Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21447

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

section 7410(a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Carbon

monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation

by reference, Intergovernmental

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: April 3, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart S—Kentucky

2. Section 52.920 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(77) to read as

follows:

§ 52.920 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(77) Revisions to the Commonwealth

of Kentucky State Implementation Plan

(SIP) concerning emission statements

were submitted on December 29, 1994,

by the Kentucky Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Regulation 401 KAR 50:035

Permits. Section 1, Section 2(1) and

Section 10. Regulation became effective

September 28, 1994.

(ii) None.

[FR Doc. 95–10696 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[MN29–1–6203a; FRL–5174–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: USEPA is approving a

revision to the Minnesota State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to

incorporate new permitting regulations.

This revision consists of the State Rules

in Chapter 7007, entitled ‘‘Air Emission

Permits,’’ in conjunction with other rule

changes relating to the repeal of prior air

permitting rules. Although these rules

have been submitted previously to

satisfy the requirements of Title V of the

Clean Air Act, the purpose of this

submittal is (1) to support federally

enforceable permit conditions for

limiting sources’ potential to emit, (2) to

allow the use of permits as vehicles for

future SIP revisions, and (3) to update

the procedural rules governing the

issuance of air permits in Minnesota.

USEPA concludes that all three

purposes are satisfied.

DATES: This action will be effective July

3, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by June 1, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to:

William L. MacDowell, Chief,

Regulation Development Section (AE–

17J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the SIP revision request and

USEPA’s analysis are available for

inspection at the following addresses:

(It is recommended that you

telephone John Summerhays at (312)

886–6067, before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard

(AE–17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)

Docket and Information Center (Air

Docket 6102), Room M1500, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C., 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Summerhays, Regulation Development

Section, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of State Submittal

On November 23, 1993, the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

submitted revised air permitting rules

for approval as part of the State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules

represent Minnesota’s consolidated

permitting regulations, which include

provisions for operating permits for

major sources pursuant to Title V of the

Clean Air Act, construction permits for

major new sources and major source

modifications pursuant to Parts C and D

of Title I, and operating and

construction permits for minor sources

and minor modifications pursuant to

State law. Thus, this submittal

complements Minnesota’s submittal

dated November 15, 1993, seeking

USEPA approval of the same regulations

as satisfying Title V requirements.

Separate rulemaking is being conducted

with respect to whether these

regulations satisfy Title V requirements.

(See the Federal Register of September

13, 1994, at 59 FR 46948.)

Minnesota’s submittal of November

23, 1993, does not seek to satisfy any

specific mandate under the Clean Air

Act. As noted above, a separate

submittal seeks to satisfy the

requirements of Title V. A pair of

submittals dated August 5, 1992, and

August 26, 1993, have been found to

satisfy nonattainment area major new

source review requirements (see 59 FR

8578, dated February 23, 1994). The

State has not sought to provide State

regulations to supersede Federal

regulations on attainment area new

source review (prevention of significant

deterioration).

Instead, the State’s submittal of

November 23, 1993, seeks approval of

updated State permitting regulations

which have superseded previously

approved regulations, including several

provisions to help the State implement

its Title V and Title I programs.

Minnesota intended with this submittal:

(1) to provide a mechanism for

intermediate size sources to obtain

federally enforceable limitations to

become ‘‘minor sources,’’ (2) to facilitate

future SIP revisions, and (3) to update

the federally approved regulations to

reflect the updated State permitting

regulations. Each of these purposes

requires evaluation under different

criteria. These purposes and the

associated United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) criteria for

approval are discussed individually in

subsequent sections.

A. Federally Enforceable Limitations on

Potential To Emit

The first purpose of Minnesota’s

submittal was to provide a mechanism

for intermediate size sources to obtain

federally enforceable limitations such

that the sources’ potential to emit would

be below the size thresholds at which

major source permits are required. This

mechanism involves federally

enforceable State operating permits

(FESOPs) incorporating the relevant

limitations. The State intends to write

such permits both in the context of new

source review and in the context of Title

V permitting. As clarified in a letter

from Charles Williams to Valdas

Adamkus dated November 21, 1994, the

State is requesting this authority with

respect to hazardous air pollutants

(HAPs) as well as for pollutants with air

quality standards (‘‘criteria pollutants’’).

