99-12366. Approval and promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Minnesota

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26880-26883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12366]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN38-01-6971a; FRL-6339-5]


Approval and promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action approves revisions to the Minnesota State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) permitting program which add new sections to 
Minnesota's Air Emission Permits Rule 7007 and Standards for Stationary 
Sources Rule 7011. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
(MPCA)submitted these new sections to the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) on January 12, 1995. The new permitting rules will 
streamline the permitting process in Minnesota and, thereby, reduce the 
permitting burden on both sources within the State and the MPCA. Rules 
7007 and 7011 are revised, respectively, by the addition of the 
Registration Permit Rule and the Control Equipment Rule. In the 
proposed rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is proposing 
approval of, and soliciting comments on, these SIP revisions. If 
adverse comments are received on this action, EPA will withdraw this 
final rule and address the comments received in response to this action 
in a final rule on the related proposed rule. A second public comment 
period will not be held. Parties interested in commenting on this 
action should do so at this time.

DATES: This ``direct final'' rule will be effective July 19, 1999, 
unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by June 17, 1999. If 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Robert Miller, Chief, 
Permits and Grants Section, Air Programs Branch(AR-18J), United 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Rachel Rineheart 
at [phone] before visiting the Region 5 Office.) A copy of these 
SIP revisions are available for inspection at the following location: 
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and Information Center (Air 
Docket 6102), room M1500, United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, [phone].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Rineheart, Permits and Grants 
Section(AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, [phone].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Minnesota has created two new permitting rules to the Minnesota SIP 
permitting program. The first rule, Registration Permit Rule, specifies 
certain limitations under which sources may elect to operate. If an 
owner or operator elects to comply with the rule, it must register with 
the State, and the State will issue a generic permit that requires 
operation in compliance with the applicable sections of the Minnesota 
Rules. The second addition to the Minnesota SIP permitting program is 
the Control Equipment Rule. This rule establishes control efficiencies 
for add-on pollution control equipment that can be used in determining 
a source's potential to emit, and requires the source to use the 
control equipment.

A. Registration Permit Rule

    This rule establishes regulatory options for certain categories of 
smaller sources. MPCA has developed four categories of options under 
this rule. A source qualifying under one of these options will register 
with the State, indicating that it has accepted the limitations 
contained in the rule for that option. EPA is approving options A, B, 
and D, but is disapproving option C.
    Option A. To qualify for permitting under Option A, a source must 
have a potential to emit less than the major source thresholds without 
emission control equipment or other limitations on production or 
operation. Qualifying owners or operators of stationary sources are 
only required to obtain a permit if the source is subject to one of the 
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) listed below:

    1. 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, Standards of Performance for 
Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Stream Generating Units.
    2. 40 CFR part 60, subpart K, Standards of Performance for 
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for which Construction, 
Reconstruction or Modification Commenced

[[Page 26881]]

After June 11, 1973 and Prior to May 19, 1978.
    3. 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ka, Standards of Performance for 
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, 
Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After May 19, 1978 and 
Prior to July 23, 1984.
    4. 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, Standards of Performance for 
Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (including Petroleum Storage 
Vessels) for which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification 
Commenced after July 23, 1984.
    5. 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD, Standards of Performance for 
Grain Elevators.
    6. 40 CFR part 60, subpart EE, Standards of Performance for 
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
    7. 40 CFR part 60, subpart SS, Standards of Performance for 
Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances.
    8. 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ, Standards of Performance for 
Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
    9. 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO, Standards of Performance for 
Nonmetallic Mineral Processors.
    10. 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, Standards of Performance for 
Industrial Cleaning of Plastic Parts for Business Machines.

