101 S. Webster St.
Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 Telephone 608-266-2621
FAX 608-267-0560
TTY 608-267-6897 Jim Doyle, Governo r Matt Frank, Secretary

April 23, 2008 File Code: 4519-12

Ms. Cheryl Newton USEPA-Region V (A-18J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604-3608

Subject: Revisions to Wisconsin's SIP for expanding the current exemptions from air permitting requirements.

Dear Ms. Newton:

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is submitting a revision to its state implementation plan (SIP) regarding Construction and Operation Perm its exemptions, chs. NR 406 and NR 407, Wis. Adm. Code and the associated fees, ch. NR 410, Wis. Adm. Code.

This proposal may exempt small sources of air pollu tion (sources which emit under 10 tons per year (TPY) of each criteria air pollutant and less than 0.5 TPY for lead) from construction and operation permitting requirements.

The proposal may also exempt larger sources of air po llution which undertake cons truction/modification type projects from construction permitting requirements whic h have low emissions. Total controlled actual emissions of each criteria pollutant must be less than 1,666 pounds in any month averaged over any consecutive

12

− month period, and less than 10 lb/month averaged over any consecutive 12

− month period for lead.

The revision to certain sections of chs. NR 406, NR 407, and NR 410, Wis. Adm. Code, became effective on June 1, 2007. We are now submitting this action as a formal SIP revision by this letter and its attachments. The USEPA-Region V checklist and the hearing documenta tion are included as attachments to this letter.

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please call Ralph Patte rson at 608/267-7546 or Tom Palionis
at 608/264-8876.

Sincerely,

/s/ 04/23/2008 Kevin Kessler, Director Bureau of Air Management

cc: Doug Aburano, USEPA-Region V (AR-18J), 77 W est Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604
Bob Eckdale - AM/7 Ralph Patterson - AM/7
Tom Palionis – AM/7
Tom Steidl – LS/8


### Quality Natural Resources Management Through Excellent Customer Service Printed on Recycled Pa p er www.dnr.state.wi.us www.wisconsin.govEnclosures:

Attachment 1- Rule package information on revisions to Chapters NR 406, NR 407, and NR 410, Wis. Adm.
Code Attachment 2- Public hearing notice Attachment 3- Proof of public hearing. Copy of legal notice from May 22, 2006 Wisconsin State Journal
Attachment 4-SIP Checklist
Attachment 5-SIP CertificationDATE: July 19, 2006 FILE REF: 4533

TO: Natural Resources Board Members

FROM: Scott Hassett, Secretary

SUBJECT: Background Memo on Request for Adoption of Order # AM-09-06, pertaining to the revisions of chs. NR 406, 407 and 410, Wis. Adm. Code, for expanding the current exemptions from air permit requirements.

1. Why is this rule being proposed?

a. What event or action triggered the proposal ?

In 2003, s. 285.60(6)(b), Stats., was created as part of 2003 Wisconsin Act 118. This law requires the Department to exempt minor sources from the requireme nt to obtain air permits if emissions from the source do not present a significant hazard to public health , safety, welfare or to the environment. Thus, the Department is proposing the changes to chs. NR 406, 407 and 410 to meet this statutory requirement.

b

. What issues are addressed by this rule?

The Department has examined current permit exemptions in light of the requirements of s. 285.60(6)(b), Stats., and believes that an expansion of those exemp tions is required under the statute. Therefore, the Department is proposing exemptions at emission levels which it believes do not represent a significant hazard to public health, safety, welfare or to the environment.

2. Summary of the Rule

The rule proposal provides exemptions from c onstruction and operation pe rmitting requirements for facilities which have less than 10 tons/year of actual emissions of criteria pollutants (particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds), and which are not subject to federal New Source Performance Standards or federal air pollution requirements for hazardous air pollutants. This exemption needs to be claime d by the facility owner or operator if the facility is required to submit an air emission inventory report.

For facilities with higher levels of emissions, projects involving construction, modification, reconstruction, relocation or replacement which have less than 10 ton/year actual emissions of criteria pollutants and which meet the other exemption crite ria would be exempt from obtaining a construction permit prior to undertaking the project. However, the facility owner or operator would still need to apply for an operation permit revision for the project. Th e proposal includes an $800 fee for each construction permit exemption to defray engineering review co sts incurred by the Department when evaluating whether a source qualifies for the exemption. The ru le requires the Department to respond within 20 business days of receipt of the exemption notification. This time period is identical to that required for construction permit applications.

12 Lastly, two additional activities are proposed to be added to the current list of activities which are excluded from being a modification. These activities ar e certain changes to process lines emitting volatile organic compounds and conversion of small boilers to use an alternate clean fuel.

3. How does this proposal affect existing policy?

This proposal implements new State policy on air permits as reflected in s. 285.60(6)(b), Stats.

4. Hearing Synopsis.

Three public hearings were held: one on June 27 in Stev ens Point, one on June 28 in Madison, and one on June 29 in Milwaukee. Five pers ons attended the hearings. Two testified in support of some elements and in opposition to other elements. The other three attended but did not testify.

The Department received written comments from the following groups:

- Aggregate Producers of Wisconsin

- Kohler Company

- Printing Industries of Wisconsin and Specialty Graphic Imaging Association International

- Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce

- Wisconsin Paper Council

- Wisconsin Cast Metals Association

A summary of the comments and the Department’s response to the comments is attached to this background memo.

5. Changes made to the plain language analysis of the rule.

The section of the plain language analysis of the ru le that compares the propo sed exemption rules with those in adjacent states was expanded to include additional information about the programs in Minnesota and Michigan.

6 Information on environmental analysis.

Under s. NR 150.03(3), Wis. Adm. Code, an environmental analysis would not be needed because this proposal is considered a Type III Action. A Type III Action is one that normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, normally does not significantly affect energy usage and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources.

7. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

The proposed rule will affect a number of small busin esses. The proposal will exempt a number of small businesses from obtaining air pollution permits. This w ill, in general, lower their compliance costs and reporting requirements. The construction permit exemption for projects will benefit larger businesses with higher levels of emissions.

7A. Identify and discuss why the rule includes or fa ils to include any of the following methods for reducing the impact on small business.

1. Less stringent compliance or reporting requirements.3 This rule reduces reporting requirements. By exempti ng facilities from the need to obtain a permit, it also exempts them from permit-related repor ting requirements that they would otherwise have to fulfill. For example, they will no longer need to submit annual compliance certification reports, as is required of permitted facilities.

The only new reporting requirement in the rule is th e requirement that sources which are already required to submit an annual emission inventory also subm it a one-time claim that they are exempt from permitting. This claim is expected to be a check-o ff box on the emission inventory form. In response to comments, the rule was revised to eliminate the exemption claim requirement from businesses which do not report to the air emission inventory. It should be noted that the use of this exemption is optional. It is an election on the part of the facility owner to limit future actual emissions to levels that are below the exemption threshold. The exemption claim notifies th e Department that the facility has elected to live under the “emission cap” instead of obtaining the othe rwise required operation a nd construction permits.

The compliance demonstration requirements are less stri ngent for facilities electing to use this exemption. Unlike a traditional permit which spells out all the sp ecific applicable requirements and their compliance demonstration methods, under the exemption rule, the owner or operator is responsible for conducting monitoring and maintaining records “sufficient” to demonstrate compliance with the exemption rule. There is flexibility in how the owner or operator deci des to make this demonstration. The only specific compliance demonstration requirement relates to the use of pollution control devices where the monitoring methods that apply to the operation and main tenance of all control devices also apply to those used by exempt facilities. Since the control devices reduce the emissions that otherwise would be emitted into the ambient air, it is extremely important that they be well maintained and operated. Under the exemption rule, compliance demonstration records ar e not submitted to the Department, but must be maintained on site for 5 years.

2. Less stringent schedules or deadlines for compliance or reporting. The only reporting deadline is the exemption claim wh ich would be filed one time at a date to be determined by the Department. The actual date depends on the effective date of the rule.

3. Consolidation or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements. The proposed rule does not change compliance require ments for any source. However, as discussed in the response to A.1. above, the benefit of being exempt from permitting is that the permit-related compliance and reporting requirements no longer apply. This prov ides more flexibility to the facility and eliminates the requirement for annual compliance certification reporting. Other than emission inventory reporting, which is required of all facilities whose actual emissions exceed the threshold levels, an exempt facility is not required to submit any reports to the Department. It simply needs to maintain its records on site.

For projects exempt from construction permitting at larg er sources, the rule only eliminates the need for the construction permit and does not cha nge or add any other requirements.

4. Establishment of performance standards in lieu of design or operational standards The proposed rule change does not create additional design or operational standards.

5. Exemption from any or all requirements of the rule. The proposed rule is adding additional exempti ons which may apply to some small businesses.4 7B. Issues raised by small business during the rule hearings, changes made as a result and reasons for rejecting alternatives suggested by small business. Comments were submitted by Wisconsin Manufact urers and Commerce (WMC) and the Printing Industries of Wisconsin (PIW) on behalf of their members. WMC commented that exempt facilities would be required to comply with the same reco rdkeeping, monitoring and reporting requirements as facilities covered under a traditional permit. Both WMC and PIW opposed the exemption claim requirement as an onerous paperwork burden.

In response to comments, the rule was revised so th at facilities which are not required to submit an air emission inventory report are not required to claim the permit exemption. The intent is not to create a new

administrative burden for facilities that elect to use the permit exemption. In order to continue to streamline the process, the claim is a one time claim that is expected to be a check off box on the existing emission inventory form. It will not require any additi onal work or the necessity to file a claim prior to taking any construction activity.

The rule does not impose any additional recordkeeping, monitoring or reporting requirements and in fact, relieves exempt facilities from those requirements that are permit-related. Other than requiring compliance monitoring of pollution control devi ces in conformance with administrative code requirements, the rule does not specify recordkeep ing, monitoring or reporting requirements. It does requires that the compliance monitoring records be suffi cient to demonstrate compliance and that they be

maintained on site.

7C. Reports required by the rule and estimated cost of preparation. The only “report” required by the rule is a one- time exemption claim that facilities who are already required to submit an emission inventory report must clai m. This is expected to be a check off box on the inventory reporting form. It will not require any addi tional work on the part of the facility and its cost

will be minimal.

Businesses using the construction permit exemption are required to submit a request to revise their operation permit. This is no di fferent from current requirements.

7D. Measures or investments need ed to comply with the rule. There are no measures or investments needed to comply with the rule.

7E. Additional cost to the state for administering or enforcing a rule which includes any methods identified in A. The proposed Rules allow for small emission sources to be exempt from all permitting requirements and for larger sources to be exempt from construction pe rmitting requirements. The elimination of all permit requirements for small sources will reduce Department costs for writing permits and for storing and reviewing compliance certification reports. The cons truction permit exemption is estimated to allow for 40 projects per year that currently require a construc tion permit to be exempt from that requirement. However, these projects will still require the Departme nt to issue an operation permit or to revise an existing operation permit.

Based on a loss of 40 construction permits per year, and an average cost per construction permit of $6,000, the revenue loss would be $240,000/year. With the pr oposed $800 exemption fee, the gain in fees would be $32,000/year (40 exemptions at $800 per exempt ion) for a net loss of funds of $208,000/year.5 The elimination of the permitting requirement for sm all sources should have little or no effect on program revenue. Additionally, any reduced workload for permit writing will lik ely be shifted into ensuring these sources are in compliance with Air requirements.

7F. Impact on public health, safety and welfa re caused by any methods identified in A. There should be no impact on public health, safety and welfare as the methods identified in A. do not change any of the applicable requirements. Cert ain facilities and projects are exempted from permitting but are not exempt from complying with air emission standards.Department of Natural Resources Responses to Pub lic Comments on Proposed Revisions to chs. NR 406, 407 and 410, Wis. Adm. Code.
Board Order No. AM-09-06 July 18, 2006

The Natural Resources Board authorized public hearings on the proposed air permit exemption rules at its April 2006 meeting. These public hearings were held on June 27 th in Stevens Point,

June 28 th in Madison and June 29 th in Milwaukee. Two persons t estified, both in partial support and in partial opposition to portions of the proposed rule changes.

Comments on these proposed rules (Board Order No. AM-09-06) were received from the following groups. Comments at the hearings we re received from WMC and PIW. The written comments submitted by these groups included all of the comments made at the public hearing:

- Aggregate Producers of Wisconsin (APW)

- Kohler Company (K)

- Printing Industries of Wisconsin (PIW)

- Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC)

- Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

- Wisconsin Cast Metals Association (WCMA)

- Legislative Rules Clearinghouse (LRC)

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The comments identified in this section will genera lly follow the order they were identified in
WMC’s comments. This method was chosen because WMC submitted the most comments. Comments not submitted by WMC but only by other groups will be addressed last.

1 . Comment : Facilities that are exempt [from perm itting requirements] under this rule are required to comply with the same recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting requirements as sources covered under a traditional permit [WMC]. Response : It is not clear from this comment which exemption (the exemption from all permitting or the exemption from construction permitting only) is being addressed here. For the purpose of this response, the Department will assume this applies to the exemption from all permitting.

The purpose of this rule and these exemptions is to exempt sources from permitting requirements and not other applicable requirements. This is what s. 285.60(6)(b), Stats., requires the Department to do and what the Department is doing with this rule package. This is true of all other permit exemptions which are presently in chs. NR 406 and NR 407, and also true of the Minnesota permit exemptions cited by this commenter on numerous occasions in their written comments. In Minnesota’s guidance for permit applicability it is made clear that being exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit does not exempt one from any other potentially applicable regulatory requirements.

