on January 7, 2011). 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

statement that EPA’s proposed action on 

Kansas’s draft rules is inconsistent with 

CAA section 110 because it does not 

provide for federal notice and comment 

on the final state action. EPA’s proposed 

approval was based on the draft form of 

the State of Kansas’s regulations on 

which the state itself solicited public 

comment. As explained in our proposal 

at 75 FR 70657, EPA utilized a ‘‘parallel 

processing’’ procedure for this SIP 

revision. Under this procedure, EPA 

proposes rulemaking action 

concurrently with the state’s procedures 

for approving a SIP submittal and 

amending its regulations (40 CFR part 

51, appendix V, 2.3). EPA reviews the 

proposed SIP submittal in the same 

manner in which it reviews a final, 

adopted regulation, even though the 

regulation is not yet adopted in final 

form by the state. In doing so, EPA 

evaluates the draft regulation against the 

same approvability criteria as any other 

SIP submittal. If substantial changes are 

made between the draft SIP revision 

upon which EPA solicits comment and 

the final SIP revision submitted by the 

state, EPA reissues the final SIP revision 

for a new round of public comment. 

Thus, using the ‘‘parallel processing’’ 

procedure does not avoid any statutory 

requirements, and has not done so here. 

The proposal published November 18, 

2010, gave the public the appropriate 

opportunity to comment on the 

substance of the October 4, 2010, SIP 

revision for which EPA is today issuing 

a final approval. In fact, the revision 

adopted by Kansas is identical to the 

draft regulation which EPA described in 

the proposal. Therefore, the Commenter 

and others had the opportunity to 

comment on the exact regulatory 

language which was finally adopted by 

Kansas and is approved in today’s 

action. 

Comment 3: The Commenter 

expresses concerns regarding the 

legality of narrowing prior SIP 

approvals if states cannot interpret their 

regulations to include the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds within the phrase ‘‘subject to 

regulation.’’ 

Response 3: While EPA does not agree 

with the Commenter’s assertion that the 

narrowing approach discussed in EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule is illegal, the validity of 

the narrowing approach is irrelevant to 

the action that EPA is today taking for 

Kansas’s December 23, 2010, SIP 

revision. EPA did not propose to narrow 

its approval of Kansas’s SIP as part of 

this action, and in today’s final action, 

EPA is acting to approve a SIP revision 

submitted by Kansas and is not 

otherwise narrowing its approval of 

prior submitted and approved 

provisions in the Kansas SIP. 

Accordingly, the legality of the 

narrowing approach is not at issue in 

this rulemaking. 

Comment 4: The Commenter states 

that EPA has failed to meet applicable 

statutory and executive order review 

requirements. Specifically, the 

Commenter refers to the statutory 

requirements and executive orders for 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). 

Additionally, the Commenter mentions 

that EPA has never analyzed the costs 

and benefits associated with triggering 

PSD for stationary sources in Kansas, 

much less nationwide. 

Response 4: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s statement that EPA has 

failed to meet applicable statutory and 

executive order review requirements. As 

stated in EPA’s proposed approval of 

Kansas’s October 4, 2010, proposed SIP 

revision, this action merely approves 

state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. Accordingly, EPA 

approval, in and of itself, does not 

impose any new information collection 

burden, as defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b) 

and (c), that would require additional 

review under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. In addition, this SIP approval will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, beyond that which would be 

required by the state law requirements, 

so a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required under the RFA. Accordingly, 

this rule is appropriately certified under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Moreover, as 

this action approves 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 

mandates or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, such that it 

would be subject to the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. Finally, this 

action does not have federalism 

implications that would make Executive 

Order 13132 applicable, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a federal standard and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Today’s rule is a routine approval of 

a SIP revision, approving state law, and 

does not impose any requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. To 

the extent these comments are directed 

more generally to the application of the 

statutory and executive order reviews to 

the required regulation of GHGs under 

PSD programs, these comments are 

irrelevant to the approval of state law in 

today’s action. However, EPA provided 

an extensive response to similar 

comments in promulgating the Tailoring 

Rule. EPA refers the Commenter to the 

sections in the Tailoring Rule entitled 

‘‘VII. Comments on Statutory and 

Executive Order Reviews,’’ 

75 FR 31601–31603, and ‘‘VI. What are 

the economic impacts of the final rule?,’’ 

75 FR 31595–31601. EPA also notes that 

today’s action does not in-and-of itself 

trigger the regulation of GHGs. To the 

contrary, GHGs are already being 

regulated nationally, PSD permitting for 

GHG emissions by Kansas is already 

specifically authorized under delegation 

of the existing FIP, and today’s action 

simply approves existing state laws that 

accomplish the same thing as the FIP. 