Sources that qualify for a permit under this option must submit an 
application to the MPCA which describes the facility and lists the 
applicable NSPS, and provide a copy of the applicable portion of the 
NSPS.
    Option B. Sources that purchase or use less than 2000 gallons per 
year of volatile organic compound (VOC) containing materials, and whose 
sole emissions are from the use of these chemicals, may apply for 
permitting under Option B. Assuming worst case conditions, the VOC 
emissions from these sources are less than 10 tons per year, which is 
significantly less than the major source threshold. To apply for a 
permit under Option B, an owner or operator must provide to MPCA a 
description of the facility, a copy of any NSPS that would apply with 
the relevant portions highlighted, a statement of whether compliance 
will be based on purchase or use records, and the actual or estimated 
gallons of VOC containing material purchased or used over the last 12 
month period. The rule requires sources operating under a permit issued 
pursuant to this option to record each month the amount of VOC 
containing material purchased or used during the month, to record and 
calculate the 12 month rolling sum of material purchased or used, and 
to comply with all applicable requirements.
    Option C and Basis for Disapproval. Owners or operators of sources 
that consist solely of indirect heating units, reciprocating internal 
combustion engines, and/or VOC emissions from use of VOC-containing 
material may apply for permitting under this option provided that they 
meet certain criteria regarding operation outlined in the rule. The 
rule attempts to allow the maximum flexibility possible in the types 
and quantities of fossil fuel that may be burned at a facility, while 
still ensuring that emissions do not exceed major sources thresholds. 
Qualification for the rule is determined by a series of equations based 
on AP-42 emission factors that estimate emissions from each type of 
activity at the facility for its highest emitted pollutant. If the sum 
of emissions from all activities are less than 100 tons per year, then 
the source can qualify for permitting under this option and avoid 
permitting under major source programs. In a situation where a facility 
burns a combination of fuels with different worst case pollutants, the 
rule would certainly limit a facility's emissions to less than major 
source levels since applicability is determined on a per pollutant 
basis, and MPCA's method totals all worst case pollutant emissions. 
However, if a facility burns a single fuel or a combination of fuels 
that have the same worst case pollutant, this rule would allow a source 
to emit up to just under the 100 ton major source threshold level. 
Because option C fails to provide specific limitations on fuel 
combustion and uses a test method that lacks reliability for these 
purposes, EPA finds that option C does not satisfactorily restrict 
emissions. Therefore, EPA is disapproving option C.
    Option D. Option D provides that any source with actual emissions 
less than or equal to 50 percent of the major source threshold 
qualifies for permitting under this option. In the January 25, 1995 
memorandum entitled ``Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) 
of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air 
Act (Act),'' signed by John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, EPA provided a 2 year transition period for 
sources with actual emissions below 50 percent of the major source 
threshold for every consecutive 12 month period. During the transition 
period these sources were not required to obtain Title V permits. This 
2 year transition period was extended twice, first in a memorandum 
dated August 27, 1996, and again in a memorandum dated July 10, 1998. 
The purpose of the transition periods was to provide States with 
adequate time to develop similar rules to limit the potential to emit 
of these sources.

B. Control Equipment Rule

    This rule provides that the owner or operator of a stationary 
source which uses the control efficiencies listed in the rule to 
determine its potential to emit is subject to the requirements of the 
Control Equipment Rule found at Minnesota Rules 7011.0060-7011.0080. In 
other words, a facility must either comply with Minn. Rules 7011.0060-
7011.0080, or it may not use the control efficiencies listed in the 
rule to determine its potential to emit. There are two exceptions to 
applicability. The first is that an owner or operator who has been 
issued a part 70, State or general permit issued under Minnesota Rules 
7007, which specifically allows either non-use of the equipment or a 
different control efficiency, is not subject to the rule. The second 
exemption to applicability is for sources which have emissions below 
the major source level without the use of the control equipment. The 
rule contains control equipment requirements for certain devices for 
the control of Particulate Matter (PM) and VOC emissions. For PM, the 
listed control equipment are as follows: high, medium, and low 
efficiency centrifugal collectors; multiple cyclone without fly ash 
reinjection; multiple cyclone with fly ash reinjection; wet cyclone 
separators or cyclonic scrubbers; electrostatic precipitators; fabric 
filters; spray towers; venturi scrubbers; impingement plate scrubbers; 
and HEPA and wall filters. VOC control devices include afterburners 
(thermal or catalytic oxidation), and flaring or direct combustors. For 
each type of listed control equipment, the rule establishes a control 
efficiency to be used, maintenance requirements, and monitoring and 
recordkeeping requirements. In addition, the rule requires that anyone 
subject to the rule must operate the listed control equipment at all 
times. The rule establishes control efficiencies for both total 
enclosures and for systems using hoods to capture pollutants.

II. Final Determination

    Based on the rationale set forth above and in EPA's Technical 
Support Document, EPA is approving Minnesota rules 7007.1110-7007.1120, 
7007.1130, and 7011.0060-7011.0080, to be incorporated into the 
Minnesota SIP and that Minnesota rule 7007.1125 be disapproved.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because EPA 
views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse 
comments. However, in a separate document in this

[[Page 26882]]

Federal Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the State 
Plan should adverse written comments be filed. This action will be 
effective without further notice unless EPA receives adverse written 
comments by June 17, 1999. Should EPA receive such comments, it will 
publish a final rule informing the public that this action will not 
take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective on July 19, 1999.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State local or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elective officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' This rule does not create a 
mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose 
any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on these communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' This rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian 
Tribal Governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12066, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This direct final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because plan approvals 
under section 110(a) do not create any new requirements but simply 
approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, 
because the Federal approval does not create any new requirements I 
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of 
the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act (ACT) 
preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of a State action. The Act forbids EPA 
to base its actions on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. USEPA, 427 
U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs 
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 
approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 the

[[Page 26883]]

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 rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 19, 1999. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Particulate matter, Volatile organic compound, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 23, 1999.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart Y--Minnesota

    2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(48) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (48) On January 12, 1995, Minnesota submitted revisions to its air 
permitting rules. The submitted revisions provide generally applicable 
limitations on potential to emit for certain categories of sources.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Submitted portions of Minnesota 
regulations in Chapter 7007, and 7011.0060 through 7011.0080 effective 
December 27, 1994.

[FR Doc. 99-12366 Filed 5-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P