83_FR_50018 83 FR 49826 - Approval of Kansas Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Construction Permits and Approvals Program

83 FR 49826 - Approval of Kansas Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Construction Permits and Approvals Program

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 192 (October 3, 2018)

Page Range49826-49832
FR Document2018-21434

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the Kansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) 112(l) program. Specifically, these revisions implement the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter; clarify and refine applicable criteria for sources subject to the Kansas minor New Source Review permitting program; update the construction permitting program fee structure and schedule; and make minor revisions and corrections. Approval of these revisions ensures consistency between the State and federally-approved rules and ensures Federal enforceability of the State's rules.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018) 
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49826-49832]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21434]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0512; FRL-9984-66--Region 7]


Approval of Kansas Air Quality State Implementation Plans; 
Construction Permits and Approvals Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to approve revisions to the Kansas State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) 112(l) program. Specifically, these 
revisions implement the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter; clarify and refine applicable 
criteria for sources subject to the Kansas minor New Source Review

[[Page 49827]]

permitting program; update the construction permitting program fee 
structure and schedule; and make minor revisions and corrections. 
Approval of these revisions ensures consistency between the State and 
federally-approved rules and ensures Federal enforceability of the 
State's rules.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0512. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Bredehoft, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner 
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7164, or by email at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by 
addressing the following:

I. Background
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. What Part 52 revision is EPA approving?
IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approving?
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
VI. EPA's Response to Comments
VII. What action is EPA taking?
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    EPA received Kansas's SIP submission on December 5, 2016. On 
September 21, 2017, EPA proposed in the Federal Register approval of 
the SIP submission. See 82 FR 44131. In conjunction with the September 
21, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), EPA issued a direct final 
rule (DFR) approving the same SIP submission. See 82 FR 44103. However, 
in the DFR, EPA stated that if EPA received adverse comments by October 
23, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA 
received adverse comments prior to the close of the comment period, and 
therefore, EPA withdrew in the Federal Register, the DFR on November 
17, 2017. See 82 FR 54300.
    This final rule action will include the updated docket, address 
comments received, and finalize the approval of Kansas's SIP 
submission.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Kansas SIP 
and CAA 112(l) program submitted by the State of Kansas on December 5, 
2016. The SIP submission requests revisions to Kansas Administrative 
Regulation (K.A.R.) 28-19-300 that include: implementation of the New 
Source Review permitting component of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, pursuant to EPA's NSR PM2.5 
Implementation Rule (2008 NSR Rule) (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008); and 
clarification of and refining applicability criteria for sources 
subject to the minor New Source Review permitting program. Specific 
revisions include: (1) Eliminating the requirements for all Title IV 
Acid Rain sources to obtain construction permits that would not have 
otherwise been required; (2) clarifying the construction review 
requirements for sources emitting hazardous air pollutants, or sources 
subject to standards promulgated by the EPA; (3) eliminating the 
requirement for sources to obtain an approval solely due to being 
subject to standards promulgated by the EPA without regard to emissions 
for insignificant activities; and making minor revisions and 
corrections. The SIP submission also includes the following revisions 
to K.A.R. 28-19-304: (1) Updating the construction permitting program 
fee structure from an estimated capital cost mechanism to one based on 
complexity of source and permit type and (2) updating the fee schedule 
to bring in sufficient revenue to adequately administer the Kansas Air 
Quality Act.

III. What Part 52 revision is EPA approving?

    EPA is approving requested revisions to the Kansas SIP relating to 
the following:
     Construction Permits and Approvals. Kansas Administrative 
Regulations 28-19-300. Applicability; and
     Construction Permits and Approvals. Kansas Administrative 
Regulations 28-19-304. Fees.
    EPA has conducted analysis on the State's revisions and has found 
that the revisions ensure consistency between the State and federally-
approved rules and ensures Federal enforceability of the State's rules. 
Additional information on the EPA's analysis can be found in the 
Technical Support Document (TSD) included in this docket.

IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approving?

    EPA is also taking final action to approve a portion of K.A.R. 28-
19-300 under the CAA 112(l) program pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
E, as requested by the State of Kansas on April 19, 2017. The State of 
Kansas is requesting that the applicable portions of K.A.R. 28-19-300 
pertaining to limiting the potential-to-emit of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs) be approved under CAA 112(l) and 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, in addition to being approved under the SIP.\1\ 
Specifically, K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) and (3) as well as K.A.R. 28-19-
300(b)(4) through (6) are also approved under CAA section 112(l) 
because they require permits or approvals for hazardous air pollutants 
that may limit the potential-to-emit of hazardous air pollutants by 
establishing permit conditions that are federally-enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Implementation Plan provisions approved under section 
110 of the Clean Air Act are for criteria pollutants. Provisions 
related to hazardous air pollutants are approved under section 112 
of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also 
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The 
State provided public notice of this SIP revision from August 11, 2016, 
to October 13, 2016, and received one comment letter. The SIP revision 
was not further revised by the State based on public comment prior to 
its submission to EPA. In addition, as explained above and in more 
detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, 
the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, 
including section 110 and the implementing regulations.

VI. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened September 
21, 2017, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and 
closed on October 23, 2017. During this period, EPA received adverse 
comments, which are addressed below.
    Comment 1:
    The commenter stated that SIPs are required to have legally 
enforceable procedures to prevent the construction

[[Page 49828]]