Comment 5: The Commenter states 

that ‘‘[i]f EPA proceeds with this action, 

it should make clear that any 

incorporation by reference conducted by 

Kansas would rest on the continued 

existence and validity of the federal 

regulations on which the incorporation 

is based.’’ Further, the Commenter 

remarks on the ongoing litigation in the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. 

Specifically, regarding EPA’s 

determination that PSD can be triggered 

by GHGs or is applicable to GHGs, the 

Commenter mentions that ‘‘any vacatur 

of those regulations should also be 

effective to vacate the SIP provision 

itself since the SIP would be referencing 

a regulation that no longer is valid or 

exists.’’ 

Response 5: EPA believes that it is 

most appropriate to take actions that are 

consistent with the federal regulations 

that are in place at the time the action 

is being taken. To the extent that any 

changes to federal regulations related to 

today’s action result from pending legal 

challenges or other actions, EPA will 

process appropriate SIP revisions in 

accordance with the procedures 

provided in the Act and EPA’s 

regulations. EPA notes that in an order 

dated December 10, 2010, the United 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 9663 

States Court of Appeals for the DC 

Circuit denied motions to stay EPA’s 

regulatory actions related to GHGs. 

Coalition for Responsible Regulation, 

Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09–1322, 10–1073, 10– 

1092 (and consolidated cases), Slip Op. 

at 3 (DC Cir. December 10, 2010) (order 

denying stay motions). 

IV. What is the effect of this final 

action? 

Final approval of Kansas’s December 

23, 2010, SIP revision will make 

Kansas’s SIP adequate with respect to 

PSD requirements for GHG-emitting 

sources, thereby negating the need for 

the GHG PSD FIP for Kansas and the 

delegation agreement between EPA and 

KDHE. The FIP is also being withdrawn 

today. Additionally, final approval of 

Kansas’s SIP revision will incorporate 

into the SIP the GHG emission 

thresholds for PSD applicability that 

were set forth in EPA’s Tailoring Rule 

and included in the GHG PSD FIP for 

Kansas, ensuring that smaller GHG 

sources emitting below these thresholds 

will continue to not be subject to 

permitting requirements. Pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA, EPA is 

approving the changes made in Kansas’s 

December 23, 2010, proposed SIP 

revision into the state’s SIP. However, as 

we noted in the proposed approval of 

the Kansas submittal, 75 FR 70663, this 

action only addresses the December 23, 

2010, revisions relating to the regulation 

of GHGs under the state’s PSD program. 

We intend to act on the state’s revisions 

to its Title V program separately, as well 

as Kansas’s separate submittal of 

changes to the applicability of the PSD 

program to contain ethanol production 

facilities (the ‘‘Ethanol Rule’’). 

Furthermore, as Kansas has not adopted 

EPA’s ‘‘Fugitive Emissions Rule,’’ 

today’s action does not address the 

Fugitive Emissions Rule. 

The changes to Kansas’s SIP-approved 

PSD program that EPA is approving 

today have been reviewed and 

determined to be consistent with the 

Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, EPA has 

determined that the December 23, 2010, 

revision to Kansas’s SIP is consistent 

with section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g., 

Tailoring Rule, at 75 FR 31561. As a 

result of EPA’s approval today, the 

deficiency in Kansas’s SIP is corrected 

and EPA no longer has the authority for 

the FIP for Kansas, and so EPA is also 

withdrawing the FIP for Kansas. 75 FR 

82246 (December 30, 2010). 

