Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70657 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to disapprove would not 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. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

an economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to disapprove certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act and will not inand-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: November 10, 2010. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29146 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2010–0932, FRL–9228–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kansas: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority 

and Tailoring Rule Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a draft revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment (KDHE) on October 4, 

2010 for parallel processing. The 

proposed SIP revision (Kansas 

Administrative Regulation 28–29–350) 

to Kansas’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program provides 

the state of Kansas with authority to 

regulate GHG emissions under the PSD 

program. The proposed SIP revision also 

establishes appropriate emission 

thresholds and time-frames for which 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to Kansas’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions, in accordance with the 

provisions of the ‘‘PSD and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Final Rule’’ 

published June 3, 2010, in the Federal 

Register at 75 FR 31514. EPA is 

proposing approval through a parallel 

processing action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 20, 2010. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2010–0932, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: gonzalez.larry@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (913) 551–7844. 

4. Mail: 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. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: 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. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. The 

Regional Office’s official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2010– 

0932. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

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 either electronically in 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, Kansas 66101. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing in today’s 

notice? 

II. What is the background for the action 

proposed by EPA in today’s notice? 

III. What is the relationship between today’s 

proposed action and EPA’s proposed 

GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Kansas’s 

proposed SIP revision? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing in 

today’s notice? 

On October 4, 2010, KDHE submitted 

draft revisions to Kansas Administrative 

Regulations to EPA for approval into the 

state of Kansas’s SIP to (1) provide the 

state 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. These thresholds 

and time-frames are consistent with the 

‘‘PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Final Rule’’ (75 FR 31514) 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ Final approval of Kansas’s 

October 4, 2010, SIP revision will make 

Kansas’s SIP adequate with respect to 

PSD requirements for GHG-emitting 

sources. Furthermore, final approval of 

Kansas’s October 4, 2010, SIP revision 

will put in place the GHG emission 

thresholds for PSD applicability set 

forth in EPA’s Tailoring Rule, ensuring 

that smaller GHG sources emitting less 

than these thresholds will not be subject 

to permitting requirements when these 

requirements begin applying to GHGs 

on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to section 

110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to 

approve this revision into the Kansas 

SIP. 

Due to the fact that this proposed rule 

revision is not yet state-effective, Kansas 

requested that EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ 

the revision. Under this procedure, the 

EPA Regional Office works closely with 

the state while developing new or 

revised regulations. Generally, the state 

submits a copy of the proposed 

regulation or other revisions to EPA 

before conducting its public hearing. 

EPA reviews this proposed state action 

and prepares a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. EPA publishes this notice 

of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register and solicits public comment in 

approximately the same time frame 

during which the state is holding its 

public hearing. The state and EPA thus 

provide for public comment periods on 

both the state and the Federal actions in 

parallel. 

After Kansas submits the formal stateeffective rule and SIP revision request 

(including a response to all public 

comments raised during the state’s 

public participation process), EPA will 

prepare a final rulemaking notice for the 

SIP revision. If changes are made to the 

state’s proposed rule after EPA’s notice 

of proposed rulemaking, such changes 

must be acknowledged in EPA’s final 

rulemaking action. If the changes are 

significant, then EPA may be obliged to 

re-propose the action. In addition, if the 

changes render the SIP revision not 

approvable, EPA’s re-proposal of the 

action would be a disapproval of the 

revision. 

II. What is the background for the 

action proposed by EPA in today’s 

notice? 

Today’s proposed action on the 

Kansas SIP relates to three Federal 

rulemaking actions. The first 

rulemaking is EPA’s ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,’’ Final 

Rule, (the Tailoring Rule). 75 FR 31514 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70659 

(June 3, 2010). The second rulemaking 

is EPA’s ‘‘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,’’ Proposed Rule, (GHG SIP 

Call). 75 FR 53892 (September 2, 2010). 

The third rulemaking is EPA’s ‘‘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) (GHG 

FIP), which serves as a companion 

rulemaking to EPA’s proposed GHG SIP 

Call. A summary of each of these 

rulemakings is described below. 

In the first rulemaking, the Tailoring 

Rule, EPA establishes appropriate GHG 

emission thresholds for determining the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG-emitting sources. In the second 

rulemaking, the GHG SIP Call (which is 

not yet final), EPA proposed to find that 

the EPA-approved PSD programs in 13 

states (including Kansas) are 

substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements because they do not 

appear to apply PSD requirements to 

GHG-emitting sources. For each of these 

states, EPA proposes to require the state 

(through a ‘‘SIP Call’’) to revise its SIP 

as necessary to correct such 

inadequacies. EPA is proposing an 

expedited schedule for these states to 

submit their SIP revision, in light of the 

fact that as of January 2, 2011, certain 

GHG-emitting sources will become 

subject to the PSD requirements and 

may not be able to obtain a PSD permit 

in order to construct or modify. In the 

third rulemaking, the proposed GHG 

FIP, EPA is proposing a FIP to apply in 

any state that is unable to submit, by its 

deadline, a SIP revision to ensure that 

the state has authority to issue PSD 

permits for GHG-emitting sources. 

Kansas is now seeking to revise its SIP 

to make it adequate with respect to PSD 

requirements for GHG-emitting sources. 

Furthermore, Kansas is seeking to revise 

its SIP to put in place the GHG emission 

thresholds for PSD applicability set 

forth in EPA’s Tailoring Rule, thereby 

ensuring that smaller GHG sources 

emitting less than these thresholds will 

not be subject to permitting 

requirements when these requirements 

begin applying to GHGs on January 2, 

2011. 

Below is a brief overview of GHGs 

and GHG-emitting sources, the CAA 

PSD program, minimum SIP elements 

for a PSD program, and EPA’s recent 

actions regarding GHG permitting. 

Following this section, EPA discusses, 

in sections III and IV, the relationship 

between the proposed Kansas SIP 

revision and EPA’s other national 

rulemakings as well as EPA’s analysis of 

Kansas’s SIP revision. 

A. What are GHGs and their sources? 

A detailed explanation of GHGs, 

climate change and the impact on 

health, society, and the environment is 

included in EPA’s technical support 

document for EPA’s GHG endangerment 

finding final rule (Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11292 at 

http://www.regulations.gov). The 

endangerment finding rulemaking is 

discussed later in this rulemaking. A 

summary of the nature and sources of 

GHGs is provided below. 

GHGs trap the Earth’s heat that would 

otherwise escape from the atmosphere 

into space and form the greenhouse 

effect that helps keep the Earth warm 

enough for life. GHGs are naturally 

present in the atmosphere and are also 

emitted by human activities. Human 

activities are intensifying the naturally 

occurring greenhouse effect by 

increasing the amount of GHGs in the 

atmosphere, which is changing the 

climate in a way that endangers human 

health, society, and the natural 

environment. 

Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide 

(CO2), are emitted to the atmosphere 

through natural processes as well as 

human activities. Other gases, such as 

fluorinated gases, are created and 

emitted solely through human activities. 

The well-mixed GHGs of concern 

directly emitted by human activities 

include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous 

oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hereafter 

referred to collectively as ‘‘the six wellmixed GHGs,’’ or, simply, GHGs. 

Together these six well-mixed GHGs 

constitute the ‘‘air pollutant’’ upon 

which the GHG thresholds in EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule are based. These six 

gases remain in the atmosphere for 

decades to centuries where they become 

well-mixed globally in the atmosphere. 

When they are emitted more quickly 

than natural processes can remove them 

from the atmosphere, their 

concentrations increase, thus increasing 

the greenhouse effect. 

In the U.S., the combustion of fossil 

fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas) is the largest 

source of CO2 emissions and accounts 

for 80 percent of the total GHG 

emissions by mass. Anthropogenic CO2

emissions released from a variety of 

sources, including through the use of 

fossil fuel combustion and cement 

production from geologically stored 

carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) 

that is hundreds of millions of years old, 

as well as anthropogenic CO2 emissions 

from land-use changes such as 

deforestation, perturb the atmospheric 

concentration of CO2, and the 

distribution of carbon within different 

reservoirs readjusts. More than half of 

the energy-related emissions come from 

large stationary sources such as power 

plants, while about a third come from 

transportation. Of the six well-mixed 

GHGs, four (CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs) 

are emitted by motor vehicles. In the 

U.S., industrial processes (such as the 

production of cement, steel, and 

aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other 

land use, and waste management are 

also important sources of GHGs. 

Different GHGs have different heattrapping capacities. The concept of 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) was 

developed to compare the heat-trapping 

capacity and atmospheric lifetime of 

one GHG to another. The definition of 

a GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio 

of heat trapped by one unit mass of the 

GHG to that of one unit mass of CO2

over a specified time period. When 

quantities of the different GHGs are 

multiplied by their GWPs, the different 

GHGs can be summed and compared on 

a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) 

basis. For example, CH4 has a GWP of 

21, meaning each ton of CH4 emissions 

would have 21 times as much impact on 

global warming over a 100-year time 

horizon as 1 ton of CO2 emissions. Thus, 

on the basis of heat-trapping capability, 

1 ton of CH4 would equal 21 tons of 

CO2e. The GWPs of the non-CO2 GHGs 

range from 21 (for CH4) up to 23,900 (for 

SF6). Aggregating all GHGs on a CO2e 

basis at the source level allows a facility 

to evaluate its total GHG emissions 

contribution based on a single metric. 

B. What are the general requirements of 

the PSD program? 

1. Overview of the PSD Program 

The PSD program is a preconstruction 

review and permitting program 

applicable to new major stationary 

sources and major modifications at 

existing stationary sources. The PSD 

program applies in areas that are 

designated ‘‘attainment’’ or 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ for a national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS). The PSD 

program is contained in part C of title 

I of the CAA. The ‘‘nonattainment NSR’’ 

program applies in areas not in 

attainment of a NAAQS or in the Ozone 

Transport Region, and it is implemented 

under the requirements of part D of title 

I of the CAA. Collectively, EPA 

commonly refers to these two programs 

as the major NSR program. The 

governing EPA rules are generally 

contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA notes that the PSD program has historically 

operated in this fashion for all pollutants—when 

new sources or modifications are ‘‘major,’’ PSD 

applies to all pollutants that are emitted in 

significant quantities from the source or project. 

This rule does not alter that for sources or 

modifications that are major due to their GHG 

emissions. 

52.21, 52.24, and part 51, Appendices S 

and W. There is no NAAQS for CO2 or 

any of the other well-mixed GHGs, nor 

has EPA proposed any such NAAQS; 

therefore, unless and until EPA takes 

further such action, the nonattainment 

NSR program does not apply to GHGs. 

The applicability of PSD to a 

particular source must be determined in 

advance of construction or modification 

and is pollutant-specific. The primary 

criterion in determining PSD 

applicability for a proposed new or 

modified source is whether the source is 

a ‘‘major emitting facility,’’ based on its 

predicted potential emissions of 

regulated pollutants within the meaning 

of CAA section 169(1), that either 

constructs or undertakes a modification. 

EPA has implemented these 

requirements in its regulations, which 

use somewhat different terminology 

than the CAA does, for determining PSD 

applicability. 

a. Major Stationary Source 

Under PSD, a ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ is any source belonging to a 

specified list of 28 source categories that 

emits or has the potential to emit 100 

tpy or more of any air pollutant subject 

to regulation under the CAA, or any 

other source type that emits or has the 

potential to emit such pollutants in 

amounts equal to or greater than 250 

tpy. We refer to these levels as the 100/ 

250-tpy thresholds. A new source with 

a potential to emit (PTE) at or above the 

applicable ‘‘major stationary source 

threshold’’ is subject to major NSR. 

These limits originate from section 169 

of the CAA, which applies PSD to any 

‘‘major emitting facility’’ and defines the 

term to include any source that emits or 

has a PTE of 100 or 250 tpy, depending 

on the source category. Note that the 

major source definition incorporates the 

phrase ‘‘subject to regulation,’’ which, as 

described later, will begin to include 

GHGs on January 2, 2011, under our 

interpretation of that phrase as 

discussed in the recent memorandum 

entitled, ‘‘Reconsideration of 

Interpretation of Regulations that 

Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean 

Air Act Permitting Programs.’’ 75 FR 

17004 (April 2, 2010). 

b. Major Modifications 

PSD also applies to existing sources 

that undertake a ‘‘major modification,’’ 

which occurs when: (1) There is a 

physical change in, or change in the 

method of operation of, a ‘‘major 

stationary source;’’ (2) the change results 

in a ‘‘significant’’ emissions increase of 

a pollutant subject to regulation (equal 

to or above the significance level that 

EPA has set for the pollutant in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)); and (3) there is a 

‘‘significant net emissions increase’’ of a 

pollutant subject to regulation that is 

equal to or above the significance level 

(defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)). 

Significance levels, which EPA has 

promulgated for criteria pollutants and 

certain other pollutants, represent a de 

minimis contribution to air quality 

problems. When EPA has not set a 

significance level for a regulated NSR 

pollutant, PSD applies to an increase of 

the pollutant in any amount (that is, in 

effect, the significance level is treated as 

zero). 

2. General Requirements for PSD 

This section provides a very brief 

summary of the main requirements of 

the PSD program. One principal 

requirement is that a new major source 

or major modification must apply best 

available control technology (BACT), 

which is determined on a case-by-case 

basis taking into account, among other 

factors, the cost effectiveness of the 

control and energy and environmental 

impacts. EPA has developed a ‘‘topdown’’ approach for BACT review, 

which involves a decision process that 

includes identification of all available 

control technologies, elimination of 

technically infeasible options, ranking 

of remaining options by control and cost 

effectiveness, and then selection of 

BACT. Under PSD, once a source is 

determined to be major for any 

regulated NSR pollutant, a BACT review 

is performed for each attainment 

pollutant that exceeds its PSD 

significance level as part of new 

construction or for modification projects 

at the source, where there is a 

significant increase and a significant net 

emissions increase of such pollutant.1

In addition to performing BACT, the 

source must analyze impacts on ambient 

air quality to assure that sources do not 

cause or contribute to violation of any 

NAAQS or PSD increments and must 

analyze impacts on soil, vegetation, and 

visibility. In addition, sources or 

modifications that would impact Class I 

areas (e.g., national parks) may be 

subject to additional requirements to 

protect air quality related values 

(AQRVs) that have been identified for 

such areas. Under PSD, if a source’s 

proposed project may impact a Class I 

area, the Federal Land Manager is 

notified and is responsible for 

evaluating a source’s projected impact 

on the AQRVs and recommending either 

approval or disapproval of the source’s 

permit application based on anticipated 

impacts. There are currently no NAAQS 

or PSD increments established for 

GHGs, and therefore these PSD 

requirements would not apply for 

GHGs, even when PSD is triggered for 

GHGs. However, if PSD is triggered for 

a GHG-emitting source, all regulated 

NSR pollutants that the new source 

emits in significant amounts would be 

subject to PSD requirements. Therefore, 

if a facility triggers NSR for non-GHG 

pollutants for which there are 

established NAAQS or increments, the 

air quality, additional impacts, and 

Class I requirements would apply to 

those pollutants. 