or modification of a source that would violate the control strategy or 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. 40 CFR 
51.160(a). The commenter is specifically concerned about the EPA 
approval of a new emissions threshold, in K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(1)(G), of 
10 tons per year of directly emitted PM2.5 without 
additional analysis by the State on whether the emissions threshold 
would allow sources to construct or modify, resulting in interference 
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or a violation of the 
control strategy, as required by 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b). Further, the 
commenter is concerned regarding applicability of the minor NSR rules 
for modifications of existing sources based on increases in potential 
to emit (PTE). The commenter is concerned that the actual emissions 
increase of PM2.5 could be much greater than 10 tons per 
year and would not trigger minor NSR permitting requirements. According 
to the commenter, the revisions will essentially exempt minor 
modifications from permitting requirements at existing major sources, 
and only major modifications under the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment NSR programs will obtain review 
for impacts on the NAAQS.
    The commenter asserts that States are required to have NSR programs 
that include, but are not limited to, major NSR and PSD programs 
pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA. The commenter is concerned 
that Kansas' 10 ton per year PM2.5 applicability emissions 
threshold could allow for increased deterioration in air quality over 
PSD baseline concentrations. Thus, the commenter believes that the EPA 
cannot approve such a SIP revision without a demonstration that the SIP 
revision will not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable 
PSD increment pursuant to section 110(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR 
51.166(a)(2).
    For these reasons, the commenter believes that the EPA must 
disapprove the 10 ton per year PM2.5 applicability emission 
thresholds for Kansas's minor NSR permitting program.
    Response 1:
    In this SIP revision, Kansas is modifying its regulations to 
implement the fine particulate matter standard by clarifying and 
refining the applicability criteria for sources subject to the Kansas 
minor New Source Review permitting program. Kansas's addition of the 10 
ton per year threshold for directly emitted PM2.5 in the 
minor source New Source Review program requires a facility to obtain a 
construction permit for directly emitted PM2.5 is consistent 
with the previously approved approach of using a potential-to-emit (or 
the increase in the potential-to-emit) basis EPA considers a 10 ton per 
year threshold for direct PM2.5 to be reasonable because the 
State is consistent with the significant emission rates \2\ included in 
EPA's PSD preconstruction permitting program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 73 FR 28332.
    \3\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to this action, Kansas used the threshold value of 25 tons 
per year or PM10 threshold value of 15 tons per year (K.A.R. 
28-19-300(1)(A)) to evaluate direct PM2.5. With this 
rulemaking, Kansas has created a separate threshold for directly 
emitted PM2.5 of 10 tons per year.
    Although Kansas's minor New Source Review permitting program did 
not previously include a direct PM2.5 threshold value, 
Kansas does have overarching infrastructure to implement 
PM2.5 throughout the State. Such infrastructure, as 
previously stated, includes a SIP approved major source New Source 
Review program and a monitoring network consistent with EPA's 
monitoring regulations. In fact, based on a review of certified design 
values from the 2005-2007 to 2014-2016 timeframes, Kansas has been 
continuously monitoring attainment for both the annual and 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS EPA believes that the addition of the direct 
PM2.5 threshold in the Kansas Minor New Source Review 
permitting program strengthens Kansas's air quality regulations.
    The commenter also stated that the EPA must disapprove such a high 
minor NSR PM2.5 applicability emission threshold as the 
program could interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. 
As stated above, prior to this action, Kansas did not have a specific 
minor source threshold for directly emitted PM2.5. 
Therefore, the PM2.5 threshold value would have been the 
same as the PM threshold value of 25 tons per year (K.A.R. 28-19-300-
(1)(A)). As discussed above, even at this higher threshold value, the 
PM2.5 NAAQS was protected.
    Furthermore, in the EPA's previously referenced Technical Support 
Document \4\ for the 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP, the EPA 
stated that ``[w]ith respect to smaller sources that meet the criteria 
listed in KAR 28-19-300(b) ``Construction Permits and Approvals,'' 
Kansas has a SIP-approved permitting program.'' It further states that 
in the Technical Support Document, ``[i]f the [Air Permitting Section] 
staff determines that air contaminant emissions from a source will 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, it cannot issue 
an approval to construct or modify that source (KAR 28-19-301(d) 
``Construction Permits and Approvals; Application and Issuance''). This 
authority is granted by [Kansas Statutes Annotated] 65-3008.'' EPA 
later stated its belief ``that the Kansas SIP meets the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pages 5 and 6 of the Technical Support Document found in 
docket number: EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0313-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon all the above factors, the EPA believes that this action 
does not relax the SIP and that the air quality will be maintained with 
the addition of the PM2.5 threshold value requiring 
facilities to obtain a construction permit.
    Comment 2:
    The commenter stated that by removing the term ``affected source'' 
from K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) of the currently-approved Kansas SIP, the 
EPA is significantly relaxing the Kansas minor New Source Review 
permitting rules. ``Affected source'' is defined in K.A.R. 28-19-200 of 
the EPA-approved SIP as ``a stationary source that includes one or more 
affected units subject to emission reduction requirements or 
limitations under title IV of the Federal clean air act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 
et seq., `acid deposition control.' '' The commenter is concerned that 
the revised permitting rules for modifications of construction permits 
will increase the potential-to-emit of an electrical generating unit 
(EGU) to the level of a PSD major modification significance level or 
greater, when historically, the permitting rules required permits for 
modifications at any EGU.
    The commenter stated that all modifications at most EGUs were 
subject to Kansas' minor NSR permitting program pursuant to K.A.R. 28-
19-300(a)(2) of the currently-approved Kansas SIP, irrespective of the 
tons per year emission thresholds defining minor NSR applicability in 
K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(1).
    The commenter was concerned that modifications at existing EGUs 
will go entirely unreviewed unless such modifications are a major 
modification under PSD or nonattainment NSR permitting. The commenter 
further stated that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment 
(KDHE) has not submitted any assessment of impacts on the NAAQS or on 
other requirements of the CAA to support approval of such a significant 
SIP relaxation, pursuant to section 110(l) of the CAA and thus, EPA 
must

[[Page 49829]]

disapprove the revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300 that remove the provision 
in K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2).
    Response 2:
    Kansas has a long-standing interpretation that was articulated in a 
2015 technical guidance document.\5\ The guidance states ``[K.A.R. 28-
19-300] was originally written in 1993. The purpose of this guidance 
document is to ensure that the rule is consistently applied in 
accordance with the original intent of the regulation.'' The document 
further states KDHE's interpretation that ``K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) does 
not require a permit for a modification to an Acid Rain Source solely 
due to the unit already being an Acid Rain Source, although 
requirements for construction permits or approvals can be triggered by 
emission increases above permit or approval thresholds, requirements of 
K.A.R. 28-19-350, or other permit or approval triggers.'' Thus, KDHE 
has interpreted K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) to only apply to constructions 
or modifications that result in emission increases. KDHE did not intend 
to require Title IV acid rain sources to obtain construction permits 
for any modification, including modifications that result in emission 
decreases. Therefore, this SIP revision is an administrative change to 
align the Federally-approved SIP with Kansas's current practices. 
Additionally, the CAA does not require construction permits for every 
modification at acid rain sources. Because Kansas's monitoring network 
is currently monitoring attainment for all NAAQS, the EPA does not 
believe this revision will cause air quality to degrade in Kansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Kansas Technical Guidance Document--BOA 2015-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3:
    The commenter stated that Kansas has changed the requirements for 
preconstruction approval to only apply to ``construction,'' 
``modification,'' or ``reconstruction'' of such sources subject to New 
Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), or Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) as those terms are defined in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 
and 63, respectively. The commenter further focused on the terms 
``modification'' and ``modify'' and expressed concern that this change 
in the definition of ``modification'' will significantly reduce the 
number of sources subject to Kansas preconstruction approval and 
significantly decreases the likelihood that Kansas will identify a 
modified source as potentially contributing to air pollution within the 
State and require a minor NSR permit pursuant to K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(2) 
and 28-19-300(a)(5). Specifically, the commenter stated that the 
definition of ``modification'' under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 is 
much less inclusive than the definition of ``modification'' as that 
term is used in Kansas' minor NSR rules. Thus, the commenter asserts, 
with the proposed revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(3), the large 
majority of modifications at existing sources subject to NSPS, NESHAPs, 
or MACT standards will no longer need to receive KDHE approval prior to 
construction, and the public will lose KDHE's preconstruction 
evaluation of whether a modified source should still be required to 
obtain a preconstruction permit pursuant to K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(2) and 
28-19-300(a)(5) despite being exempt under K.A.R. 28-19-300(a). The 
commenter believes that this reflects a significant relaxation in 
Kansas' minor NSR permitting rules. Therefore, the commenter believes 
that the EPA must disapprove the revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300 that 
revises and relaxes K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(3).
    Response 3:
    EPA disagrees with the commenter that Kansas definition of 
``modification'' represents a relaxation in Kansas' permitting rules. 
The revision to the definition simply excludes modifications which do 
not increase emissions at or above the listed thresholds. Kansas had a 
2015 technical guidance document \6\ which states that Kansas's intent 
was to require a construction approval if the proposed project 
``includes construction or modification that will cause an increase in 
emissions in an amount equal to or in excess of any of these listed 
thresholds.'' \7\ Within Kansas's public hearing statement from October 
13, 2016, it was stated that the proposed change is being done to 
``eliminate the requirement for sources to obtain an approval solely 
due to being subject to standards promulgated by the EPA without regard 
to emissions for insignificant activities.'' Due to Kansas's long-
standing interpretation, the EPA believes that this revision will not 
result in air quality degradation and thus will not result in a 
relaxation in how Kansas has applied the SIP rules. The EPA has 
concluded that this revision to Kansas SIP will not interfere with 
attainment of the NAAQS or with any other requirement of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Kansas Technical Guidance Document--BOA 2015-01.
    \7\ Page 5 of Construction Permits and Approvals, K.A.R. 28-19-
300, Technical Guidance Document--BOA 2015-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4:
    The commenter is concerned that the revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-
300(a)(2) and K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(3) will relax the SIP. The commenter 
further expressed other concerns: (1) With respect to the minor NSR 
program, the applicability to the minor NSR permitting program in 
Kansas will be whittled down to just those new sources and 
modifications to existing sources that increase the PTE to emissions 
levels at or above the tons per year thresholds in K.A.R. 28-19-
300(a)(1) which are the same as the PSD significance emission levels; 
\8\ (2) several new and revised NAAQS have been promulgated since the 
EPA's initial 1995 \9\ approval of this section, and there has been no 
analysis as to whether the emission applicability thresholds in Kansas' 
minor NSR permitting program are adequate to ensure that no new or 
modified source will be constructed if it would interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or violate the control strategy; 
(3) if EPA's determination that the tons per year emissions thresholds 
are ``de minimis'' under PSD permitting, it does not address EPA's 
obligation to ensure that Kansas' minor NSR program will not interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. The commenter stated that 
the NSR program was intended to be a basic backstop on threats to 
attaining and maintaining the NAAQS and thus is an important component 
of the SIP and the EPA cannot approve exemptions from such a minor NSR 
program unless it is shown that the exemptions are truly de minimis to 
the purposes of that program; and (4) EPA has previously required minor 
NSR programs to use much smaller emission thresholds for applicability 
than the major modification significant impact levels. The commenter 
referenced a 2012 Montana Federal Register action\10\ regarding a ``de 
minimis'' increase to Montana's minor NSR program where EPA received 
and reviewed CAA section 110(l) and 193 demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i).
    \9\ 50 FR 36361-36364 (July 17, 1995)
    \10\ 77 FR 7531-7534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the commenter believes that the EPA cannot 
approve these Kansas minor NSR revisions without evaluating and 
demonstrating to the public that Kansas' minor NSR program, as revised, 
will still meet the mandates of section 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160.
    Response 4:

[[Page 49830]]

    EPA does not believe the proposed changes constitute a relaxation 
to Kansas's SIP. As noted by the commenter, these thresholds, with the 
exception of PM2.5, were approved into the SIP in 1995. Even 
though Kansas did not provide any modeling to support this action, with 
the exception of the 2008 lead ambient air quality standard, Kansas is 
designated attainment or unclassifiable for all ambient air quality 
standards, including the 2012 PM2.5 standard. EPA views this 
action as the State's effort to ensure consistency between the State's 
regulations, which use the major NSR significance levels as minor NSR 
applicability thresholds, and the EPA's significance levels for 
specific pollutants, such as PM2.5.
    The proposed revisions are to Kansas's minor source NSR program and 
States are allowed discretion in how they develop their own minor 
source NSR program. With regard to the commenter's assertion that there 
was no analysis as to whether the emissions applicability thresholds in 
Kansas' minor NSR permitting program are adequate to ensure it will not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, the EPA reviews 
the State's minor NSR program routinely as part of the `infrastructure' 
SIPs. For instance, as recently as September 9, 2016,\11\ the EPA 
stated that ``[i]f the [Air Permitting Section] staff determines that 
air contaminant emissions from a source will interfere with attainment 
or maintenance of the NAAQS, it cannot issue an approval to construct 
or modify that source.'' EPA further stated that ``EPA is proposing to 
approve Kansas' infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS with respect to the general requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C) 
to include the program in the SIP that regulates the modification and 
construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the 
NAAQS are achieved.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 81 FR 62373.
    \12\ EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0313-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the commenter's assertion that the State's minor 
NSR program needs to comply with CAA 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160 as 
a backstop, in the same September 9, 2016 TSD,\13\ the EPA has also 
determined that the State has in place the ability to regulate NSR to 
comply with CAA 110(a)(2)(C). See the Technical Support Document 
associated with that rulemaking and EPA's response to Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 81 FR 62373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the commenter's reference to Montana's SIP revision, 
EPA approval of one de minimis exemption threshold level in Montana 
does not preclude the approval of a different threshold in another 
State. Each State's universe of minor NSR sources, topography, 
meteorology, and ambient air quality conditions are unique and 
influence the types of exemptions that would not interfere with the 
minor NSR program's ability to meet the applicable Federal 
requirements. See, e.g., June 29, 2018, 83 FR 30553 (Arkansas' SIP 
revision).
    In response to the comment that EPA cannot approve exemptions 
without proving the exemptions are ``de minimis,'' the minor NSR SIP 
rules do not preclude EPA from approving exemptions from a minor NSR 
program, provided that the proposed revisions to the Kansas minor NSR 
program are approvable and do not result in a violation of the control 
strategy or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a national 
standard. The CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires regulation of the 
modification or construction of any stationary source within the area 
as necessary (emphasis added) to assure that the standards are 
achieved. As such, the CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) and the minor NSR 
SIP rules found at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165, as well as case 
law,\14\ allow exemptions from a minor NSR permitting program. In cases 
such as this, where the minor NSR SIP is being revised, the State must 
also demonstrate that the revisions meet the requirements of CAA 
section 110(l). Similar to the provisions of the Act and rules 
discussed above, section 110(l) requires that EPA cannot approve 
revisions to the Kansas minor NSR SIP unless EPA finds that the changes 
would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress, as well as any other 
applicable statutory requirement. The clear reading of the Act and the 
EPA rules are that EPA can approve exemptions to the Kansas minor NSR 
SIP program as long as it finds these exemptions will not interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS or other control strategy. 
See, e.g., June 29, 2018, 83 FR 30553 (approving Arkansas' SIP 
revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Alabama Power Company, et al., Petitioners,* v. Douglas M. 
Costle, As Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 
Respondents,*Sierra Club, et al., Intervenors.*, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. 
Cir. 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons and those outlined in the EPA's responses to 
comments 2 and 3 above, the EPA is approving the SIP revisions.
    Comment 5:
    EPA failed to address the March 28, 2017 Executive Order on 
promoting energy independence and economic growth. This order requires 
EPA to assess whether this new regulation imposes burdens on the energy 
sector or economic growth in general. The commenter asserts that 
requiring construction permits for sources will cause an impact in the 
energy sector and impose economic burdens on regulated facilities.
    Response 5:
    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State actions, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. The EPA cannot 
consider disapproving a SIP submission or require any changes based on 
the March 28, 2017, executive order.

VII. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to amend the Kansas SIP and CAA 112(l) 
program by approving the State's request to amend K.A.R. 28-19-300 
Construction Permits and Approvals--Applicability and to amend the 
Kansas SIP by approving K.A.R. 28-19-304 Construction Permits and 
Approvals--Fees. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency 
between State and federally approved rules. EPA has determined that 
these changes will not adversely impact air quality.

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 
CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the 
Kansas Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set 
forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials 
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion 
in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference 
by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 
110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking 
of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next 
update to the SIP compilation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

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

[[Page 49831]]

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not 
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 3, 2018. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 26, 2018.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 
as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart R Kansas

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.870 by revising the table entries in paragraph (c) 
for ``K.A.R. 28-19-300'' and ``K.A.R 28-19-304'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.870   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                             EPA-Approved Kansas Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
          Kansas citation                   Title          effective date             EPA approval date                         Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Kansas Department of Health and Environment
                                                 Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Construction Permits and Approvals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K.A.R. 28-19-300..................  Applicability........      11/18/2016  11/3/2018, [Insert Federal Register     .....................................
                                                                            citation].
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
K.A.R. 28-19-304..................  Fees.................      11/18/2016  11/3/2018, [Insert Federal Register     .....................................
                                                                            citation].
 

[[Page 49832]]

 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-21434 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

49826 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations (3) Determining whether a specific use ■ 25. Add § 721.11171 to subpart E to operation, general and local ventilation) is subject to this section. The provisions read as follows: or administrative control measures (e.g., of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph workplace policies and procedures) (a)(2)(iii) of this section. § 721.11171 Polymer of aliphatic shall be considered and implemented to dicarboxylic acid and dicyclo alkane amine ■ 24. Add § 721.11170 to subpart E to (generic). prevent exposures, where feasible), and read as follows: (c). (a) Chemical substance and (ii) Hazard communication. § 721.11170 Naphthalene trisulfonic acid significant new uses subject to reporting. Requirements as specified in § 721.72(a) sodium salt (generic). (1) The chemical substance identified through (d), (f), (g)(1)(i), (eye and (a) Chemical substance and generically as polymer of aliphatic respiratory irritation), (g)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), significant new uses subject to reporting. dicarboxylic acid and dicyclo alkane (v), and (g)(5). Alternative hazard and (1) The chemical substance identified amine (P–17–327) is subject to reporting warning statements that meet the generically as naphthalene trisulfonic under this section for the significant criteria of the Globally Harmonized acid sodium salt (P–17–321) is subject new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) System and OSHA Hazard to reporting under this section for the of this section. The requirements of this Communication Standard may be used. significant new uses described in section do not apply to quantities of the (iii) Industrial, commercial, and paragraph (a)(2) of this section. substance after they have been reacted consumer activities. Requirements as (2) The significant new uses are: (cured). specified in § 721.80. It is a significant (i) Protection in the workplace. (2) The significant new uses are: new use to manufacture, process, or use Requirements as specified in (i) Industrial, commercial, and the substance for consumer use or for § 721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (iv), (a)(3), (a)(4), consumer activities. Requirements as commercial uses that could introduce (a)(5)(respirators must provide a specified in § 721.80. It is a significant the substance into a consumer setting. It National Institute for Occupational new use to manufacture (includes is a significant new use to manufacture, Safety and Health assigned protection import) the substance to have an average process, or use the substance in any factor of at least 50), (when determining molecular weight of greater than 10,000 manner that generates a dust, mist, or which persons are reasonable likely to Daltons. aerosol. be exposed as required for (ii) [Reserved] (b) Specific requirements. The § 721.63(a)(1), engineering control (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part measures (e.g., enclosure or provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified confinement of the operation, general apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph (b). and local ventilation) or administrative by this paragraph (b). (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping control measures (e.g., workplace (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in policies and procedures) shall be requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (i) are applicable to considered and implemented to prevent § 721.125(a) through (c) and (i) are manufacturers, importers, and exposures, where feasible), applicable to manufacturers, importers, processors of this substance. (b)(concentration set at 1.0%), and (c). and processors of this substance. (2) Limitations or revocation of (ii) Hazard communication. (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The Requirements as specified in § 721.72(a) certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this through (e)(concentration set at 1.0%), provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. (f), (g)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), (ix), (g)(2)(i), (ii), section. [FR Doc. 2018–21194 Filed 10–2–18; 8:45 am] (iii), (iv), (v), and (g)(5). Alternative ■ 26. Add § 721.11172 to subpart E to BILLING CODE 6560–50–P hazard and warning statements that read as follows: meet the criteria of the Globally Harmonized System and OSHA Hazard § 721.11172 Hexanedioic acid, polymer with trifunctional polyol, 1,1′-methylenebis ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Communication Standard may be used. AGENCY (iii) Industrial, commercial, and [isocyanatobenzene], and 2,2′-oxybis [ethanol] (generic). consumer activities. Requirements as 40 CFR Part 52 specified in § 721.80(q) and (t). It is a (a) Chemical substance and significant new use to manufacture, significant new uses subject to reporting. [EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0512; FRL–9984– (1) The chemical substance identified 66—Region 7] process, or use the substance in any manner that generates a vapor, mist, or generically as hexanedioic acid, polymer with trifunctional polyol, 1,1′- Approval of Kansas Air Quality State aerosol. Implementation Plans; Construction (b) Specific requirements. The methylenebis [isocyanatobenzene], and 2,2′-oxybis [ethanol] (P–17–330) is Permits and Approvals Program provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified subject to reporting under this section AGENCY: Environmental Protection by this paragraph (b). for the significant new uses described in Agency (EPA). (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The ACTION: Final rule. requirements as specified in requirements of this section do not § 721.125(a) through (i) are applicable to apply to quantities of the substance after SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection manufacturers, importers, and they have been reacted (cured). Agency (EPA) is taking final action to processors of this substance. (2) The significant new uses are: approve revisions to the Kansas State (2) Limitations or revocation of (i) Protection in the workplace. Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Requirements as specified in Clean Air Act (CAA) 112(l) program. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this § 721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), Specifically, these revisions implement section. (a)(3), (when determining which the revised National Ambient Air (3) Determining whether a specific use persons are reasonable likely to be Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine is subject to this section. The provisions exposed as required for § 721.63(a)(1), particulate matter; clarify and refine of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph engineering control measures (e.g., applicable criteria for sources subject to (a)(2)(iii) of this section. enclosure or confinement of the the Kansas minor New Source Review VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:40 Oct 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM 03OCR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 49827 permitting program; update the therefore, EPA withdrew in the Federal and ensures Federal enforceability of construction permitting program fee Register, the DFR on November 17, the State’s rules. Additional information structure and schedule; and make minor 2017. See 82 FR 54300. on the EPA’s analysis can be found in revisions and corrections. Approval of This final rule action will include the the Technical Support Document (TSD) these revisions ensures consistency updated docket, address comments included in this docket. between the State and federally- received, and finalize the approval of Kansas’s SIP submission. IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approved rules and ensures Federal approving? enforceability of the State’s rules. II. What is being addressed in this DATES: This final rule is effective on EPA is also taking final action to document? approve a portion of K.A.R. 28–19–300 November 2, 2018. EPA is taking final action to approve under the CAA 112(l) program pursuant ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a revisions to the Kansas SIP and CAA to 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, as docket for this action under Docket ID 112(l) program submitted by the State of requested by the State of Kansas on No. EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0512. All Kansas on December 5, 2016. The SIP April 19, 2017. The State of Kansas is documents in the docket are listed on submission requests revisions to Kansas requesting that the applicable portions the https://www.regulations.gov Administrative Regulation (K.A.R.) 28– of K.A.R. 28–19–300 pertaining to website. Although listed in the index, 19–300 that include: implementation of limiting the potential-to-emit of some information is not publicly the New Source Review permitting hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) be available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. component of section 110(a)(2)(C) for approved under CAA 112(l) and 40 CFR Certain other material, such as the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, part 63, subpart E, in addition to being copyrighted material, is not placed on pursuant to EPA’s NSR PM2.5 approved under the SIP.1 Specifically, the internet and will be publicly Implementation Rule (2008 NSR Rule) K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2) and (3) as well available only in hard copy form. (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008); and as K.A.R. 28–19–300(b)(4) through (6) Publicly available docket materials are clarification of and refining are also approved under CAA section available through https:// applicability criteria for sources subject 112(l) because they require permits or www.regulations.gov or please contact to the minor New Source Review approvals for hazardous air pollutants the person identified in the FOR FURTHER permitting program. Specific revisions that may limit the potential-to-emit of INFORMATION CONTACT section for include: (1) Eliminating the hazardous air pollutants by establishing additional information. requirements for all Title IV Acid Rain permit conditions that are federally- sources to obtain construction permits enforceable. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: that would not have otherwise been V. Have the requirements for approval Deborah Bredehoft, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and required; (2) clarifying the construction of a SIP revision been met? Development Branch, 11201 Renner review requirements for sources emitting hazardous air pollutants, or The State submission has met the Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at public notice requirements for SIP (913) 551–7164, or by email at sources subject to standards promulgated by the EPA; (3) eliminating submissions in accordance with 40 CFR Bredehoft.Deborah@epa.gov. 51.102. The submission also satisfied the requirement for sources to obtain an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part approval solely due to being subject to Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ standards promulgated by the EPA 51, appendix V. The State provided and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section without regard to emissions for public notice of this SIP revision from provides additional information by insignificant activities; and making August 11, 2016, to October 13, 2016, addressing the following: minor revisions and corrections. The and received one comment letter. The I. Background SIP submission also includes the SIP revision was not further revised by II. What is being addressed in this document? following revisions to K.A.R. 28–19– the State based on public comment prior III. What Part 52 revision is EPA approving? 304: (1) Updating the construction to its submission to EPA. In addition, as IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approving? explained above and in more detail in V. Have the requirements for approval of a permitting program fee structure from an estimated capital cost mechanism to the technical support document which SIP revision been met? VI. EPA’s Response to Comments one based on complexity of source and is part of this docket, the revision meets VII. What action is EPA taking? permit type and (2) updating the fee the substantive SIP requirements of the VIII. Incorporation by Reference schedule to bring in sufficient revenue CAA, including section 110 and the IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews to adequately administer the Kansas Air implementing regulations. I. Background Quality Act. VI. EPA’s Response to Comments EPA received Kansas’s SIP III. What Part 52 revision is EPA The public comment period on EPA’s submission on December 5, 2016. On approving? proposed rule opened September 21, September 21, 2017, EPA proposed in EPA is approving requested revisions 2017, the date of its publication in the the Federal Register approval of the SIP to the Kansas SIP relating to the Federal Register, and closed on October submission. See 82 FR 44131. In following: 23, 2017. During this period, EPA conjunction with the September 21, • Construction Permits and received adverse comments, which are 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking Approvals. Kansas Administrative addressed below. (NPR), EPA issued a direct final rule Regulations 28–19–300. Applicability; Comment 1: (DFR) approving the same SIP and The commenter stated that SIPs are submission. See 82 FR 44103. However, • Construction Permits and required to have legally enforceable daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES in the DFR, EPA stated that if EPA Approvals. Kansas Administrative procedures to prevent the construction received adverse comments by October Regulations 28–19–304. Fees. 1 State Implementation Plan provisions approved 23, 2017, the action would be EPA has conducted analysis on the under section 110 of the Clean Air Act are for withdrawn and not take effect. EPA State’s revisions and has found that the criteria pollutants. Provisions related to hazardous received adverse comments prior to the revisions ensure consistency between air pollutants are approved under section 112 of the close of the comment period, and the State and federally-approved rules Clean Air Act. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:40 Oct 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM 03OCR1