V. When is this action effective? 

The effective date of today’s final 

action is the date that this notice is 

published in the Federal Register. In 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA 

finds there is good cause for this action 

to become effective on the date of 

publication. The effective date upon 

publication of this notice for this action 

is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ The 

purpose of the 30-day waiting period 

prescribed in section 553(d) is to give 

affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

the final rule takes effect. Today’s rule, 

however, does not create any 

substantively new regulatory 

requirements such that affected parties 

would need time to prepare before the 

rule takes effect. Rather, today’s rule 

withdraws the FIP, replaces the current 

regulatory requirements under the FIP 

with the same requirements under the 

SIP, shifts current permitting authority 

for GHGs to Kansas under its SIP 

instead of EPA under the FIP, and 

negates the need for the delegation 

agreement that delegated authority from 

EPA to KDHE to issue and modify PSD 

permits for sources of GHGs in Kansas. 

With this rule KDHE becomes the 

permitting authority for all pollutants 

(including GHGs) under the SIPapproved program. For these reasons, 

EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3) for this action to become 

effective immediately upon publication. 

VI. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

the state of Kansas’s December 23, 2010, 

SIP revision, which incorporates 

changes into the Kansas Administrative 

Regulations (28–19–200a and 28–19– 

350). The SIP revision Kansas submitted 

on December 23, 2010, (1) provides the 

state with the authority to regulate 

GHGs under its PSD program, and 

(2) establishes appropriate emissions 

thresholds for determining PSD 

applicability with respect to new or 

modified GHG-emitting stationary 

sources in accordance with EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the 

determination that the December 23, 

2010, SIP revision is approvable because 

it is in accordance with the CAA and 

EPA regulations, including regulations 

pertaining to PSD permitting for GHGs. 

Today’s action also withdraws the FIP 

that was previously imposed in Kansas, 

and which this SIP revision displaces. 

Accordingly, EPA is rescinding the 

entirety of 40 CFR 52.37(b)(5) (applying 

the FIP to Kansas). EPA is taking this 

FIP withdrawal action as a final rule 

without providing an additional 

opportunity for public comment 

because EPA finds that the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

good cause exemption applies here. 

Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), provides that when an 

Agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to public 

interest, the Agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity to comment. 

EPA has determined that it is 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest to provide an additional 

opportunity for public comment on this 

action because the withdrawal of the 

FIP for Kansas is a necessary and simply 

ministerial act. Once EPA fully 

approves the SIP for Kansas as meeting 

the requirements of the GHG SIP call, 

and that approval is effective, EPA no 

longer has the authority for the GHG 

PSD FIP in Kansas. Because the SIP 

approval removes EPA’s authority for 

the FIP, EPA believes it has no option 

but to withdraw the FIP. Therefore, EPA 

is taking this withdrawal action to 

remove the regulatory text that applies 

the GHG PSD FIP requirements to 

sources in Kansas, and that action is 

ministerial. If EPA were to decide to 

reconsider or reverse the SIP approval 

action, it would take any appropriate 

action with regard to the FIP at that 

time. For these reasons, it would serve 

no useful purpose to provide an 

additional opportunity for public 

comment on this issue. 

EPA also finds that it would be 

contrary to the public interest to delay 

issuing this rule in order to offer 

additional comment opportunities. 

Delaying the withdrawal of the FIP 

would leave the FIP in place even 

though the SIP would now also be in 

place, which would result in 

duplicative permitting authority and, as 

a result of that, confusion to the public. 

Promulgation of this rule serves to 

clarify that sources initially covered by 

the FIP in Kansas are now covered only 

by the requirements of the Kansas SIP. 

Further, EPA previously provided 

public notice that the withdrawal of a 

GHG PSD FIP for any state to which the 

FIP applied would be done at the same 

time as the approval of a GHG SIP for 

that state. See 75 FR at 82251. The 

public had opportunity to provide 

comment on this procedure during the 

rulemaking process for the GHG PSD 

FIP rule referenced above (footnotes 7 

and 9). The rulemaking process for 

Kansas provided the public with ample 

opportunity to comment on the 

substantive issues related to the SIP 

approval. To provide an additional 

opportunity to comment on the FIP 

withdrawal action for Kansas, which 

cannot alter or affect the terms of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

9664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

SIP approval, would serve no useful 

purpose and is thus unnecessary. 

For these reasons, EPA hereby finds 

for good cause, pursuant to section 553 

of the APA, that it would be 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest for EPA to offer an additional 

opportunity for public comment and a 

public hearing on this rule. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 307(d)(1) the 

requirements of 307(d), including the 

requirement for a public hearing, do not 

apply to this action. 

VII. 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. In addition, 

withdrawal of the GHG PSD FIP as a 

result of this approval of state law 

merely clarifies that the federal plan no 

longer applies. For those reasons, this 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended 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 April 25, 2011 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, Greenhouse gases, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 15, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 52.37 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 52.37 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(5). 

Subpart R—Kansas 

■ 3. In § 52.870 (c) the table is amended 

by revising the entry for ‘‘K.A.R. 28–19– 

350’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS REGULATIONS

Kansas citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Construction Permits and Approvals 

28–19–350 ........ Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) of 

Air Quality.

01/02/2011 2/22/11 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Approval does not include Kansas’s revisions to the 

Ethanol Rule (72 FR 24060, May 1, 2007) and to 

the Fugitive Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882, December 19, 2008). 

* * * * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 9665 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–3858 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 302 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–1068; FRL–9268–8] 

Designation, Reportable Quantities, 

and Notification; Notification 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a technical 

amendment to correct telephone and 

facsimile numbers used to immediately 

notify the National Response Center. 

EPA issued a final rule in the Federal 

Register on April 4, 1985, that provided 

telephone numbers for any person in 

charge of a vessel or an offshore or an 

onshore facility to use as soon as he or 

she has knowledge of any release (other 

than a federally permitted release or 

application of a pesticide) for the 

immediate notification to the National 

Response Center when there is a release 

of a hazardous substance from a vessel 

or facility in a quantity equal to or 

exceeding the reportable quantity in any 

24-hour period. On July 9, 2002, EPA 

issued another final rule in the Federal 

Register that provided an additional 

telephone number, a facsimile number, 

and a telex number for the National 

Response Center. Recently, changes 

were made to these numbers by the 

National Response Center that is 

operated by the U.S. Coast Guard. This 

document is being issued to delete one 

of the telephone numbers, the facsimile 

number, and the telex number, and to 

provide a new facsimile number. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–1068. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the 

Superfund Docket is (202) 566–0276. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Beasley, Regulation and Policy 

Development Division, Office of 

Emergency Management (5104A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

564–1965; fax number: (202) 564–2625; 

e-mail address: beasley.lynn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Type of entity Examples of affected entities 

Federal Agencies ...................................................................................... National Response Center and any Federal agency that may release 

or respond to releases of hazardous substances. 

State and Local Governments .................................................................. State Emergency Response Commissions, and Local Emergency Planning Committees. 

Responsible Parties .................................................................................. Those entities responsible for the release of a hazardous substance 

from a vessel or facility. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The current information is as follows: 

• Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2010–1068. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

II. What does this correction do? 

This technical amendment is a 

correction that is being issued to delete 

one of the telephone numbers, the 

facsimile number, and the telex number, 

and to provide a new facsimile number 

for the person in charge of a vessel or 

an offshore or an onshore facility to use 

to contact the National Response Center 

(NRC). The NRC is operated by the U.S. 

Coast Guard. 

On April 4, 1985, (50 FR 13456) EPA 

issued a final rule in the Federal 

Register that provided telephone 

numbers for any person in charge of a 

vessel or an offshore or an onshore 

facility to use as soon as he or she has 

knowledge of any release (other than a 

federally permitted release or 

application of a pesticide) for the 

immediate notification to the NRC when 

there is a release of a hazardous 

substance from a vessel or facility in a 

quantity equal to or exceeding the 

reportable quantity in any 24-hour 

period (see 40 CFR 302.6(a)). On July 9, 

2002, EPA issued another final rule in 

the Federal Register that provided an 

additional telephone number, a 

facsimile number, and a telex number 

for the NRC. Recently, changes were 

made to these numbers. 

III. Why is this correction issued as a 

final rule? 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), provides that, when an 

Agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a final 

rule without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. EPA 

has determined that there is good cause 

for making this technical amendment 

final without prior proposal and 

opportunity for comment, because EPA 

is merely correcting information that 

has become out of date since the 

previously published final rule. The 

contact information for the NRC listed 

in 40 CFR 302.6 is no longer correct. 

Because the NRC receives notifications 

of hazardous substance release 

information, it is important that the 

public has the correct information to 

make such notifications. EPA finds that 

this constitutes good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES