Vol. 79 Tuesday, 

No. 9 January 14, 2014 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 49 

General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source 

Review Program in Indian Country; Proposed Rule 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2546 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 49 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151; FRL–9904–09– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ95 

General Permits and Permits by Rule 

for the Federal Minor New Source 

Review Program in Indian Country 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing general 

permits for use in Indian country 

pursuant to the Indian Country Minor 

New Source Review (NSR) rule for new 

or modified minor sources in the 

following five source categories: Hot 

mix asphalt (HMA) plants; stone 

quarrying, crushing, and screening 

(SQCS) facilities; auto body repair and 

miscellaneous surface coating 

operations; gasoline dispensing facilities 

(GDFs); and petroleum dry cleaning 

facilities. In the alternative, the EPA is 

also proposing permits by rule for use 

in Indian country for new or modified 

minor sources in three of the source 

categories: Auto body repair and 

miscellaneous surface coating 

operations; GDFs; and petroleum dry 

cleaning facilities. The EPA is also 

proposing certain changes to the Indian 

Country Minor NSR rule. The proposed 

changes include: Extending the deadline 

by when true minor sources in the oil 

and gas sector must receive minor 

source NSR permits; and allowing 

general permits and permits by rule for 

specific categories to create synthetic 

minor sources. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 17, 2014. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us 

requesting to speak at a public hearing 

by February 4, 2014, we will hold a 

public hearing. Additional information 

about the hearing will be published in 

a subsequent Federal Register notice. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0151, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0151 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0151. 

• Mail: Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0151, EPA, Mailcode: 

6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: The EPA Docket 

Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0151. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0151. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

instructions on submitting comments, 

go to Section I.C of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or under Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 564–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Christopher Stoneman, Outreach and 

Information Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, (C– 

304–03), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina, 27711, telephone number 

(919) 541–0823, facsimile number (919) 

541–0072, email address: 

stoneman.chris@epa.gov. 

To request a public hearing or 

information pertaining to a public 

hearing on this document, contact Ms. 

Carolyn Childers, Outreach and 

Information Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (C304– 

01), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number (919) 541– 

5604; fax number (919) 541–0072; email 

address: childers.carolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘reviewing 

authority,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer 

to the EPA. The information in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to the EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI 

2. Tips for Preparing Comments 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. What acronyms, abbreviations and units 

are used in this preamble? 

II. Purpose 

A. Proposed Action 

B. Areas Where the EPA Is Seeking 

Comment 

III. Background 

A. Tribal Air Rule 

B. Indian Country Minor NSR Rule 

1. What is the Indian Country Minor NSR 

rule? 

2. What is a true minor source and how 

does it differ from a synthetic minor 

source? 

3. What are the minor NSR thresholds? 

4. What is a general permit? 

C. What is a permit by rule? 

IV. Description of General Permit Program in 

Indian Country and the EPA’s Use of 

This Package To Satisfy the General 

Permit Issuance Process 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2547 

A. General Permit Program 

B. How do sources apply for general 

permits? 

C. What are the required permitting 

elements? 

V. Source Categories for Which Draft General 

Permits in Indian Country Are Available 

for Public Review 

A. Notice of Proposed General Permits 

B. Structure of General Permits 

C. The EPA’s Control Technology Review 

D. Scope of Coverage Under Each General 

Permit 

E. Surrogate Annual Allowable Emission 

Limitations 

F. Requirements of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) and the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) 

VI. Summary of Specific Terms and 

Conditions of the General Permits and 

Request for Comment 

A. HMA Plants 

1. What is an HMA plant? 

2. What is in the proposed HMA general 

permit? 

3. What geographic restrictions are 

contained in the HMA general permit? 

B. SQCS Facilities 

1. What is a SQCS facility? 

2. What is in the proposed SQCS facility 

general permit? 

C. Request for Comment on the Proposed 

HMA Plant and SQCS Facility General 

Permits 

1. Throughput Production Limits as a 

Surrogate for Annual Ton Per Year 

Allowable Emission Limitations 

2. Setback Requirement 

3. Authorizing Multiple Locations 

4. Spark-ignition Engines 

D. Auto Body and Miscellaneous Surface 

Coating Operations 

1. What is an auto body repair and 

miscellaneous surface coating operation? 

2. What is in the proposed auto body repair 

and miscellaneous surface coating 

operations general permit? 

3. Request for Comment on the Proposed 

Auto Body Repair and Miscellaneous 

Surface Coating Operations General 

Permit 

a. Surrogate Annual Allowable Emission 

Limitations 

b. Covering Both Auto Body Repair and 

Miscellaneous Surface Coating 

Operations 

E. GDFs 

1. What is a GDF? 

2. What impact will the GDF National 

Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants and onboard refueling vapor 

recovery control systems have on 

emissions from GDFs? 

3. Treatment of Diesel Fuel 

4. What are the requirements for the 

proposed general permit for GDFs in 

serious, severe, and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas? 

5. What type of source may apply for 

coverage under the proposed GDF 

general permit? 

6. Request for Comment on the Proposed 

GDF General Permit 

a. Should the EPA establish an annual 

allowable emission limitation? 

b. Should proposed standing loss control 

requirements apply to GDFs in Indian 

country in potential future serious, 

severe, and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas outside of 

California? 

F. Petroleum Dry Cleaning Facilities 

1. What is a petroleum dry cleaning 

facility? 

2. What is in the proposed petroleum dry 

cleaning facilities general permit? 

3. Request for Comment on the Proposed 

Petroleum Dry Cleaning Facilities 

General Permit 

a. Surrogate Annual Allowable Emission 

Limitations 

b. Should we establish additional 

requirements for serious, severe, and/or 

extreme ozone nonattainment areas? 

VII. Description of the EPA’s Proposed 

Permit by Rule Program in Indian 

Country 

A. What is a permit by rule? 

B. How would a permit by rule program 

operate in Indian country? 

C. Requirements of the ESA and NHPA 

VIII. Proposed Permits by Rule 

IX. Implementation Documents and Tools 

X. Reconsideration of the Use of General 

Permits To Create Synthetic Minor 

Sources 

XI. Additional Areas Where Comment Is 

Being Sought 

A. Should general permits and permits by 

rule be made available for sources in the 

same source category? 

B. Can sources have more than one general 

permit or permit by rule at a single 

location? 

XII. Additional Source Categories for Which 

the EPA Is Planning To Propose General 

Permits and/or Permits by Rule 

XIII. Rule Changes to the Indian Country 

Minor NSR Rule, Including Extension of 

Deadline for the Indian Country Minor 

NSR Rule 

A. Amending § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B) 

B. Amending § 49.156(e) 

C. Amending § 49.160(c)(1)(ii) and (iii) 

XIV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

proposed action include the EPA and 

tribal governments that are delegated 

administrative authority to assist the 

EPA with the implementation of the 

tribal minor source air permitting 

program and owners and operators of 

facilities located in Indian country as 

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 and as 

provided in the NSR rule from the 

following source categories: 

TABLE 1—SOURCE CATEGORIES

Industry category 

North 

American 

industry 

classification 

system 

Examples of regulated entities 

HMA Facilities ........................................... 324122 Asphalt Paving, Roofing, and Saturated Materials Manufacturing.

324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing. 

SQCS Facilities ......................................... 212311 Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying. 

212312 Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying. 

212313 Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying. 

212319 Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying. 

212321 Construction Sand and Gravel Mining. 

Auto Body Repair and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations.811121 

332812 

Automotive Body, Paint, Interior, and Glass Repair. 

Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to 

Manufacturers. 

GDFs ......................................................... 4471 Gasoline stations. 

44711 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2548 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 In this document, reviewing authority refers to 

an EPA regional office. However, tribes can become 

reviewing authorities if they decide to assume 

responsibility for implementing the minor NSR 

program in their area. 

2True minor source means a source that emits, or 

has the potential to emit, regulated NSR pollutants 

in amounts that are less than the major source 

thresholds under either the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration program at 40 CFR 52.21, 

TABLE 1—SOURCE CATEGORIES—Continued 

Industry category 

North 

American 

industry 

classification 

system 

Examples of regulated entities 

447110 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores. 

44719 Other Gasoline Stations. 

447190 Other Gasoline Stations. 

Petroleum Dry Cleaning Facilities ............ 812320 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services (Except Coin-Operated). 

812310 Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry Cleaners. 

This list is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

potentially affected by this action. To 

determine whether your facility could 

be affected by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in the 

final minor NSR program for Indian 

country, 40 CFR 49.153. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, contact 

the person listed in the preceding 

section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to the EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit this information to the 

EPA through www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Send or deliver information identified 

as CBI only to the following address: 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 

Control Officer (C404–02), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0151. 

2. Tips for Preparing Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal will also be available on the 

World Wide Web. Following signature 

by the Acting EPA Assistant 

Administrator, a copy of this notice will 

be posted in the regulations and 

standards section of our NSR home page 

located at http://www.epa.gov/nsr and 

on the tribal NSR page at http://

www.epa.gov/air/tribal/tribalnsr.html. 

D. What acronyms, abbreviations and 

units are used in this preamble? 

AST Aboveground storage tank. 

CAA Clean Air Act. 

CO Carbon monoxide. 

EPA Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ESA Endangered Species Act. 

FIP Federal Implementation Plan. 

GDF Gasoline dispensing facility. 

GPM Gallons per month. 

GPY Gallons per year. 

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

HMA Hot mix asphalt. 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology. 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

NESHAP National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants. 

NEI National Emissions Inventory. 

NOX Nitrogen oxides. 

NSR New Source Review. 

NHPA National Historic Preservation 

Act. 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act. 

OMB Office of Management and 

Budget. 

ORVR Onboard Refueling Vapor 

Recovery. 

PM Particulate matter. 

PSD Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. 

PTE Potential to Emit. 

PSI Pounds per square inch. 

RVP Reid Vapor Pressure. 

SLC Standing loss control. 

SIP State Implementation Plan. 

SQCS Stone Quarrying, Crushing and 

Screening. 

TIP Tribal Implementation Plan. 

tpy Tons Per Year. 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. 

VOC Volatile organic compounds. 

II. Purpose 

A. Proposed Action 

In July 2011, the EPA issued the 

Indian Country Minor NSR rule that 

established, among other things, the 

requirements and process for the 

preconstruction permitting of minor 

sources in Indian country. Under the 

rule, on or after the effective date of the 

Indian Country NSR rule, that is 

September 2, 2014, an owner or operator 

must obtain a preconstruction permit 

from the reviewing authority 1 if the 

source will construct a new true minor 

source,2 or will modify an existing true 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2549 

or the Major NSR program for Nonattainment Areas 

in Indian Country at 40 CFR 49.166 through 49.173, 

but equal to or greater than the minor NSR 

thresholds in § 49.153, without the need to take an 

enforceable restriction to reduce its PTE to such 

levels. The PTE includes fugitive emissions, to the 

extent that they are quantifiable, only if the source 

belongs to one of the 28 source categories listed in 

part 51, Appendix S, paragraph II.A.4(iii) or 

§ 52.21(b)(1)(iii) of 40 CFR, as applicable. 

3 ‘‘Review of New Sources and Modifications in 

Indian Country: Notice of Action Partially Granting 

Petition for Reconsideration and Denying Request 

for Administrative Stay,’’ U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 78 FR 2210, January 10, 2013, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-10/html/

2012-31742.htm. 

minor source in Indian country. The 

rule also specified the process and 

requirements for using general permits 

as a streamlined permitting approach to 

authorize construction and 

modifications at true minor sources. 

General permits streamline the 

preconstruction permitting of new or 

modified true minor sources because 

they involve the issuance of one permit 

that can apply to multiple stationary 

sources that have similar emissions 

units. 

In today’s proposal, the EPA is 

proposing the use of two types of minor 

NSR preconstruction permits to help 

streamline the EPA’s permitting of true 

minor sources that construct or modify 

in Indian country and belong to one of 

five different source categories. The first 

type of permit is a general permit. The 

second type is a permit by rule, which 

is another mechanism for streamlining 

the issuance of preconstruction permits. 

Permits by rule use a regulatory-type 

structure to permit sources by preauthorizing construction and 

modification activities carried out in 

accordance with the permit’s 

requirements. To become covered by a 

permit by rule, as we are proposing 

today, a source must notify the EPA that 

it meets the terms of coverage and is 

complying with the permit’s conditions 

but does not need to await approval of 

a request for coverage. 

As our preferred approach, we are 

proposing general permits for HMA 

plants; SQCS facilities; GDFs; auto body 

repair and miscellaneous surface 

coating operations; and petroleum dry 

cleaning facilities. Specifically, we are 

proposing general permits for these 

source categories for permitting affected 

emissions units and emissionsgenerating activities in these source 

categories. As an alternative, for GDFs, 

auto body repair and miscellaneous 

surface coating operations, and 

petroleum dry cleaning facilities, the 

EPA is also requesting comment on 

whether, in lieu of establishing general 

permits for each of these categories, we 

should instead adopt permits by rule for 

one or more of these three source 

categories. (In addition, as explained in 

Section XI, we are requesting comment 

on finalizing both permitting 

mechanisms for these three source 

categories by using permits by rule to 

provide authorization to construct or 

modify true minor sources and by 

providing general permits to establish 

enforceable limitations to create 

synthetic minor sources.) 

We are proposing the regulatory 

framework that the EPA will use to 

establish permits by rule, and we are 

making available various permit 

implementation documents and tools on 

which we request public comment. We 

are proposing to extend the date by 

when minor sources in the oil and gas 

sector must receive minor NSR permit 

(i.e., September 2, 2014). Finally, we are 

seeking comment on a requested change 

in policy provided in the Indian 

Country Minor NSR rule for which we 

have granted reconsideration.3 The 

current policy states that general 

permits cannot be used to create 

synthetic minor sources. We seek 

comment on changing that policy to 

allow general permits—and permits by 

rule—to create synthetic minor sources. 

B. Areas Where the EPA Is Seeking 

Comment 

In this action, we are seeking 

comment on a number of issues, 

including, but not limited to: 

(1) All aspects of the permit 

documents and implementation tools 

for the following source categories 

(Sections VI and IX): 

a. HMA plants; 

b. SQCS facilities; 

c. Auto body repair and 

miscellaneous surface coating 

operations; 

d. GDFs; and 

e. Petroleum dry cleaning facilities; 

(2) The appropriateness of utilizing 

streamlined general permit applications 

for three source categories: 

a. Auto body repair and 

miscellaneous surface coating 

operations; 

b. GDFs; and 

c. Petroleum dry cleaning facilities; 

(3) Several administrative aspects of 

general permits, including (Section V): 

a. Whether the EPA’s proposed 

approach of incorporating by reference 

each reviewing authority’s approval of a 

request for coverage into the general 

permit is necessary and appropriate; 

and 

b. The appropriateness of proposed 

permit terms related to the reviewing 

authority’s ability to reopen, revise, or 

terminate an individual approval of 

coverage under the general permit; 

(4) Different aspects of the EPA’s 

conclusion on its control technology 

review that, because the control 

measures in this proposal are currently 

used by other similar sources in other 

areas of the country, the measures in the 

proposed permits are technically and 

economically feasible, and cost-effective 

(Section V); 

(5) Use of throughput limits as a 

surrogate for ton-per-year allowable 

emission limitations, or, alternatively, 

establishment of annual allowable 

emission limitations for each pollutant, 

and the use of throughput limits as 

surrogate monitoring measures to 

demonstrate compliance with ton-peryear annual allowable emission 

limitations (Section V); 

(6) The regulatory framework that the 

EPA is proposing as an alternative to 

use to establish permits by rule and the 

streamlined review and issuance 

process that the EPA is proposing 

whereby a source can become covered 

by a permit by rule by notifying the EPA 

that it qualifies for the permit, meets the 

terms of coverage and is complying with 

the permit’s conditions (but not having 

to wait for the reviewing authority’s 

approval) (Section VII); 

(7) Proposal to change the policy in 

the Indian Country Minor NSR rule to 

allow the use of both general permits 

and permits by rule to create synthetic 

minor sources (Section X); 

(8) Finalizing both permitting 

mechanisms for three source categories 

(i.e., auto body repair and miscellaneous 

surface coating operations; GDFs; and 

petroleum dry cleaning facilities) by 

providing authorization to construct or 

modify true minor sources via permits 

by rule and by providing enforceable 

limitations to create synthetic minor 

sources via general permits (Section XI); 

(9) Use of more than one general 

permit and/or permit by rule for a 

source at a location (Section XI); 

(10) Additional source categories for 

which the EPA is planning to propose 

general permits and/or permits by rule 

(Section XII); and 

(11) Proposed rule changes to the 

Indian Country Minor NSR rule in five 

areas in three provisions (Section XIII): 

a. Shortening the general permit 

application review process from 90 to 

45 days for certain source categories; 

b. Adjusting the deadline by which 

minor sources covered by a general 

permit need to obtain a preconstruction 

permit; 

c. Extending the permitting deadline 

for true minor sources within the oil 

and gas source category; 

d. Removing a provision to make clear 

that sources may seek coverage under a 

general permit as soon as it is effective 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2550 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4 ‘‘Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and 

Management,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 63 FR 7254, February 12, 1998, http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-02-12/pdf/98- 

3451.pdf. 

5 ‘‘Review of New Sources and Modifications in 

Indian Country,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 71 FR 48696, August 21, 2006, http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-08-21/html/06- 

6926.htm. 

6 ‘‘Review of New Sources and Modifications in 

Indian Country,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011, https://

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/01/2011- 

14981/review-of-new-sources-and-modifications-inindian-country. 

7Under the current Indian Country Minor NSR 

rule, certain sources may need to apply for a permit 

earlier than September 2014, if the EPA finalizes a 

general permit for that category before that date. 

8A source may, however, be subject to certain 

monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting (MRR) 

requirements under the major NSR programs, if the 

change has a reasonable possibility of resulting in 

a major modification. A source may be subject to 

both the Indian Country Minor NSR program and 

the reasonable possibility MRR requirements of the 

major NSR program(s). 

and need not wait an additional 4 

months; and 

e. Adjusting the deadline for oil and 

gas sources for certain registrationrelated requirements to be consistent 

with the proposed permitting deadline 

extension. 

III. Background 

A. Tribal Air Rule 

On February 12, 1998,4 the EPA used 

its authority under section 301(d) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) to find that we 

would not treat tribal governments the 

same as states with respect to specific 

plan submittal and implementation 

deadlines under the CAA for National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)-related requirements. This 

finding applied to many section 110 

requirements, including requirements 

under section 110(a)(2)(c) to submit a 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source as necessary to assure that the 

NAAQS are achieved. Although we 

determined that Indian tribes were not 

obligated to implement a permitting 

program, the EPA also made clear that 

we continue to have a general obligation 

under the CAA to ensure the protection 

of air quality throughout Indian country. 

To that end, we also used our authority 

under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) to 

establish a requirement to promulgate 

such federal implementation plan (FIP) 

provisions as are necessary or 

appropriate to protect air quality in 

Indian country. See 40 CFR 49.11(a). For 

a number of years, the only federal CAA 

NSR permitting program that applied in 

Indian country was the major NSR 

program for areas meeting the NAAQS 

(‘‘attainment’’ areas) or areas for which 

there is insufficient information to 

determine whether they meet the 

NAAQS (‘‘unclassifiable’’ areas). We 

call this program the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. 

No federal NSR permitting program has 

covered minor sources or major sources 

in nonattainment areas. Nor was there a 

way for major sources to take 

enforceable limits and become synthetic 

minor sources. 

On August 21, 2006, the EPA 

proposed the regulation: ‘‘Review of 

New Sources and Modifications in 

Indian Country’’ (i.e., Indian Country 

NSR rule).5 Within this regulation, the 

EPA proposed to protect air quality in 

Indian country by establishing a FIP 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of stationary sources 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(c) of the CAA. We call 

this part of the Indian Country NSR rule 

the Indian Country Minor NSR rule. 

Under the Indian Country Minor NSR 

rule, we proposed to fill a regulatory gap 

and provide a mechanism for issuing 

preconstruction permits for the 

construction of new minor sources and 

certain modifications of major and 

minor sources in Indian country. In 

developing the rule, the EPA conducted 

extensive outreach and consultation 

along with an extensive public comment 

period that ended on March 20, 2007. 

The comments provided detailed 

information specific to Indian country 

and the final Minor NSR rule 

incorporated many of the suggestions 

we received. We promulgated final rules 

on July 1, 2011,6 and the FIP became 

effective on August 30, 2011. 

B. Indian Country Minor NSR Rule 

1. What is the Indian Country Minor 

NSR rule? 

The Indian Country Minor NSR rule 

applies to new and modified minor 

stationary sources and to minor 

modifications at existing major 

stationary sources located in Indian 

country where there is no EPAapproved program in place. The rule 

also includes a pre-construction permits 

program for major sources proposing to 

construct in areas of Indian country that 

have not attained one or more NAAQS, 

i.e., nonattainment areas. After 

September 2, 2014, any new stationary 

sources that will emit, or will have the 

potential to emit (PTE), a regulated NSR 

pollutant in amounts that will be: (1) 

Equal to or greater than the minor NSR 

thresholds, established in the Minor 

NSR rule; and (2) less than the amount 

that would qualify the source as a major 

source for purposes of the PSD or 

nonattainment major NSR programs, 

must apply for and obtain a minor NSR 

permit before commencing construction 

of the new source.7 Likewise, any 

existing stationary source (minor or 

major) must apply for and obtain a 

minor NSR permit before commencing 

construction of a physical or operational 

change that will increase the allowable 

emissions of the stationary source by 

more than the specified threshold 

amounts, if the change does not 

otherwise trigger the permitting 

requirements of the PSD or 

nonattainment major NSR program(s).8

Among other things, the Indian 

Country Minor NSR rule created a 

framework for the EPA to streamline the 

issuance of preconstruction permits to 

true minor sources by using general 

permits. We explain this framework 

further in the sections below. 

2. What is a true minor source and how 

does it differ from a synthetic minor 

source? 

‘‘True minor source’’ means a source 

that emits, or has the potential to emit, 

regulated NSR pollutants in amounts 

that are less than the major source 

thresholds under either the PSD 

program at 40 CFR 52.21, or the Major 

NSR program for Nonattainment Areas 

in Indian Country at 40 CFR 49.166 

through 49.173, but equal to or greater 

than the minor NSR thresholds in 

§ 49.153, without the need to take an 

enforceable restriction to reduce its PTE 

to such levels. The PTE includes 

fugitive emissions, to the extent that 

they are quantifiable, only if the source 

belongs to one of the 28 source 

categories listed in part 51, Appendix S, 

paragraph II.A.4(iii) or § 52.21(b)(1)(iii) 

of 40 CFR, as applicable. For example, 

a hot mix facility, located in a sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) attainment area, that has 

a maximum potential to emit of 135 tons 

per year (tpy) of SO2, without the need 

to take an enforceable restriction to 

reduce its PTE to such levels, would 

qualify as a true minor source. 

By contrast, ‘‘synthetic minor source’’ 

means a source that otherwise has the 

potential to emit regulated NSR 

pollutants in amounts that are at or 

above those for major sources, but that 

has taken a restriction so that its PTE is 

less than such amounts. Such 

restrictions must be enforceable as a 

legal and practical matter. For example, 

a hot mix facility, located in an SO2

attainment area, that has an unrestricted 

potential to emit 270 tpy, but that is 

legally constrained to emit only 135 tpy 

of SO2 because the source has taken a 

throughput limit made enforceable 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2551 

9Note that the current regulatory language does 

not restrict the use of general permits in this 

manner. 

10 If part of a tribe’s area of Indian Country is 

designated as attainment and another part as 

nonattainment, the applicable threshold for a 

proposed source or modification is determined 

based on the designation where the source would 

be located. If the source straddles the two areas, the 

more stringent thresholds apply. 

11 In extreme ozone nonattainment areas, section 

182(e)(2) of the CAA requires any change at a major 

source that results in any increase in emissions to 

be subject to major NSR permitting. In other words, 

any changes to existing major sources in extreme 

ozone nonattainment areas are subject to a ‘‘0’’ tpy 

threshold, but that threshold does not apply to 

minor sources. 

12 ‘‘Review of New Sources and Modifications in 

Indian Country,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 76 FR 38770, July 1, 2011, https://

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/01/2011- 

14981/review-of-new-sources-and-modifications-inindian-country. 

through a permit (i.e., a limit on how 

much hot mix product it can produce), 

would qualify as a synthetic minor 

source. In the preamble to both the 

proposed and final Indian Country 

Minor NSR rule, the EPA indicated that 

it would not use general permits to 

allow otherwise major sources to create 

synthetic minor sources.9 We discuss 

this issue more fully in Section X and 

request comment on our proposal to 

change this policy and also allowing 

permits by rule to create synthetic 

minor sources. 

3. What are the minor NSR thresholds? 

The ‘‘minor NSR thresholds’’ 

establish cutoff levels for each regulated 

NSR pollutant. If a source naturally has 

a potential to emit in amounts lower 

than the thresholds, then it is exempt 

from the Indian Country Minor NSR 

rule (see Table 2 and 40 CFR 49.153) for 

that pollutant. New or modified sources 

which naturally have a potential to emit 

in amounts that are: (1) Equal to or 

greater than the minor NSR thresholds; 

and (2) less than the major NSR 

thresholds (generally 100 to 250 tpy) are 

‘‘minor sources’’ of emissions and 

subject to the Indian Country Minor 

NSR rule requirements at 40 CFR 49.151 

through 161. 

TABLE 2—MINOR NSR THRESHOLDS FOR SOURCES IN INDIAN COUNTRY 10

Regulated NSR pollutant 

Minor NSR 

thresholds for 

nonattainment 

areas 

(tpy) 

Minor NSR 

thresholds for 

attainment 

areas 

(tpy) 

Carbon monoxide (CO) ........................................................................................................................... 5 10 

Nitrogen oxides (NOX) ............................................................................................................................. 11 5 10 

SO2 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 10 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ....................................................................................................... 4 2 5 

PM (particulate matter) ............................................................................................................................ 5 10 

PM10 ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 5 

PM2.5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.6 3 

Lead ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 

Fluorides .................................................................................................................................................. NA 1 

Sulfuric acid mist ..................................................................................................................................... NA 2 

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) ............................................................................................................................ NA 2 

Total reduced sulfur (including H2S) ....................................................................................................... NA 2 

Reduced sulfur compounds (including H2S) ........................................................................................... NA 2 

Municipal waste combustor emissions .................................................................................................... NA 2 

Municipal solid waste landfill emissions (measured as nonmethane organic compounds) ................... NA 10 

4. What is a general permit? 

The Indian Country Minor NSR rule 

specified the process and requirements 

for using general permits to authorize 

construction and modifications at true 

minor sources as a streamlined 

permitting approach. A general permit, 

for purposes of this action, is a permit 

document that contains standardized 

requirements that multiple stationary 

sources can use. The EPA may issue a 

general permit for categories of 

emissions units or stationary sources 

that are similar in nature, have 

substantially similar emissions, and 

would be subject to the same or 

substantially similar permit 

requirements.12 ‘‘Similar in nature’’ 

refers to size, processes, and operating 

conditions. The purpose of a general 

permit is to provide for protection of air 

quality while simplifying the permit 

process for similar minor sources. 

General permits offer a cost-effective 

means of issuing permits and provide a 

quicker and simpler mechanism for 

permitting minor sources than the sitespecific permitting process. 

While the final Indian Country Minor 

NSR rule contemplated issuance of 

general permits by the EPA regions, we 

have determined (for the permits on 

which we are taking comment here) that 

a nationwide action is appropriate. 

Through this action, we are proposing to 

issue general permits to serve as 

preconstruction permit authorizations 

that contains emission limitations and 

other restrictions to govern how a 

sources may construct, modify and 

operate. National general permits 

streamline the permit issuance process 

by establishing universal requirements 

through one notice for specific types of 

emissions activities at multiple sources 

across the country. The EPA believes 

that the general permit approach is 

appropriate for the source categories in 

today’s proposal where the control 

equipment or techniques are generally 

similar from region to region. 

It also allows a reviewing authority to 

notify the public through one notice that 

it intends to apply these requirements to 

any eligible source that seeks coverage 

under the permit in the future. This 

minimizes the burden on reviewing 

authorities’ resources by eliminating the 

need to issue separate permits for each 

individual minor source within the 

source type or category covered by the 

general permit. Use of a general permit 

also decreases the time required for an 

individual minor source to obtain a 

preconstruction permit because the 

application process is standardized. 

The Indian Country Minor NSR rule 

describes the process the EPA will use 

to issue general permits for the minor 

NSR program. A general permit must be 

issued in accordance with the 

requirements in § 49.156. Briefly, these 

requirements address public availability 

of information, public notification and 

participation, and public comments. In 

addition, as discussed in Section IX, we 

are providing implementation tools to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2552 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13The Administrator delegated the authority to 

each EPA Regional Administrator to carry out all 

aspects of the Indian Country minor NSR program, 

including issuing general permits and approving 

individual coverage under a general permit. 

14 If EPA revises an existing general permit, then 

the original permit can no longer be used for new 

and modified minor sources. The new general 

permit will be used for new and modified minor 

sources in the relevant source category. The existing 

general permit remains in place for existing 

facilities unless and until they choose to modify. 

guide sources through a series of 

questions to determine whether they 

meet the criteria to be eligible for 

coverage under a general permit. 

C. What is a permit by rule? 

Like a general permit, a permit by rule 

is a standard set of requirements that 

can apply to multiple stationary sources 

with similar emissions characteristics. 

For purposes of this action, a permit by 

rule would differ from a general permit 

in that the agency would codify a permit 

by rule directly into the Indian Country 

Minor NSR rule. The process for a 

source to apply for coverage under a 

permit by rule, and the process for the 

reviewing authority to grant coverage 

under a permit by rule, are more 

streamlined compared to a standard 

general permit, or a site-specific permit. 

Section VII provides a description of the 

source application for permits by rule. 

IV. Description of General Permit 

Program in Indian Country and the 

EPA’s Use of This Package To Satisfy 

the General Permit Issuance Process 

A. General Permit Program 

The EPA codified the framework it 

would follow to issue general permits 

for minor sources in the Indian Country 

Minor NSR rule in 40 CFR 49.156. 

While it was not necessary for the EPA 

to codify this framework to issue general 

permits, the EPA nonetheless created 

the regulatory framework to better 

inform the public of the process the EPA 

will use to issue general permits. Per the 

framework, to issue a general permit, 

the reviewing authority must follow the 

requirements for public participation 

contained in § 49.157. These provisions 

require the reviewing authority then to 

provide a notice that a draft permit is 

available for comment. The regulations 

list a number of ways in which a 

reviewing authority can provide notice 

to the public, and also allow the 

reviewing authority to use other means 

of notification as appropriate. See 40 

CFR 49.157(b)(1)(ii)(E). We have opted 

to provide notice to the public regarding 

the present proposal of general permits 

for five source categories through use of 

the Federal Register. We believe this 

means is appropriate in this case 

because we intend to apply these 

general permits in all areas of Indian 

country subject to the Indian Country 

Minor NSR program and the Federal 

Register provides a nationwide 

circulation of the notice. We will also 

mail a copy of each permit to the 

appropriate Indian governing bodies 

and the tribal, state and local air 

pollution agencies in adjacent air 

jurisdictions that may be impacted by 

the air pollution sources that use the 

general permit in accordance with 40 

CFR 49.157(b)(1)(i). 

The existing regulations also identify 

the type of information that a reviewing 

authority must make available to the 

public, and list a number of elements to 

be included in the public notice. See 40 

CFR 49.157(a) and (b)(2). We are 

satisfying these requirements in this 

proposal in a wide-ranging manner by 

providing the public access to the 

application forms we will require an 

applicant to complete, and the other 

implementation tools for each general 

permit. (We discuss these tools in 

greater detail in Section IX of this 

preamble.) Many of these requirements 

relate to information that is best made 

available when an individual applicant 

applies for coverage under a specific 

general permit. We will make 

information specific to an individual 

source’s request for coverage under a 

general permit available at the time we 

provide notice of the source’s request 

for coverage. 

After providing adequate public 

notice of the availability of the draft 

permit, the reviewing authority must 

allow a period of at least 30 days for the 

public to comment on the permit, and 

to request a public hearing. See 40 CFR 

49.157. We are satisfying these 

requirements by using this package to 

propose and take comments on the 

general permits. Once we finalize a 

general permit, it will be used by the 

EPA’s regional office reviewing 

authorities 13 for sources requesting 

coverage under the permit. 

The regulations set forth the 

provisions for a final permit to undergo 

administrative and judicial review in 

accordance with § 49.159. The 

procedures governing appeals of NSR 

permits to the Environmental Appeals 

Board will govern administrative review 

of these general permits. Issuance of a 

general permit is a final agency action 

with respect to all aspects of the general 

permit except its applicability to an 

individual source. The provisions of 40 

CFR 49.159 will continue to govern 

administrative and judicial review of 

the EPA’s approval of an individual 

source’s request for coverage. After the 

reviewing authority approves a request 

for coverage by an individual source, a 

party may appeal only the applicability 

of the general permit to that particular 

source. 

Although we are using a Federal 

Register notice to initially establish the 

general permits, we intend to use other 

methods also consistent with 

procedures in 40 CFR 49.159 to reopen 

or administratively amend the final 

permits if we determine it is necessary 

and appropriate. A reviewing authority 

may reopen and revise a final general 

permit for cause after providing the 

opportunity for notice and comment 

under § 49.157. Revisions to a final 

general permit may be appropriate, for 

example, when the reviewing authority 

decides to issue a new general permit 

for the same category to account for 

advances in control technology or for 

other pertinent reasons. However, when 

a reviewing authority issues a new 

general permit, sources operating under 

the existing general permit will be able 

to continue to operate under the existing 

permit unless and until the source 

subsequently proposes to modify.14

B. How do sources apply for general 

permits? 

40 CFR 49.156(e) describes the 

procedure for sources to obtain coverage 

under a general permit. At the time a 

source submits a request for coverage 

under a general permit, it must submit 

a copy of such request to the 

appropriate Indian governing body for 

the area of Indian country where the 

source is locating. The reviewing 

authority must act on the source’s 

request for coverage under the general 

permit as expeditiously as possible, but 

it must notify the source of the final 

decision within 90 days of its receipt of 

your coverage request. The source’s 

reviewing authority must comply with a 

45-day completeness review period to 

determine if the request for coverage 

under a general permit is complete. 

Therefore, within 30 days after the 

receipt of the source’s coverage request, 

the reviewing authority must make an 

initial request for any additional 

information necessary to process your 

coverage request and the source must 

submit such information within 15 

days. If the source does not submit the 

requested information within 15 days 

from the request for additional 

information and this results in a delay 

that is beyond the 45-day completeness 

review period, the 90-day permit 

issuance period for the general permit 

will be extended by the additional days 

the source takes to submit the requested 

information beyond the 45-day period. 

If the reviewing authority fails to notify 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2553 

you within a 30-day period of any 

additional information necessary to 

process the source’s coverage request, it 

will still have 15 days to submit such 

information and the reviewing authority 

must still grant or deny the request for 

coverage under a general permit within 

the 90-day general permit issuance 

period and without any time extension. 

If the reviewing authority determines 

that the source’s request for coverage 

under a general permit has all the 

relevant information and is complete, it 

will notify the source in writing as soon 

as that determination is made. If the 

source does not receive from the 

reviewing authority a request for 

additional information or a notice that 

the request for coverage under a general 

permit is complete within the 45-day 

completeness review period, the request 

will be deemed complete. 

After permit coverage is granted, 

under 40 CFR 49.156 (e), coverage under 

a general permit becomes invalid if a 

source does not commence construction 

within 18 months after the effective date 

of coverage under a general permit, if 

the source discontinues construction for 

a period of 18 months or more, or if the 

source does not complete construction 

within a reasonable time. The reviewing 

authority may extend the 18-month 

period upon a satisfactory showing that 

an extension is justified, and the 18- 

month limit does not apply to the time 

period between construction of the 

approved phases of a phased 

construction project. In those cases, 

construction of each such phase must 

commence within 18 months of the 

projected and approved commencement 

date. 

In Section XIII, the EPA proposes to 

amend 40 CFR 49.156(e) to shorten the 

permit application procedure to 45 from 

90 days. 

In Section IX, we describe the 

implementation documents and tools 

that we are making available for 

comment to assist sources with applying 

for general permits. 

C. What are the required permitting 

elements? 

For general permits, these elements 

are discussed in the Indian Country 

Minor NSR rule and promulgated at 40 

CFR 49.155(a) and include: 

• The effective date of the permit and 

the date by which a source must 

commence construction in order for the 

permit’s coverage to remain valid (i.e., 

18 months after the permit effective 

date); 

• The emissions units subject to the 

permit and their associated emission 

limitations (and other permit 

conditions); 

• Monitoring, recordkeeping, 

reporting and testing requirements to 

assure compliance with the emission 

limitations; and 

• A severability clause to ensure the 

continued validity of the other portions 

of the permit in the event of a challenge 

to a portion of the permit. 

V. Source Categories for Which Draft 

General Permits in Indian Country Are 

Available for Public Review 

A. Notice of Proposed General Permits 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

49.171(b)(1)(1)(E), we are providing the 

public with a copy of five draft general 

permits covering (1) HMA plants; (2) 

SQCS facilities; (3) auto body repair and 

miscellaneous surface coating 

operations; (4) GDF facilities; and (5) 

petroleum dry cleaning facilities. Copies 

of each of these permits and the 

following four associated permitting 

documents are available in the docket 

for this notice (EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0151) and at http://www.epa.gov/air/

tribal/tribalnsr.html: 

(1) Request for Coverage 

(Application); 

(2) Questionnaire; 

(3) Instructions; and 

(4) PTE calculator. 

The applications for three of the five 

source categories in today’s proposal 

(i.e., auto body repair and miscellaneous 

surface coating operations; GDFs; and 

petroleum dry cleaning facilities) are 

streamlined and ask for contact and 

location information and general sourcespecific information (more detailed 

source-specific information would be 

required from sources seeking coverage 

under the HMA and SQCS general 

permits). This is discussed further in 

Section IX. 

The general permits will authorize 

construction of, or any change to, any of 

the affected emission units, or pollutant 

emitting activities named in the permit, 

at any proposed true minor source that 

meets the applicability and eligibility 

statements in the permit, and for which 

the reviewing authority approves 

coverage under the permit. 

We request comment on all aspects of 

the general permits and the associated 

forms and documentation provided to 

assist the stationary sources specified in 

the permits in complying with the 

Indian country minor NSR 

preconstruction permitting and postconstruction operating requirements. In 

Section VIII, we propose, in the 

alternative, permits by rule for auto 

body repair and miscellaneous surface 

coating operations, GDFs and petroleum 

dry cleaning facilities. Should we 

decide to finalize a permit by rule for 

any of these categories, then we may not 

finalize the draft general permit for that 

category. Alternatively, we may opt to 

finalize both permitting mechanisms for 

the same source category, and may tailor 

one of the permitting mechanisms to 

provide authorization to construct or 

modify true minor sources (i.e., permits 

by rule) and another to provide 

enforceable limitations to create 

synthetic minor sources (i.e., general 

permits). (See Section X, for further 

discussion of the use of general permits 

and permits by rule to create synthetic 

minor sources.) We specifically request 

comment on this ‘‘hybrid’’ approach 

(see Section XI, for further discussion 

on the hybrid approach). 

For the five source categories in 

today’s action, we are proposing general 

permits as our preferred approach. We 

have crafted our proposal to ensure air 

quality is protected and to provide a 

streamlined approach where 

appropriate. Specifically, for HMA 

plants and SQCS facilities, the EPA is 

proposing (1) that we retain the 90-day 

application review process provided in 

the Indian Country NSR Rule; and (2) 

that we provide lengthier, more detailed 

applications. Lengthier, more detailed 

applications are appropriate for source 

operations such as HMA and SQCS 

facilities that involve multiple 

pollutants where the reviewing 

authority needs to conduct a review to 

evaluate whether an individual source 

meets the requirements in the permit. 

However, we also recognize that a more 

streamlined approach may be 

appropriate for other source categories 

with few pollutants of concern and in 

which the operations are less complex. 

For those source categories (i.e., auto 

body repair and miscellaneous surface 

coating operations; GDFs; and 

petroleum dry cleaning facilities), the 

EPA is proposing to change the 

underlying rule to provide a shorter 

application review period (see Section 

XIII) and a shorter application (see 

Section IX). The permits by rule 

proposed as an alternative for these 

same three categories would take that 

streamlining a step further (see Section 

VII). 

The remainder of this section outlines 

the general structure of each of the draft 

general permits, and requests comment 

on issues that are common among the 

draft general permits. Specifically, we 

are requesting comment on: 

(1) Whether the EPA should allow the 

use of each general permit to create 

synthetic minor sources; 

(2) Whether the EPA’s proposed 

approach of incorporating by reference 

each reviewing authority’s approval of a 

request for coverage into the general 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2554 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

permit is necessary and appropriate; 

and 

(3) The appropriateness of proposed 

permit terms related to the reviewing 

authority’s ability to reopen, revise, or 

terminate an individual approval of 

coverage under the general permit. 

This section also describes the general 

process we undertook for each of the 

control technology reviews required to 

establish the terms and conditions of 

each draft general permit, and requests 

comment on our conclusions on several 

aspects of the control technology 

reviews. 

Additional information and 

supporting analyses on each of these 

draft permits are located in the 

background documents. These 

documents are available at Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151 and 

online at http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/ 

tribalnsr.html. 

B. Structure of General Permits 

Each draft general permit contains a 

similar overall structure. The cover page 

of each draft permit contains general 

information on the draft permit. First, it 

briefly describes the applicability of the 

permit to a particular source category or 

emissions activity the general permit 

regulates in accordance with 40 CFR 

49.156(d)(1). This description varies for 

each of the draft permits, depending on 

the emissions activity covered by the 

draft permit. 

Second, the cover page limits 

eligibility for coverage under the permit 

to true minor sources. We included this 

limitation to allow permitting 

authorities the ability to process a 

permit application for inherently larger 

sources using the more extended time 

periods the Indian Country Minor NSR 

rule provides for case by case, site 

specific review. We also include this 

limitation in the draft permits to remain 

consistent with our current policy that 

we will not allow sources to use general 

permits to create synthetic minor 

sources. 

We recognize, however, that limiting 

eligibility of these draft permits to only 

true minor sources could limit the 

number and types of sources that could 

take advantage of the streamlined, 

general permitting process. We also 

recognize that there is similar emissions 

potential between true minor sources 

and properly regulated synthetic minor 

sources as we discuss in Section X. We 

request comment on whether there are 

reasons that the final general permits 

should retain the true minor limitation 

on eligibility for one or more of the 

permits, or whether we should expand 

the eligibility of these draft general 

permits to ‘‘synthetic minor’’ sources. 

After reviewing comments received, we 

may amend one or more of the final 

permits to allow any minor source to 

apply for coverage under that permit. 

Third, following the eligibility 

statement, the draft permit directs 

applicants to the specific information 

that an applicant must include in a 

request for coverage under the permit in 

accordance with 40 CFR 49.156(d)(2)(ii) 

and (iii). The request for coverage serves 

as the permit application and the 

information in the application will 

differ for each draft permit. We discuss 

the application and implementation 

tools to assist true minor sources in 

determining whether a source is eligible 

for coverage under a general permit in 

Section IX. 

Fourth, the draft permit contains a 

statement that incorporates each 

reviewing authority’s approval of a 

request for coverage into the general 

permit. Sections 1 through 6 of the 

general permit, and the most current 

approval of the request for coverage, 

must be posted prominently at the 

facility, and each affected emissions 

unit and any associated air pollution 

control technology must be labeled with 

the identification number listed in the 

Approval of the Request for Coverage for 

that permitted source. We request 

comment on the inclusion of this 

condition in the permits given that the 

Indian Country Minor NSR rule only 

requires posting of the approval of 

coverage. 

As we developed the draft permits, 

we envisioned situations in which the 

reviewing authority may need to revise 

information contained in the approval 

notice some time after issuance. For 

example, a source covered by a general 

permit may subsequently change 

ownership. A reviewing authority may 

delegate responsibilities for the general 

permit to a tribal air pollution control 

agency. A source may subsequently 

need to revise something in its request 

for coverage that would alter elements 

of the approval. For example, a source 

may misidentify an equipment 

identification number in its request for 

coverage, or decide to expand or limit 

the scope of the modification. A 

reviewing authority may need to alter its 

approval of the request for coverage for 

these situations. The general permit 

provisions at 40 CFR 51.156(b)(2) 

broadly reference 40 CFR 49.159, which 

specifically addresses the reviewing 

authority’s ability to reopen or 

administratively amend permits. The 

provisions, however, do not specifically 

delineate how they apply to an approval 

of a request for coverage under a general 

permit. By incorporating the approval 

into the general permit, we ensure that 

the revision procedures contained in 40 

CFR 49.159 apply to revisions a 

reviewing authority may make to the 

approval of the request for coverage. We 

request comment on this approach for 

incorporating the approval of the 

request for coverage into the general 

permit. Alternatively, we request 

comment on whether such 

incorporation is unnecessary and on 

whether to apply the procedures in 40 

CFR 49.159 to the approval of the 

request for coverage, or whether the 

EPA should amend the existing 

regulations at § 51.156 to address 

amendments to the request for coverage. 

Fifth, the draft permit contains 

information on the reviewing authority’s 

right to terminate or revise the general 

permit. The general permit provisions in 

the Indian Country Minor NSR rule 

provide the reviewing authority the 

ability to revise, revoke and reissue, or 

terminate a general permit. In harmony 

with those provisions, the draft permits 

include authority for a reviewing 

authority to revise or terminate an 

approval of a request for coverage. We 

are adding these provisions to the 

general permit, under the authority of 

40 CFR 49.165(d), to clarify how the 

Indian Country Minor NSR rule 

intended these provisions to apply to an 

individual request for coverage. We 

request comment on inclusion of these 

provisions in the general permit, or, 

alternatively, whether the EPA should 

amend the Indian Country Minor NSR 

rule to expressly delineate the reviewing 

authority’s right to revise or terminate 

an individual source’s coverage under a 

general permit. 

Finally, the draft permit contains a 

statement indicating that the definitions 

contained in the Indian country rule 

govern use of those terms within the 

general permit. The statement also refers 

permittees to a section of the permit that 

contains definitions that may be specific 

to the source categories or emissions 

activities covered by the general permit; 

and indicates that when a term is not 

otherwise defined we will interpret that 

term consistent with normal business 

use. We, nonetheless, request comment 

on whether we should include any 

additional definitions to improve the 

clarity of the general permits. 

Following the general information 

section, each draft permit contains the 

enforceable terms and conditions of the 

general permit. Section 1 of the Terms 

and Conditions provisions contains 

general provisions that, with only a few 

exceptions, are similar for all the 

general permits. These provisions 

contain statements that the rules require 

in each permit pursuant to 40 CFR 

49.155. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2555 

15Maps for those NAAQS for which the EPA has 

designated nonattainment areas in Indian Country 

are available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/

tribal/tribalnsr.html and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0151. NAAQS for which the EPA has 

designated nonattainment areas are: ozone (2008 

NAAQS), PM10 (1987 NAAQS), PM2.5 24-Hour 

(2006 NAAQS), and PM2.5 Annual (1997 NAAQS). 

There are no tribal lands in nonattainment for SO2

(2010 NAAQS), NO2, lead (2008 NAAQS), and CO. 

16See the following memo online at http://

www.epa.gov/air/tribal/tribalnsr.html and in the 

docket (ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151): 

‘‘Projected New Minor Sources in Indian Country,’’ 

from Lillian Grace Bradley, Environmental 

Economist, EPA/OAQPS to Chris Stoneman, Policy 

Advisor, EPA/OAQPS, July 2, 2013. 

In each permit, the general provisions 

are followed by emission limitations 

and other operational restrictions or 

specifications, and monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements that are unique to each of 

the permits. The notice and reporting 

requirements are followed by a section 

outlining the reviewing authority’s 

ability to change the general permit, 

including the approval of the request for 

coverage, a section on requesting 

coverage under the permit, and 

attachments with abbreviations and 

acronyms, a list of definitions 

referenced on the cover page of the 

permit and a list of reviewing 

authorities and areas of coverage. 

Attachments to the HMA plant and rock 

crushing permits also contain 

requirements to minimize fugitive dust 

emissions. An attachment to the GDF 

permit contains requirements for vapor 

balance system design criteria, 

management practices, and performance 

testing. Attachments to the auto body 

repair and miscellaneous surface 

coating operations general permit 

provide standards for cold cleaner 

degreasers and training and certification 

requirements for spray-applied surface 

coating personnel. An attachment to the 

petroleum dry cleaning facilities permit 

contains requirements specific to 

serious, severe, or extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

C. The EPA’s Control Technology 

Review 

With the exception of the GDF general 

permit, each permit establishes specific 

numerical limitations on the quantity, 

rate or concentration of emissions for 

each regulated NSR pollutant emitted by 

each affected emissions unit. (The GDF 

permit includes equipment 

requirements.) For each general permit, 

in a manner similar to what a permitting 

authority would be expected to do for 

an individual source, we established 

these control technology-based 

requirements by researching both state 

and local air quality programs to 

identify control technologies or other 

emissions reduction measures used by 

similar sources in surrounding areas, 

and by reviewing requirements 

contained in existing 40 CFR parts 60, 

61 and 63 emissions standards that 

apply to these source categories. The 

draft permits build upon the 

requirements in the part 60, 61, and 63 

emissions standards by including some 

control technology measures found in 

state and local agencies’ general permits 

for these source categories. 

The background documents for each 

draft permit explain the state and local 

programs we reviewed to identify 

control technology options in each 

source category. We believe that, 

because these control measures are 

currently used by other similar sources 

in other areas of the country, that they 

are technically and economically 

feasible, and cost effective. We request 

comment on this conclusion, and invite 

commenters to submit specific 

information that would indicate that 

either: (1) The measures in the draft 

permits are not economically feasible 

and/or cost-effective; or (2) additional 

economically feasible and cost-effective 

measures are available and appropriate 

to include in the final general permits. 

In determining specific emission 

limitations and control measures for 

each permit, we considered the general, 

local air quality conditions in Indian 

country. Notably, Indian country 

contains both attainment and 

nonattainment areas for different 

regulated NSR pollutants.15 In some 

cases, for areas designated as 

nonattainment for a given pollutant, the 

draft permits contain more stringent 

emission limitations for that pollutant 

(or precursors of that pollutant). These 

control requirements will help mitigate 

any further degradation of air quality in 

those areas. In other cases, however, the 

draft permits do not include different 

emission limitations based on the 

attainment status of the area. In these 

situations, we determined that the 

emission limitations are sufficient to 

protect air quality in both attainment 

and nonattainment areas. 

For HMA plants and SQCS facilities, 

we also added additional provisions 

related to the location of the emitting 

activities and the source property 

boundary. We call these provisions, 

which are designed to minimize the 

impacts of emissions, setback 

requirements. Under the setback 

requirement, sources may not locate 

within a specific distance from the 

property boundary and nearest 

residences. In reviewing state and local 

air agency general permits, we found 

that permitting authorities in Alaska 

and Washington include setback 

provisions to protect local ambient air 

quality from potential source impacts. 

We find that these provisions are both 

reasonable and prudent measures to 

protect local air quality, and are 

economically feasible and cost effective. 

We, therefore, included similar 

measures in the draft permits. We 

discuss the specific setback 

requirements for each category in 

Section VI. 

We welcome comments identifying 

other source categories for which a 

setback requirement should apply. We 

also welcome comments on the types of 

buildings from which we should 

establish setbacks (e.g., schools, nursing 

homes). We further request comment on 

whether the setback requirement 

conflicts with tribal authority over 

zoning-related matters, and, if so, on 

how we should resolve that conflict. 

To further protect against adverse 

local air quality impacts, the draft 

permits assure that no source will cause 

or contribute to NAAQS or PSD 

increment violations by prohibiting 

emissions that would result in such 

impacts. Thus, reviewing authorities 

will consider any air quality concerns 

unique to specific areas that arise after 

issuance of the general permits in this 

proposal when determining whether an 

individual permit applicant is eligible 

for coverage under the general permit. 

For example, if a source wants to locate 

in an area with air quality levels 

approaching or violating the NAAQS, 

the reviewing authority may need to 

request that a source apply for a sitespecific permit so that the potential for 

greater control than that afforded by the 

general permit can be evaluated. 

In conducting the control technology 

review, we also considered the 

anticipated growth rate of the source 

categories. In general, we do not 

anticipate significant increases in the 

growth rates for these five source 

categories for the foreseeable future, as 

we identified no information indicating 

that that is the case.16 Thus, we do not 

believe that emissions increases from 

these categories will pose unique or 

unprecedented impacts on air quality in 

the near future that might warrant a 

more stringent approach to controlling 

emissions than contained in the draft 

permits. We request comment on our 

conclusion about anticipated economic 

growth in these source categories and 

regions, and the reasonableness of the 

emission limitations and control 

measures specified in the draft permits. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2556 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17These criteria are not the sole manner for 

demonstrating that a general permit applies only to 

similar sources, but they serve as examples of the 

types of characteristics that may be relevant. 

18These requirements apply to both general 

permits and permits by rule. Only general permits 

are mentioned here but the requirements apply 

identically to both permit types. Section VII.C. is 

specific to permits by rule and notes that these 

requirements also apply to permits by rule. 

19 ‘‘Final National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for 

Stormwater Discharges from Construction 

Activities,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 FR 12286, February 29, 2012, http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2012-02-29/2012- 

4822/content-detail.html. 

D. Scope of Coverage Under Each 

General Permit 

In the Indian Country Minor NSR 

rule, the EPA stated that it may use the 

general permit mechanism to issue 

permits to ‘‘similar’’ types of emissions 

units or minor sources. This limitation 

on the ability to issue general permits is 

consistent with the EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA as it relates to 

the ability of a permitting agency and 

source to use standardized protocols to 

meet CAA permitting requirements. The 

general permits we are proposing meet 

the limitation that general permits apply 

only to similar sources, because each of 

the permits covers only affected 

emission units or emissions generating 

activities that are: (1) specifically 

identified by name in the permit; (2) 

generate the same regulated NSR 

pollutants in the same manner and 

magnitude; and (3) are associated only 

with operations within a defined source 

category.17 We discuss the specific 

scope of each draft general permit in 

more detail in Section VI below and in 

the background document for each draft 

general permit. 

E. Surrogate Annual Allowable 

Emission Limitations 

The Indian Country Minor NSR rule 

requires the reviewing authority to 

establish annual allowable emission 

limitations for each affected emissions 

unit and for each NSR regulated 

pollutant emitted by the unit, if the unit 

is issued an enforceable limitation lower 

than the PTE of that unit. See 40 CFR 

49.155(a)(2). For the five source 

categories in this proposal, some states 

(but not all) provide both annual ton per 

year allowable emission limitations and 

throughput limits in their general 

permits. Other state reviewing 

authorities provide only overall 

production limits that limit the amount 

of throughput a facility can process over 

a period of time. We believe that 

production limits serve as a reasonable 

surrogate for ton per year emission 

limitations, when there is a direct 

correlation between the amount of 

material processed and the amount of 

pollution emitted. We also believe that 

monitoring throughput rather than 

actual emissions may provide a more 

cost-effective method of demonstrating 

compliance. For example, HMA 

facilities regularly track a facility’s 

throughput, but do not necessary 

analyze specific emissions discharges. 

Thus, reliance on throughput limits 

provides a more cost-effective approach 

to regulate emissions and we believe 

will enhance the potential for 

compliance with the draft permit for 

this and other categories. In Section VI, 

we request comment on our use of 

throughput limits as a surrogate for 

annual ton per year allowable emission 

limitations. Alternatively, we request 

comment on whether we should 

establish annual allowable emission 

limitations for each pollutant, and use 

throughput as a surrogate monitoring 

measure to demonstrate compliance 

with a ton per year annual allowable 

emission limitation. 

In a related matter, in Section X of 

this preamble, we indicate that we have 

granted reconsideration on the issue of 

allowing reviewing authorities to use 

general permits to create synthetic 

minor sources and propose to change 

the current policy. If the EPA allows 

otherwise major sources to qualify as 

synthetic minor sources through use of 

general permits, we request comment on 

specific changes that we would need to 

include in the production limits of each 

permit to properly regulate synthetic 

minor sources for these categories. For 

example, should the EPA establish 

higher annual tpy allowable emission 

limitations or surrogate production 

limits that are just below the major 

source thresholds for each regulated 

NSR pollutant, or should the EPA 

maintain the limitations in the current 

draft permits to maintain an adequate 

compliance margin? 

F. Requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 18

The ESA requires federal agencies to 

ensure, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (the 

Services), that any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out will not 

likely jeopardize the continued 

existence of any listed threatened or 

endangered species, or destroy or 

adversely modify the designated critical 

habitat of such species. Under relevant 

ESA implementing regulations, federal 

agencies consult with the Service(s) on 

actions that may affect listed species or 

designated critical habitat. The NHPA 

requires federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings 

on historic properties—i.e., properties 

that are either listed on, or eligible for 

listing on, the National Register of 

Historic Places—and to provide the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (the Council) a reasonable 

opportunity to comment on such 

undertakings. Under relevant NHPA 

implementing regulations, NHPA 

consultations are generally conducted 

with the appropriate Tribal and/or State 

Historic Preservation Officers in the first 

instance, with opportunities for direct 

Council involvement in appropriate 

circumstances, including, for example, 

consultations in connection with 

undertakings affecting multiple tribes or 

states. The Indian Country Minor NSR 

program has increased the number of 

activities for which the EPA is the 

permitting authority. To meet ESA and 

NHPA requirements, we have developed 

a process for compliance with these 

laws when issuing the general permits. 

The EPA intends to consult with the 

Services and the Council on our general 

permits and the proposed procedures to 

address potential effects on relevant 

protected resources. 

For purposes of general permits, the 

EPA intends to adopt a framework that 

provides appropriate protection for 

listed species and critical habitat and 

historic properties. The EPA believes, 

based on the evaluation of available 

information, that the sources that are the 

subject of this proposal are unlikely to 

present a significant risk to listed 

species and critical habitat and to 

historic properties because they are by 

their nature small, low emitting sources. 

However, to ensure listed species and 

critical habitats and historic properties 

are protected, the EPA has developed a 

framework in the general permits that 

requires the source to identify and 

assess effects before a request for 

coverage under the general permit is 

submitted to the EPA. Requiring this 

assessment should help identify any 

concerns related to potential impacts on 

listed species/critical habitat or historic 

properties early in the process when the 

greatest opportunities to mitigate or 

avoid any impacts—including changes 

to the facility’s location or footprint— 

are available. This framework is similar 

to procedures established by the Office 

of Water for the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System General 

Permit for Stormwater Discharges from 

Construction Activities.19 The EPA 

believes that requiring a similar process 

in both the general permits, and the 

general stormwater permits, will 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2557 

20AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary 

Point and Area Sources; Chapter 11.1—Hot Mix 

Asphalt Plants; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/

index.html. 

21 Ibid. 

streamline the process for all concerned: 

The applicants, the EPA, the tribes, and 

the Services. 

The screening processes developed in 

the permits for both the ESA and NHPA 

require the applicant to develop 

information about the possible effects of 

the proposed new or modified facility, 

which includes appropriate outreach to 

relevant expert resource agencies. Such 

information and a certification regarding 

the outcome of the applicant’s screening 

procedures are submitted to the EPA as 

part of the request for coverage under 

the general permit. This information is 

included as an appendix to the 

applications for requests for coverage for 

each of the general permits. The EPA 

will review this information as part of 

determining whether a source is eligible 

for coverage under the general permit. 

Because we have limited the 

applicability of the general permits to 

categories of sources that have low 

emissions, we do not expect they are 

likely to adversely affect listed species/ 

critical habitat, nor should they have 

potential effects on historic properties. 

However, if, through the procedures 

required in the permit, a source is 

determined to have an adverse effect on 

listed species/critical habitat or 

potential effects on a historic property, 

the EPA retains the authority to deny 

coverage under the general permit, or 

permit by rule, and to proceed with 

source-specific permitting and 

consultation with the appropriate 

resource agency(ies). 

VI. Summary of Specific Terms and 

Conditions of the General Permits and 

Request for Comment 

In the following sections, we provide 

a brief summary of the source category 

regulated by each general permit and 

areas of each draft general permit on 

which we specifically seek public 

comment. Because the areas upon 

which we specifically seek comment in 

the HMA plant and SQCS facility 

general permits are common among the 

two permits, we have combined the 

request for comment section on these 

permits into one subsection. In this 

preamble, we are not delineating every 

aspect of the requirements of the general 

permits. Instead, we refer readers to the 

draft permits and associated background 

information to review all the detailed 

requirements we include in each general 

permit. Although we are soliciting 

comments on specific aspects of the 

draft permits, we, nonetheless, invite 

the public to comment on all relevant 

aspects of the draft permits. 

A. HMA Plants 

1. What is an HMA plant? 

An HMA plant manufactures hot mix 

asphalt by heating and drying aggregate 

material and then mixing it with asphalt 

cements. An HMA plant consists of an 

assembly of mechanical and electronic 

equipment used to prepare hot aggregate 

and mineral filler for mixing to make 

hot mix asphalt. The facility includes 

any combination of the following 

activities/equipment: Dryers, liquid 

asphalt storage tanks, fuel oil storage 

tanks, auxiliary heaters (including hot 

oil heaters), material storage handling 

and transfer systems, generators, storage 

bins/silos, storage piles, and haul roads. 

An HMA plant can be constructed as a 

permanent plant, a skid-mounted (easily 

relocated) plant, or a portable plant. 

HMA paving materials are a mixture 

of size-graded, high quality aggregate, 

which can include reclaimed asphalt 

pavement (RAP), and liquid asphalt 

cement. The production process 

involves sorting and drying the 

aggregate, heating the asphalt binder, 

and heating and applying the mixture. 

Aggregate material can be produced 

from numerous sources, including 

natural rock, RAP, reclaimed concrete 

pavement (RCP), glass, fly ash, bottom 

ash, steel slag, recycled asphalt shingles, 

and crumb rubber. Aggregate and RAP 

(if used) constitute over 92 percent by 

weight of the total mixture. Aside from 

the amount and grade of asphalt cement 

used, mix characteristics are determined 

by the relative amounts and types of 

aggregate and RAP used. A certain 

percentage of fine aggregate (less than 

74 micrometers in physical diameter) is 

required for the production of good 

quality HMA.20

There are four types of HMA plants 

based on the type of manufacturing 

process used: (1) Batch mix plants; (2) 

continuous mix (mix outside dryer 

drum) plants; (3) parallel flow drum mix 

plants; and (4) counterflow drum mix 

plants. Historically, about 85 percent of 

manufacturing plants have been of the 

counterflow drum mix design, while 

batch plants and parallel flow drum mix 

plants account for 10 percent and 5 

percent, respectively.21

The emissions associated with HMA 

plants are generated by: (1) Raw 

materials acquisition and manufacturing 

processes; and (2) transportation of raw 

materials during manufacture and 

transportation to the roadway 

construction site. The emissions from 

HMA plants consist of: (1) Combustion 

emissions from mixer/dryers, auxiliary 

heaters, and generators; (2) PM 

emissions from the mixing/drying 

process and the material handling 

process; and (3) fugitive PM emissions 

from haul roads. The CO emissions from 

the batch mix plants are significantly 

higher than the CO emissions from 

drum mix plants due to the incomplete 

combustion process occurring in the 

batch mixer/dryers. 

2. What is in the proposed HMA general 

permit? 

This proposed general permit would 

apply to the construction of new true 

minor source HMA plants or the 

modification of existing true minor 

HMA plants, located in Indian country. 

This general permit does not apply to 

HMA plants that perform contaminated 

soil remediation, and does not apply to 

cold mix asphalt production facilities. 

The draft permit contains emission 

limitations requirements for the 

following affected emission units: 

• Dryers; 

• Systems for screening, handling, 

storing, and weighing hot aggregate; 

• Systems for mixing hot mix asphalt; 

• Loading transfer, and storage 

systems associated with emission 

control equipment; 

• Fuel storage tanks; and 

• Stationary engines. 

The permit requires dryers/mixers to 

be controlled by a baghouse, fugitive 

emissions controlled by a fugitive dust 

control plan, and engines to be 

controlled to appropriate standards. 

Fuel used in the dryer/mixer and 

auxiliary heaters must be limited to 

natural gas, distillate fuel, and biodiesel. 

The stationary engines are limited to 

using diesel and biodiesel as fuels. All 

liquid fuels are limited to no more than 

0.0015 percent sulfur by weight. 

The proposed general permit includes 

monitoring that is sufficient to assure 

compliance with the emission 

limitations that apply to the source, 

including ensuring the baghouse is 

operating properly, taking weekly 

opacity observations and fugitive 

emissions surveys and meeting certain 

other requirements. The proposed 

general permit includes recordkeeping 

and reporting sufficient to assure 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and monitoring 

requirements. 

3. What geographic restrictions are 

contained in the HMA general permit? 

The general provisions of the HMA 

plant draft permit restrict sources from 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2558 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

22Sources can still locate in these areas but 

would need to obtain a site-specific NSR permit and 

may face more stringent control requirements. 

23The operations and equipment at a typical 

SQCS facility are described in: AP 42, Fifth Edition, 

Volume I, Chapter 11: Mineral Products Industry, 

Chapters 11.19.1, Sand and Gravel Processing, and 

11.19.2, Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized 

Mineral Processing; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/

index.html. 24 Ibid. 

locating in severe and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas or serious CO 

nonattainment areas.22 Because the 

major stationary source thresholds are 

very low in these types of areas, we do 

not envision that any minor source 

HMA plants or SQCS facilities will 

locate in these areas. Thus, we did not 

to address this situation in these general 

permits. We request comment on 

whether the EPA should limit the 

geographic scope of eligibility of the 

general permits in this manner. 

B. SQCS Facilities 

1. What is a SQCS facility? 

A SQCS facility is any non-metallic 

mineral processing facility which uses 

rock crushers, grinding mills, screening 

operations, bucket elevators, belt 

conveyors, bagging operations, storage 

bins, storage piles, truck loading 

stations, or railcar loading stations to 

process sand, gravel, or mineral 

aggregate.23

The SQCS facilities are part of a larger 

industrial process where sand, gravel, 

rock, and minerals are removed from the 

earth and prepared for industrial, 

commercial and residential use. In sand 

and gravel processing, deposits of sand 

and gravel are mined and processed 

with screens, washing, and clarifiers to 

segregate the material into different 

particle sizes. Sometimes facilities use 

crushing equipment to reduce particle 

sizes. In rock crushing operations, 

drilling and blasting operations loosen 

rock, and then a front-end loader or 

power shovel loads the rock into large 

haul trucks that transport the material to 

the processing operations. Processing 

operations may include: Crushing, 

screening, size classification, material 

handling and storage operations. Rock is 

loaded into bins and sent through 

screens, sorted for size, and conveyed to 

one or more rock crushers until all of 

the raw material is reduced to the 

desired size. Each crusher machine has 

associated screening and conveying 

equipment. After crushing, the rock is 

sorted according to size in screeners and 

conveyers that move the rock to storage 

piles. Front end loaders and trucks 

move finished materials offsite. Rock 

types processed by the crushed stone 

industry include: Limestone, granite, 

dolomite, traprock, sandstone, quartz, 

quartzite, and lesser amounts of 

calcareous marl, marble, shell, and slate. 

Electricity for the motors running the 

crushers, screens, and conveyors is 

provided either by grid electric power or 

by diesel generators. 

Criteria pollutant emissions of 

concern are primarily PM from crushing 

and screening, and PM and NOX from 

diesel generators. For sources with 

available water, water sprays may be 

used to control PM emissions. In sand 

processing, water is typically used in 

clarifiers to sort the sand by size, and 

the sand is processed wet. Dry PM 

control methods (baghouses) may also 

be used to control PM emissions.24

2. What is in the proposed SQCS facility 

general permit? 

This proposed general permit would 

apply to the construction of new true 

minor source SQCS facilities or the 

modification of existing true minor 

SQCS facilities, located in Indian 

country. The proposed general permit is 

for a facility that processes non-metallic 

materials only (i.e., sand, rock or stone). 

A source that processes any of the 

following is not eligible for coverage 

under this proposed permit: Metallic 

materials; radioactive materials; 

materials that contain asbestos; 

materials intended to be used as fuel; 

and minerals for structural clay, clay 

ceramics, brick, lime manufacturing, 

phosphate products, Portland cement, 

or refractory products. 

The draft permit covers emissions 

from the following equipment at HMA 

facilities: 

• Engines; 

• Material handling equipment; and 

• Fuel storage tanks. 

The draft permit requires emissions 

from all crushers, screens, drop points, 

and other possible release points to be 

controlled by wet suppression, requires 

fugitive emissions to be controlled by a 

fugitive dust control plan, and engines 

to be controlled to appropriate 

standards. Stationary engines are 

limited to using diesel and biodiesel as 

fuels. All liquid fuels are limited to no 

more than 0.0015 percent sulfur by 

weight. 

The proposed general permit includes 

monitoring that is sufficient to assure 

compliance with the emission 

limitations that apply to the source, 

including ensuring the wet suppression 

system is operating properly, taking 

weekly opacity observations and 

fugitive emissions surveys and meeting 

certain other requirements. The 

proposed general permit includes 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements sufficient to assure 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and monitoring 

requirements. 

C. Request for Comment on the 

Proposed HMA Plant and SQCS Facility 

General Permits 

We request comment on all aspects of 

the general permits for HMA plants and 

SQCS facilities. We specifically request 

comment in the following four areas: 

1. Throughput Production Limits as a 

Surrogate for Annual Ton Per Year 

Allowable Emission Limitations 

The proposed HMA plant and SQCS 

facility general permits contain 

throughput-based production limits that 

serve as surrogates for annual ton per 

year allowable emission limitations. We 

discuss the use of surrogate limits in 

Section V.E. above. For HMA plants, for 

production of hot mix asphalt the draft 

permit contains separate production 

limits: 

• 100,000 tons-per-month based on a 

12-month rolling average from a drum 

mix asphalt plant; or 

• 33,000 tons-per-month based on a 

12-month rolling average from a batch 

mix asphalt plant. 

For SQCS facilities, the draft permit 

restricts raw material annual throughput 

to 10,500,000 tons based on any 

continuous rolling 12-month period. 

The background information documents 

for the draft permits contain the 

approximate ton per year emission 

thresholds for which the throughput 

limits act as surrogates. The draft permit 

does not establish different throughput 

limits based on the attainment status of 

the area. We request comment on our 

use of throughput limits as a surrogate 

for tpy emission limitations for this 

source category, and on whether there 

should be different production 

throughput limits in attainment and 

nonattainment areas. 

In establishing specific limits for 

HMA plants and SQCS facilities, we 

considered whether we should compute 

the production throughput limits on a 

ton per year basis, or over a shorter 

period of time to assure continuous 

compliance. For HMA plants, where 

NOX is the limiting pollutant, we 

elected monthly average production 

limits to ensure continuous compliance 

for portable plants that may relocate to 

ozone nonattainment areas within the 

same year. For SQCS facilities, where 

PM is the limiting pollutant, we elected 

to include an annual limit based on a 

12-month rolling total. Nonetheless, we 

request comment on whether we should 

instead establish a monthly total 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2559 

25The setback requirement in the Washington’s 

general permit is based on dispersion modeling for 

rock crushing facilities with a high rock throughput 

rate. For more information, go to: https:// 

fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/

ecy070237.html. 

26For information on Alaska’s setback 

requirements, go to: http://dec.alaska.gov/air/ap/

docs/General%20Permit%20Application

%20for%20Asphalt%20Plants%2004-12-12.pdf. 

emission limitation based on a 30-day 

rolling total or any other appropriate 

averaging period. 

In addition to the production 

throughput limits, each of the draft 

permits contains restrictions on the 

amount of fuel used. For HMA plants, 

the combined fuel consumption in all 

engines and generators, excluding 

nonroad mobile engines, may not 

exceed 12,500 gallons-per-calendar 

month if the source is located in an 

attainment area for ozone; or 2,500 

gallons-per-calendar month if the source 

is located in an ozone nonattainment 

area. (In the HMA permit, fuel 

combustion is limited to natural gas, 

propane, distillate fuel, and biodiesel in 

the dryer/mixer and auxiliary heaters 

and diesel and biodiesel in the 

stationary engines and generators.) We 

are proposing monthly limits on 

production and fuel use at HMA plants 

because NOX emissions from the dryer 

and engines are the limiting factor in 

determining whether a source qualifies 

for a general permit. The monthly limits 

allow a source to relocate to an area 

with a different attainment status and 

still ensure they are operating as a 

minor source consistent with their 

application. We determined that it 

would be unnecessarily complicated for 

sources to show compliance with two 

different annual fuel limits within the 

same 12-month period (assuming the 

HMA plant is co-located with a SQCS 

facility), since during the previous 11 

months they could have been at 

different locations. (Below, we discuss 

how multiple locations can be handled 

for the SQCS general permit.) The 

monthly limit on fuel use makes 

demonstrating compliance 

straightforward and maintains 

operational flexibility (since the same 

annual production limit applies to 

attainment and nonattainment areas). 

For SQCS facilities, the combined fuel 

consumption of all engines and 

generators, excluding nonroad mobile 

engines, may not exceed a range of 

between 33,000 gallons and 162,000 

gallons annually based on a 12-month 

rolling total for each month, depending 

on the ozone attainment status of the 

area. (In the SQCS permit, fuel 

combustion in stationary internal 

combustion engines is limited to diesel 

and biodiesel.) In the case of SQCS 

facilities, PM emissions from engines 

are not a limiting factor in determining 

whether a facility qualifies for a general 

permit so we did not find monthly 

limits necessary. We request comment 

on whether to distinguish the amount of 

fuel use based on ozone attainment 

status, or whether we should set one 

usage limit within the stated range for 

both attainment and nonattainment 

areas. The simplicity of a single usage 

limit may outweigh the benefits of the 

flexibility of offering varying limits. 

2. Setback Requirement 

The draft general permits require 

HMA and SQCS facilities to locate at 

least 150 feet from the nearest property 

boundary and 1,000 feet from the 

nearest residence. These requirements 

are beyond the requirements in the 

EPA’s 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 

regulations affecting these source 

categories. Nonetheless, the states of 

Washington 25 and Alaska 26 include 

setback provisions in their general 

permits for this source category. We 

believe that these requirements will 

minimize the impact of emissions from 

these sources on localized air quality. 

We request comment on whether we 

should include these setback 

requirements in the final permits to 

provide additional protection against 

adverse impacts to local air quality. In 

addition, we request comment on 

whether there are other neighboring 

types of buildings from which the 

setback should apply (e.g., schools, 

nursing homes) and whether to require 

these facilities to use physical markers 

on their property to show compliance 

with the setback requirements. 

3. Authorizing Multiple Locations 

HMA facilities and SQCS facilities 

often operate as portable stationary 

sources. A facility will locate in a single 

area for a specified period of time and 

then disassemble and relocate to 

another area. We structured both draft 

general permits to accommodate 

relocation of a facility. A source may 

identify multiple sites of operation in its 

request for coverage. The reviewing 

authority will consider the request for 

each location, and will specify approval 

of one or more of these locations in the 

approval of the request for coverage. If 

the reviewing authority does not 

approve a specific location, then the 

source will need to reapply for coverage 

under the general permit or for a site 

specific permit before relocating to this 

site. The general permits also require a 

source to submit a notification to the 

reviewing authority each time it 

relocates to a pre-approved site. We 

request comment on the use of these 

general permits to authorize relocation 

of a facility to pre-approved site 

locations. In addition, because these two 

types of facilities can co-locate at the 

same site, we seek comment on whether 

we should issue general permits that 

cover both source categories within one 

permit, in lieu of two separate permits, 

or in addition to two separate permits. 

If we finalize such an approach, we 

propose to include all the requirements 

proposed for the separate permits in a 

single permit, but we seek comment on 

whether the combined permit should 

include any additional or different 

requirements. 

4. Spark-Ignition Engines 

The draft general permits for both 

HMA and SQCS facilities include 

control measures for a number of 

different engine types. We did not 

include spark-ignition engine control 

measures in either general permit, 

because we do not believe that HMA or 

SQCS facilities commonly use these 

types of engines, and, as we discuss 

above, we precluded use of any fuel 

other than diesel or biodiesel in 

stationary internal combustion engines. 

We request comment on this 

conclusion. If commenters indicate that 

spark ignition engines should be 

regulated under the general permits, 

then we may include emission 

limitations comparable to the levels 

established for other type of engines in 

the final general permits. 

D. Auto Body Repair and Miscellaneous 

Surface Coating Operations 

1. What is an auto body repair and 

miscellaneous surface coating 

operation? 

An auto body shop repairs, repaints, 

and/or customizes passenger cars, 

trucks, vans, motorcycles, and other 

mobile equipment capable of being 

driven or drawn on the highway. Auto 

body refinishing shops involve cleaning 

the auto body surface to ensure proper 

adhesion of the coating, priming and 

sealing the surface, applying a topcoat, 

and cleaning of the spray equipment. 

Coating application equipment includes 

preparation stations, spray booths, spray 

guns, and spray gun cleaning 

equipment. Some facilities are equipped 

with heating units to heat the air in the 

drying booth or to maintain a constant 

shop temperature during cold months. 

The majority of these operations occur 

at small body shops that repair and 

refinish automobiles. The activities 

include sanding, cleaning, sprayapplying coating, and cleaning spray 

equipment, all of which may release 

pollutants into the air. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2560 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

27The relevant NESHAPs are: Subpart II— 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Shipbuilding and Ship Repair; Subpart 

IIII—National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and 

Light-Duty Trucks; Subpart KKKK—National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Surface Coating of Metal Cans; Subpart MMMM— 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous 

Metal Parts and Products; Subpart NNNN—National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Subpart 

OOOO—National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Printing, Coating, and 

Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles 

Subpart PPPP—National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Surface Coating of 

Plastic Parts and Products; Subpart QQQQ— 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Surface Coating of Wood Building 

Products; Subpart RRRR—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 

Coating of Metal Furniture; and Subpart SSSS— 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Coil. 

28 Due to the surface coating-related requirements 

in a NESHAP, it is possible that a source could be 

a major source for HAPs but a minor source for 

regulated NSR pollutants. However, for simplicity, 

we are proposing to exclude major HAP sources. 

Miscellaneous surface coating 

operations are those that involve the 

spray application of coatings to 

miscellaneous parts and/or products 

made of metal or plastic, or 

combinations of metal and plastic. 

These activities include: 

• Paint stripping for the removal of 

dried paint (including, but not limited 

to, paint, enamel, varnish, shellac, and 

lacquer) from wood, metal, plastic, and 

other substrates; 

• Spray application of coatings to 

motor vehicles and mobile equipment 

including operations that are located in 

stationary structures at fixed locations, 

and mobile repair and refinishing 

operations that travel to the customer’s 

location; and 

• Spray application of coatings to a 

plastic and/or metal substrate on a part 

or product, except spray coating 

applications that meet the definition of 

facility maintenance or space vehicle. 

The coating application operations 

include washes, primers, primer 

surfacers, primer sealers, and topcoats. 

Coatings are applied using a hand-held 

device that creates an atomized mist of 

coating and deposits the coating on 

assembled motor vehicles and mobile 

equipment. 

The pollutants of concern for auto 

body repair and surface coating 

operations are VOCs and hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) from the use of 

solvents and coatings. Particulate matter 

emissions are also emitted from spray 

coating operations. Paints, coatings, and 

the solvents used for paint gun clean-up 

are the main sources of VOCs in auto 

body shops. Emissions are typically 

controlled through use of lower-VOC 

coatings, increased transfer efficiency of 

spray guns, minimizing solvent 

evaporation during clean-up and other 

best practices, such as closing all 

containers of painting materials 

immediately after use. Particulate matter 

emissions are also emitted from spray 

coating operations. Because spray 

coating operations are normally 

performed in enclosed spray booths and 

controlled by dry filters or other 

equivalent control devices, PM 

emissions from spray coating operations 

are not significant if the spray booths 

and the associated control devices are 

operated properly. If a facility contains 

fuel combustion heating units, there are 

associated combustion emissions from 

those units. 

Coatings processes also include 

degreasing. Solvent degreasing (or 

solvent cleaning) is the physical process 

of using organic solvents to remove 

grease, fats, oils, wax or soil from 

various metal, glass, or plastic items. 

The types of equipment used in this 

method are categorized as cold cleaners, 

open top vapor degreasers, or 

conveyorized degreasers. The general 

permit only allows for the use of cold 

cleaners that are batch loaded and nonboiling solvent degreasers. These 

processes usually provide the simplest 

and least expensive method of metal 

cleaning. Maintenance cold cleaners are 

smaller, more numerous, and generally 

use petroleum solvents such as mineral 

spirits (petroleum distillates and 

Stoddard solvents). Manufacturing cold 

cleaners use a wide variety of solvents, 

which perform more specialized and 

higher quality cleaning with about twice 

the average emission rate of 

maintenance cold cleaners. Some cold 

cleaners can serve both purposes. 

Cold cleaner operations include 

spraying, brushing, flushing, and 

immersion. In a typical maintenance 

cleaner, dirty parts are cleaned 

manually by spraying and then soaking 

in the tank. After cleaning, the parts are 

either suspended over the tank to drain 

or are placed on an external rack that 

routes the drained solvent back into the 

cleaner. The cover is intended to be 

closed whenever parts are not being 

processed in the cleaner. Typical 

manufacturing cold cleaner operations 

vary widely in design, but there are two 

basic tank designs: the simple spray 

sink and the dip tank. Of these, the dip 

tank provides more thorough cleaning 

through immersion, and often is made 

to improve cleaning efficiency by 

agitation. Small cold cleaning 

operations may be numerous in urban 

areas. 

2. What is in the proposed auto body 

repair and miscellaneous surface 

coating operations general permit? 

This proposed general permit would 

apply to the construction of new, true 

minor source auto body repair and 

miscellaneous surface coating facilities 

or the modification of existing, true 

minor source facilities, located in Indian 

country. Surface coating facilities that 

are major sources under 40 CFR part 63, 

and are subject to the requirements of 

certain National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP),27

are not eligible for coverage under this 

general permit.28 The Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

standards in these regulations cover a 

wide array of surface coating operations, 

each with a different set of emission 

standards for the various coatings 

typically used by the particular source 

category, some of which may require 

add-on controls. Creating a general 

permit that covers all of these surface 

coating operations—as required by 40 

CFR 49.154(c)(4)—would be 

cumbersome and likely create a general 

permit that would be confusing to the 

permittee. We believe auto body repair 

and miscellaneous surface coating 

operations are a typical type of true 

minor surface coating operation such 

that it is a good candidate for a general 

permit. 

We request comment on limiting 

eligibility of the general permit to true 

minor sources that are not major sources 

of HAP, or whether there are any terms 

or conditions we could add to the final 

permit that would ensure both 

compliance with the general permit and 

with the MACT standards. 

The draft permit requires that all 

spray applications of coatings must be 

performed using high efficiency spray 

guns in a spray booth controlled by 

exhaust filters. We assumed that only 

batch-loaded cold cleaning degreasers 

were used at these types of facilities. 

The requirements for cold solvent 

degreasing include several work 

practice standards to ensure VOC 

emissions are minimized, including: 

keeping the degreaser cover closed at all 

times, except during parts entry and 

removal; the degreaser should be free of 

cracks, holes and other defects; all waste 

solvents must be properly stored and 

identified in sealed containers; and 

solvent flow must be directed 

downward. 

The proposed permit includes 

monitoring that is sufficient to assure 

compliance with the emission 

limitations that apply to the source, 

including requiring monitoring for 

overspray, assuring that pressure drop 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2561 

29 Information on the source of these thresholds 

is available at: Background Document, Minor 

Source Auto Body Repair and Refinishing Shops 

General Permit and Permit by Rule, Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151, http://www.epa.gov/

air/tribal/tribalnsr.html. 

30 Information on the source of these thresholds 

is available at: Background Document, Minor 

Source Auto Body Repair and Refinishing Shops 

General Permit and Permit by Rule, Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151, http://www.epa.gov/

air/tribal/tribalnsr.html. 

31A more formal regulatory definition of GDF can 

be found at 40 CFR 63.11132. 

32Under the general permit and permit by rule 

programs, such a source would be considered a 

minor source and potentially eligible for the permit 

provided the PTE of all existing, new and modified 

emission units at the stationary source were below 

the major source thresholds for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. 

33Some vapors can also be released due to 

spillage by vehicle operators as vehicles are fueled. 

34For more information, go to: http://www.epa.

gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume03/iii11_

apr2001.pdf. 

35For more information, go to: AP 42, Fifth 

Edition, Volume I, Chapter 5: Petroleum Industry; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; http://www.

epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch05/index.html. 

36Certified vapor recovery systems include hoses, 

nozzles, processors, and other equipment that 

create a closed system which returns gasoline vapor 

back to the underground storage tank and then back 

to the truck that delivers the gasoline to your 

station. The system and equipment are designed to 

capture vapor before it is released to the air. 

across the exhaust filters does not 

exceed manufacturers’ 

recommendations and inspecting 

solvent degreasers for leaks and cracks 

prior to use. The proposed permit 

includes recordkeeping and reporting 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

emission limitations and monitoring 

requirements. 

3. Request for Comment on the 

Proposed Auto Body Repair and 

Miscellaneous Surface Coating 

Operations General Permit 

We request comment on all aspects of 

the general permit for auto body repair 

and miscellaneous surface coating 

operations. We specifically request 

comment in the following two areas: 

(a) Surrogate Annual Allowable 

Emission Limitations 

The EPA is also proposing to include 

an annual allowable emission limitation 

for auto body repair and miscellaneous 

surface coating operations source 

category. This general permit would 

apply to the construction of new 

facilities proposing to locate in Indian 

country or the modification of existing 

auto body repair and miscellaneous 

surface coating operations located in 

Indian country. In attainment areas of 

Indian country, the draft general permit 

includes an upper throughput limit for 

VOC containing materials (e.g., coatings, 

thinners, and clean-up solvents) not to 

exceed 5,000 gallons per year (gpy) 

based on a 12-month rolling total. This 

surrogate emission limitation equates to 

approximately 25 tpy or less of VOCs.29

In ozone nonattainment areas of Indian 

country, the draft general permit 

includes an upper throughput limit for 

VOC containing materials (e.g., coatings, 

thinners, and clean-up solvents) not to 

exceed 900 gpy based on a 12-month 

rolling total. This surrogate emission 

limitation equates to 7 tpy or less of 

VOCs.30 Finally, we request comment 

on the appropriateness of establishing 

different limitations based on the 

attainment status of the area and 

whether the specified limitations should 

be slightly higher or slightly lower. 

(b) Covering Both Auto Body Repair and 

Miscellaneous Surface Coating 

Operations 

As currently structured, both auto 

body repair shops and miscellaneous 

surface coating operations are eligible to 

apply for coverage under the general 

permit. We think these types of 

emissions activities qualify as similar 

sources because (1) they both use the 

same type of equipment (such as spray 

guns) and materials (such as paint) that 

have similar forms of emissions with a 

similar overall emissions potential and 

(2) they use similar approaches to 

minimizing emissions. We request 

comment on treating these emissions 

activities as similar sources and on 

regulating both activities within the 

same general permit. 

E. GDFs 

1. What is a GDF? 

A GDF is any stationary facility that 

dispenses gasoline into the fuel tank of 

a motor vehicle, nonroad vehicle or 

equipment, including a nonroad vehicle 

or nonroad engine used solely for 

competition.31 It should also be noted 

that a GDF could also include 

equipment that dispenses diesel fuel 

(diesel is discussed further below). 

Furthermore, a GDF could be an 

operation supporting other activities at 

a facility that otherwise requires a 

permit.32

Gasoline is delivered by tank trucks to 

GDFs and then transferred to highway 

motor vehicles and nonroad equipment 

and engines. GDFs include all retail 

outlets such as traditional gasoline 

service stations, convenience stores, 

truck stops, and hypermarkets (e.g., 

warehouse clubs and big box stores), 

marinas, as well as private and 

commercial outlets, such as centrallyfueled fleets, government operations, 

and private businesses such as farms 

and landscaping operations. This does 

not include airports offering aviation 

gasoline or mobile fueling capabilities. 

Gasoline vapors are released during 

the transfer of gasoline from tank trucks 

to stationary gasoline storage tanks and 

during the refueling of vehicles and 

equipment.33 Gasoline vapors are the 

major air pollution concern associated 

with gasoline dispensing and handling 

facilities because they contain VOCs 

and HAPs such as aromatic compounds 

and isooctane.34

The EPA’s emissions factor document, 

AP–42, has traditionally divided VOC 

emissions from GDFs into two basic 

segments of operation: Stage I and Stage 

II.35 Stage I generally refers to the 

transfer of gasoline from the delivery 

truck to the aboveground storage tank 

(AST) or underground storage tank 

(UST). Fuel storage tanks are generally, 

but not always, cylindrical in shape, 

and vary in volume from 250 gallons 

(approximately 1,000 liters) to 30,000 

gallons. Volumes of 250 to 1,000 gallons 

are most common for ASTs and 6,000 to 

12,000 gallons are most common USTs. 

Stage II refers to gasoline in storage in 

these tanks and/or its transfer to a 

vehicle or equipment fuel tank through 

a pump and dispenser. 

VOC emissions control technology 

exists and is required for Stage I and 

Stage II operations. Stage I vapor 

recovery is a control method to capture 

gasoline vapors that are released when 

gasoline is delivered by a tank truck to 

a storage tank located at a GDF. Instead 

of being released to the air, the gasoline 

vapors from filling the tank are captured 

and returned to the tank truck as the 

storage tank is being filled with fuel. 

From there, the vapors are transported 

back to the gasoline terminal vapor 

processor for recovery or destruction. 

Because of the GDF NESHAP 

requirements (found at 40 CFR part 63, 

Subpart CCCCCC), all GDFs dispensing 

more than 1,200,000 gpy were required 

to have Stage I controls in place in 

January 2011, with lesser requirements 

in the same timeframe for GDFs with 

gasoline throughputs between 120,000 

gpy and 1,200,000 gpy.36 Stage I 

controls were commonly in place at 

many larger throughput GDFs prior to 

2000. There are no such requirements 

for diesel fuel. 

Stage II vapor recovery captures 

gasoline vapor that would otherwise 

escape into the air when motorists 

refuel their vehicles. Section 182(b)(3) 

of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(3), 

required pump-based Stage II vapor 

recovery for some GDFs located in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2562 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

37For more information, see: ‘‘Widespread Use 

for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II 

Waiver,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

FR 28772, May 16, 2012, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

pkg/FR-2011-07-15/html/2011-17888.htm. The 

rulemaking documents and supporting analyses are 

available at EPA public docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1076. 

38These requirements were ultimately extended 

to all complete heavy-duty gasoline-powered 

vehicles (HDGVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds and have recently 

been proposed to extend to all complete HDGVs 

with a GVWR up to 14,000 pounds. 

39 ‘‘Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor 

Recovery and Stage II Waiver,’’ U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 FR 28772, May 16, 2012, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-16/html/

2012-11846.htm. 

40 If a state submits a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision to remove Stage II requirements from 

a previously approved SIP, it would need to 

demonstrate that the revision meets the 

requirements of sections 110(l) of the CAA as well 

as sections 193 and 184(b)(2), if applicable. 

41These values are discussed more fully in EPA 

memoranda, ‘‘Updated Data for ORVR Widespread 

Use Assessment,’’ February 29, 2012 and ‘‘Onboard 

Refueling Vapor Recovery Widespread Use 

Assessment,’’ June 9, 2011. Both are available in: 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1076. 

42For information on how these values were 

determined, see ‘‘Calculation of Emissions from 

GDFs,’’ Memorandum from Glenn W. Passavant to 

Public Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151, 

September 24, 2012, http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/ 

tribalnsr.html. 

‘‘moderate’’ or above ozone 

nonattainment areas. Section 202(a)(6) 

of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), 

required the EPA to develop standards 

for vehicle-based onboard vapor 

recovery (ORVR) controls on light-duty 

vehicles to capture these emissions. 

Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA also states 

that the section 182(b)(3) pump-based 

Stage II requirement shall not apply in 

moderate nonattainment areas after 

ORVR standards are promulgated, but 

would be required for serious, severe, or 

extreme ozone nonattainment areas.37

On April 16, 1994, the EPA published 

regulations requiring the phase-in of 

ORVR controls on new passenger cars 

and light trucks.38 These controls were 

required on all new gasoline-powered 

motor vehicles, not just those in ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

In addition, the CAA provides that the 

EPA may revise or waive the pumpbased Stage II control requirements of 

section 182(b)(3) for serious or above 

ozone nonattainment areas after the EPA 

determines that ORVR control systems 

are in ‘‘widespread use’’ throughout the 

motor vehicle fleet. The EPA has 

determined that vehicle-based ORVR 

refueling emission control systems were 

in widespread use in the motor vehicle 

fleet as of May 9, 2012.39 This 

determination triggered the provision of 

section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, which 

waives the section 182(b)(3) Stage II 

requirement for serious or above ozone 

nonattainment areas. Under this waiver, 

states are no longer required to have 

pump-based Stage II vapor recovery 

systems for control of vehicle refueling 

emissions under section 182 (b)(3).40

2. What impact will the GDF National 

Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants and onboard refueling vapor 

recovery control systems have on 

emissions from GDFs? 

The GDF NESHAP and ORVR controls 

have a significant impact on lowering 

the VOC emissions levels from GDFs. 

GDF NESHAP requirements address 

Stage I emissions for all but the lowest 

throughput GDFs. ORVR controls and 

the gasoline dispensing rate limits 

which the EPA put in place in 1996 

have significantly reduced the VOC 

emission rates. When fully phased-in, 

ORVR will reduce Stage II vapor 

displacement emissions by about 98 

percent and fuel spillage by 50 

percent.41

Using this information, Table 3 

illustrates how the minor source NSR 

VOC emission permitting thresholds of 

2 and 5 tpy translates into the 

equivalent volumes of gasoline 

dispensed by a GDF on both a monthly 

and yearly basis based on the control 

efficiencies for the GDF NESHAP and 

ORVR regulations. The 2 tpy value 

applies to any area classified as ozone 

nonattainment (marginal, moderate, 

serious, severe, or extreme) at the time 

the permit is being submitted and the 5 

tpy applies to areas meeting the ozone 

NAAQS at that time. It includes the 

basic Stage I and Stage II emission 

sources plus the impacts that the GDF 

NESHAP and the increasing percentage 

of vehicles with ORVR controls will 

have on refueling emissions from GDFs 

(assuming pump-based Stage II vapor 

recovery is not in place). In this table, 

the displacement VOC emission rate in 

pounds/1,000 gallons depends on the 

gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), the 

dispensed fuel temperature, and the 

difference between the temperature of 

the fuel in the tank and the dispensed 

fuel. For these purposes, the EPA has 

used 7 pounds per square inch (psi) 

RVP and temperatures representative of 

the summertime western U.S. for ozone 

non-attainment areas and 10 psi RVP 

and national average summertime 

temperatures for all other areas in 

calculating the uncontrolled 

displacement VOC emission rate in 

pounds/1,000 gallons. This yields 

values of about 7.5 and 10.8 pounds/

1,000 gallons, respectively.42

TABLE 3—EMISSIONS FROM GDFS WITH ORVR CONSIDERATION

NSR CATEGORY End of 

calendar 

year 

% ORVR Disp. 

3 lb/10 

gallons 

Breathing 

losses 

3 lb/10 

gallons 

Stage I 

3 lb/10 

gallons 

Total 

3 lb/10 

gallons 

Gpy 

equivalent 

Gallons per 

month (gpm) 

equivalent 

1a ............... 2 tpy ........... Ozone NA 2011 72 2 .1 0.25 0.3 2 .65 1,509,434 125,786 

1b ............... 2 tpy ........... Ozone NA 2014 82 1 .35 0.25 0.3 1 .9 2,105,263 175,439 

1c ............... 2 tpy ........... Ozone NA 2020 92 0 .6 0.25 0.3 1 .15 3,478,261 289,855 

1d ............... 2 tpy ........... Ozone NA 2025 96 0 .3 0.25 0.3 0 .85 4,705,882 392,157 

2a ............... 5 tpy ........... Ozone attain.2011 72 3 .02 0.25 0.3 3 .57 2,801,112 233,427 

2b ............... 5 tpy ........... Ozone attain.2014 82 1 .94 0.25 0.3 2 .49 4,016,064 334,673 

2c ............... 5 tpy ........... Ozone attain.2020 92 0 .86 0.25 0.3 1 .41 7,142,857 595,238 

2d ............... 5 tpy ........... Ozone attain.2025 96 0 .43 0.25 0.3 0 .98 10,204,082 850,340 

As shown in row 1b, the EPA 

estimates that ORVR will control 82 

percent of motor vehicle gasoline 

refueling emissions in 2014. A GDF in 

an ozone nonattainment area could 

dispense approximately 2.1 million gpy 

before reaching the 2 tpy emissions 

threshold. As seen in row 1c, however, 

that same GDF could dispense 

approximately 3.5 million gpy in 2020 

because 92 percent of refueling 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2563 

43For more information, see: ‘‘Air Quality 

Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards,’’ 77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012, 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/

designations/2008standards/final/tribalf.htm. 

44These include El Dorado County AQMD, San 

Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Placer County APCD, 

South Coast AQMD, Mojave Desert AQMD, and 

Yolo-Solano AQMD. 

45Standing losses are gasoline vapor emissions 

that occur whenever the gasoline evaporates during 

periods of no gasoline transfer. These evaporative 

emissions escape through open vent pipes and leaks 

in the AST. They occur when internal tank pressure 

increases as a result of diurnal temperature changes. 

Standing losses from ASTs vary based on the 

different tank configurations, fill levels, and 

volumes. 

46For more information on test procedures and 

standards, see: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/

ast07/ast07.htm. Most notably, refer to the ISOR 

and TP–206.1, TP–206.2, and CP–206. 

47See http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol2/cp206.pdf, Certification Procedure for Vapor Recovery 

Systems at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Using 

Aboveground Storage Tanks, CP—206, California 

Air Resources Board, Adopted: May 2, 2008. 

48The EPA has approved requirements for 

aboveground storage tanks with capacity greater 

than 250 gallons for Sacramento Metropolitan 

AQMD (Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Diego APCD, 

Northern Sierra AQMD, and Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD; January 7, 2013; 78 FR 897) 

and San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD (Revisions to 

the California State Implementation Plan, Northern 

Sierra Air Quality Management District and San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District; October 30, 2009; 74 FR 56120). 

emissions will be controlled by vehicles 

equipped with ORVR. 

In row 2b, the EPA estimates that a 

GDF in an ozone attainment area could 

dispense approximately 4 million gpy in 

2014 before reaching the 5 tpy 

emissions threshold for ozone in a PSD 

area. As seen in row 2c, however, a GDF 

in an attainment area could dispense 

about 7.1 million gpy in 2020 because 

92 percent of gasoline refueling 

emissions are expected to be controlled 

by ORVR. The calculations in Table 3 

are snapshots for the various calendar 

years. Based on the PTE calculator, the 

gpy or gpm values for any given permit 

depend on the geographic location 

(attainment or non-attainment area) and 

the year in which coverage under the 

permit is requested. 

The average GDF has a throughput of 

1.5 million gpy; thus, many GDFs have 

throughputs below the 2014 gpy values 

listed in Table 3. If a GDF has projected 

emissions below the 2 tpy and 5 tpy 

minor NSR emissions thresholds for 

ozone nonattainment and attainment 

areas specified in the Indian Country 

Minor NSR rule, it does not need to 

obtain a pre-construction permit but 

may still be required to meet the GDF 

NESHAP requirements of 40 CFR part 

63, Subpart CCCCCC and those 

proposed below for ASTs. While it is 

possible that a large and very active 

GDF could exceed the minor NSR 

emissions thresholds for ozone 

nonattainment and attainment areas (2 

and 5 tpy, respectively) and, thus, be 

subject to the Minor NSR rule permit 

requirements, it is very unlikely that a 

single GDF could dispense enough fuel 

to exceed a 10 tpy level, which is the 

strictest VOC emissions threshold for a 

major source in a nonattainment area. 

The average refueling event is 10 to 11 

gallons. If, for example, one simply 

multiplies the gpy entries in the Table 

3 rows (1b) by a value of 5 tpy and 

divides by 11 gallons per minute, the 

result is over approximately 950,000 

refueling events per year at one GDF. 

There are practical limitations on GDF 

acreage, as well as vehicle transit and 

tanker truck deliveries, which serve as 

a practical cap on the number of 

refueling events per year. Exceeding the 

10 tpy limit in ozone nonattainment 

areas in 2014 would require over 2,600 

gasoline refueling events per day, which 

is practically unlikely at even the largest 

and busiest GDFs. 

Thus, considering the physical 

limitations on GDFs and the emissions 

impact of ORVR, we propose that for 

most areas there is no need for 

numerical limits on the quantity 

(throughput) or rate (tpy) of emissions 

for GDFs as it is practically not possible 

to become a major source. However, to 

provide extra air quality protection, we 

are proposing to have a surrogate 

emission limitation for serious, severe 

or extreme ozone nonattainment areas. 

For these areas, the draft permit requires 

the source to limit annual gasoline 

surrogate throughput to 10 million 

gallons or less based on a 12-month 

rolling total for each month. This 

surrogate throughput limit is set at a 

level intended to ensure that GDFs 

under this general permit and permit by 

rule remain minor sources and below 

the lowest major source threshold for 

extreme ozone nonattainment areas of 

10 tpy. 

3. Treatment of Diesel Fuel 

It is common for facilities with 

gasoline dispensing operations to also 

dispense diesel fuel to autos, light 

trucks, heavy-trucks, and nonroad 

equipment. However, the true vapor 

pressure of diesel fuel is only about 0.2 

percent of the 7 psi RVP gasoline at 

70 °F. Thus, while Stage I and Stage II 

type emissions occur with diesel fuel 

dispensing operations, they are very low 

in comparison and no Stage I or Stage 

II controls are required. For 

completeness, the PTE calculator 

provided as part of this NPRM includes 

diesel emissions but these in total 

would be very small in comparison to 

gasoline vapor emissions. This PTE 

could also help to inform calculations of 

total VOC emissions from a facility 

where a GDF is only part of the overall 

VOC emissions from the source used in 

assessing the permit application. 

4. What are the requirements for the 

proposed general permit for GDFs in 

serious, severe, and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas? 

We are proposing the following 

additional requirements, as discussed 

below, for GDFs in Indian country that 

are located in serious, severe, and 

extreme ozone nonattainment areas. 

Currently, all of the areas of Indian 

country located in serious, severe, and 

extreme ozone nonattainment areas are 

located in California, but that situation 

could change in the future.43 We 

examined the GDF requirements of the 

California Air Resources Board (ARB) 

and the six California air quality 

management and air pollution control 

districts (collectively AQMDs) that are 

designated serious, severe, or extreme 

for ozone nonattainment and have areas 

of Indian country within their 

boundaries.44

California ARB adopted regulations 

for control of standing loss control (SLC) 

VOC emissions from ASTs.45 Emissions 

of this type are not included in the GDF 

NESHAP requirements. The test 

procedures and SLC emission standard 

(0.57 lbs/1,000 gallons ullage/day) for 

these requirements potentially cover all 

ASTs regardless of volume.46 Systems 

can be certified to the SLC emission 

standards either by design or 

performance as discussed in ARB CP– 

206.47 Responding to these 

requirements generally involves the use 

of one of several techniques to treat the 

tank in such a way as to reduce the 

diurnal temperature changes in the fuel 

in the AST and to add a pressure 

vacuum (p/v) valve to address AST 

venting. These requirements became 

applicable to existing ASTs in California 

in April 2009, and to new ASTs 

(including major modifications) in April 

2013. They apply to ASTs in the 

individual air districts in California if 

the ARB rule is adopted by that air 

district.48 All of the AQMDs in serious, 

severe, and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas in California have 

adopted the SLC requirements, but have 

granted exemptions for tanks of 250 

gallons capacity or less. Thus, to 

address ozone air quality and as a 

matter of equity, the EPA is requesting 

comment on whether the final permits 

should include these SLC requirements. 

If we include these requirements, then 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2564 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

49See California ARB certification requirement 

(CP–206) and test procedures (TP–206.1. TP–206.2. 

and TP–206.3) for more detail on these 

requirements. These are available at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/vapor/vapor.htm. 

50Uncontrolled SLC emissions = 5.7 pounds/

1,000 gallons of ullage per day. Normally, an AST 

would have ullage of 45 percent of capacity on 

average, assuming it is filled to capacity each time 

it drops to 10 percent of capacity. 

we would delay the effective date of 

compliance until January 1, 2014. 

We would, though, propose to exempt 

any AST with a volume equal to or less 

than 250 gallons. This is consistent with 

the current NESHAP and California air 

district rules. Tanks not qualifying for 

this exemption would need to meet the 

proposed applicable NESHAP 

requirements, as well as the SLC 

requirements as discussed above, 

including the reporting requirements. 

Since these ASTs are all expected to 

be in California, we seek comment as to 

whether the EPA should simply adopt 

the SLC and ARB Phase I requirements 

for ASTs for new or reconstructed ASTs 

with a volume greater than 250 

gallons 49 in lieu of SLC and the EPA 

Stage I requirements as prescribed in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. This 

approach could be more efficient and 

offer wider availability of ASTs that 

meet California emissions requirements. 

Furthermore, the EPA is asking for 

comment on whether the exemption 

threshold should be set at 250 gallons or 

less or at 1,000 liters or less. An AST 

with 1,000 liter volume is the equivalent 

of about 265 gallons. An uncontrolled 

250 gallon AST which is splash refilled 

monthly would emit about 62 pounds 

per year. A 265 gallon AST would emit 

6 percent more. 

Finally, we note that many of the 

California Air Districts allow 

exemptions for ASTs when 50 percent 

or more of the throughput is involved in 

supporting husbandry activities (e.g., 

ranching and farming). Since we are not 

proposing such a provision, this creates 

a question as to whether new SLC 

controlled tanks would be available in 

some tank sizes such as 250 gallons and 

what would be the control costs if they 

are required only in areas of Indian 

country. We request comment on these 

two points. 

5. What type of source may apply for 

coverage under the proposed GDF 

general permit? 

This proposed general permit covers 

construction of new true minor source 

GDFs to be located in Indian country, or 

the modification of existing true minor 

source GDFs in Indian country. The 

general permit is available to any 

facility that qualifies as a GDF. There 

are no limitations on the eligibility of 

GDFs to apply for this general permit. 

The permit contains requirements for 

proper design, construction, installation 

and operation of vapor balance systems 

for the loading of gasoline into storage 

tanks and daily storage therein. It 

applies to GDFs with USTs and/or 

ASTs. It potentially includes facilities 

dispensing gasoline, gasoline and diesel 

fuel, or diesel fuel only. 

6. Request for Comment on the 

Proposed GDF General Permit 

We request comment on all aspects of 

the general permit for GDFs. We 

specifically request comment in the 

following two areas: 

a. Should the EPA establish an annual 

allowable emission limitation? 

The draft permit does not contain an 

annual ton per year allowable emission 

limitation or a surrogate emission 

limitation, unless a source locates in a 

serious, severe or extreme ozone 

nonattainment area. Because of the 

effectiveness of ORVR and other 

practical constraints on emissions from 

GDF operations, for most areas we do 

not believe that it is necessary to 

establish an annual allowable emission 

limitation to properly regulate the 

construction or modification and then 

operation of true minor GDF sources. 

We request comment on this 

conclusion. If the EPA were to include 

a throughput emission limitation, we 

would establish this limit just below the 

major source threshold for VOC. The 

throughput emission limitation would 

be calculated as the product of 

emissions factors and the volume of 

annual gasoline throughput that 

corresponds to the ton per year of the 

major source threshold. As the 

implementation of ORVR continues, in 

the future there would be little need to 

adjust throughput emission limitation 

because of the practical limitations on 

how much gasoline a GDF can process. 

However, if a source locates in an 

extreme ozone nonattainment area, then 

the draft permit requires the source to 

limit annual gasoline throughput to 8 

million gallons or less based on a 12- 

month rolling total for each month. This 

throughput limit is set at a level 

intended to ensure that GDFs under this 

general permit or permit by rule remain 

minor sources and below the major 

source threshold for extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas of 10 tpy. We 

request comment on the need for this 

additional requirement in serious and 

above ozone nonattainment areas. 

b. Should proposed standing loss 

control requirements apply to GDFs in 

Indian country in potential future 

serious, severe, and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas outside of 

California? 

The EPA is proposing that new and 

modified ASTs greater than 250 gallons 

to be located in Indian country in 

California meet proposed SLC emission 

control requirements. This is consistent 

with air quality needs and is the same 

as required for ASTs outside of Indian 

country in California. As discussed 

above, compliant ASTs are expected to 

be readily available in California. This 

may not necessarily be the case outside 

of California, however, as no other state 

has adopted SLC requirements. Given 

this potential disparity in technology 

availability, the EPA asks for comment 

on applying SLC requirements in areas 

outside of California. The EPA also asks 

if this requirement should be linked to 

whether the GDF would exceed the 

minor NSR thresholds (2 and 5 tpy) for 

ozone attainment and nonattainment 

areas, respectively, if SLC emissions 

were not included.50

F. Petroleum Dry Cleaning Facilities 

1. What is a petroleum dry cleaning 

facility? 

A petroleum dry cleaning facility can 

consist of dry cleaning dryers, washers, 

filters, stills, settling tanks, and boilers. 

The dry cleaning industry is a service 

industry involved in the cleaning of 

articles ranging from personal clothing 

to mops and mats. Dry cleaning involves 

the cleaning of fabrics with nonaqueous 

organic solvents. The dry cleaning 

process includes three steps: (1) 

Washing the fabric in solvent; (2) 

spinning to extract excess solvent; and 

(3) drying by tumbling in a hot air 

stream. There are two general types of 

cleaning fluids used in the industry: 

petroleum solvents and synthetic 

solvents. Petroleum solvents, such as 

Stoddard or 140–F, are combustible 

hydrocarbon mixtures similar to 

kerosene. Synthetic solvents or 

halogenated hydrocarbons, such as 

perchloroethylene (‘‘perc’’ or PCE), are 

nonflammable. 

Petroleum dry cleaning operations are 

similar to detergent and water wash 

operations. There are two basic types of 

dry cleaning machines, transfer and dryto-dry machines. Transfer machines 

accomplish washing and drying in 

separate machines. Dry cleaning as a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2565 

51AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 4.1: 

Dry Cleaning; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch04/

index.html. 

52U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

DRAFT, ‘‘Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Industry 

Profile,’’ Graham Gibson and Colin Hayes, ERG; 

August 4, 2010. 

53 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ—Standards of 

Performance for Petroleum Dry Cleaners, http://

ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=a4ffb0a8d823382f497b95a6

1ef26817&rgn=div6&view=text&node=

40:6.0.1.1.1.75&idno=40. 

54 40 CFR part 63, subpart M—National Emission 

Standards for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning 

Facilities, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/dryperc/

dryclpg.html. 

55The petroleum dry cleaner NSPS requires each 

solvent dry cleaning dryer to be a solvent recovery 

dryer, petroleum solvent filters to be drained for 8 

hours prior to removal, and the manufacturer to put 

a specific label on dryers requiring leak inspections 

and repairs. The general permit includes the 

requirement to use a solvent recovery dry. The 

general permit does not include the work practice 

standard for petroleum solvent filters as it is EPA’s 

more recent experience that solvent filters are an 

antiquated practice and no longer is use. The 

general permit also does not include the labeling 

requirement for manufacturers, but does include the 

same monitoring requirements that must be 

included on the label. 

56South Coast Air Quality Rule 1102—Dry 

Cleaners Using Solvent Other Than 

Perchloroethylene; http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/

reg11/r1102.pdf. 

batch process in transfer machines can 

result in a large amount of VOC or HAP 

emissions due to vaporization of solvent 

during the transfer process. Dry-to-dry 

machines are single units that perform 

all of the washing, extraction, and 

drying operations. Since cleaning and 

drying take place in the same 

compartment of dry-to-dry machines, 

significant amounts of VOC and HAP 

emissions are eliminated from dry-todry machines.51 Most petroleum dry 

cleaning machines in operation today 

are dry-to-dry machines.52 Dryers, 

solvent filtration and distillation 

systems, and miscellaneous (fugitive) 

sources are the major contributors of 

VOC emissions in a dry cleaning plant. 

Most petroleum dry cleaning facilities 

have one or two small natural gas fired 

steam boilers. VOC emissions from 

combustion are typically not a 

significant concern at petroleum dry 

cleaning facilities. The EPA has issued 

a New Source Performance Standard 

(NSPS) for petroleum dry cleaning 

facilities 53 and a NESHAP for perc.54 55

2. What is in the proposed petroleum 

dry cleaning facilities general permit? 

This proposed general permit would 

apply to the construction of new (or 

modification of existing) true minor 

source petroleum dry cleaning facilities 

located in Indian country. The sources 

in question only use petroleum solvent 

in dry cleaning dryers, washers, filters, 

stills and settling tanks. The draft 

permit requires that all petroleum dry 

cleaning dryers must be solvent 

recovery dryers and that care must be 

taken to ensure equipment is operated 

properly and solvents are properly 

stored. Facilities that use synthetic 

solvents are not eligible for coverage 

under this general permit. The permit 

contains requirements for: 

• Material use; 

• Dryers; 

• Solvent storage; 

• Solvent recovery; 

• Button, washer and line traps; 

• Access doors and other equipment; 

and 

• Used material storage. 

The proposed permit includes 

monitoring that is sufficient to assure 

compliance with the emission 

limitations that apply to the source, 

including requiring each petroleum 

solvent dry cleaning dryer to be 

inspected every 15 calendar days for 

evidence of leaks and all vapor or liquid 

leaks to be repaired within the 

subsequent 15 calendar day period. The 

proposed permit includes recordkeeping 

and reporting sufficient to assure 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and monitoring 

requirements. 

For sources located in severe or 

extreme ozone nonattainment areas, the 

permit also requires that, no less 

frequently than monthly, the owner or 

operator shall inspect the dry cleaning 

system for liquid and vapor leaks, 

including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

• Hose connections, unions, 

couplings, valves, and flanges; 

• Machine door gasket and seating of 

the machine cylinder; 

• Filter head gasket and seating; 

• Pumps; 

• Base tanks and storage containers; 

• Water separators; 

• Filter sludge recovery; 

• Seals and gaskets of distillation 

unit(s); 

• Diverter valves; 

• Saturated lint from lint trap basket; 

• Button trap lid; 

• Seals, gaskets and the diverter valve 

of the refrigerated condenser; 

• Exhaust stream ducts; 

• Lint trap ducts; and 

• Gaskets and ducts of the carbon 

adsorber. 

3. Request for Comment on the 

Proposed Petroleum Dry Cleaning 

Facilities General Permit 

We request comment on all aspects of 

the general permit for petroleum dry 

cleaning facilities. We specifically 

request comment in the following two 

areas: 

a. Surrogate Annual Allowable Emission 

Limitations 

The petroleum dry cleaning general 

permit contains material use limits that 

serve as surrogate annual ton per year 

allowable emission limitations. We 

discuss the use of surrogate limits in 

Section V.E. above. If a source locates in 

an ozone attainment or unclassifiable 

area of Indian country, the draft permit 

requires the source to limit material use 

to 5,600 gallons or less of cleaning 

solvent per year. This is roughly 

equivalent to 25 tpy of VOCs. If a source 

locates in an ozone nonattainment area, 

the draft permit requires the source to 

limit material use to 1,300 gallons or 

less of cleaning solvent per year. This is 

roughly equivalent to 7 tpy of VOC. 

Both annual material use limits are 

based on a 12-month rolling total 

calculated each month. We request 

comment on the use of these surrogate 

limits. In lieu of establishing surrogate 

limits, we request comment on whether 

the final permits should contain ton per 

year emission limitations and the use of 

monitoring of material use as a 

compliance method. Finally, we request 

comment on the appropriateness of 

establishing different limitations based 

on the attainment status of the area and 

whether the specified limitations should 

be slightly higher or slightly lower. 

b. Should we establish additional 

requirements for serious, severe, and/or 

extreme ozone nonattainment areas? 

The draft permits contain additional 

requirements for sources that locate in 

serious, severe, and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas. These 

requirements include requirements for 

changing paper or carbon cartridge 

filters; wastewater evaporators; 

additional specifications for closed-loop 

machines (e.g., proper exhausting and 

locking); leak check and repair 

requirements; and enhanced 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. We adopted these 

practices from the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District’s rule for 

Dry Cleaners Using Solvent Other Than 

Perchloroethylene 56 for facilities 

located in ozone nonattainment areas. 

We request comment on the need for 

these enhanced requirements in serious, 

severe and/or extreme nonattainment 

areas. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2566 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

57The EPA has approved the following permits 

by rule: (1) Connecticut for automotive refinishing 

(‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Connecticut; VOC 

Regulations and One-Hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Shortfall;’’ U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; 71 FR 51761; August 31, 2006; 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2006-08-31/

06-7314/content-detail.html); (2) Iowa for spray 

booths (‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Iowa;’’ U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 75 FR 10182; 

March 5, 2010; https://www.federalregister.gov/

articles/2013/08/27/2013-20750/approval-andpromulgation-of-implementation-plans-state-ofiowa); (3) Operating PBR for small sources 

(‘‘Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans and Operating Permits 

Program; State of Iowa;’’ U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; 72 Federal Register 58535; 

March 5, 2010); (4) Kansas Class II operating 

permits for reciprocating engines, evaporative 

sources, and hot mix asphalt facilities (‘‘Approval 

and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and 

Section 112(l) Program for the Issuance of Federally 

Enforceable State Operating Permits; State of 

Kansas;’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 60 

FR 36361; July 17, 1995; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

pkg/FR-1995-07-17/html/95-17214.htm); (5) 

Massachusetts for paint spray booths (‘‘Approval 

and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Massachusetts; Volatile Organic Compound 

Regulations;’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; 64 FR 48297; September 3, 1999); (6) 

Missouri for construction (‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans and 

Operating Permits Program; State of Missouri;’’ U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 71 FR 38997; 

July 11, 2006; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2006-07-11/html/06-6092.htm); (7) Nebraska for 

HMA facilities and small animal incinerators 

(‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 

Plans and Operating Permits Program; State of 

Nebraska;’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

71 FR 38776; July 10, 2006; http://www.gpo.gov/

fdsys/granule/FR-2006-07-10/E6-10730/contentdetail.html); (8) Auto body refinishing facilities; 

gasoline dispensing facilities; boilers and heaters; 

small printing facilities; and mid-size printing 

facilities (‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; PBR and 

PTIO;’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 78 

FR 11748; February 20, 2013; http://www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-20/html/2013-03761.htm); 

and (9) multiple source categories, such as: batch 

mixers; comfort heating; rock crushers; saw mills; 

vacuum cleaning systems (47 FR 35194; August 13, 

1982) and (‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to 

Regulations for Permits by Rule, Control of Air 

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or 

Modification, and Federal Operating Permits;’’ U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 68 FR 64543; 

November 14, 2003; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ 

FR-2003-11-14/pdf/03-28416.pdf). 

VII. Description of the EPA’s Proposed 

Permit by Rule Program in Indian 

Country 

A. What is a permit by rule? 

For purposes of this proposal, a 

permit by rule is a standard set of 

requirements that can apply to multiple 

sources with similar emissions and 

other characteristics. This is similar to 

a general permit. Unlike a general 

permit, however, we codify the permit 

by rule requirements into regulation 

using a rulemaking process, rather than 

establish the requirements through a 

general permit document that undergoes 

notice and comment. 

For purposes of this proposal, the 

permit by rule mechanism is a permit 

streamlining approach that reduces the 

time permitting authorities must devote 

to reviewing permit applications and 

issuing permits for source categories or 

emissions generating activities that pose 

a lower environmental concern. We 

believe that permits by rule offer 

another cost-effective means of issuing 

permits, and provide a quicker and 

simpler alternative mechanism for 

permitting true minor sources than the 

site-specific permit or standard general 

permit process. 

State and local reviewing authorities 

use the permit by rule mechanism to 

authorize construction of less complex 

sources, and sources that emit at 

specified levels below the major 

stationary source thresholds. The EPA 

has approved several state or local 

permits by rule programs into SIPs.57 By 

this proposal, we would provide similar 

opportunities for permitting efficiency 

in Indian country, while also providing 

a comparable level of protection of air 

quality. 

B. How would a permit by rule program 

operate in Indian Country? 

As proposed in this notice, once the 

EPA identifies a source category or 

emissions generating activity for which 

the permit by rule mechanism would 

offer permit streamlining benefits, while 

at the same time protecting air quality, 

the EPA will codify a nationally 

applicable permit by rule for those 

similar sources into a new section of the 

Indian Country Minor NSR FIP. If the 

permit by rule will apply only at a 

regional level, then the EPA regional 

reviewing authority will conduct the 

rulemaking process, and appropriately 

limit the applicability of the permit by 

rule to a specified geographic area. 

As proposed, permits by rule would 

be used to address source categories of 

true minor sources, where the reviewing 

authority does not need to conduct an 

in-depth review to evaluate whether an 

individual source meets requirements in 

the permit. A source category would be 

covered by a permit by rule if the 

reviewing authority needs to take no 

further action other than receiving 

confirmation from an individual source 

that it meets all appropriate criteria to 

be eligible for coverage under the permit 

by rule. Under a permit by rule, an 

individual source would be subject to 

the operational, monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements specified in 

this rule. 

In this action, we propose to amend 

the Indian Country Minor NSR rule 

general permit provisions at 40 CFR 

49.156 to set forth the unique elements 

of the permits by rule process discussed 

below. We also propose permits by rule 

for several specific source categories. 

The proposed permits by rule program 

would follow a more streamlined 

application process that would allow an 

individual applicant to notify the 

reviewing authority that it meets the 

eligibility criteria for the permit and the 

permit conditions. The applicant would 

need to complete an application, but 

would keep it on file to be available 

upon request. The source would simply 

need to send a notification letter signed 

by an authorized official representing 

the source who certifies that the source 

is eligible for the permit and is 

complying or will comply with all of the 

permit’s conditions. This streamlined 

application process would serve as a 

‘‘notification’’ and would streamline 

permitting for eligible sources, and 

make it easier for the reviewing 

authority to implement the permit by 

rule program compared to traditional 

site-specific permits and standard 

general permits. 

We request comment on this 

streamlined permit by rule approach. 

Specifically, while it would streamline 

the permitting process for the applicant, 

it would not allow the public the 

opportunity (as that available under the 

general permit program) to object, 

except by judicial challenge, to a 

particular source receiving coverage 

under a specific permit by rule. We 

specifically request comment on 

whether this tradeoff of allowing more 

streamlining while reducing the public’s 

ability to object to the granting of permit 

coverage in specific instances represents 

sound policy and is appropriately 

protective of air quality. 

Like general permits, the EPA is 

proposing that true minor sources may 

use the permit by rule mechanism to 

gain authorization to construct or 

modify, and then operate a source. We 

are also proposing to allow the use of 

the permits by rule mechanism to create 

synthetic minor sources. We are 

proposing this approach to remain 

consistent with our current policies on 

the use of general permits in Indian 

country. As discussed in Section X, we 

propose to change this policy (and 

request comment) to allow general 

permits to create synthetic minor 

sources both to regulate construction, 

modification and then operation, and to 

obtain minor source status. Similarly, 

we propose to allow reviewing 

authorities to use the permit by rule 

mechanism for these same purposes and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2567 

request comment on the proposed 

change. 

Like general permits, a reviewing 

authority’s receipt of a source 

notification requesting coverage under a 

permit by rule qualifies as a final action 

for purposes of judicial review (see 40 

CFR 49.159). Any such review is limited 

to the issue of whether a source meets 

the eligibility requirements for coverage 

under the permit by rule. If a reviewing 

authority accepts a source’s notification 

of coverage under a permit by rule, the 

source must post, prominently, a copy 

of the written confirmation granting 

such request at the location of the 

source. Also, like general permits, any 

source subject to a permit by rule is 

subject to enforcement action for failure 

to obtain a permit to construct and then 

operate if the source constructs the 

affected emissions unit(s) under 

coverage of a permit by rule, and we 

later determine that the source was not 

eligible for coverage under the permit by 

rule. 

C. Requirements of the ESA and NHPA 

Similar to general permits, prior to 

seeking coverage under a permit by rule, 

a source must satisfactorily address the 

permit requirements related to the ESA 

and the NHPA. Attached to the 

notification the source sends to the 

reviewing authority, the EPA provides 

guidance to assist sources in complying 

with these requirements. Section V.F. 

above describes the process for 

complying with a permit by rule in 

more detail. 

VIII. Proposed Permits by Rule 

As an alternative to general permits, 

we are proposing to establish permits by 

rule, for three source categories: GDFs, 

auto body repair and miscellaneous 

surface coating operations, and 

petroleum dry cleaning facilities. We are 

proposing these source categories for 

permits by rule because they are the 

most straightforward, have the least 

variation in pieces of equipment and the 

simplest compliance requirements. 

We are not providing specific 

regulatory language for any of the 

proposed permits by rule but rather are 

proposing to codify the requirements of 

the proposal general permits of the 

specified source category. If we decide 

to finalize a permit by rule for any of the 

three source categories, then we will 

codify the requirements as contained in 

the proposed draft general permit for 

that source category, with consideration 

of any changes that may be appropriate 

after we review public comments on the 

general permits. In other words, 

whether we use the permits by rule or 

the standard general permit mechanism, 

we propose to apply identical 

requirements to regulate construction 

and modification activities of affected 

emission units in the specified source 

category. We believe that the proposed 

general permits provide the public with 

a sufficient understanding of the 

contents of any final rule, and, 

therefore, satisfy our obligations under 

section 301(a) of the CAA. 

The EPA welcomes comments on all 

aspects of the proposed general permits 

and permits by rule approaches, 

mechanisms, and categories covered by 

this proposed notice. In particular, we 

request that commenters focus on the 

differences between notification 

procedures for general permits and 

permits by rule. Commenters should 

inform the EPA if the process laid out 

for permits by rule is appropriate. We 

request comments on whether the 

permit by rule terms and conditions 

should be identical to the general 

permits terms and conditions, or 

whether they should differ. 

IX. Implementation Documents and 

Tools 

We are providing several tools and 

documents to assist sources with 

obtaining coverage under the general 

permits and permits by rule for the five 

source categories that are the subject of 

today’s proposal. The tools are drafted 

based on our preferred approach of 

general permits. If we decide to issue 

permits by rule for one or more of the 

three categories we are proposing in the 

alternative today, then we will need to 

adjust the wording in the documents to 

reflect that tool being made available for 

a permit by rule and not a general 

permit. The background documents 

support both our general permit 

proposal (and permit by rule proposal, 

in the alternative); therefore, those 

documents cite both general permits 

and permits by rule as the permit types 

they support. 

The tools consist of the following six 

types of documents: 

Request for Coverage: This form is for 

sources seeking to use general permits 

and is essentially an application to 

request coverage under a general permit. 

The application asks for contact and 

location information, as well as more indepth operational and source-specific 

information. The application will also 

guide sources through processes to 

comply with permit requirements 

related to the ESA and the NHPA. 

The general permit applications for 

certain source categories in today’s 

proposal (i.e., auto body repair and 

miscellaneous surface coating 

operations; GDFs; and petroleum dry 

cleaning facilities) are more streamlined 

because sources in those categories 

represent more straightforward 

operations, largely involve one air 

pollutant (i.e., VOCs) and, therefore, 

necessitate less intensive review for 

approval. The general permit 

application forms for the three 

categories primarily ask whether you 

have or will comply with relevant 

requirements. For example, for the auto 

body repair and miscellaneous surface 

coating operations permits, the general 

permit application asks questions 

concerning whether you have or comply 

with certain requirements such as 

throughput limits, but does not require 

details on affected units. By contrast, 

the general permit applications for HMA 

and SQCS facilities request more 

detailed technical information about the 

proposed facility in question because 

these facilities are more complex and 

involve multiple operations and 

pollutants. 

For auto body repair and 

miscellaneous surface coating 

operations; GDFs; and petroleum dry 

cleaning facilities, this form also serves 

as an application for sources seeking 

coverage under a permit by rule should 

the EPA decide to issue one or more for 

these categories. The source would need 

to complete the shortened applications 

and keep a record on file. Successfully 

completing the application will enable 

the source to determine if it can certify 

to the reviewing that it meets the 

permit’s eligibility terms and 

conditions, which the source would 

need to do via a letter in order to begin 

its construction or modification. 

Questionnaire: This tool is tailored to 

each source category and guides sources 

through a series of questions to 

determine whether or not it is eligible 

for coverage under a general permit. It 

is not required to be completed or 

submitted. First, the source needs to 

determine whether it is a true minor 

source and, therefore, subject to the 

requirements of the minor NSR rule for 

Indian country. To do this, a source 

needs to perform a PTE analysis (see 

PTE calculator below). If the source 

determines that it is a true minor, the 

questionnaire asks the source to 

consider a series of questions to 

determine if it qualifies for the general 

permit or permit by rule. If the source 

does not qualify for coverage, then it 

must seek a site-specific permit under 

the minor source program (or a major 

source permit, if appropriate). 

Instructions: The document assists 

sources with information that may be 

useful in completing the request for 

coverage application. 

Permit Terms and Conditions: The 

permit is a specific document for each 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2568 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

58 ‘‘Request for Reconsideration of Effective Date 

of Tribal New Source Review Rule as it Relates to 

Synthetic Minor Sources and Request for 

Administrative Stay of Effective Date of the Rule as 

it Relates to Synthetic Minor Sources,’’ Letter from 

Matt Todd, Senior Policy Advisor, American 

Petroleum Institute et al to Lisa Jackson, EPA 

Administrator, August 30, 2011 and ‘‘Supplemental 

Request for Reconsideration of the Tribal NSR 

Rule,’’ Letter from Matt Todd, Senior Policy 

Advisor, American Petroleum Institute et al to Lisa 

Jackson, EPA Administrator, November 4, 2011. 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0076. 

59 ‘‘Review of New Sources and Modifications in 

Indian Country,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 76 FR 38770, July 1, 2011, https://

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/01/2011- 

14981/review-of-new-sources-and-modifications-inindian-country. 

60 ‘‘Review of New Sources and Modifications in 

Indian Country: Notice of Action Partially Granting 

Petition for Reconsideration and Denying Request 

for Administrative Stay,’’ U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 78 FR 2210, January 10, 2013, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-10/html/

2012-31742.htm. 

61The results of the NEI analysis are available to 

consult at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151 

and online at http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/

tribalnsr.html. 

62The EPA analyzed emissions for multiple 

pollutants emitted from point sources. The 

pollutants are: PM10, PM2.5, NOX, SO2, CO and VOC. 

See Background Document, Minor Source Hot Mix 

Asphalt Plants General Permit, Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0151, http://www.epa.gov/air/

tribal/tribalnsr.html. 

63See Background Document, Minor Source 

Stone Quarrying, Crushing and Screening General 

source category that lays out the general 

and specific terms and conditions of the 

permit, including the specific emission 

limitations and standards and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting 

and notification requirements. 

PTE Calculator: This spreadsheetbased tool helps sources in specific 

source categories calculate the PTE of its 

affected emissions units, using data the 

source is expected to have on hand, 

such as equipment specifications. 

Background Document: These 

documents are provided as a reference 

and contain important information: 

• Source category definition and 

characterization; 

• State minor source permit programs 

for that category used for comparison; 

• Requirements for general permits 

and permits by rule for that category; 

and 

• Threshold (emission limitations) 

development and rationale for that 

category. 

All of these documents are available 

online at http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/ 

tribalnsr.html and Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0151. 

X. Reconsideration of the Use of 

General Permits To Create Synthetic 

Minor Sources 

On August 30, 2011, and November 4, 

2011, the American Petroleum Institute, 

the American Natural Gas Alliance and 

the Independent Petroleum Association 

of America submitted a petition (and 

supplemental petition) for 

reconsideration on the Indian Country 

Minor NSR rule to the Administrator, 

under section 307(d)(7) of the CAA. 

Among other issues, the petition asks 

the Administrator to reconsider our 

position of not allowing reviewing 

authorities to issue general permits to 

create synthetic minor sources.58

Section 49.158 of the Indian Country 

Minor NSR rule provides a reviewing 

agency with the authority to issue 

synthetic minor permits. Under the 

Indian Country Minor NSR rule, a 

synthetic minor permit creates federally 

enforceable emission limitations that 

restrict a source’s ability to emit 

regulated NSR pollutants in an amount 

that exceeds major source threshold(s). 

The Indian Country minor NSR 

regulatory provisions, however, do not 

expressly address whether a reviewing 

authority could use the general permit 

issuance process in 40 CFR 49.156 to 

satisfy the requirements for issuing 

synthetic minor permits allowed by 40 

CFR 49.158. Nonetheless, we received a 

comment on the proposed rule 

requesting that we clarify that a 

reviewing authority could issue general 

permits to create synthetic minor 

permits. 

In response to this comment, we 

indicated that the final rule would not 

allow a reviewing authority to use a 

general permit to create a synthetic 

minor source, because we believed that 

the size and amount of emissions from 

these sources warranted a case-by-case 

review of the source and its proposed 

emission limitations.59 We did not, 

however, add specific regulatory 

language to the final rule to restrict the 

use of general permits in this manner. 

The petitioners believe that a 

reviewing authority can establish 

effective limits on PTE through general 

permits, and that there is no need for 

case-by-case determinations for source 

types where equipment and operations 

do not significantly vary from source to 

source (e.g., oil and gas facilities). The 

petitioners request that reviewing 

authorities not preclude sources from 

obtaining synthetic minor limitations 

through use of a general permit. In a 

letter to the petitioners, dated December 

19, 2012, the Administrator expressed 

her intent to grant reconsideration of 

several aspects of the Indian Country 

Minor NSR rule, including the use of 

general permits to create synthetic 

minor sources.60

In this proposal, in response to the 

Administrator’s decision to grant 

reconsideration on this issue, we 

propose to allow a reviewing authority 

to use general permits, including the 

permits by rule mechanism, to create 

federally enforceable emission 

limitations that can restrict operations 

of an otherwise major source, such that 

the source qualifies as a synthetic minor 

source. The fact that a source’s PTE is 

above the major source threshold does 

not mean that standardized permit 

conditions are necessarily 

inappropriate. Nor does it necessarily 

mean that compliance determinations 

are more complex than can be handled 

through a general permit. State and local 

permitting agencies often successfully 

use these mechanisms to reduce permit 

workload and to provide sources with 

regulatory certainty, and, a number of 

streamlining and environmental benefits 

can result for reviewing authorities, 

sources and the environment if we 

allow these mechanisms. Accordingly, 

we believe we should reconsider our 

position in light of the benefits of these 

approaches. While we continue to have 

some concerns about the potential 

emissions impacts from sources that 

otherwise would qualify as major 

sources, we believe that we can address 

these concerns in the process of 

developing the synthetic minor general 

permit or permit by rule for a given 

category. 

While sources that would qualify as 

synthetic minor sources would have the 

potential to emit pollutants above the 

major source thresholds in the absence 

of enforceable restrictions, in many 

cases, the sources’ actual emissions 

remain well below these thresholds 

even without the restrictions. This may 

arise, for example, when the source only 

operates a limited number of shifts in a 

day, when the source operates 

seasonally, or when the source 

sporadically uses a raw material with 

higher emissions potential. Thus, these 

sources do not have, in actual operation, 

the same potential for environmental 

impacts as facilities operating at 

consistently higher emissions levels. 

For example, we analyzed actual 

emissions from the 2008 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) 61 for HMA 

plants and SQCS facilities. In that 

database, average emissions for several 

regulated NSR pollutants for HMA 

plants are well below major source 

levels.62 This is consistent with our 

understanding of how such facilities 

operate. Typically, they operate 

seasonally and not each day of the year. 

The average actual emissions for several 

regulated NSR pollutants for SQCS 

facilities also were well below major 

source levels.63


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2569 

Permit and Permit by Rule, available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/tribalnsr.html and in 

the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151, 

http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/tribalnsr.html. 

For sources that currently emit above 

major source threshold(s), the 

availability of a pre-defined synthetic 

minor permit may provide such 

facilities with a degree of regulatory 

certainty and create an incentive to 

voluntarily reduce emissions to qualify 

for minor source status. Such reductions 

in emissions benefit the environment 

and provide another reason for us to 

reconsider our previous position on this 

matter. 

Moreover, irrespective of a source’s 

emissions before qualifying for a 

synthetic minor permit, that source 

must operate at levels below the major 

source thresholds after qualifying for the 

permit, which is also the case for true 

minor sources. If the synthetic minor 

permit contains sufficient monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

to assure continuous compliance, then 

there may be little reason to distinguish 

these sources for purposes of further 

regulation, because their emissions 

potential is now essentially equivalent 

to that of a true minor source. We 

request comment on this conclusion. 

Finally, a synthetic minor permit 

being sought by a facility that is also 

undergoing a modification that triggers 

NSR may provide the public with more 

information and greater certainty as to 

the emissions potential of the source. 

Absent the permit, for the part of the 

source not being permitted as part of the 

modification, the source would be 

under no obligation to report emissions 

on a continuous basis, and the source 

could also, without a modification, 

increase emissions. A synthetic minor 

permit would provide a limit on the 

total emissions the facility would 

generate, and provide advance notice to 

the public of the expected level of 

emissions from the facility. Synthetic 

minor permitting also saves reviewing 

authority resources by potentially: (1) 

Reducing the number of sources that 

need to obtain permits under the title V 

and PSD/nonattainment NSR permitting 

programs; and (2) avoiding a repetitive 

administrative process for each source 

that seeks a synthetic minor permit with 

the same terms and conditions. 

We request comment on all aspects of 

using general permits and permits by 

rule to create synthetic minor sources 

generally and with respect to the five 

source categories in this proposal. We 

request specific comment on whether 

any regulatory changes in the permits 

being proposed are necessary to 

implement this change in policy, given 

that the current regulations do not 

expressly preclude the EPA from issuing 

general permits to create synthetic 

minor sources. We also request 

comment on whether, as a policy 

matter, the EPA should use general 

permits and permits by rule to separate 

construction and modification 

requirements from requirements for 

qualifying as a synthetic minor source, 

even if the general permits/permits by 

rule would regulate the same source 

category; or, whether the EPA can 

effectively achieve both regulatory 

purposes in a single general permit/

permit by rule. In addition, we request 

comment on whether permits by rule as 

proposed in this action are an 

appropriate type of permit for creating 

synthetic minor sources, given that the 

permit notification does not provide an 

opportunity for public input on the 

coverage of a particular source by a 

permit by rule. 

If the EPA allows otherwise major 

sources to qualify as synthetic minor 

sources through use of general permits 

(or permits by rule), we request 

comment on any specific changes we 

should make to the general permits to 

include provisions for creating synthetic 

minor permits for these source 

categories. For example, would the EPA 

need to require more stringent 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting for synthetic minor sources 

than currently contained in the draft 

general permits for true minor sources? 

Should the EPA scale up the surrogate 

annual allowable emission limitations 

to reflect a value closer to the major 

source threshold, or should the EPA 

only issue synthetic minor permits to 

sources with actual emissions at some 

margin below the major source 

thresholds (e.g., 25–50 percent below 

the major source threshold)? If the EPA 

includes synthetic minor limits in the 

final general permits, these limits would 

be proportional to the limits currently 

contained in the draft permit, as revised 

to reflect public comments. 

We also request comment on whether, 

irrespective of our proposed policy of 

not allowing a facility to qualify for 

more than one general permit, which is 

discussed later in this document, we 

should, nonetheless, allow a source to 

qualify to use a general permit or permit 

by rule to become a synthetic minor 

source, and then subsequently use a 

general permit or permit by rule to 

authorize construction or modification 

activities. As stated in Section XI.B., we 

are concerned that allowing a source to 

qualify for more than one general permit 

or permit by rule may allow incremental 

increases in emissions that could 

adversely impact air quality, or allow a 

source to evade major source 

requirements. The use of multiple 

general permit mechanisms for the 

purposes described here might not lead 

to incremental emissions increases. 

Accordingly, we request comment on 

allowing multiple general permits for 

these distinct purposes. 

XI. Additional Areas Where Comment 

Is Being Sought 

A. Should general permits and permits 

by rule be made available for sources in 

the same source category? 

The EPA requests comments on 

whether, for certain source categories, 

the EPA should structure the permits so 

that eligible true minor sources can 

receive coverage under permits by rule 

and synthetic minor sources receive 

coverage under general permits. In 

addition, just as we are proposing that 

general permits are more appropriate for 

more complex source categories, we 

request comments on whether general 

permits (and not permits by rule) are 

more appropriate for major sources that 

seek to become ‘‘synthetic’’ minor 

sources. And, as we are proposing that 

permits by rule are more appropriate for 

less complex source categories, we 

request comments on whether permits 

by rule (and not general permits) are 

more appropriate for true minor sources. 

We request comment on whether this 

concept should be applied differently or 

the same for different source categories. 

For example, in some cases actual 

emissions for HMA plants and for SQCS 

facilities for some regulated NSR 

pollutants may be above major source 

levels. Perhaps these sources could be 

candidates for coverage under synthetic 

minor general permits, while the 

smaller, true minor sources could be 

candidates for coverage under permits 

by rule. We request comments on this 

issue. In the docket, a background 

document is provided for each of the 

categories in this proposal, which 

includes a summary of NEI data for that 

category. 

B. Can sources have more than one 

general permit or permit by rule at a 

single location? 

We request comment on whether we 

should allow a single stationary source 

to gain coverage under more than one 

general permit and/or permit by rule. In 

the questionnaires provided to assist 

applicants with completing the 

applications and notifications of 

coverage, the EPA asks applicants to 

provide PTE emissions for existing, new 

and modified emission units to 

determine whether or not it qualifies for 

a true minor source permit. The intent 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2570 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

64The lists are available to consult at Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151 and online at http:// 

www.epa.gov/air/tribal/tribalnsr.html. 

65The results of this analysis can be found in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151 and 

online at http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/

tribalnsr.html. 

66The lists can be found in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0151 and online at http://

www.epa.gov/air/tribal/tribalnsr.html. 

is to ensure that a single stationary 

source does not gain coverage under a 

general permit or permit by rule if its 

PTE emissions are above major source 

levels. If multiple general permits or 

permits by rule are an effective and 

efficient approach, what provisions are 

needed to ensure sources do not become 

major and to ensure that the public has 

adequate information about the source? 

The need for multiple preconstruction 

permits could arise if the stationary 

source proposes to modify equipment 

that could be regulated by more than 

one general permit. For example, this 

could occur if a new SQCS facility colocates with a new HMA plant. This 

could also occur if a source has some 

equipment covered by an existing 

general permit, and then proposes to 

modify different equipment at a later 

date after we have updated the general 

permit with new requirements. The 

source would need to apply for coverage 

under and meet the requirements of the 

updated permit for the proposed 

modification but would remain 

regulated by the old general permit for 

the previous modifications. We are 

concerned that if a single stationary 

source may construct or modify through 

the use of multiple general permits, then 

that source may inadvertently 

circumvent the major source NSR 

construction requirements by failing to 

properly compute or track the 

stationary-source-wide PTE. The EPA 

seeks comment on whether there are 

special recordkeeping conditions that 

could be added to the general permits 

and/or permits by rule to address this 

concern. 

On the other hand, we also recognize 

that unless there are unique air quality 

concerns, the site-specific permit terms 

and conditions for each emission 

generating activity may not vary from 

those already in the relevant general 

permits. As such, there may be little 

benefit from engaging in a site-specific 

permitting action, other than to verify 

the continued minor source eligibility of 

the stationary source. We request 

comment on whether we should decline 

to issue more than one general permit or 

permit by rule for stationary sources, or 

whether the application/notification 

materials offer the EPA an adequate 

opportunity to verify that source-wide 

PTE for a stationary source is below 

major source levels. 

XII. Additional Source Categories for 

Which the EPA Is Planning To Propose 

General Permits and/or Permits by Rule 

The EPA solicited input from tribal 

governments and the EPA Regional 

Offices on which source categories 

should be covered by streamlined 

permitting in Indian country. The tribes 

and the EPA Regional Offices identified 

the source categories covered in this 

proposal because they are thought to be 

common in Indian country and good 

potential candidates for streamlined 

permitting. The input included the 

following source categories that are also 

under consideration for future action: 

• Printing operations (including 

solvent cleaning/degreasing); 

• Engines (spark and compression 

ignition); 

• Concrete batch plants; 

• Saw mills; 

• Landfill operations; 

• Boilers; and 

• Oil and gas production and 

operations. 

As a first step, we are requesting 

comment on whether these source 

categories should receive coverage by 

general permits or permits by rule, 

including comments as to what 

categories are appropriate for each type 

of rule. We are not, however, proposing 

general permits or permits by rule for 

these categories at this time. Rather, 

some or all of these categories will be 

addressed in a subsequent action. 

We have also consulted the best 

available (but incomplete) data we have 

available to confirm the presence of 

these source categories in Indian 

country. The number of sources in 

Indian country was determined as part 

of the process to assess if general 

permits and/or permits by rule are 

warranted for each sector. The NEI is 

the EPA’s default database on the 

location and type of emission sources in 

the U.S. The NEI, however, is not 

complete with regards to sources in 

Indian country. The EPA Regions 5 and 

10 have also compiled lists of existing 

sources in Indian country. We have 

culled the lists for Regions 5 and 10 and 

the NEI for the other eight regions 

(Regions 1 to 4 and 6 to 9) to compile 

a source count by source type for 

sources located in Indian country that 

fall into the categories listed above.64

With respect to landfill operations, 

the EPA specifically requests comment 

on whether enough landfill activity is 

occurring in Indian country to warrant 

the development of a general permit or 

permit by rule. In connection with the 

EPA’s Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

New Source Performance Standard (40 

CFR 60.750, Subpart WWW), the EPA 

created a database of active landfills 

across the U.S. from EPA’s Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program, Landfill 

Methane Outreach Program, and 

Information Collection Request Center. 

The database indicates a very small 

number of landfills in Indian country. 

These results were compared to the 

source culling that we did with the NEI 

and the lists of sources from Regions 5 

and 10, which also showed few landfills 

in Indian country. Based on this 

information, we are not convinced that 

the resources necessary to develop a 

general permit and/or permit by rule 

would be justified and welcome 

comment on the issue.65

For the remaining sectors under 

consideration for the use of a general 

permit and/or permit by rule, we 

evaluated the number of facilities by 

sector using the culled source lists. For 

all but two of these other sectors, the 

results of our analysis found sufficient 

facilities in each sector listed above to 

warrant the development of general 

permits and/or permits by rule for these 

categories.66 Two source categories— 

engines and oil and gas sources—did 

not appear in significant numbers in the 

NEI because, as mentioned, it is an 

incomplete data source in Indian 

country. However, discussions with 

tribes have confirmed that both of these 

source types are prevalent enough in 

Indian country to more than justify the 

resources necessary to develop general 

permits. In addition, registrations of oil 

and gas sources to the EPA’s registration 

data base (required pursuant to the 

Indian Country NSR rule) have been 

significant, further confirming the 

presence of this source category in 

Indian country. 

XIII. Rule Changes to the Indian 

Country Minor NSR Rule, Including 

Extension of Deadline for the Indian 

Country Minor NSR Rule 

We are proposing five changes to 

three separate provisions in the existing 

Indian country minor NSR rule to 

ensure the smooth functioning of the 

general permit program. 

A. Amending § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B) 

The first provision we propose to 

amend is § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B) 

addressing the timing for when a true 

minor source must obtain a 

preconstruction permit. The provision 

currently requires the owner/operator of 

a new true minor source, or an existing 

true minor source undertaking a minor 

modification, to obtain a permit prior to 

commencing construction by the earlier 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2571 

67 21111 oil and gas production/operations; 

211111 Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction; 

211112 natural gas liquid extraction; and 221210 

Natural gas distribution. 

68 40 CFR 49.156 of the Indian Country NSR rule 

sets forth the requirements for general permits, 

suggesting that the EPA may develop standard 

application forms for general permits. In this 

proposal, we have developed applications for 

general permits. We have also developed the 

‘‘notification’’ forms for permits by rule, which 

satisfy all of the requirements applicants need to 

address but do so in a more streamlined manner. 

of 6 months after the general permit for 

a source category is published in the 

Federal Register or September 2, 2014. 

We are proposing to amend this 

provision in two ways. First, we 

propose to eliminate the requirement to 

obtain a permit beginning 6 months 

after the general permit for a source 

category is published in the Federal 

Register if that date is before September 

2, 2014. The original intent of this 

provision was to ensure that sources in 

a particular source category obtain 

preconstruction permits as soon as 

practicable after we issue a general 

permit, rather than wait until September 

2, 2014. Because we currently do not 

anticipate that we will complete the 

rulemakings to establish general permits 

to carry out the minor NSR program in 

Indian country any earlier than 6 

months prior to September 2, 2014, we 

do not believe the clause is necessary. 

Moreover, we received informal 

feedback that this clause is confusing. 

Therefore, we propose to remove the 

clause to provide a clear date by which 

true minor sources must obtain 

preconstruction permits. Except as 

explained below, all true minor sources 

must obtain a preconstruction permit, 

using the general permit mechanism or 

an alternative mechanism, before 

constructing or modifying a true minor 

source on or after September 2, 2014. 

Second, we propose to extend the 

permitting deadline for true minor 

sources within the oil and gas source 

category by adding language to provide 

an exception for true minor sources 

included in certain NAICS codes related 

to the oil and gas operations and 

production source category.67 For true 

minor sources within these NAICS 

codes, we propose that sources must 

obtain a permit pursuant to §§ 49.154 

and 49.155 prior to commencing 

construction beginning on a fixed date 

after September 2, 2014. We have begun 

work on a general permit for true minor 

sources in the oil and gas production 

industry, which we intend to discuss in 

a separate rulemaking action. We 

believe that an extension of the 

permitting deadline for this industry is 

necessary because of the additional time 

required to appropriately address issues 

associated with this sector. We are 

requesting comment on extending the 

September 2, 2014 deadline to a date 

within a range between September 2, 

2015 to March 2, 2016. 

B. Amending § 49.156(e) 

We propose to amend § 49.156(e)(1) 

addressing the timing for when a source 

that qualifies for a general permit may 

request coverage under that permit. The 

provision currently specifies that a 

source qualifying for a particular general 

permit may request coverage under that 

general permit beginning 4 months after 

the effective date of the general permit. 

We propose to remove this provision to 

make clear that sources may seek 

coverage under a general permit as soon 

as it is effective and need not wait an 

additional 4 months. 

In addition, we propose to amend 

§ 49.156(e)(4) to shorten the application 

review process for general permits from 

90 to 45 days for three source categories 

in today’s proposal: 

• Auto body repair and miscellaneous 

surface coating operations; 

• GDFs; and 

• Petroleum dry cleaning facilities. 

Allowing this streamlining (combined 

with shorter applications for these same 

three categories) will allow for reduced 

processing time for general permits 

coverage requests for these categories 

and a reduction in information required 

to be included in requests for coverage. 

Specifically, a reviewing authority must 

either determine whether a request for 

coverage is complete within 15-days 

from receiving a source’s request for 

coverage under the permit by rule or 

request any additional information 

necessary to process the request. If a 

reviewing authority requests additional 

information, an applicant must submit 

the requested information within 15 

days from the date of the reviewing 

authority’s request, or the reviewing 

authority may automatically deny a 

source’s request for coverage under the 

permit by rule. If the reviewing 

authority receives all the requested 

information, then the reviewing 

authority will grant or deny coverage 

under a permit by rule no later than 45 

days after the date the reviewing 

authority received the request. We 

propose the shortened timeframe for a 

reviewing authority’s completeness 

review of a permit by rule, compared to 

general permits, because the abbreviated 

and standardized request for coverage 68

process should allow the reviewing 

authority to readily determine whether 

the source submitted all of the necessary 

information. 

We propose to provide the reviewing 

authority the option of automatically 

denying a source’s request for coverage 

if the source fails to submit any 

additional requested information within 

15 days to remain consistent with our 

intent to provide a streamlined 

notification and review process. The 

streamlined nature of the general 

permits for these three source categories 

is inconsistent with lengthy and 

potentially open-ended ongoing 

exchanges with applicants to obtain 

necessary information and not the best 

use of limited resources. If a reviewing 

authority denies a request for coverage 

because a source fails to submit 

requested information by the deadline, 

then the source may re-apply at a later 

date to re-initiate the request for 

coverage. 

C. Amending § 49.160(c)(1)(ii) and (iii) 

We propose to amend 

§ 49.160(c)(1)(ii) and (iii) that addresses 

the timeframes for when true minor 

sources must register. The provisions 

indicate that, if a true minor source 

commences construction in the time 

period between the effective date of the 

rule and September 2, 2014, then the 

source must register with its reviewing 

authority within 90 days after the source 

begins operation. If construction or 

modification of a source commenced 

any time on or after September 2, 2014 

and the source is subject to this rule, the 

source must report its actual emissions 

(if available) as part of its permit 

application and its permit application 

information will be used to fulfill the 

registration requirements. 

The EPA is proposing to amend these 

two provisions to reflect the proposed 

extension for oil and gas sources 

discussed above in this section. We are 

requesting comment on changing the 

September 2, 2014 deadline in these two 

paragraphs to a date within a range 

between September 2, 2015 to March 2, 

2016. For § 49.160(c)(1)(ii), this 

proposed change is necessary to ensure 

that oil and gas sources continue to 

register past the September 2, 2014 date. 

For § 49.160(c)(1)(iii), this proposed 

change is necessary to reflect that the 

EPA is proposing to move the minor 

source permitting deadline for oil and 

gas sources. If the EPA does take final 

action to do so, then minor oil and gas 

sources will not be in a position to 

report their actual emissions as part of 

a permit application and permit 

application information because it will 

not be required at that point to obtain 

a minor source permit. Hence, the need 

to propose to change the September 2, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2572 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2014 date to reflect the oil and gas 

minor source permitting deadline 

extension. 

XIV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is, therefore, not subject to 

review under EOs 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action 

merely proposes to establish general 

permits and/or permits by rule to satisfy 

the requirements of the Minor NSR rule. 

Such permits are already available in 

many states. It does not impose any new 

obligations or enforceable duties on any 

state, local or tribal government or the 

private sector. Therefore, this action 

does not impose an information 

collection burden. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute 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 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

The EPA analyzed the impact of 

streamlined permitting on small entities 

in the Review of New Sources and 

Modifications in Indian Country (76 FR 

38748, July 1, 2011). The EPA 

determined that that action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Today’s action merely implements a 

particular aspect of the Review of New 

Sources and Modifications in Indian 

country. As such, this proposed action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal government or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This 

action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

rule has no requirements applicable to 

small governments and, as such, does 

not impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in EO 

13132. This action merely proposes to 

provide sources in Indian country with 

streamlined permitting opportunities 

that are generally available in states 

outside of Indian country. It does not 

impose any new obligations or 

enforceable duties on any state, local or 

tribal government or the private sector. 

Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this 

rule. 

In the spirit of EO 13132, and 

consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Pursuant to the EO 13175 (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), the EPA may 

not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

the EPA consults with tribal officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. 

The EPA has concluded that this 

action will not impose duties or 

responsibilities on tribes, although it 

will have tribal implications. The EPA 

has conducted outreach via on-going 

monthly meetings with tribal 

environmental professionals in the 

development of this proposed action. 

This proposal reflects priorities for 

developing permits, comments on the 

general permits and suggestions for 

developing permits by rules developed 

as a result of that outreach. The EPA 

will offer consultation to elected tribal 

officials immediately after proposal to 

provide an opportunity for meaningful 

and timely input into the development 

of this regulation. 

The EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to EO 13211 

(66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not a significant regulatory action 

under EO 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

the EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 2573 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

The proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

to use EPA Methods 5, 7E and 10. While 

the Agency identified 13 voluntary 

consensus standards (ASME B133.9– 

1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 (2003), 

ANSI/ASME PTC–38–1980 (1985), 

ASTM D3685/D3685M–98 (2005), CAN/ 

CSA Z223.1–M1977, ANSI/ASME PTC 

19–10–1981—Part 10, ISO 10396:1993 

(2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835– 

95 (2007), ASTM D6522–00 (2005), 

CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86 (1999), CAN/

CSA Z223.21–M1978, ASTM D3162–94 

(2005)) as being potentially applicable, 

we do not propose to use these in this 

rulemaking. The use of these voluntary 

consensus standards would not be 

practical with applicable law due to a 

lack of equivalency, documentation, 

validation data and other important 

technical and policy considerations. 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minorities 

and low-income populations in the 

United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This proposed rule 

merely implements certain aspects of 

the Review of New Sources and 

Modifications in Indian Country. As 

such, this proposed action will not have 

a disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minorities and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

Our primary goal in developing this 

program is to ensure that air resources 

in Indian country will be protected in 

the manner intended by the CAA. As 

such, this rule will reduce adverse 

impacts by improving air quality in 

Indian country. In addition, we seek to 

establish a flexible preconstruction 

permitting program for minor sources in 

Indian country that is comparable to 

similar programs in neighboring states 

in order to create a more level regulatory 

playing field for owners and operators 

within and outside of Indian country. 

This rule will reduce an existing 

disparity by filling the regulatory gap. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Indians, Indians—law, Indians—tribal 

government, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: December 12, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30345 Filed 1–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2