The operation permit exemption requires sources wh ich are already required to submit an annual emission inventory report to the Department to c ontinue to do so. This requirement already applies to sources which may or may not need pe rmits and is based solely on actual emissions. Additionally, the final rule requires sources wh ich use emission contro l devices (and only sources which use control devices) such as baghouses and incinerators to monitor these devices and to keep records of the device monitoring. The Department believes this is necessary because sources which use control devices are potentiall y large sources of emissions which, if not properly controlled, could represent a significant risk to human health or the environment. Forexample, a baghouse typically achieves a minimum of 99% control efficiency for particulate matter emissions. Assuming a source emits only 5 tons of particulate matter, the potential emissions of particulate matter are 500 tons/y ear if the baghouse is not working properly.

Additionally, the rule does not require any ex empt source to submit a compliance certification report as is required of any permitted source. Theref ore, the Department does not concur that this is not a lessening of recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

2. Comment : Other States have more meaningful exemption to air permit requirements. For example, Minnesota presumes sources are exempt from permitting if their potential to emit is less than 100% of major source threshold [WMC]. Response : As discussed in the Rule Analysis portion of Board Order for the proposed rule, the Department believes that the construction permit exemptions allowed in Wisconsin are, in general , broader than those provided by neighboring states. For a more complete analysis of the Minnesota Program, please see the Rule Analysis for this rule.

3. Comment : Support the use of actual emission based exemptions and the proposed exclusions from modifications in the rule [WMC, WCMA]. Response : None required

4. Comment : The proposed actual emissions exemp tion threshold should be increased to 25 tons/year [WMC, APW]. Response : The Department believes that the 10 ton/year actual threshold proposed in this rule is appropriate. Assuming this rule is eventually adopted, the Department will have a permit exemption availabl e for sources with emissions under 10 tons/year and will also soon have a registration operation pe rmit available for sources with emissions under 25 tons/year. As previously discussed, sources whic h claim this exemption, and not one of the other numerous exemptions in the Rules for sp ecific source categories or for sources without emission controls which have low emissions, are likely to have the potential to emit very large quantities of emissions if not properly controlled.

5. Comment : The Department should add exemptions based on the source’s potential to emit such as those that exist in Minnesota [WMC]. Response : In developing the proposed rule, the Department worked for many months with interest ed parties, including representatives of WMC. Prior to these comments, no significant discussion occurred and no proposal was received by the Department for basing exemptions on the Minneso ta potential to emit thresholds. That being said, the Department believes that the exemptions provided in Wisconsin are in general , broader than those provided by neighboring states.

Additionally, as discussed in the Rule Analysis , the term “potential to emit” as used in the Minnesota program is equivalent to the term “m aximum theoretical emissions” in the Wisconsin program. In Wisconsin, sources with low maximu m theoretical emissions are already exempt under the existing Rules from obtaining construction or operation permits

6. Comment : The Department should include an exemp tion for small boilers that is the same as that in Michigan [WMC]. Response : In developing the proposed rule, the Department worked for many months with interested parties, in cluding representatives of WMC. During this time, the Department asked numerous times for any sugg estions for specific exemptions which could be analyzed and possibly included in the proposed rule. No suggestions were received. The Department is willing, in the future, to examine th is request, but believes there is insufficient time to examine the request and that adding such a provision would likely require a second public comment period as additional exemptions of this sort were not proposed with the original rule.7. Comment : We are opposed to having to submit a “claim of exemption” [WMC, APW, PIW]. Response : The proposed rule requires that all sources which want to claim exemption from all permitting requirements notify the Department of such a claim. The Department is proposing to amend the proposed rule such that only sources which are required to report to the air emission inventory be required to make such a claim. This is consistent with the intent of the original rule proposal. The Department anticipates that such a claim be made by simply marking a box on the air emission inventory report following promulga tion of the rule The Department does not believe this is a significant burden for any sour ce or requires any expertise. This claim is necessary because sources not required to obtain a perm it are billed at a flat rate and not per ton of emissions and so that the Department will know which state operation permit applications no longer need to be reviewed. Without such an initial claim, the Departme nt will be unable to properly bill the affected sources and will still need to contact each source to determine if the state operation permit needs to be reviewed and issued.

Additionally, the use of this exemption is op tional for all sources which meet the applicability requirements. A source which could claim this ex emption is not required to use this exemption and limit its emissions. This again reinforces the need for an exemption claim for sources which want to use this exemption.

The proposed rules also requires sources which are re quired to have operation permits to submit a claim of exemption from construction permitting wh en the operation permit revision requested is submitted. The Department has already develope d and amended revision request from in which a box is marked for claiming exemption from construction permitting under these provisions. Since submittal of the operation permit revisi on request is already required by rule, the Department does not believe this adds any a dditional burden to the affected sources. Additionally, without a claim of exemption from construction permitting, the operation permit revision reviewer would need to contact the app licant to determine why the proposed change is exempt from construction permitting. Thus, the requirement to claim the exemption will add to the efficiency of the program without adding any additional work for affected facilities.

8. Comment : Operation permit revisions are not require d to be reviewed within any specified time period and sources cannot operate until such requests have been reviewed and approved [WMC]. Response : Section NR 407.13, Wis. Adm. Code, requires the Department to issue the majority of significant revision requests within 9 m onths after receipt of a complete application. Sources which submit a complete application for a significant revision may construct the units covered under that revision request prior to the Department approving the revision

9. Comment : The Department should put in place deadlines for reviewing these operation permit revision requests and endeavor to act on request s for smaller sources in an expeditious manner [WMC]. Response : The Department is planning to act on these revision requests (all such requests, not just those claiming exempting from construction permitting under this rule proposal) in as expeditious fashion as time and resources allow. The Department does not see any merit in establishing more expeditious timelines for “smaller sources” but is willing to discuss the possibility of reviewing smaller source applications more quickly than those for larger emitters (i.e. small sources would always be given priority).

10. Comment : The draft rule creates new monitoring and recordkeeping requirements and also directs sources to undertake any other monitoring or recordkeeping found in the rules that may be applicable. The DNR should drop any monitoring or recordkeeping requirements from the rule [WMC, APW]. Response : The only recordkeeping and monitoring requirements in the rule are that sources monitor control equipment in accordan ce with the procedures established in s. NR439.055, Wis. Adm. Code. This Code section establishes minimum control device monitoring requirements for sources that are not subject to more stringent requirements under other rules. The Department believes such monitoring is appr opriate because, as mentioned in response to comment 1., sources using control devices to limit actual emissions are potentially very large sources of air emissions if the control device is not operating properly. The purpose of the monitoring is to allow a source to demonstrate that the control device was operating and operating with an acceptable efficiency.

The rule does not establish any other reporting or monitoring requirements. However, this is a permit exemption rule and not an exemption from all requirements of the ch. NR 400 series or other Statutory or Federal requirements. Thus , if the facility is subject to some other recordkeeping or monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with those other requirements, then the recordkeeping or monito ring required by those requirements must be met by the source.

11. Comment : Ch. NR 438, Wis. Adm. Code, (air emission inventory reporting) is still applicable to sources under this rule [WMC, APW]. Response : The purpose of this rule proposal is to provide an exemption from perm itting requirements. It is not and was never intended to provide an exemption from air emission inventory requirements.

12. Comment : The DNR should consider alternative emission thresholds for hazardous air pollutants than those in NR 445 [WMC]. Response : The emission thresholds established in NR 445 apply to all sources in the state. Additionall y, the emission thresholds were established to protect human health from significant harm from exposure to hazardous air pollutants. Also, unlike other sources, exempt sources need only maintain their actual emissions below NR 445 thresholds as opposed to maintaining potential emissions below NR 445 thresholds for other
sources. The rule was revised to include the “i ncidental emitter” provisions of s. NR 445.11 which narrows the scope of the rule to cer tain processes and substances of concern.

13. Comment: May sources presently covered by permit ask to have their permit revoked and then comply with the exemption requirements only [WMC]? Response : In general, this should be allowable. There may be permits that have been issued for other purposes such as PSD/NAA major source review avoidan ce which cannot be revoked.

14. Comment : We object to the $800 fee for reviewi ng the construction permit exemption and request a fixed turnaround time for reviewing such requests [WMC, APW, PIW]. Response : The Department believes this fee is both reasona ble and necessary for reviewing this exemption. The exemption review will require Department work-time and will require a response from the Department as to whether the project is ex empt from construction permit requirements. Additionally, the proposed fee is substantially less than the minimum construction permit review of $2,300 and the average construction permit review f ee of $8,000. Finally, in order to ensure a quick turnaround of such requests, the Department is amending the rule to require a Department response within 20 business days of receipt of the exemption request. This time period is identical to that require d for construction permits.

15. Comment : Are facilities which are exempt from obtaining an operation permit under this rule also exempt from obtaining a construction permit [PIW]? Response : Yes, the rule states that such facilities are exempt from constructi on permitting and need not claim the construction permit exemption as long as they maintain actua l emissions below 10 tons/year for criteria pollutants and meet the other applicability requirements in the proposed rule.16. Comment : Clarify NR 406.04(2m) such that facilities operating under a general or registration operation permit are exempt from construction permit requirements [WMC, APW]. Response : The Department believes this is clear in the rule. Assuming the facility complies with the operation permit requirements and is not subject to major source review, the facility is exempt from construction permitting. Additionally, this ge neral exemption is outside the scope of this rule proposal. If further clarification is needed , the Department is willing to consider such changes for future rule making proposals.

17. Comment : Does s. NR 406.04(1)(zi)2. apply to the entire facility or to units being constructed, modified, or reconstructe d as part of a single project [K]. Response : The emission thresholds only apply to the em issions units being constructed, modified, replaced, relocated and reconstructed as part of a single project.

18. Comment : Why is the 12-month rolling average of 1,666 lb/month used rather than 12- month 10 ton/year limitation in s. NR 406.04(1)(zi)2.a. [K]? Response : This limitation is used to ensure that the emission cap is practicably enforceable.

19. Comment : The operation permit revision request should be submitted prior to commencing operation and not prior to commencing construction [K]. Response : Under existing rules, ch. NR 407, Wis. Adm. Code, requires that the ope ration permit revision requ est be submitted prior to commencing construction. This rule do es not change this requirement. Placing the requirement in ch. NR 406 is to serve as a reminder of this already existing requirement.

20 Comment : Does the claim of exemption from constr uction need to be submitted prior to commencing construction [K]? Response: Yes, this claim should be submitted along with the operation permit revision request.

21. Comment : The exclusion from modification in NR 406.04(4)(i) should be expanded to include the use of biofuels [WPC]. Response : Biofuels which meet the requirements to be considered distillate oil are exempted under this provision. The Department is willing to examine excluding certain biofuels under similar rule provisi on, but is presently unaware of what biofuels would need a similar exemption.

22. Comment : The phrase “as a result of the project” should be added to the end of NR 406.04(1)(zi)4 [WPC]. Response : This change will be made as it is consistent with the intent of the provision.

23. Comment : The rule should specify a time when the operation permit revision is due under NR 406.04(1)(zi)5. [WPC]. Response : The present rule requires submittal of the revision application prior to commencing construction. No change is proposed to be made.

All comments submitted by the LRC have been addressed in the final rule.

## Attachment 1

Rule package information on revisions to Chapters NR 406, 407, an d 410 Wis. Adm. Code1 ORDER OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD RENUMBERING, AMENDING AND CREATING RULES

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board adopts an order to renumber NR 406.02(1) and 406.04(4)(h), to amend NR 410.03(1)(d) and to create NR 406.02(1), 406.04(1)(zh), (1q), (4)(h) and (i), 407.03(1m) and 410.03(1)(f) relating to air pollution permit exemptions and air pollution permit exemption fees, and affecting small
business. AM-09-06

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

Statute interpreted: s. 285.60(6), Stats. The State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11(6), Stats., is
revised.

Statutory authority: ss. 285.11(1) and (6) and 285.60(6), Stats.

Explanation of agency authority: The Department has had the authority under s. 285.60(6)(a), Stats., to exempt stationary sources from permitting requirements if potentia l emissions do not present a significant hazard to public health, safety or welfare or to the en vironment. In 2003, s. 285.60(6)(b), Stats., was created and requires the Department to exempt minor sources fr om the requirement to obtain air permit s if emissions from the source do not present a significant hazard to public health, safety or we lfare or to the environment.

Related statute or rule: Chapters NR 406 and 407, Wis. Adm. Code.

Plain language analysis: The rule proposal provides for sources that have less than 10 tons/year of actual emissions of criteria pollutants (particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds), and which are not subject to Federal air pollution requirements fo r hazardous air pollutants or new source performance standards, to be exempt from all permitting requirements.

For sources with emissions above these thresholds, projects undertaken at the facility that will meet the aforementioned criteria would be exempt from obtaining a construction permit prior to undertaking the project. The facility owner/operator would still need to apply for an operation permit for the project, but construction of the sources included in the project would be allowed. The proposal includes an $800 fee for each construction permit exemption to defray engineering review costs incurred by the Department when evaluating whether a source qualifies for the exemption.

The Rule also includes provisions to exclude certain fuel changes at sma ller boilers from being considered a modification of the boiler. The effect of this change is that boilers which switch to a clean fuel or convert from one clean fuel to another will not be subject to more stringent new source requirements such as more restrictive opacity limitations. Lastly, the rule also excludes sources whic h are subject to ch. NR 424 emission control requirements from construction permit review when they seek to change the control requirements required under ch. NR 424 without increasing potential VOC emissions from the affected source.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation: A comparable federal regulation does not exist. The Federal Clean Air Act requires States to have a minor source construction permit program which allows for preconstruction review of new and modified sources of air pollution. The purpose of this program is to ensure that ambient air quality standards are protected.

The Clean Air Act also requires that each state manage an operation permit program for major sources of air pollution. The criteria for being a major source of air pollu tion is 100 tons/year of criteria pollutant emissions or being defined as a major Federal hazardous air pollution source.2 Comparison with rules in adjacent states: All the states within EPA Region 5 manage a minor source construction and operation permit program. Some of these programs appear to be more “stringent” than Wisconsin’s program, while others appear to be less stri ngent. Comparisons between programs are difficult due to the varying ways sources may be exempt and how programs are funded. Based on a review done by the Air Management program, it appears that Wisconsin’s program offers more exemptions than most Region V States.

Wisconsin: Chapters NR 406 and 407 establish two types of exemptions from construction and operation permitting requirements. The first of these, specific exemptions , apply to specific processes such as small boilers, crematoriums and small coating operations. The second type, general exemptions, are based on the maximum source emissions and whether the source is subject to any Federal emission control requirements.

Minnesota: Exemptions from operation permits are based solely on the facility’s potential to emit. The term “potential to emit” for determining permit applicability is identical to the term “maximum theoretical emissions” used by the Department in its general permit exemptions. The Minnesota exemption thresholds are somewhat higher than those in Wisconsin for all pollutants. However, Minnesota does not provide for any specific exemptions from permitting requirements such as those available in Wisconsin for grain processing, storage facilities and other categories of sources. Additionally, Minnesota does not provide for the actual emissions based exemptions currently available in Wisconsin for coating and graphic arts opera tions nor does it provide any exemptions similar to the exemption proposed in this rule package for facilities using control equipment to limit actual emissions. Thus, for some smaller uncontrolled facilities (especially facilities not in coating or graphic arts industries) Minnesota may provide more extensive permit exemptions. But, for other types of facilities, it appears that Wisconsin has more extensive permit exemptions.

For construction permits, the Minnesota program appears to be based on changes in potential to emit, which may be limited by control devices in certain cases. The reviews may vary and are identified as insignificant, minor, moderate or major. For major (PSD) sources, any change requiring synthetic minor conditions must go through the most detailed level of review (major). Again, the emission increase thresholds are generally above those in Wisconsin, but no exemptions exist for specific source categories or for sources on an actual emission basis.

Michigan: Exemptions are mainly based on specific exempt ions for certain processes/em issions sources. Examples include small boilers and small printing and coating operatio ns. There is also an exemption for facilities with low emissions with a threshold significantly lower than that being proposed in this Rule package. In general, the exemptions do not appear to be as broad as those currently available in Wisconsin or those being proposed in this Rule package.

Illinois: Exemptions are based on specific exemptions for certain processes/emission sources. Examples include small boilers and small printing and coating operations. In general, the exemptions do not appear to be as broad as those currently available in Wisconsin or those being proposed in this Rule package.

Iowa: Exemptions are based on a limited number of identified processes and operations that have very low emission rates (lower than in this rule proposal).

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies: Rule revisions to chs. NR 406, 407 and 410 are in response to s. 285.60(6)(b), Stats., which was part of 2003 Wisconsin Act 118. The law requires that small sources of emissions that do not present a significant hazard to public health, safety or welfare or to the environment be exempted from permit requirements.

Analysis and supporting do cuments used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report: The proposed rule revisions will require Department resources to implement. The Department is proposing an addition to its construction pe rmit fee schedule contained within chapter NR 410 to fund this work effort. A proposed fee of $800 is included and is based upon the existing fee structure for Department review of another existing construction permit exemption. Businesses that choose to take advantage of the regulatory flexibility will have reduced permit fees in th e long run because many projects that had previously required a construction permit will not be reviewed u nder that program under the proposed rule revisions.3 Anticipated costs incurred by private sector: Although the proposed rule revision requires a fee of $800 for one type of construction permit exemption evaluated under thes e rules, this cost is less than that which would be incurred if the source were require d to obtain a construction permit.

Effect on small business: These proposed rule revisions should lower compliance costs for many small businesses.

Agency contact person: (incl uding email and telephone): Steven Dunn: (608) 267-0566 steven.dunn@dnr.state.wi.us Jeffrey Hanson: (608) 266-6876 jeffrey.hanson@dnr.state.wi.us

SECTION 1. NR 406.02(1) is renumbered NR 406.02(1m).

SECTION 2. NR 406.02(1) is created to read:

NR 406.02(1) “Clean fuel” means distillate oil, as defined in s. NR 440.205(2)(h), with a sulfur

content less than 0.05% by wei ght, natural gas or propane.

SECTION 3. NR 406.04(1)(zh) is created to read:

NR 406.04(1)(zh)1. Any construction, modification, replacement, relocation or reconstruction of

an emissions unit at a stationary source which is exempt from the requirement to obtain an operation

permit under s. NR 407.03(1m), provided the stationary source still qualifies for the exemption under s.

NR 407.03(1m) after completion of the proposed constr uction, modification, replacement, relocation or

reconstruction.

2. Construction of a new facility if the facility w ill be exempt from the requirement to obtain an

operation permit under s. NR 407.03(1m) after completion of the proposed construction.

SECTION 4. NR 406.04(1q) is created to read:

NR 406.04(1q) SOURCES EXEMPT BASED ON CONTROLLED ACTUAL EMISSIONS. Any

emissions unit constructed, modified, replaced, relocated or reconstructed at a stationary source where all

of the following criteria and requirements are met:

1. The owner or operator of the stationary source has a facility-wide operation permit under ch.

NR 407 or has submitted a timely and complete a pplication for a facility-wide operation permit.4 2. Actual emissions from all of the constructed, modified, replaced, relocated and reconstructed

emissions units do not exceed any of the following levels:

a. 1,666 pounds in any month averaged over any consecutive 12-month period for each of the

following air contaminants: particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, PM 10 , carbon monoxide and

volatile organic compounds.

b. 10 pounds in any month averaged ove r any consecutive 12-month period for lead.

3. None of the emission units c onstructed, modified, replaced, relo cated or reconstructed requires

a new BACT or LAER determination under ch. NR 445 as a result of the new project.

4. None of the emission units constructed, modified, replaced, relocated or reconstructed are

subject to new permitting requirements under ch. NR 405 or 408 as a result of the new project.

5. The owner or operator of the stationary source submits to the department a complete

application for an operation permit revision, or an updated application for an operation permit, which

includes each new, modified, replaced, relocated or reconstructed emissions un it, prior to commencing

construction, modification, replace ment, relocation or reconstruction and does all of the following:

a. In the operation permit revision application, or updated operation permit application, proposes

monitoring of any control equipment used to lim it actual emissions from any emissions unit being

constructed, modified, replaced, relocated or reconstructed in accordance with the monitoring

requirements in s. NR 439.055.

b. Commences monitoring of any control equipmen t as proposed in subd. 5.a., and maintains any

records necessary to demonstrate compliance with any applicable emission limita tion, upon startup of any

newly constructed, modified, replaced, relo cated or reconstructed emissions unit.

6. The owner or operator of the source submits to the department a claim of exemption from

construction permitting requirements. The exemption claim shall identify the emission units which are

being constructed, modified, replaced, relocated or reconstructed. The department shall respond to the

claim of exemption submittal within 20 business days after receipt of the claim.5 7. Any newly constructed emission unit is not subject to an emission limitation under section 111

or 112 of the Act (42 USC 7411 or 7412). Any modified, replaced, relo cated or reconstructed emissions

unit does not trigger any new emission limitation or other requirement for the emission unit under section

111 or 112 of the Act (42 USC 7411 or 7412).

Note: The application for an operation permit or opera tion permit revision required under this section will

be evaluated by the department pursuant to the permit approval criteria in ss. 285.63 and 285.64, Stats. Application

forms may be obtained from the regional and area offices of the department or from the Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management, PO Box 7921, Madison WI 53707-7921, Attention: operation

permits.

SECTION 5. NR 406.04(4)(h) is renumbered NR 406.04(4)(j)

SECTION 6. NR 406.04(4)(h) and (i) are created to read:

NR 406.04(4)(h) Change to process lines emitting VOCs . A change in a method of operation of a

process line subject to s. NR 424.03(2)(c) th at meets all of the following criteria:

1. The change does not result in annual poten tial VOC emissions from the process line which

exceed the currently allowed annual potential VOC emissions based on conditions established under s.

NR 424.03(2)(c).

2. The change does not trigger a requirement under section 111 or 112 of the Act (42 USC 7411

or 7412).

Note : The permittee shall continue to comply with the conditions established under s. NR 424.03(2)(c) in

its construction or operation permit until the permit is revised.

(i) Change to use a clean fuel . A change to an external co mbustion furnace to allow for the

combustion of a clean fuel that meets all of the following requirements:6 1. The external combustion furnace has a maximum heat input capacity of no greater than 10

mmBtu/hour if the ability to combust distillate oil is being added and 25 mmBtu/hour if the ability to

combust natural gas or propane is being added.

2. The use of the new fuel does not cause or ex acerbate the exceedance of any ambient air quality

standard or increment in ch. NR 404.

3. The change does not trigger a requirement under section 111 or 112 of the Act (42 USC 7411

or 7412).

SECTION 7. NR 407.03(1m) is created to read:

NR 407.03(1m) FACILITIES EXEMPT BASED ON ACTUAL EMISSIONS. (a) Any facility

that is required to submit an annual emission invent ory report under s. NR 438.03 is exempt from the

requirement to obtain an operation permit following no tification under par. (c), where all of the following

criteria and requirements are met:

1. The actual emissions of each air contaminan t from the facility do not exceed any of the

following levels:

a. 10 tons in any calendar year for each of the following air contaminants: particulate matter,

nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, PM

10 , carbon monoxide and vola tile organic compounds.

b. 0.5 tons in any calendar year for lead.

c. Any stack-appropriate thresholds for emissions points in columns (c), (d), (e) and (f) of Table

A, B or C of ch. NR 445. If the facility is a sour ce of incidental emissions under s. NR 445.11, this

subdivision only applies to emissions of air contam inants which are listed as substances of concern in

Table E of ch. NR 445.

2. The facility is not subject to a standard un der section 111 or 112 of the Act (42 USC 7411 or

7412).

3. The owner or operator conducts monitoring an d maintains records sufficient to demonstrate

compliance with the requirements of this paragra ph, including the calculation of annual facility-wide7 emissions. These records shall be maintained on site fo r at least 5 years, unless a longer period is required

by statute or rule.

4. If a control device is used to limit actual emissions, the owner or operator uses a compliance

monitoring method which is identified in s. NR 439.055.

(b) Any facility that is not required to submit an annual emission inventory report under s. NR

438.03 is exempt from the requirement to obtain an operation permit where all of the criteria and

requirements in par. (a)1. to 4. are met.

(c)1. The owner or operator of a facility required to submit an air emission inventory report under

s. NR 438.03 shall notify the department of their inte nt to operate the facility under the exemption criteria

in par. (a). A claim of exemption made under s. NR 406.04(1q) from construction permit requirements

shall satisfy this notification requirement.

2. Any existing permit shall remain in effect until the permit is revoke d or coverage under a

general or registration permit is w ithdrawn. A notification under subd. 1. shall serve as a request for

revocation of an individual permit or withdrawal fro m coverage under a general or registration permit.

3. A notification under subd. 1. shall serve as a request for withdrawal of any pending permit application.

Note: An owner or operator exempt under this subsection is responsible for complying with all other

applicable requirements in chs. NR 400 to 499.

SECTION 8. NR 410.03(1)(d) is amended to read:

NR 410.03(1)(d) Any person who applies for a construction permit for a direct source shall

submit a $1,350 fee with the application. This fee ma y not be refunded unless the department determines

that a permit is not required. When a fee is required under par. (b) or (f), only the amount not required to

cover the fee will be refunded.

SECTION 9. NR 410.03(1)(f) is created to read:8 NR 410.03(1)(f) Any person submitting a claim for a construction permit exemption under s. NR

406.04(1q) shall pay a fee of $800.

SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE. This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following

publication in the Wisconsin administrative register as provided in s. 227.22(2)(intro.), Stats.

SECTION 11. BOARD ADOPTION. This rule was appr oved and adopted by the State of Wisconsin

Natural Resources Board on August 16 , 2006 and February 28, 2007.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin _________________________________.

STATE OF WISCONSIN

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

By__________________________________ Scott Hassett, Secretary

(SEAL)

## Attachment 2

Public hearing noticeBEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
AM-09-06

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 285.11(1) and (6) and 285.60(6), Stats., interpreting s. 285.60(6), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to ss. NR 406.02, 406.04, 407.03 and 410.03, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to air pollution permit exemptions and air pollution permit exemption fees. The State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11(6), Stats., is also revised. In 2003, s. 285.60(6)(b), Stats., was created as part of 2003 Wisconsin Act 118. This law requires the Department to exempt minor sources from the requirement to obtain air permits if emissions from the source do not present a significant hazards to public heath, safety, welfare or to the environment. The Department has examined current permit exemptions in light of this and believes that an expansion of those exemptions is required und er the statutes. The proposed rule changes contain the following three elements:

1. Exemption from operation and construction per mitting requirements for facilities which have actual emissions of each criteria pol lutant (other than lead) of less than 10 tons/year, and which are not subject to additional control requirements such as federal hazardous air pollutant standards. 2. Exemption from construction permitting requi rements of any construction/modification type of project at a facility where the project will have actual e missions of criteria pollutants (other than lead) of less than 10 tons/year, and which is not subject to additiona l control requirements such as federal hazardous air pollutant standards. 3. Add an $800 exemption review fee for all projects which claim exemption under #2.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s. 227.114, Stat s., the proposed rule may have an impact on small businesses. The initia l regulatory flexibility anal ysis is as follows:

a. Types of small businesses affected: Small businesses which have very low emissions or which add additional equipment with very low emissions will be affected. Examples are coating facilities and small printers. b. Description of reporting and bookkeeping pr ocedures required: The proposed rule change does not create any significant additional reporting or bookkeeping requirements. c. Description of professional skills requir ed: The proposed rule change does not create an additional need for professional skills.

The Department’s Small Business Regu latory Coordinator may be contacted at SmallBusiness@dnr.state.wi.us or by calling (608) 266-1959.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environment al analysis before proceeding with the proposal.
This environmental review document would summarize the Department’s consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that purs uant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including t he provision of information material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Robert Eckdale at (608) 266-2856 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on:

June 27, 2006 Prairie Room (lower level), Charles M. White Public Library, 1001 Main Street, Tuesday Stevens Point at 1:00 p.m.

June 28, 2006 Room GO9, GEF #2 State Office Building, 101 South Webster Street, Madison Wednesday at 1:00 p.m.

June 29, 2006 Room 141, DNR Southeast Region Hdqrs ., 2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., Thursday Milwaukee at 1:00 p.m.

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be re viewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: adm inrules.wisconsin.gov. Written co mments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Steve Dunn, Bureau of Air Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until June 30, 2006. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral st atements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Robert Eckdale, Bureau of Air Management, P. O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin ________ May 10, 2006

____________________

STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

By _____ / S /

___________________________ Scott Hassett, Secretary

## Attachment 3

Proof of public hearing

Copy of legal notice from May 22, 2006 Wisconsin State Journal

## Attachment 4

SIP Checklist

## EPA Region V


# Wisconsin SIP Submittal Completeness Review

Submittal Letter

1. Signed by Governor’s Designee (Kevin Kessler)? Yes _X_ No ___ 2. Date of Submittal ______________________________________ 3. WDNR Person in charge of SIP submittal. Name _Ralph Patterson_ Telephone _608/267-7546__ FAX Number _608/267-0560__ E-MAIL Address____Ralph. Patterson@wisconsin.gov_______ 4. WDNR Technical Person in charge of answering questions on SIP Submittal Name __Tom Palionis__ Telephone __608/264-8876__ FAX Number _608/267-0560__ E-MAIL Address__thomas .palionis@wisconsin.gov_


## Incorporation Into Wisconsin Administrative Code

5. Is evidence that the State incorporated the revision into th e Wisconsin Administrative Code supplied in this SIP package? Yes _X_ No, if No explain.

6. The effective date of the regulation is or was _06/01/2007_

7. Are test methods/rules incorporated by reference correctly? (Has approval been obtained from the state Attorney General?

Yes_______ No_______ Not applicable __X_____ For No and Not applicable explain answer. No test methods /rules were incorporated by reference in this regulation.

8. Has WDNR provided evidence that it has necessary legal au thority under State law to adopt and implement the revision?

Yes __X____ Yes, Section 285.60(6)(b), Wis. Stats. No _______ For No explain answer.

9. Did the State include a copy of the actua l regulation or document for USEPA review?

Yes _X__ No_____ Additional Explanation (if necessary).

10. Did the State provide evidence that it followed all of the requirements of its Administrative Procedures Act (ch. 227, Wis. Stats., Administrative Procedure and Review) in conducting and completing adoption/issuance of the revision?

Yes_X__ No______ Additional Explanation (if necessary)

11. Did the State include evidence that Public Notice wa s given of the revision, including date of publication? Yes_X__ No ____ Additional Explanation (if necessary)

12. Did the State provide a copy of the cer tification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provide d in the public notice (copy of notarized Class I paper proof)?

Yes_X_ No___ Additional Explanation (if necessary).

13. Does the submittal contain a compilation of public comments and the State’s response?

Yes_X_ No____ Additional Explanation (if necessary).

## Technical Issues

14. Name the all the regulated pollutants affected by the revision? All criteria pollutants, Lead.

15. Does the submittal identify the designation, status of th e attainment plan and attainment date for the area(s)

Yes____ No__X___ Additional Explanation (if necessary) Not applicable

16. Does the submittal identify the location and types of affected sources?

Yes__X__ No_____ Additional Explanation (if necessary). The rule proposal provides exemptions from construction and operation permitting requirements for facilities which have less than 10 tons/year of actual emissions of criteria pollutants (particulate matter, s ulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic com pounds), less than 0.5 tons/year of lead, and which are not subject to federal New Source Performance Standards or fede ral air pollution requirements for hazardous air pollutants.

The proposal may also exempt larger s ources of air pollution which undertake cons truction/modification type projects from construction permitting requirements, which have low emissions (less than 10 TPY of each criteria pollutant, and less than 10 lb/month for lead) and which are not subject to any other additional federal requirements.

17. Does the submittal quantify the changes in SIP-allowable e missions and estimate or quantify the changes in actual emissions from
affected sources?

Yes___ No__X__ Additional explanation (if necessary). Unde r s. NR 150.03(3), Wis. Adm. Code, an envi ronmental analysis would not be needed because this proposal is considered a Type III Action. A Type III Action is one that normally does not have the potential to c ause significant environmental effects, normally does not significantly affect energy usage and normally does not involve unresolved
conflicts in the use of available resources. Certain facilitie s and projects are exempted from permitting but are not exempt f rom complying with air emission standards.

18. Has the State demonstrated that the NAAQS/PSD Increment/RFP demonstr ation/visibility will be protected if the revision is approved and implemented?

Yes__X__ No____ Additional explanation (if necessary).

19. Has the State provided modeling in formation to support the revision?

Yes___ No____ Unnecessary__X__ Under s. NR 150.03(3), Wis. Adm. Code, an environmental analysis would not be needed because this proposal is considered a Type III Action. A Type III Action is one that normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects

, normally does not significantly affect energy usage and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available

resources.

20. Has the State provided evidence that emission limitati ons are based on continuous emission reduction technology?

Yes____ No__X__ Additional explanation (if necessary). Not applicable.

21. Has the State provided evidence that the revision contai ns emission limitations, work practice standards and record keeping/reporting requirements where n ecessary, to ensure emission levels?

Yes__X_ No____ Additional explanation (if necessary).

22. Does the submittal contain enforcement/compliance strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice, and a t what frequency?

Yes___ No__X_ Additional explanation (if necessary).

# STATE APPROVABILITY CHECKLISTENFORCEABILITY

USEPA USE ONLY

SIP Package Number ___________ Date Received by USEPA ________________ Date Due_____________________________
State: WISCONSIN

## WDNR Information

Subject Matter: Revisions of chs. NR 406, 407, and 410, Wis. Adm. Code, for expanding the current exemptions from air permit requirements per the requirements of s. 285.60(6)(b), Wis. Stats.



## Applicability

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response
What sources are being regulated? Clear discussion This proposal w ill exempt small sources of air pollution (sources which emit under 10 TPY of each criteria air pollutant and less than 0.5 TPY for lead) from construction and operation permitting requirements.

The proposal may also exempt larger sources of air pollution which undertake construction/modification type projects from construction permitting requirements, which have low actual emissions (less than 10 TPY of each criteria pollutant, and less than 10 lb/month for lead) and which are not subject to any other additional federal requirements. What are criteria for exemption? Clear discussion See state response to what sources are being regulated. Is calculation procedure for exemption clearly specified? Supply example calculation or clear explanation of how to determine exemption (line by line, etc.) For facilities seeking exemption from construction and operation permitting requirements, total actual emissions of each criteria pollutant is less than 10
TPY and lead emissions less than 0.5 TPY.

For facilities which undertake construction/modification type projects seeking exemption from construction permitting requirements, total controlled actual emissions of each criteria pollutant is less than 1,666 pounds in any month averaged over any consecutive

12

− month period, and 10 pounds in any month averaged over any consecutive

12

− month period for lead. Is emission inventory listed in the background document of the
attainment demonstration? Inventory including allowable and actual emissions in source category should be included, for enforcement purposes and independent of any Clean Air Act requirements, in the
attainment demonstration if such data is necessary for determining baselines in regulations. No change from current requirements under chapters NR 406, 407, and 410, Wis. Adm. Code.

Is the averaging time(s) used in
the rule different from that of the
ambient standard? The averaging time in the rule must be consistent with protecting the ambient standard in question. Normally, it should be equal to or
shorter than the tim e associated with the standard. Longer term averaging is available only in limited instances provided that the ambient standard is not compromised. Not Applicable

What are the units of compliance (lbs VOC per gallon of solids applied less water, grains per standard cubic foot?) Clearly stated in the rule. Not Applicable

Is bubbling or averaging of any type allowed? If yes, state Explicit description of how averaging, bubbling, or equivalency For facilities seeking exemption from construction and operation permitting requirements, total actualcriteria. Could a USEPA inspector independently
determine if the criteria were
met?? Does USEPA have to approve each case? is to be determined. VOC equivalency must be on a “solids applied” basis. Any method must be independently reproducible. Provision must be explicit as to whether USEPA case-by-case approval is required. If provision intended to be “generic” then USEPA bubble policy must be met. emissions of each criteria pollutant is less than 10
TPY and lead emissions less than 0.5 TPY.

For facilities which undertake construction/modification type projects seeking exemption from construction permitting requirements, total controlled actual emissions of each criteria pollutant is less than 1,666 pounds in any month averaged over any consecutive

12

− month period, and 10 pounds in any month averaged over any consecutive

12

− month period for lead.

A USEPA inspector could determine if the facility met the emissions cap by reviewing the emissions inventory and/or recordkeeping for the facility. The
USEPA would not have to review each case. If there is a redesignation, will this change the emission limitations? If yes, which ones
and how? Regulation may not automatically allow for self nullification upon redesignation of area to attainment.
New maintenance demonstration required to order to drop regulation. Not Applicable



## Compliance Dates

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response
What is the compliance date? The compliance date must not be later than the approved or about to be approved date of attainment unless emission reductions are not necessary for attainment. In some cases, it will be necessary for the regulation to specify dates in compliance schedules that are required to be submitted by

source to state. Not Applicable

What is the attainment date? Clearly defined. Not Applicable



## Specificity of conduct

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response
What test method is required? Test method must be exp licitly stated. Not Applicable What is the averaging time in the compliance test method? Averaging time and application of limit must be explicit. Not Applicable

Is a compliance calculation or evaluation required? (i.e., daily weighted average for VOC). Clearly defined. Not Applicable

If a compliance calculation is necessary, list the formula, period of compliance, and/or evaluation
method. Formula must be explicit. Not Applicable



## Incorporation by reference

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response
What is the state authority for rulemaking. Clearly stated. 

### S. 285.60(6)(b), Wis. Stats., was created part of 2003 Wisconsin Act 118.
Are methods/rules incorporated by reference in the right manner? Clearly stated. Not Applicable

## Record keeping

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response
What records are required to determine compliance? Clearly stated. For project s exempt from construction permitting at larger sources, the rule only eliminates the need for the construction permit and does not change or add any other requirements.

The rule does not impose any additional recordkeeping, monitoring or reporting requirements and in fact, relieves exempt facilities from those requirements that are permit-related. Other than requiring compliance monitoring of pollution control devices in
conformance with administrative code requirements, the rule does not specify recordkeeping, monitoring or reporting requirements. It does require that the compliance monitoring records be sufficient to demonstrate compliance and that they be
maintained on site. In what form or units (lbs/gal, gr/dscf, etc.) must the records be kept? On what time basis (instantaneously, hourly daily)? Records to be kept must be consistent with units of compliance in the performance requirements, including the applicable time period. No change from current requirements under chapters NR 406, 407, and 410, Wis. Adm.
Code.

Does the rule affirmatively require the records be kept? There must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes
a violation. The owner or operator maintains
records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the exemptions. Th ese records shall be maintained on site for at least 5 years, unless a longer period is required by statute or rule. 

## Exemptions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response
List any exemptions allowed. Must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes
a violation. Is the criteria for applica tion clear? Clearly stated.



## Malfunction Provisions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response
Are there any malfunction provisions in the rule? Rule must specify what exceedances may be excused, how the standard is to be applied, and who makes the
determination. Not Applicable

## Attachment 5

SIP Certification

### V'ISCONSIN DEPARTMENT 

### OF NATURAL RESOURCES



### BUREAU 

### OF AIR 

## MANAGEMENT

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

### REVISION

CERTlFICATION

Pursuant to 

### thc rcquire~r~cn~ uf 40 

### CFR s. 51.102(f), 

### I hereby certify that 

### the Wisconsin Department



### of 

### Natural Resources 

### held the 

### hearings 

### described 

### below; that the 

### heanngs were 

### held m accordance


### with 

### the public notice 

### (copy attached), as required 

### by 40 

### CFR s. 

### 51.103(6); and that 

### I was the presiding officer at the 

### hearing (with thc exccptivll of 

### dit. hearings in Stevens 

### Point and 

### Mwaukee, 

### which were 

### held 

### by DNR Engineer Steve 

### Dunn).

Sublect::

Revision to 

### SIP relakg to 

### Exemptions from the 

### Requirement to 

### Obtain an 

### Air Pollution Control

Permit

Hearinps 

### held:

June 

### 27,2006, 

### in Stevens 

### Poht, Wi~consk



### June 28,2006, 

### in Madson, Wisconsin

June 29,2006, 

### in Mdwaukee, 

### Wisconsin



### Witten comments were 

### received 

### und June 30,2006.

&- 

# 1

;I
Marcia 

### j. Penner Attorney at Law



### Buteau 

### of Legal Services



### Subscribed 

### and sworn to 

### before 

### me 

### tb !&thy 

### oldll~llg. m06. 

# n

My comnussion is permanent.