49828 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations or modification of a source that would emitted PM2.5 is consistent with the that in the Technical Support violate the control strategy or interfere previously approved approach of using Document, ‘‘[i]f the [Air Permitting with attainment or maintenance of the a potential-to-emit (or the increase in Section] staff determines that air NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.160(a). The the potential-to-emit) basis EPA contaminant emissions from a source commenter is specifically concerned considers a 10 ton per year threshold for will interfere with attainment or about the EPA approval of a new direct PM2.5 to be reasonable because maintenance of the NAAQS, it cannot emissions threshold, in K.A.R. 28–19– the State is consistent with the issue an approval to construct or modify 300(a)(1)(G), of 10 tons per year of significant emission rates 2 included in that source (KAR 28–19–301(d) directly emitted PM2.5 without EPA’s PSD preconstruction permitting ‘‘Construction Permits and Approvals; additional analysis by the State on program.3 Application and Issuance’’). This whether the emissions threshold would Prior to this action, Kansas used the authority is granted by [Kansas Statutes allow sources to construct or modify, threshold value of 25 tons per year or Annotated] 65–3008.’’ EPA later stated resulting in interference with attainment PM10 threshold value of 15 tons per year its belief ‘‘that the Kansas SIP meets the or maintenance of the NAAQS or a (K.A.R. 28–19–300(1)(A)) to evaluate requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for violation of the control strategy, as direct PM2.5. With this rulemaking, the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ required by 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b). Kansas has created a separate threshold Based upon all the above factors, the Further, the commenter is concerned for directly emitted PM2.5 of 10 tons per EPA believes that this action does not regarding applicability of the minor year. relax the SIP and that the air quality NSR rules for modifications of existing Although Kansas’s minor New Source will be maintained with the addition of sources based on increases in potential Review permitting program did not the PM2.5 threshold value requiring to emit (PTE). The commenter is previously include a direct PM2.5 facilities to obtain a construction concerned that the actual emissions threshold value, Kansas does have permit. increase of PM2.5 could be much greater overarching infrastructure to implement Comment 2: than 10 tons per year and would not PM2.5 throughout the State. Such The commenter stated that by trigger minor NSR permitting infrastructure, as previously stated, removing the term ‘‘affected source’’ requirements. According to the includes a SIP approved major source from K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2) of the commenter, the revisions will New Source Review program and a currently-approved Kansas SIP, the EPA essentially exempt minor modifications monitoring network consistent with is significantly relaxing the Kansas from permitting requirements at existing EPA’s monitoring regulations. In fact, minor New Source Review permitting major sources, and only major based on a review of certified design rules. ‘‘Affected source’’ is defined in modifications under the Prevention of values from the 2005–2007 to 2014– K.A.R. 28–19–200 of the EPA-approved Significant Deterioration (PSD) or 2016 timeframes, Kansas has been SIP as ‘‘a stationary source that includes nonattainment NSR programs will continuously monitoring attainment for one or more affected units subject to obtain review for impacts on the emission reduction requirements or both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. limitations under title IV of the Federal NAAQS EPA believes that the addition The commenter asserts that States are clean air act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., of the direct PM2.5 threshold in the required to have NSR programs that ‘acid deposition control.’ ’’ The Kansas Minor New Source Review include, but are not limited to, major commenter is concerned that the revised permitting program strengthens NSR and PSD programs pursuant to permitting rules for modifications of Kansas’s air quality regulations. section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA. The construction permits will increase the The commenter also stated that the commenter is concerned that Kansas’ 10 potential-to-emit of an electrical EPA must disapprove such a high minor ton per year PM2.5 applicability generating unit (EGU) to the level of a NSR PM2.5 applicability emission emissions threshold could allow for PSD major modification significance threshold as the program could interfere increased deterioration in air quality level or greater, when historically, the with attainment and maintenance of the over PSD baseline concentrations. Thus, permitting rules required permits for NAAQS. As stated above, prior to this the commenter believes that the EPA modifications at any EGU. action, Kansas did not have a specific The commenter stated that all cannot approve such a SIP revision minor source threshold for directly without a demonstration that the SIP modifications at most EGUs were emitted PM2.5. Therefore, the PM2.5 subject to Kansas’ minor NSR permitting revision will not cause or contribute to threshold value would have been the a violation of the applicable PSD program pursuant to K.A.R. 28–19– same as the PM threshold value of 25 300(a)(2) of the currently-approved increment pursuant to section 110(l) of tons per year (K.A.R. 28–19–300–(1)(A)). the CAA and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(2). Kansas SIP, irrespective of the tons per As discussed above, even at this higher year emission thresholds defining minor For these reasons, the commenter threshold value, the PM2.5 NAAQS was NSR applicability in K.A.R. 28–19– believes that the EPA must disapprove protected. 300(a)(1). the 10 ton per year PM2.5 applicability Furthermore, in the EPA’s previously The commenter was concerned that emission thresholds for Kansas’s minor referenced Technical Support modifications at existing EGUs will go NSR permitting program. Response 1: Document 4 for the 2012 PM2.5 entirely unreviewed unless such In this SIP revision, Kansas is infrastructure SIP, the EPA stated that modifications are a major modification modifying its regulations to implement ‘‘[w]ith respect to smaller sources that under PSD or nonattainment NSR the fine particulate matter standard by meet the criteria listed in KAR 28–19– permitting. The commenter further clarifying and refining the applicability 300(b) ‘‘Construction Permits and stated that the Kansas Department of criteria for sources subject to the Kansas Approvals,’’ Kansas has a SIP-approved Health and Environment (KDHE) has daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES minor New Source Review permitting permitting program.’’ It further states not submitted any assessment of program. Kansas’s addition of the 10 ton 2 See impacts on the NAAQS or on other 73 FR 28332. per year threshold for directly emitted 3 40 requirements of the CAA to support CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i). PM2.5 in the minor source New Source 4 Pages 5 and 6 of the Technical Support approval of such a significant SIP Review program requires a facility to Document found in docket number: EPA–R07– relaxation, pursuant to section 110(l) of obtain a construction permit for directly OAR–2016–0313–0004. the CAA and thus, EPA must VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:40 Oct 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM 03OCR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 49829 disapprove the revisions to K.A.R. 28– pollution within the State and require a the NAAQS or with any other 19–300 that remove the provision in minor NSR permit pursuant to K.A.R. requirement of the Act. K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2). 28–19–300(b)(2) and 28–19–300(a)(5). Comment 4: Response 2: Specifically, the commenter stated that The commenter is concerned that the Kansas has a long-standing the definition of ‘‘modification’’ under revisions to K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2) and interpretation that was articulated in a 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 is much less K.A.R. 28–19–300(b)(3) will relax the 2015 technical guidance document.5 inclusive than the definition of SIP. The commenter further expressed The guidance states ‘‘[K.A.R. 28–19– ‘‘modification’’ as that term is used in other concerns: (1) With respect to the 300] was originally written in 1993. The Kansas’ minor NSR rules. Thus, the minor NSR program, the applicability to purpose of this guidance document is to commenter asserts, with the proposed the minor NSR permitting program in ensure that the rule is consistently revisions to K.A.R. 28–19–300(b)(3), the Kansas will be whittled down to just applied in accordance with the original large majority of modifications at those new sources and modifications to intent of the regulation.’’ The document existing sources subject to NSPS, existing sources that increase the PTE to further states KDHE’s interpretation that NESHAPs, or MACT standards will no emissions levels at or above the tons per ‘‘K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2) does not longer need to receive KDHE approval year thresholds in K.A.R. 28–19– require a permit for a modification to an prior to construction, and the public 300(a)(1) which are the same as the PSD Acid Rain Source solely due to the unit will lose KDHE’s preconstruction significance emission levels; 8 (2) already being an Acid Rain Source, evaluation of whether a modified source several new and revised NAAQS have although requirements for construction should still be required to obtain a been promulgated since the EPA’s permits or approvals can be triggered by preconstruction permit pursuant to initial 1995 9 approval of this section, emission increases above permit or K.A.R. 28–19–300(b)(2) and 28–19– and there has been no analysis as to approval thresholds, requirements of 300(a)(5) despite being exempt under whether the emission applicability K.A.R. 28–19–350, or other permit or K.A.R. 28–19–300(a). The commenter thresholds in Kansas’ minor NSR approval triggers.’’ Thus, KDHE has believes that this reflects a significant permitting program are adequate to interpreted K.A.R. 28–19–300(a)(2) to relaxation in Kansas’ minor NSR ensure that no new or modified source only apply to constructions or permitting rules. Therefore, the will be constructed if it would interfere modifications that result in emission commenter believes that the EPA must with attainment or maintenance of the increases. KDHE did not intend to disapprove the revisions to K.A.R. 28– NAAQS or violate the control strategy; require Title IV acid rain sources to 19–300 that revises and relaxes K.A.R. (3) if EPA’s determination that the tons obtain construction permits for any 28–19–300(b)(3). per year emissions thresholds are ‘‘de modification, including modifications Response 3: minimis’’ under PSD permitting, it does that result in emission decreases. not address EPA’s obligation to ensure Therefore, this SIP revision is an EPA disagrees with the commenter that Kansas’ minor NSR program will administrative change to align the that Kansas definition of ‘‘modification’’ not interfere with attainment or Federally-approved SIP with Kansas’s represents a relaxation in Kansas’ maintenance of the NAAQS. The current practices. Additionally, the CAA permitting rules. The revision to the commenter stated that the NSR program does not require construction permits definition simply excludes was intended to be a basic backstop on for every modification at acid rain modifications which do not increase threats to attaining and maintaining the sources. Because Kansas’s monitoring emissions at or above the listed NAAQS and thus is an important network is currently monitoring thresholds. Kansas had a 2015 technical component of the SIP and the EPA attainment for all NAAQS, the EPA does guidance document 6 which states that cannot approve exemptions from such a not believe this revision will cause air Kansas’s intent was to require a minor NSR program unless it is shown quality to degrade in Kansas. construction approval if the proposed Comment 3: that the exemptions are truly de project ‘‘includes construction or minimis to the purposes of that The commenter stated that Kansas has modification that will cause an increase changed the requirements for program; and (4) EPA has previously in emissions in an amount equal to or required minor NSR programs to use preconstruction approval to only apply in excess of any of these listed to ‘‘construction,’’ ‘‘modification,’’ or much smaller emission thresholds for thresholds.’’ 7 Within Kansas’s public applicability than the major ‘‘reconstruction’’ of such sources subject hearing statement from October 13, to New Source Performance Standards modification significant impact levels. 2016, it was stated that the proposed The commenter referenced a 2012 (NSPS), National Emission Standards change is being done to ‘‘eliminate the for Hazardous Air Pollutants Montana Federal Register action10 requirement for sources to obtain an regarding a ‘‘de minimis’’ increase to (NESHAPs), or Maximum Achievable approval solely due to being subject to Control Technology (MACT) as those Montana’s minor NSR program where standards promulgated by the EPA EPA received and reviewed CAA terms are defined in 40 CFR parts 60, without regard to emissions for 61, and 63, respectively. The commenter section 110(l) and 193 demonstrations. insignificant activities.’’ Due to Kansas’s For these reasons, the commenter further focused on the terms long-standing interpretation, the EPA ‘‘modification’’ and ‘‘modify’’ and believes that the EPA cannot approve believes that this revision will not result these Kansas minor NSR revisions expressed concern that this change in in air quality degradation and thus will the definition of ‘‘modification’’ will without evaluating and demonstrating not result in a relaxation in how Kansas to the public that Kansas’ minor NSR significantly reduce the number of has applied the SIP rules. The EPA has sources subject to Kansas program, as revised, will still meet the concluded that this revision to Kansas daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES preconstruction approval and mandates of section 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 SIP will not interfere with attainment of CFR 51.160. significantly decreases the likelihood that Kansas will identify a modified 6 Kansas Technical Guidance Document—BOA Response 4: source as potentially contributing to air 2015–01. 7 Page 5 of Construction Permits and Approvals, 8 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i). 5 Kansas 9 50 FR 36361–36364 (July 17, 1995) Technical Guidance Document—BOA K.A.R. 28–19–300, Technical Guidance 2015–01. Document—BOA 2015–01. 10 77 FR 7531–7534. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:40 Oct 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM 03OCR1

49830 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations EPA does not believe the proposed exemption threshold level in Montana energy independence and economic changes constitute a relaxation to does not preclude the approval of a growth. This order requires EPA to Kansas’s SIP. As noted by the different threshold in another State. assess whether this new regulation commenter, these thresholds, with the Each State’s universe of minor NSR imposes burdens on the energy sector or exception of PM2.5, were approved into sources, topography, meteorology, and economic growth in general. The the SIP in 1995. Even though Kansas did ambient air quality conditions are commenter asserts that requiring not provide any modeling to support unique and influence the types of construction permits for sources will this action, with the exception of the exemptions that would not interfere cause an impact in the energy sector and 2008 lead ambient air quality standard, with the minor NSR program’s ability to impose economic burdens on regulated Kansas is designated attainment or meet the applicable Federal facilities. unclassifiable for all ambient air quality requirements. See, e.g., June 29, 2018, Response 5: standards, including the 2012 PM2.5 83 FR 30553 (Arkansas’ SIP revision). standard. EPA views this action as the In response to the comment that EPA Under the CAA, the Administrator is State’s effort to ensure consistency cannot approve exemptions without required to approve a SIP submission between the State’s regulations, which proving the exemptions are ‘‘de that complies with the provisions of the use the major NSR significance levels as minimis,’’ the minor NSR SIP rules do Act and applicable Federal regulations. minor NSR applicability thresholds, and not preclude EPA from approving 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). the EPA’s significance levels for specific exemptions from a minor NSR program, Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the pollutants, such as PM2.5. provided that the proposed revisions to EPA’s role is to approve State actions, The proposed revisions are to the Kansas minor NSR program are provided that they meet the criteria of Kansas’s minor source NSR program approvable and do not result in a the CAA. The EPA cannot consider and States are allowed discretion in violation of the control strategy or disapproving a SIP submission or how they develop their own minor interfere with the attainment or require any changes based on the March source NSR program. With regard to the maintenance of a national standard. The 28, 2017, executive order. commenter’s assertion that there was no CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires VII. What action is EPA taking? analysis as to whether the emissions regulation of the modification or applicability thresholds in Kansas’ construction of any stationary source EPA is taking final action to amend minor NSR permitting program are within the area as necessary (emphasis the Kansas SIP and CAA 112(l) program adequate to ensure it will not interfere added) to assure that the standards are by approving the State’s request to with attainment or maintenance of the achieved. As such, the CAA at section amend K.A.R. 28–19–300 Construction NAAQS, the EPA reviews the State’s 110(a)(2)(C) and the minor NSR SIP Permits and Approvals—Applicability minor NSR program routinely as part of rules found at 40 CFR 51.160 through and to amend the Kansas SIP by the ‘infrastructure’ SIPs. For instance, as 51.165, as well as case law,14 allow approving K.A.R. 28–19–304 recently as September 9, 2016,11 the exemptions from a minor NSR Construction Permits and Approvals— EPA stated that ‘‘[i]f the [Air Permitting permitting program. In cases such as Fees. Approval of these revisions will Section] staff determines that air this, where the minor NSR SIP is being ensure consistency between State and contaminant emissions from a source revised, the State must also demonstrate federally approved rules. EPA has will interfere with attainment or that the revisions meet the requirements determined that these changes will not maintenance of the NAAQS, it cannot of CAA section 110(l). Similar to the adversely impact air quality. issue an approval to construct or modify provisions of the Act and rules that source.’’ EPA further stated that discussed above, section 110(l) requires VIII. Incorporation by Reference ‘‘EPA is proposing to approve Kansas’ that EPA cannot approve revisions to In this document, EPA is finalizing infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual the Kansas minor NSR SIP unless EPA regulatory text that includes PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the finds that the changes would not incorporation by reference. In general requirements in section interfere with any applicable accordance with the requirements of 1 110(a)(2)(C) to include the program in requirement concerning attainment and CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the the SIP that regulates the modification reasonable further progress, as well as incorporation by reference of the Kansas and construction of any stationary any other applicable statutory Regulations described in the source as necessary to assure that the requirement. The clear reading of the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth NAAQS are achieved.’’ 12 Act and the EPA rules are that EPA can below. EPA has made, and will continue With respect to the commenter’s approve exemptions to the Kansas to make, these materials generally assertion that the State’s minor NSR minor NSR SIP program as long as it available through www.regulations.gov program needs to comply with CAA finds these exemptions will not interfere and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160 as a with attainment or maintenance of a contact the person identified in the FOR backstop, in the same September 9, 2016 NAAQS or other control strategy. See, FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of TSD,13 the EPA has also determined that e.g., June 29, 2018, 83 FR 30553 this preamble for more information). the State has in place the ability to (approving Arkansas’ SIP revision). regulate NSR to comply with CAA For these reasons and those outlined Therefore, these materials have been 110(a)(2)(C). See the Technical Support in the EPA’s responses to comments 2 approved by EPA for inclusion in the Document associated with that and 3 above, the EPA is approving the State implementation plan, have been rulemaking and EPA’s response to SIP revisions. incorporated by reference by EPA into Comment 1. Comment 5: that plan, are fully federally enforceable EPA failed to address the March 28, under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES With regard to the commenter’s reference to Montana’s SIP revision, 2017 Executive Order on promoting as of the effective date of the final EPA approval of one de minimis rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 14 Alabama Power Company, et al., Petitioners,* be incorporated by reference in the next v. Douglas M. Costle, As Administrator, update to the SIP compilation.15 11 81 FR 62373. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 12 EPA–R07–OAR–2016–0313–0003. Respondents,*Sierra Club, et al., Intervenors.*, 636 13 81 FR 62373. F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 15 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:40 Oct 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM 03OCR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 49831 IX. Statutory and Executive Order • Is not a significant regulatory action Court of Appeals for the appropriate Reviews subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR circuit by December 3, 2018. Filing a Under the CAA, the Administrator is 28355, May 22, 2001); petition for reconsideration by the • Is not subject to requirements of the Administrator of this final rule does not required to approve a SIP submission National Technology Transfer and affect the finality of this action for the that complies with the provisions of the Advancement Act (NTTA) because this purposes of judicial review nor does it Act and applicable Federal regulations. rulemaking does not involve technical extend the time within which a petition 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). standards; and for judicial review may be filed, and Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, • Does not provide EPA with the EPA’s role is to approve State choices, shall not postpone the effectiveness of discretionary authority to address, as such rule or action. This action may not provided that they meet the criteria of appropriate, disproportionate human the CAA. Accordingly, this action be challenged later in proceedings to health or environmental effects, using enforce its requirements. (See section merely approves State law as meeting practicable and legally permissible Federal requirements and does not 307(b)(2).) methods, under Executive Order 12898 impose additional requirements beyond (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 those imposed by State law. For that In addition, the SIP is not approved reason, this action: Environmental protection, Air to apply on any Indian reservation land pollution control, Carbon monoxide, • Is not a significant regulatory action or in any other area where EPA or an subject to review by the Office of Incorporation by reference, Indian tribe has demonstrated that a Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Management and Budget under tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Indian country, the rule does not have matter, Reporting and recordkeeping October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, tribal implications and will not impose January 21, 2011); requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile substantial direct costs on tribal organic compounds. • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 governments or preempt tribal law as FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Dated: September 26, 2018. action because SIP approvals are FR 67249, November 9, 2000). James B. Gulliford, exempted under Executive Order 12866. The Congressional Review Act, 5 Regional Administrator, Region 7. • Does not impose an information U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small collection burden under the provisions For the reasons stated in the Business Regulatory Enforcement preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); as set forth below: that before a rule may take effect, the • Is certified as not having a agency promulgating the rule must PART 52—APPROVAL AND significant economic impact on a submit a rule report, which includes a PROMULGATION OF substantial number of small entities copy of the rule, to each House of the IMPLEMENTATION PLANS under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Congress and to the Comptroller General U.S.C. 601 et seq.); of the United States. EPA will submit a ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 • Does not contain any unfunded report containing this action and other continues to read as follows: mandate or significantly or uniquely required information to the U.S. Senate, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. affect small governments, as described the U.S. House of Representatives, and in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the Comptroller General of the United Subpart R Kansas of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); States prior to publication of the rule in • Does not have Federalism the Federal Register. A major rule ■ 2. Amend § 52.870 by revising the implications as specified in Executive cannot take effect until 60 days after it table entries in paragraph (c) for ‘‘K.A.R. Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, is published in the Federal Register. 28–19–300’’ and ‘‘K.A.R 28–19–304’’ to 1999); This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as read as follows: • Is not an economically significant defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). regulatory action based on health or Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, § 52.870 Identification of plan. safety risks subject to Executive Order petitions for judicial review of this * * * * * 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); action must be filed in the United States (c) * * * EPA-APPROVED KANSAS REGULATIONS State EPA approval Kansas citation Title effective Explanation date date Kansas Department of Health and Environment Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control * * * * * * * Construction Permits and Approvals daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES K.A.R. 28–19–300 ....................... Applicability .................................. 11/18/2016 11/3/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation]. * * * * * * * K.A.R. 28–19–304 ....................... Fees ............................................. 11/18/2016 11/3/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation]. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:40 Oct 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM 03OCR1

49832 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations EPA-APPROVED KANSAS REGULATIONS—Continued State EPA approval Kansas citation Title effective Explanation date date * * * * * * * * * * * * II. Summary of Errors Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and [FR Doc. 2018–21434 Filed 10–2–18; 8:45 am] the Long Term Care Hospital A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Prospective Payment System and Policy On pages 39170 through 39172, Changes and Fiscal Year 2019 Rates; 39222, 39285 and 39287, we made Quality Reporting Requirements for DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND inadvertent technical errors. Specific Providers; Medicare and HUMAN SERVICES Specifically, in Tables 6 and 7 on pages Medicaid Electronic Health Record 39170 through 39172 of the FY 2019 (EHR) Incentive Programs (Promoting Centers for Medicare & Medicaid SNF PPS final rule, we made errors in Interoperability Programs) Requirements Services copying values into the ‘‘total rate’’ for Eligible Hospitals, Critical Access column of the tables used in the final Hospitals, and Eligible Professionals; 42 CFR Parts 411, 413, and 424 rule preamble, so the numbers in this Medicare Cost Reporting Requirements; column did not accurately reflect the and Physician Certification and [CMS–1696–CN] total case-mix adjusted federal per diem Recertification of Claims’’ (83 FR 41144, RIN 0938–AT24 rates. On page 39222, we made a 41364) (hereinafter referred to as the FY typographical error in Table 27 in the 2019 IPPS final rule). In calculating the Medicare Program; Prospective MDS item number reference (column 2) wage index under the FY 2019 IPPS Payment System and Consolidated associated with one of the conditions final rule, we made inadvertent errors Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities and extensive services used for NTA related to the calculation of the wage (SNF) Final Rule for FY 2019, SNF classification. Additionally, in Table 45 index. These errors are identified, Value-Based Purchasing Program, and on page 39285 of the FY 2019 SNF PPS discussed and corrected in the SNF Quality Reporting Program; final rule, we misordered the ownership correction notice entitled, ‘‘Medicare Correction labels in the table as ‘‘Government, Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Profit, Non-Profit’’, instead of ‘‘Profit, Payment Systems for Acute Care Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Non-Profit, Government.’’ Finally, on Hospitals and the Long Term Care page 39287, we inadvertently typed Hospital Prospective Payment System ACTION: Final rule; correction. ‘‘urban rural West South Central and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year SUMMARY: This document corrects region,’’ when we intended to state 2019 Rates; Quality Reporting technical errors in the final rule that ‘‘rural West South Central region.’’ Requirements for Specific Providers; appeared in the August 8, 2018 Federal The corrections to these errors are Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Register (83 FR 39162) entitled found in section IV. of this document. Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs ‘‘Medicare Program; Prospective (Promoting Interoperability Programs) B. Summary of Errors in and Corrections Requirements for Eligible Hospitals, Payment System and Consolidated to Tables Posted on the CMS Website Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities Critical Access Hospitals, and Eligible We are correcting the wage indexes in Professionals; Medicare Cost Reporting (SNF) Final Rule for FY 2019, SNF Tables A and B setting forth the wage Requirements; and Physician Value-Based Purchasing Program, and indexes for urban areas based on CBSA Certification and Recertification of SNF Quality Reporting Program.’’ labor market areas (Table A) and the Claims; Correction.’’ Among the errors DATES: The corrections in this document wage indexes for rural areas based on discussed there, the two errors that are effective October 1, 2018. CBSA labor market areas (Table B), affect the unadjusted, pre-reclassified, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John which are available exclusively on the pre-rural floor IPPS wage data, and Kane, (410) 786–0557. CMS website at http://www.cms.gov/ thereby affect the SNF PPS wage data SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service- were errors in the wage data collected Payment/SNFPPS/WageIndex.html. As from the Medicare cost reports of one I. Background discussed in the FY 2019 SNF PPS final hospital (CMS Certification Number In FR Doc. 2018–16570 of August 8, rule (83 FR 39172 through 39178), in (CCN) 100044—CBSA 38940 Port St. 2018 (83 FR 39162 through 39290), developing the wage index to be applied Lucie, Florida) and the mistaken there were a number of technical errors to SNFs under the SNF PPS, we use the inclusion of a Critical Access Hospital that are identified and corrected in updated, pre-reclassified, pre-rural floor (CAH) in the wage data (CCN 060016— Correction of Errors section (section IV. hospital inpatient PPS (IPPS) wage data, CBSA 06 Colorado). Finally, in of this correction notice). The exclusive of the occupational mix constructing Table A, we made errors in provisions in this correcting document adjustment. For FY 2019, the updated, copying values into the ‘‘wage index’’ are effective as if they had been unadjusted, pre-reclassified, pre-rural column of the table posted to the CMS included in the document that appeared floor IPPS wage data used under the daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES website. in the August 8, 2018 Federal Register SNF PPS are for cost reporting periods Given these errors, we are (83 FR 39162 through 39290) beginning on or after October 1, 2014 republishing the wage indexes in Tables (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2019 and before October 1, 2015 (FY 2015 A and B accordingly on the CMS SNF PPS final rule). cost report data), as discussed in the website at http://www.cms.gov/ Accordingly, the corrections in this final rule entitled, ‘‘Medicare Program; Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service- document are effective October 1, 2018. Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Payment/SNFPPS/WageIndex.html. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:40 Oct 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM 03OCR1


Document Created: 2018-10-03 02:30:10
Document Modified: 2018-10-03 02:30:10
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionFinal rule.
DatesThis final rule is effective on November 2, 2018.
ContactDeborah Bredehoft, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7164, or by email at [email protected]
FR Citation83 FR 49826 
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR