Overview
Title
Air Plan Approval; Kansas; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA is saying yes to some new rules from Kansas about keeping the air clean and fresh. They also fixed some mistakes about when Kansas sent these plans, like saying it was a different date than it really was.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a rule approving parts of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) from Kansas. This plan addresses the requirements for implementing, maintaining, and enforcing the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard under the Clean Air Act. The approved elements ensure adequate air quality management in Kansas and support the prevention of significant air quality deterioration. The EPA also clarified previous errors in the proposed rule regarding submission dates and content related to interstate pollution transport requirements.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve certain elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Kansas addressing the applicable requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 Ozone (O<INF>3</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Section 110 requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP revision to support the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as "infrastructure" SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved specific elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Kansas. This document outlines the state's compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements concerning the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These standards help regulate and maintain safe ozone levels to protect public health and the environment. Kansas' plan is part of what is known as the "infrastructure" SIP, ensuring the state's air quality management structures are adequate.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Technical Jargon and Complex Language
The document contains numerous references to sections of the Clean Air Act and technical terms like "prongs," which might be unfamiliar to a general audience. Such complex language can be challenging to understand without a background in environmental law or policy. This could hinder the public's ability to comprehend how these regulations affect them.
Errors in Submission Dates
An error was noted regarding the submission date of Kansas' SIP, which was initially incorrectly recorded. Such inaccuracies could have implications for the perceived timeline of regulatory actions and might lead to misunderstandings among stakeholders and the public.
Interpretation of Section 110(a)(2)(I)
The EPA has chosen not to act on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the SIP submission, referencing its interpretation that these elements are unnecessary in this context. This decision might invite debate or require clarification, as interpretations of regulatory obligations can significantly influence legal and practical outcomes.
Impacts on the Public and Stakeholders
General Public
Overall, the EPA's approval of Kansas' SIP elements aims to foster a healthier environment by ensuring the state's air quality management efforts align with federal standards. This can lead to improved air quality, benefiting the general public by reducing risks associated with air pollution and enhancing public health.
Specific Stakeholders
For environmental organizations and industry stakeholders, such regulatory actions provide a more predictable framework within which they operate. The EPA's decision may positively impact industry stakeholders by clarifying which infrastructure elements are approved, thus offering a degree of regulatory certainty. However, stakeholders affected by the EPA's non-action on certain SIP elements might face continued uncertainty until these issues are resolved in future rulemakings.
State of Kansas
The approval underscores Kansas' efforts and capabilities in managing its air quality, building its credibility in effectively supporting federal air quality standards. However, the errors in the proposed rule and the delayed actions on some SIP elements might require Kansas to engage in additional discussions or provide further information to comply fully with all standards, potentially incurring administrative costs and effort.
Ultimately, the document reflects a continuous process within environmental regulation where states align with federal standards. Clarity and transparency in communication, alongside addressing technical errors, remain crucial for the effectiveness and acceptability of such regulatory actions to the broader public and specific stakeholders.
Issues
• The document includes technical terms and references, such as 'prongs,' sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and specific regulatory citations, without providing definitions or context for readers who may not be familiar with these terms, making it difficult to understand for a general audience.
• There is an error in the document concerning the receipt date of Kansas' SIP submission. The proposed rule incorrectly listed this date as April 11, 2019, whereas it should have been September 27, 2018. Such errors could lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the timeline.
• The document mentions that Kansas includes section 110(a)(2)(I) requirements in the SIP submission, but the EPA does not address them due to its interpretation that they do not apply in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission. This interpretation could be controversial or unclear, requiring further clarification.
• There is complex language and numerous references to specific legislative and regulatory sections throughout the document, which may not be easily accessible to readers without a legal or environmental policy background.
• The response section mentions planned future actions on certain prongs and sections, but does not specify a timeline or next steps, which might leave stakeholders uncertain about the future regulatory process.