Criteria for USEPA approval of FESOP

programs are given in the Federal
21448 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Register of June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27274).

FESOP programs must satisfy five

principal requirements: (1) the

regulations must be approved into the

SIP, (2) sources must have a legal

obligation to comply with permit terms

and USEPA must be authorized to deem

as ‘‘not federally enforceable’’ those

permits which it finds fail to satisfy

applicable requirements, (3) the

program must require all limits to be at

least as stringent as other applicable

requirements, (4) the permit provisions

must be permanent, quantifiable, and

otherwise enforceable as a practical

matter, and (5) the permits must have

been subject to public notice and

review. Use of FESOPs for limiting

hazardous air pollutants is further

subject to requirements in section 112(l)

of the Clean Air Act, which is also

discussed below. Also discussed below

is a policy memorandum entitled

‘‘Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit

in New Source Permitting,’’ dated June

13, 1989, and a policy memorandum

entitled ‘‘Options for Limiting the

Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary

Source Under Section 112 and Title V

of the Clean Air Act (Act),’’ dated

January 25, 1995.

The first requirement for approval of

Minnesota’s FESOP program is satisfied

by virtue of today’s approval of

Minnesota’s regulations into the SIP.

The second requirement contains two

parts. With respect to sources’ legal

obligations, Minnesota’s rules satisfy the

requirement by requiring each permit to

state that ‘‘Any [noncompliance with

permit conditions] constitutes a

violation of the state law and, if the

provision is federally enforceable, of the

[Clean Air Act, and] is grounds for

enforcement action.’’

With respect to the authority granted

to USEPA to deem permits ‘‘not

federally enforceable,’’ the technical

support document provides a detailed

interpretation of Minnesota’s rules on

this issue both for the time period

during permit review and for the time

period subsequent to permit issuance.

For the permit review period, the State

rules specify that Minnesota ‘‘shall not

issue [such a permit] if the

administrator objects to its issuance in

writing [during the specified review

period].’’ For the period after the permit

has been issued, USEPA interprets

Minnesota’s rules to allow avoidance of

otherwise applicable permitting

requirements only if a permit condition

provides a federally enforceable limit on

a source’s potential to emit, which

USEPA would be authorized to

determine. Thus, in summary, USEPA is

authorized to deem permits not

federally enforceable both during and

after the permit review period.

With respect to the third requirement,

Rule 7007.0800 (‘‘Permit Content’’)

explicitly requires that permits ‘‘shall

include emissions limitations,

operational requirements, and other

provisions needed to ensure compliance

with all applicable

requirements * * *.’’ No provision in

the State rules authorizes any relaxation

from any applicable requirement.

With respect to the fourth

requirement, enforceability is mostly to

be provided on a permit-by-permit

basis, particularly by writing practical

and quantitative enforcement

procedures into each permit. USEPA

will review enforceability of permits

using the above cited memorandum

entitled ‘‘Guidance on Limiting

Potential to Emit in New Source

Permitting,’’ which describes the types

of limitations that reduce potential to

emit in a federally enforceable manner.

Nevertheless, enforceability also

requires proper permit program design.

Minnesota’s regulations (for example

Rule 7007.0800 quoted above) provide

for fully enforceable limitations.

Concerning permanence, Rule

7007.0450 (2) expressly provides for

permanence of ‘‘title I conditions,’’

thereby assuring permanence of

conditions relating to new source

review. Pursuant to Rule 7007.0800 (15),

Title I conditions in each permit will be

identified as such. Other conditions

have the duration provided for under

Title V, i.e., they expire with permit

expiration but are typically renewed

with permit reissuance. Consequently,

Minnesota’s rules provide for the degree

of permanence necessary for

enforcement of the applicable

provisions, and more generally provide

for permit limitations to be fully

enforceable.

With respect to the fifth requirement,

Minnesota’s rules have explicit

requirements for public notice and

review of proposed permitting actions.

Of particular concern here are

provisions that apply to permitting

actions that establish limits to avoid

major source permitting requirements

(‘‘synthetic minor permits’’), both with

respect to new source and to existing

source permitting requirements. In both

cases, Rule 7007.0850 provides for a 30-

day public comment period. For most

minor source permits, including

existing source ‘‘synthetic minor

permits,’’ Rule 7007.0850 (2) allows the

State to publish notice in the State

Register rather than in a local

newspaper. This approach is provided

for in USEPA regulations for major

existing source permits under Title V

(i.e., the regulations published at 40

CFR 70), and so this approach is also

considered acceptable for synthetic

minor existing source permits. For

minor source permitting that involves

‘‘title I conditions,’’ defined in Rule

7007.0100 (25) to include major new

source permit conditions, permit

conditions established to help meet air

quality standards, and synthetic minor

permit conditions, further requirements

apply. Specifically, Rule 7007.0850 (4)

requires that such permit actions

‘‘comply with all other federal

requirements for public participation.’’

The Federal requirements for new

source permitting include prominent

advertisement of the proposed permit,

i.e., newspaper publication, which

would thus also be a requirement of

Rule 7007.0850. Rule 7007.0850 (2)(B)

also stipulates that major amendments

to State permits (including ‘‘major

modifications’’ as defined in USEPA’s

new source review regulations as well

as ‘‘synthetic minor modifications’’),

have the same notice and comment

requirements as State permit issuance,

‘‘if authorized or required by the

administrator.’’ USEPA clearly

authorizes and requires full notice and

opportunity for public comment in

cases of major and synthetic minor

modifications. In summary, newspaper

notice is a requirement for major and

synthetic minor new source permitting

under Federal regulations and therefore

also under Minnesota Rule

7007.0850(4). In addition, USEPA

‘‘authorizes and requires’’ full notice

and opportunity for public comment for

major and synthetic minor

modifications, which is therefore also

required in these cases under Minnesota

Rule 7007.0850 (2)(B). Given these

interpretations, Minnesota’s rules

require full satisfaction of relevant

notice and comment requirements.

In addition to meeting the criteria in

the June 28, 1989, notice, a FESOP

program for HAPs must meet the

statutory criteria for approval under

section 112(l)(5). This section allows

USEPA to approve a program only if it

(1) contains adequate authority to assure

compliance with any section 112

standard or requirement, (2) provides

for adequate resources, (3) provides for

an expeditious schedule for assuring

compliance with section 112

requirements, and (4) is otherwise likely

to satisfy the objectives of the Act. The

memorandum cited above dated January

25, 1995, provides further discussion of

these criteria and of the extent to which

limits on criteria pollutants such as

volatile organic compounds and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21449

particulate matter may be considered to

limit sources’ potential to emit HAPs.

Minnesota satisfies these additional

requirements for HAPs. (1) The State

has adequate authority to assure

compliance with section 112

requirements since the third criterion of

the June 28, 1989, notice is met, that is,

the program does not allow waiving any

section 112 requirement. Nonmajor

sources would still be required to meet

applicable section 112 requirements. (2)

Minnesota has committed to provide

adequate resources to implement and

enforce the program, which it will

obtain from fees collected under Title V.

USEPA believes that this mechanism

will provide sufficient resources to

implement this program. USEPA will

monitor the State’s implementation of

the program to assure that adequate

resources continue to be available. (3)

Minnesota’s permitting program also

meets the requirement for an

expeditious schedule for assuring

compliance. A source seeking a

voluntary limit on potential to emit is

probably doing so to avoid a Federal

requirement applicable on a particular

date. Nothing in this program would

allow a source to avoid or delay

compliance with the Federal

requirement if it fails to obtain the

appropriate federally enforceable limit

by the relevant deadline. (4) Finally,

Minnesota’s permitting rules are

consistent with the objectives of the

section 112 program since its purpose is

to enable sources to obtain federally

enforceable limits on potential to emit

to avoid major source classification

under section 112. USEPA believes that

this purpose is consistent with the

overall intent of section 112.

Accordingly, USEPA finds that

Minnesota’s program satisfies applicable

criteria for establishing federally

enforceable limitations on potential to

emit both criteria and hazardous air

pollutants.

Minnesota has requested that

eligibility for Federal enforceability

extend not only to permits issued after

the effective date of this rule but also

extend to permits issued under the

State’s current rule prior to the effective

date of today’s rulemaking. If the State

followed its own procedures, each

permit issued under this regulation to

establish a Title I condition (e.g. for a

source to have minor source potential to

emit) was subject to public notice and

prior USEPA review. Therefore, USEPA

will consider all such operating permits

issued which were processed in a

manner consistent with both the State

regulations and the five criteria to be

federally enforceable with the

promulgation of this rule provided that

any permits that the State wishes to

make federally enforceable are

submitted to USEPA and accompanied

by documentation that the procedures

approved today have been followed.

USEPA will expeditiously review any

individual permits so submitted to

ensure their conformity to the program

requirements.

B. Use of State Permits as SIP Revisions

The second purpose of Minnesota’s

submittal was to facilitate future SIP

revisions. For cases when a single

source or a small number of sources

require limitations to bring about

attainment or to meet other Title I

requirements, Minnesota intends that

such limitations could be incorporated

into the source’s permit. Minnesota

would then submit the permit as a SIP

revision in lieu of the current practice

of developing and submitting an

administrative order. Minnesota’s

submittal does not include any such

permits for USEPA rulemaking. Thus,

the following discussion expresses the

approach and criteria that USEPA

anticipates using in the future if and

when Minnesota does provide such

submittals.

The first criterion for USEPA approval

of this approach is that the relevant

permit conditions be nonexpiring and

enforceable. Minnesota’s rules address

this criterion by defining such permit

conditions as ‘‘Title I conditions.’’

Minnesota’s Rule 7007.0100 (25) defines

this term to mean (1) any conditions in

a permit which are based on new source

review, (2) any conditions imposed to

assure attainment, or (3) any conditions

established to avoid being subject to

new source review (i.e., limitations on

potential to emit to become ‘‘synthetic

minor sources’’). Rule 7007.0450

declares that title I conditions are

permanent ‘‘without regard to permit

expiration or reissuance * * *.’’ USEPA

will review practical enforceability of

permit-based SIP submittals on a permit

by permit basis. Assuming that other

relevant requirements are met (e.g., any

attainment demonstration

requirements), USEPA anticipates that

well written permits would satisfy the

substantive requirements for SIP

revisions.

The second criterion for USEPA

approval of permits as SIP revisions is

that administrative requirements for the

adoption of SIP revisions be met. These

requirements are specified in 40 CFR 51,

particularly Subpart F (Procedural

Requirements) and Appendix V

(Completeness Criteria). Most notably,

any SIP revision must have been subject

to proper public notice and opportunity

for comment. In particular, the State

must have published a newspaper

notice of the intended SIP revisions and

have provided a 30-day opportunity for

comments and opportunity for a public

hearing.

Minnesota’s rules have different

public notice provisions depending on

applicability of Title V permitting

requirements, i.e., for major versus

minor sources. For sources obtaining or

amending a Title V permit, Rule

7007.0850 (Public Notice and Comment)

subpart 2 dictates satisfaction of the SIP

notice and comment requirements

discussed previously. It is less clear

whether Minnesota’s rules mandate

satisfaction of these requirements in the

case of minor sources. Rule 7007.0850

subpart 4 states that Minnesota ‘‘shall

also comply with all other federal

requirements for public participation

applicable to permits and permit

amendments which include Title I

conditions [including establishment of

attainment-based limitations], including

requirements in [40 CFR 51.102, 51.161,

and 51.166(Q)].’’ On the other hand,

Rule 7007.1500 subpart 3 indicates

(seemingly inadvertently) that such

amendments need not be subject to

notice and comment. However, it is not

necessary to determine here exactly

what Minnesota’s rules require. Instead,

the real issue is whether each permit

submitted for SIP revision purposes has

been issued in accordance with the

notice and comment requirements

applicable to SIP revisions (as described

above), irrespective of what notice and

comment provisions are mandated by

Minnesota rules. USEPA will conduct a

submittal-by-submittal review of

whether the notice and comment

requirements for SIP revisions have

been satisfied at the time it rulemakes

on each submittal.

The above discussion addresses

Minnesota’s request that USEPA accept

permits as the enforceable elements of

future SIP revisions. Minnesota’s

submittal also requested that

administrative orders currently in the

SIP be replaced with permits. USEPA

cannot grant this request now; no Title

V permits have yet been issued and so

none are available to replace the

existing administrative orders. When

such permits do become available, the

substitution of a permit for an

administrative order will not occur on

an automatic basis, but rather will be

reviewed as a SIP revision following the

normal SIP review process.

C. Review of Updated New Source

Review Requirements

A third purpose of Minnesota’s

submittal was to update the federally

approved regulations to reflect the
21450 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

updated State permitting regulations. In

adopting a single set of air permitting

regulations incorporating both

construction permits and operating

permits, the State updated numerous

new source review provisions in

conjunction with its adoption of the

regulations required under Title V.

These rules specify criteria for what

sources must have Title V permits

(namely, major sources), what sources

must have State permits, and what

sources do not need a permit. Further

rules specify application requirements,

permit content, and procedures for

permit processing. Criteria are given for

treating modifications as insignificant

and for treating activities as

insignificant. Separate requirements are

established for administrative

amendments, minor amendments,

moderate amendments, and major

amendments. Criteria for reopening of

permits, criteria for Federal

enforceability, criteria for coverage by a

permit shield, and exemptions for

emergency circumstances are defined.

Additional revisions include modified

permit processing provisions (e.g.

specific public comment provisions),

provisions which exempt certain

defined modifications and activities

from permitting due to insignificance,

provision of raised size thresholds for

State permits, and provision for trading

of emissions increases and decreases at

‘‘minor’’ sources.

The technical support document

provides a rule-by-rule review of the

updated Minnesota regulations. A few

rules present ambiguities requiring

further interpretation. Previous

discussion has described USEPA’s

interpretation of Minnesota’s rules

concerning notice and comment,

concluding that USEPA authorizes and

requires and therefore Rule 7007.0850

requires full opportunity for public

comment and newspaper notice for

synthetic minor and major new source

and modification permits. Rule

7007.0750 allows construction prior to

permit issuance in some cases for minor

sources (provided State authorization is

granted), but prohibits preissuance

construction for major sources; USEPA

interprets this rule to prohibit

preissuance construction for prospective

synthetic minor sources since such

sources are major sources until the

permit is issued. Rule 7007.1750

provides that conditions required under

Chapter 7007 rules are federally

enforceable, but is ambiguous as to

whether permit conditions adopted to

avoid ‘‘major source’’ size thresholds

qualify as federally enforceable. Since

such conditions may be considered a

means of satisfying Title I permitting

requirements, and since Federal

enforceability is a prerequisite for such

limits to be effective in avoiding

categorization as a major source, USEPA

interprets such permit conditions as

federally enforceable.

Numerous provisions governing new

source review in Minnesota are

unaffected by the State’s submittal.

Minnesota’s offset rules, recodified as

Rules 7007.4000 through 7007.4030,

continue to provide substantive

requirements for major new sources and

major modifications in nonattainment

areas. The State has not sought approval

of State regulations for prevention of

significant deterioration (i.e. new source

review in attainment areas) to replace

the Federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.21,

so the Federal regulations remain

applicable.

In its action on previous Minnesota

permitting regulations, published at 53

FR 17033 (May 13, 1988), USEPA

disapproved the rules with respect to

sources with new source performance

standards but exempted by the State as

being below permitting size thresholds.

The rules providing these exemptions

have been repealed and replaced with

regulations that require a permit for any

source to which new source

performance standards apply. Thus the

prior partial disapproval may be

rescinded. USEPA further concludes

that these rules satisfy applicable new

source permitting requirements.

II. Rulemaking Action

Today’s rulemaking addresses

Minnesota’s air permitting regulations

as submitted November 23, 1993.

USEPA approves these regulations.

Furthermore, USEPA concludes that

Minnesota’s three purposes in

submitting these regulations have been

fulfilled. First, USEPA concludes that

Minnesota has satisfied the criteria for

issuing federally enforceable state

operating permits. Second, USEPA finds

that Minnesota has established a

suitable mechanism for use of permits

as the basis of SIP submittals. Although

no such permits have yet been issued or

submitted, USEPA anticipates being

able to approve future permit-based SIP

submittals provided that SIP-related

public notice requirements and other

relevant SIP requirements (e.g. any

attainment demonstration criteria) have

been satisfied. Third, USEPA concludes

that these new permitting regulations

continue to satisfy relevant new source

review requirements. Finally, USEPA is

rescinding the partial disapproval

applicable to Minnesota’s previous

permitting regulations.

Because USEPA considers this action

noncontroversial and routine, we are

approving it without prior proposal. The

action will become effective on July 3,

1995, unless adverse or critical

comments are received by June 1, 1995.

This action will authorize Minnesota to

issue federally enforceable state

operating permits limiting the potential

to emit criteria and/or hazardous air

pollutant emissions. If the effective date

is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

Most of the rules approved by this

rulemaking are in Chapter 7007 of

Minnesota’s rules. Specifically, USEPA

is approving Rules 7007.0050 through

7007.1850, including Rules 7007.0050,

.0100, .0150, .0200, .0250, .0300, .0350,

.0400, .0450, .0500, .0550, .0600, .0650,

.0700, .0750, .0800, .0850, .0900, .0950,

.1000, .1050, .1100, .1150, .1200, .1250,

.1300, .1350, .1400, .1450, .1500, .1600,

.1650, .1700, .1750, .1800, and .1850. In

addition, USEPA is approving the repeal

of previous Rules 7001.1200, 7001.1205,

7001.1210, 7001.1215, and 7001.1220,

amendments to Rules 7001.0020,

7001.0050, 7001.0140, 7001.0180,

7001.0550, 7001.3050, 7002.0005, and

7002.0015 that accompany this repeal,

and new definitions in Rule 7005.0100.

USEPA will address Rule 7019.3000 (a

portion of the State’s emissions

inventory rules) in separate rulemaking.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. USEPA

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget has exempted

this rule from the requirements of

section 6 of Executive Order 12866.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604.) Alternatively, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21451

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 3, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See Section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Carbon

monoxide, Environmental protection,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Lead,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Minnesota was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, chapter I, part 52 is

amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart Y—[Amended]

2. Section 52.1220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(37) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(37) On November 23, 1993, the State

of Minnesota submitted updated air

permitting rules.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Rules 7007.0050 through

7007.1850, effective August 10, 1993.

(B) Rules 7001.0020, 7001.0050,

7001.0140, 7001.0180, 7001.0550,

7001.3050, 7002.0005, 7002.0015, and

7005.0100, effective August 10, 1993.

§ 52.1225 [Amended]

3. Section 52.1225 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraphs (c)

and (d).

§ 52.1233 [Added]

4. Section 52.1233 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.1233 Operating permits.

Emission limitations and related

provisions which are established in

Minnesota permits as federally

enforceable conditions in accordance

with Chapter 7007 rules shall be

enforceable by USEPA. USEPA reserves

the right to deem permit conditions not

federally enforceable. Such a

determination will be made according to

appropriate procedures, and be based

upon the permit, permit approval

procedures or permit requirements

which do not conform with the permit

program requirements or the

requirements of USEPA’s underlying

regulations.

[FR Doc. 95–10702 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[VA20–1–5996a; FRL–5178–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; for the

Commonwealth of Virginia—Emission

Statement Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Virginia. This revision establishes and

requires an emission statement program

for stationary sources of volatile

organics compounds (VOCs) and/or

nitrogen oxides (NOX). The intended

effect of this action is to approve a

regulation for annual reporting of actual

emissions by sources that emit VOC

and/or NOX applicable to all ozone

nonattainment areas in accordance with

section 182(a)(3)(B) of the 1990 Clean

Air Act Amendments (CAAA). This

action is being taken under section 110

of the CAA.

DATES: This final rule will become

effective July 3, 1995 unless notice is

received on or before June 1, 1995 that

adverse or critical comments will be

submitted. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

to Thomas J. Maslany, Director, Air,

Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107.

Copies of the Commonwealth’s

submittal and other information are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

location: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, Air, Radiation, and

Toxics Division, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, PA 19107; the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460; and the Virginia Department

of Environmental Quality, 629 East

Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Enid

A. Gerena (3AT14), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air, Radiation, and

Toxics Division, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597–

8239.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 4, 1992, the Virginia

Department of the Environment Quality

(VDEQ) submitted a formal revision to

the Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP

which among other things, requires

owners of stationary sources that emit

VOCs and NOX, above specified actual

emission applicability thresholds, and

within the ozone nonattainment areas,

to submit annual statements certifying

emissions. This notice only addresses

those portions of the November 4, 1992

SIP submittal related to the

Commonwealth of Virginia’s emission

statement program. The other SIP

revisions included in the submittal are

the subjects of separate rulemaking

notices.

I. Background

The air quality planning and State

Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements

for ozone nonattainment and transport

areas are set out in subparts I and II of

Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act,

as amended by the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. EPA published a

‘‘General Preamble’’ describing EPA’s

preliminary views on how the Agency

intends to review SIP’s and SIP

revisions submitted under Title I of the