Pursuant to existing PSD 

requirements, the permitting authority 

must provide notice of its preliminary 

decision on a source’s application for a 

PSD permit and must provide an 

opportunity for comment by the public, 

industry, and other interested persons. 

After considering and responding to 

comments, the permitting authority 

must issue a final determination on the 

construction permit. Usually NSR 

permits are issued by a state or local air 

pollution control agency that has its 

own authority to issue PSD permits 

under a permit program that has been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in its 

SIP. In some areas, EPA has delegated 

its authority to issue PSD permits under 

federal regulations to the state or local 

agency. In other areas, EPA issues the 

permits under its own authority. 

C. What are the CAA requirements to 

include the PSD program in the SIP? 

The CAA contemplates that the PSD 

program be implemented in the first 

instance by the states and requires that 

states include PSD requirements in their 

SIPs. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

that— 

Each implementation plan * * * 

shall * * * include a program to 

provide for * * * regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a 

permit program as required in part [ ] 

C * * * of this subchapter. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires 

that— 

Each implementation plan * * * 

shall * * * meet the applicable 

requirements of * * * part C of this 

subchapter (relating to significant 

deterioration of air quality and visibility 

protection). 

CAA section 161 provides that— 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70661 

2 In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that 

commenters argued, with some variations, that the 

PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS pollutants, 

and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD 

provisions apply to all pollutants subject to 

regulation, including GHG. See 75 FR 31560–62 

(June 3, 2010). EPA is not re-opening that issue in 

this rulemaking, and does not solicit comment on 

it. 

3The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V 

program, which requires operating permits for 

existing sources. However, today’s action does not 

affect Kansas’s title V program. 

4EPA adopted the Tailoring Rule after careful 

consideration of numerous public comments. On 

October 27, 2009 (74 FR 55292), EPA proposed the 

Tailoring Rule. EPA held two public hearings on 

the proposed rule, and received over 400,000 

written public comments. The public comment 

period ended on December 28, 2009. The comments 

provided detailed information that helped EPA 

understand better the issues and potential impacts 

of the Tailoring Rule. The preamble of EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule describes in detail the comments 

received and how some of these comments were 

Continued 

Each applicable implementation plan 

shall contain emission limitations and 

such other measures as may be 

necessary, as determined under 

regulations promulgated under this part 

[C], to prevent significant deterioration 

of air quality for such region * * * 

designated * * * as attainment or 

unclassifiable. 

These provisions, read in conjunction 

with the PSD applicability provisions— 

which, as noted above, applies, by its 

terms, to ‘‘any air pollutant,’’ and which 

EPA has, through regulation, interpreted 

more narrowly as any ‘‘NSR regulated 

pollutant’’—and read in conjunction 

with other provisions, such as the BACT 

provision under CAA section 165(a)(4), 

mandate that SIPs include PSD 

programs that are applicable to, among 

other things, any air pollutant that is 

subject to regulation, including, as 

discussed below, GHGs on and after 

January 2, 2011.2

A number of states do not have PSD 

programs approved into their SIPs. In 

those states, EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

52.21 govern, and either EPA or the 

state as EPA’s delegatee acts as the 

permitting authority. On the other hand, 

most states have PSD programs that 

have been approved into their SIPs, and 

these states implement their PSD 

programs and act as the permitting 

authority. Kansas has a SIP-approved 

PSD program. 

D. What actions has EPA taken 

concerning PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources? 

1. What are the Endangerment Finding, 

the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the 

Johnson Memo Reconsideration? 

By notice dated December 15, 2009, 

pursuant to CAA section 202(a), EPA 

issued, in a single final action, two 

findings regarding GHGs that are 

commonly referred to as the 

‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ and the ‘‘Cause 

or Contribute Finding.’’ ‘‘Endangerment 

and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) 

of the Clean Air Act,’’ 74 FR 66496. In 

the Endangerment Finding, the 

Administrator found that six long-lived 

and directly emitted GHGs—CO2, CH4, 

N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health and welfare. In the Cause 

or Contribute Finding, the 

Administrator ‘‘define[d] the air 

pollutant as the aggregate group of the 

same six * * * greenhouse gases,’’ 74 

FR 66536, and found that the combined 

emissions of this air pollutant from new 

motor vehicles and new motor vehicle 

engines contribute to the GHG air 

pollution that endangers public health 

and welfare. 

By notice dated May 7, 2010, EPA and 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration published what is 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule’’ (LDVR), which for the 

first time established Federal controls 

on GHGs emitted from light-duty 

vehicles. ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards 

and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324. In 

its applicability provisions, the LDVR 

specifies that it ‘‘contains standards and 

other regulations applicable to the 

emissions of six greenhouse gases,’’ 

including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, 

and SF6. 75 FR 25686 (40 CFR 86.1818– 

12(a)). Shortly before finalizing the 

LDVR, by notice dated April 2, 2010, 

EPA published a notice commonly 

referred to as the Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration. On December 18, 2008, 

EPA issued a memorandum, ‘‘EPA’s 

Interpretation of Regulations that 

Determine Pollutants Covered by 

Federal Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program’’ 

(known as the ‘‘Johnson Memo’’ or the 

‘‘PSD Interpretive Memo,’’ and referred 

to in this preamble as the ‘‘Interpretive 

Memo’’), that set forth EPA’s 

interpretation regarding which EPA and 

state actions, with respect to a 

previously unregulated pollutant, cause 

that pollutant to become ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ under the Act. Whether a 

pollutant is ‘‘subject to regulation’’ is 

important for the purposes of 

determining whether it is covered under 

the federal PSD permitting program. The 

Interpretive Memo established that a 

pollutant is ‘‘subject to regulation’’ only 

if it is subject to either a provision in the 

CAA or regulation adopted by EPA 

under the CAA that requires actual 

control of emissions of that pollutant 

(referred to as the ‘‘actual control 

interpretation’’). On February 17, 2009, 

EPA granted a petition for 

reconsideration on the Interpretive 

Memo and announced its intent to 

conduct a rulemaking to allow for 

public comment on the issues raised in 

the memorandum and on related issues. 

EPA also clarified that the Interpretive 

Memo would remain in effect pending 

reconsideration. 

On March 29, 2010, EPA signed a 

notice conveying its decision to 

continue applying (with one limited 

refinement) the Interpretive Memo’s 

interpretation of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

(‘‘Reconsideration of Interpretation of 

Regulations that Determine Pollutants 

Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs’’). 75 FR 17004. EPA 

concluded that the ‘‘actual control 

interpretation’’ is the most appropriate 

interpretation to apply given the policy 

implications. However, EPA refined the 

Agency’s interpretation in one respect: 

EPA established that PSD permitting 

requirements apply to a newly regulated 

pollutant at the time a regulatory 

requirement to control emissions of that 

pollutant ‘‘takes effect’’ (rather than 

upon promulgation or the legal effective 

date of the regulation containing such a 

requirement). In addition, based on the 

anticipated promulgation of the LDVR, 

EPA stated that the GHG requirements 

of the vehicle rule would take effect on 

January 2, 2011, because that is the 

earliest date that a 2012 model year 

vehicle may be introduced into 

commerce. In other words, the 

compliance obligation under the LDVR 

does not occur until a manufacturer may 

introduce into commerce vehicles that 

are required to comply with GHG 

standards, which will begin with model 

year 2012 and will not occur before 

January 2, 2011. 

2. What is EPA’s Tailoring Rule? 

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 

2010), EPA promulgated a final 

rulemaking for the purpose of relieving 

overwhelming permitting burdens that 

would, in the absence of the rule, fall on 

permitting authorities and sources, i.e., 

the Tailoring Rule. 75 FR 31514. EPA 

accomplished this by tailoring the 

applicability criteria that determine 

which GHG emission sources become 

subject to the PSD program 3 of the 

CAA. In particular, EPA established in 

the Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach 

for PSD applicability and established 

the first two steps of the phase-in for the 

largest GHG-emitters. Additionally, EPA 

committed to certain follow-up actions 

regarding future steps beyond the first 

two, discussed in more detail later.4


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

incorporated in EPA’s final rule. See 75 FR 31514 

for more detail. 

5Narrowing EPA’s approval will ensure that for 

federal purposes, sources with GHG emissions that 

are less than the Tailoring Rule’s emission 

thresholds will not be obligated under federal law 

to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when 

GHG PSD requirements go into effect on January 2, 

2011 and when either (1) EPA approves a SIP 

revision adopting EPA’s tailoring approach, or (2) 

if a state opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting 

sources, the state demonstrates to EPA that it has 

adequate resources to handle permitting for such 

sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing 

action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with 

respect to those states for which EPA will not have 

approved the Tailoring Rule thresholds in their SIPs 

by that time. 

6The term ‘‘greenhouse gases’’ is commonly used 

to refer generally to gases that have heat-trapping 

properties. However, in this notice, unless noted 

otherwise, we use it to refer specifically to the 

pollutant regulated in the LDVR. 

7The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V, 

and 250 tpy for PSD, except for 28 categories listed 

in EPA regulations for which the PSD threshold is 

100 tpy. 

For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, 

which will begin on January 2, 2011, 

PSD requirements will apply to major 

stationary source GHG emissions only if 

the sources are subject to PSD anyway 

due to their emissions of non-GHG 

pollutants. Therefore, in the first step, 

EPA will not require sources or 

modifications to evaluate whether they 

are subject to PSD requirements solely 

on account of their GHG emissions. 

Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires 

that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable 

requirements of PSD, most notably, the 

BACT requirement, will apply to 

projects that increase net GHG 

emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, 

but only if the project also significantly 

increases emissions of at least one nonGHG pollutant. 

The second step of the Tailoring Rule, 

beginning on July 1, 2011, will phase in 

additional large sources of GHG 

emissions. New sources that emit, or 

have the potential to emit, at least 

100,000 tpy CO2e will become subject to 

the PSD requirements. In addition, 

sources that emit or have the potential 

to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e and 

that undertake a modification that 

increases net GHG emissions by at least 

75,000 tpy CO2e will also be subject to 

PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA 

notes that if sources or modifications 

exceed these CO2e-adjusted GHG 

triggers, they are not covered by 

permitting requirements unless their 

GHG emissions also exceed the 

corresponding mass-based triggers in 

tpy. 

EPA believes that the costs to the 

sources and the administrative burdens 

to the permitting authorities of PSD 

permitting will be manageable at the 

levels in these initial two steps and that 

it would be administratively infeasible 

to subject additional sources to PSD 

requirements at those times. However, 

EPA also intends to issue a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking in 2011, in which the 

Agency will propose or solicit comment 

on a third step of the phase-in that 

would include more sources, beginning 

on July 1, 2013. In the Tailoring Rule, 

EPA established an enforceable 

commitment that the Agency will 

complete this rulemaking by July 1, 

2012, which will allow for 1 year’s 

notice before Step 3 would take effect. 

In addition, EPA committed to 

explore streamlining techniques that 

may well make the permitting programs 

much more efficient to administer for 

GHG, and that therefore may allow their 

expansion to smaller sources. EPA 

expects that the initial streamlining 

techniques will take several years to 

develop and implement. 

In the Tailoring Rule, EPA also 

included a provision, that no source 

with emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e, 

and no modification resulting in net 

GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy 

CO2e, will be subject to PSD permitting 

before at least 6 years (i.e., April 30, 

2016). This is because EPA has 

concluded that at the present time the 

administrative burdens that would 

accompany permitting sources below 

this level would be so great that even 

with the streamlining actions that EPA 

may be able to develop and implement 

in the next several years, and even with 

the increases in permitting resources 

that EPA can reasonably expect the 

permitting authorities to acquire, it 

would be impossible to administer the 

permit programs for these sources until 

at least 2016. 

As EPA explained in the Tailoring 

Rule, the threshold limitations are 

necessary because without them, PSD 

would apply to all stationary sources 

that emit or have the potential to emit 

more than 100 or 250 tons of GHG per 

year beginning on January 2, 2011. This 

is the date when EPA’s recently 

promulgated LDVR takes effect, 

imposing control requirements for the 

first time on CO2 and other GHGs. If this 

January 2, 2011, date were to pass 

without the Tailoring Rule being in 

effect, PSD requirements would apply to 

GHG emissions at the 100/250 tpy 

applicability levels provided under a 

literal reading of the CAA as of that 

date. From that point forward, a source 

owner proposing to construct any new 

major source that emits at or higher than 

the applicability levels (and which 

therefore may be referred to as a ‘‘major’’ 

source) or modify any existing major 

source in a way that would increase 

GHG emissions would need to obtain a 

permit under the PSD program that 

addresses these emissions before 

construction or modification could 

begin. 

Under these circumstances, many 

small sources would be burdened by the 

costs of the individualized PSD control 

technology requirements and permit 

applications that the PSD provisions, 

absent streamlining, require. 

Additionally, state and local permitting 

authorities would be burdened by the 

extraordinary number of these permit 

applications, which are orders of 

magnitude greater than the current 

inventory of permits and would vastly 

exceed the current administrative 

resources of the permitting authorities. 

Permit gridlock would result since the 

permitting authorities would likely be 

able to issue only a tiny fraction of the 

permits requested. 

In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted 

regulatory language codifying the phasein approach. As explained in that 

rulemaking, many state, local and tribal 

area programs will likely be able to 

immediately implement the approach 

without rule or statutory changes by, for 

example, interpreting the term ‘‘subject 

to regulation’’ that is part of the 

applicability provisions for PSD 

permitting. EPA has requested 

permitting authorities to confirm that 

they will follow this implementation 

approach for their programs, and if they 

cannot, then EPA has requested that 

they notify the Agency so that we can 

take appropriate follow-up action to 

narrow federal approval of their 

programs before GHGs become subject 

to PSD permitting on January 2, 2011.5

On October 1, 2010, the state of Kansas 

provided a letter to EPA with the 

requested modification. See the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking for a copy 

of Kansas’s letter. 

The thresholds that EPA established 

are based on CO2e for the aggregate sum 

of six GHGs that constitute the pollutant 

that will be subject to regulation, which 

we refer to as GHG.6 These gases are: 

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 

Thus, in EPA’s Tailoring Rule, EPA 

provided that PSD applicability is based 

on the quantity that results when the 

mass emissions of each of these gases is 

multiplied by the GWP of that gas, and 

then summed for all six gases. However, 

EPA further provided that in order for 

a source’s GHG emissions to trigger PSD 

requirements, the quantity of the GHG 

emissions must equal or exceed both the 

applicability thresholds established in 

the Tailoring Rule on a CO2e basis and 

the statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 

tpy on a mass basis.7 Similarly, in order 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70663 

8As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 

FR 53892, 53896), EPA intends to finalize its 

finding of substantial inadequacy and the SIP call 

for the 13 listed states by December 1, 2010. EPA 

requested that the states for which EPA is proposing 

a SIP call identify the deadline—between 3 weeks 

and 12 months from the date of signature of the 

final SIP Call—that they would accept for 

submitting their corrective SIP revision. In its 

October 1, 2010 letter, Kansas requested the earliest 

possible deadline, either December 22, 2010, or 

three weeks after signature of the final SIP Call. 

9 Kansas’s submittal incorporates by reference 40 

CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2007, as amended by the 

Tailoring Rule. In today’s proposed rulemaking, 

EPA is not taking action on any of Kansas’s changes 

to their PSD regulations regarding the ‘‘Ethanol 

Rule’’ (72 FR 24060, May 1, 2007). Kansas submitted 

its Ethanol Rule revision in 2009, and EPA intends 

to act on that revision in a separate rulemaking. 

Kansas has not adopted EPA’s ‘‘Fugitive Emissions 

Rule’’ (73 FR 77882, December 19, 2008), so this 

proposal also does not address the Fugitive 

Emissions Rule. 

for a source to be subject to the PSD 

modification requirements, the source’s 

net GHG emissions increase must 

exceed the applicable significance level 

on a CO2e basis and must also result in 

a net mass increase of the constituent 

gases combined. 

3. What is the GHG SIP Call? 

By notice dated September 2, 2010, 

EPA proposed the GHG SIP Call. In that 

action, along with the companion GHG 

FIP proposed rulemaking published at 

the same time, EPA took steps to ensure 

that in the 13 states that do not appear 

to have authority to issue PSD permits 

to GHG-emitting sources at present, 

either the state or EPA will have the 

authority to issue such permits by 

January 2, 2011. 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, our preliminary 

information shows that these 13 states 

have EPA-approved PSD programs that 

do not appear to include GHG-emitting 

sources and therefore do not appear to 

authorize these states to issue PSD 

permits to such sources. Therefore, EPA 

proposed to find that these 13 states’ 

SIPs are substantially inadequate to 

comply with CAA requirements and, 

accordingly, proposed to issue a SIP 

Call to require a SIP revision that 

applies their SIP PSD programs to GHGemitting sources. In the companion 

GHG FIP rulemaking, EPA proposed a 

FIP that would give EPA authority to 

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

unable to submit a corrective SIP 

revision by its deadline. Kansas was one 

of the states for which EPA proposed a 

SIP Call. The state’s comments 

regarding the proposed SIP call, 

submitted October 1, 2010, are included 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

III. What is the relationship between 

today’s proposed action and EPA’s 

proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP? 

As noted above, by notice dated 

September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the 

GHG SIP Call. At the same time, EPA 

proposed a FIP to apply in any state that 

is unable to submit, by its deadline, a 

SIP revision to ensure that the state has 

authority to issue PSD permits to GHGemitting sources.8 As discussed in 

section IV of this proposed rulemaking, 

Kansas does not interpret its current 

PSD regulations as providing it with the 

authority to regulate GHG, and as such, 

Kansas is included on the list of areas 

for the proposed SIP call. Kansas’s 

October 4, 2010, proposed SIP revision 

(the subject of this rulemaking) 

addresses this authority. EPA will not 

take final action on the GHG SIP Call for 

the state of Kansas if the state submits 

its final SIP revision to EPA prior to the 

final rulemaking for the GHG SIP Call. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Kansas’s 

proposed SIP revision? 

On October 4, 2010, KDHE provided 

a revision to Kansas’s SIP to EPA for 

parallel processing and eventual 

approval. This revision to Kansas’s SIP 

is necessary because without it, (1) the 

state of Kansas would not have 

authority to issue PSD permits to GHGemitting sources, and as a result, absent 

further action, those sources may not be 

able to construct or undertake 

modifications beginning January 2, 

2011; and (2) assuming that the state of 

Kansas attains authority to issue PSD 

permits to GHG-emitting sources, PSD 

requirements would apply, as of January 

2, 2011, at the 100- or 250-tpy levels 

provided under the CAA. This would 

greatly increase the number of required 

permits, imposing undue costs on small 

sources; which would overwhelm 

Kansas’s permitting resources and 

severely impair the function of the 

program. 

The state of Kansas’s September 26, 

2010, proposed SIP revision: (1) 

Provides the state of Kansas with the 

authority to regulate GHG under the 

PSD program of the CAA, and (2) 

establishes thresholds for determining 

which stationary sources and 

modification projects become subject to 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions under the PSD program. 

Specifically, Kansas’s October 4, 2010, 

proposed SIP revision includes changes 

to Kansas Air Regulations (KAR) 28–19– 

350—Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality. These 

revisions update Kansas’s air 

regulations by providing the state the 

authority to regulate GHGs and aligning 

the thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability with those specified in the 

Tailoring Rule. 

The state of Kansas is currently a SIPapproved state for the PSD program. 

However, Kansas does not interpret its 

current rules, which are generally 

consistent with the Federal rules, to be 

applicable to GHGs. In the letter dated 

October 1, 2010, referenced above, 

Kansas notified EPA that the state does 

not currently have the authority to 

regulate GHG and thus is in the process 

of revising its regulation (the subject of 

this proposed action) to provide this 

authority. To provide this authority, 

Kansas is updating the definitions for 

‘‘major source’’ and ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ to explicitly include GHG as 

a regulated NSR pollutant under the 

CAA. Specifically, the Kansas proposed 

rule would incorporate by reference 40 

CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2007, and as 

amended by the Tailoring Rule 

promulgated on June 3, 2010. EPA has 

preliminarily determined that this 

change to Kansas’s regulation is 

consistent with the CAA and its 

implementing regulations regarding 

GHG.9

The changes included in this 

submittal are substantively the same as 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule. The Kansas rules 

have been formatted to conform to 

Kansas’s rule drafting standards, but in 

substantive content the rules that 

address the Tailoring Rule provisions 

are the same as the federal rules. As part 

of its review of the Kansas submittal, 

EPA performed a line-by-line review of 

Kansas’s proposed changes to its 

regulations and has preliminarily 

determined that they are consistent with 

the Tailoring Rule. These changes to 

Kansas’s regulations are also consistent 

with section 110 of the CAA because 

they are incorporating GHGs for 

regulation in the Kansas SIP. 

V. Proposed Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is proposing to approve the state of 

Kansas’s revisions to the Kansas 

Administrative Regulations that were 

submitted to EPA on October 4, 2010, 

relating to PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources. Specifically, Kansas’s 

October 4, 2010, proposed submission: 

(1) Provides the state of Kansas with the 

authority to regulate GHGs under its 

PSD program, and (2) establishes 

appropriate emissions thresholds for 

determining PSD applicability to new 

and modified GHG-emitting sources in 

accordance with EPA’s Tailoring Rule. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that this SIP revision is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

approvable because it is in accordance 

with the CAA and EPA regulations 

regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. 

As noted above, at Kansas’s request, 

EPA is ‘‘parallel processing’’ this 

proposed rule revision. After Kansas 

submits the formal state-effective rule 

revisions (including a response to all 

public comments raised during the 

state’s public participation process), 

EPA will prepare a final rulemaking 

notice for the SIP revision. If changes 

are made to the state’s proposed rule 

after EPA’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking, such changes must be 

acknowledged in EPA’s final 

rulemaking action. If the changes are 

significant, then EPA may be obliged to 

re-propose the action. In addition, if 

these changes render the SIP revision 

not approvable, EPA’s re-proposal of the 

action would be a disapproval of the 

revision. 

VI. 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 proposed 

action merely approves the state’s law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the state’s law. For that reason, this 

proposed 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 of Kansas, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: November 9, 2010. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29144 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 136, 260, 423, 430, and 

435 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0192; FRL–9228–6] 

Guidelines Establishing Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of 

Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; 

Analysis and Sampling Procedures; 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the 

public comment period. 

SUMMARY: On September 23, 2010, EPA 

proposed changes to analysis and 

sampling test procedures in wastewater 

regulations. These changes will help 

provide additional flexibility to the 

regulated community and laboratories 

in their selection of analytical methods 

(test procedures) for use in Clean Water 

Act programs. EPA requested that 

public comments on the proposal be 

submitted on or before November 22, 

2010 (a 60-day comment period). Since 

publication, the Agency has received 

several requests for additional time to 

submit comments. EPA is extending the 

period of time in which the Agency will 

accept public comments on the proposal 

for an additional 30 days. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published September 23, 

2010, at 75 FR 58024 is extended. 

Comments must be received on or 

before December 22, 2010. Comments 

postmarked after this date may not be 

considered. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2010–0192, by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC) Water Docket, MC 28221T; 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0921. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS