Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
OWEF, a municipal waste combustor facility owned by Olmsted County, is located at 301 Silver Creek Road Northeast, in Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota. The facility is a district heating and cooling plant as well as an electric power generating station. Energy is produced mainly through combustion of municipal solid waste in two mass burn combustion units. The other emission units are a diesel generator that provides emergency electrical power and occasional peaking capacity and an auxiliary boiler used when the waste combustor is going through maintenance. Minnesota originally submitted a Title V permit for OWEF as part of the Minnesota SO
The SIP revision submitted by MPCA on September 28, 2007, consists of Minnesota Air Emission Permit No. 10900005-002, issued to OWEF on August 23, 2007, which serves as a joint Title I/Title V document. The state has requested that EPA approve only the portions of the permit cited as “Title I
Minnesota held a public hearing regarding the SIP revision and the joint Title I/Title V document on August 2, 2007. No comments were received at the public meeting nor during the 30-day public comment period.
EPA is taking this action because the state's submittal for OWEF is fully approvable. The SIP revision provides for attainment and maintenance of the SO
Under current SIP conditions, waste combustor units (EU 001 and EU 002) are equipped with Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs) to monitor SO
The current SIP emission limits will be maintained for the existing waste combustor units (EU 001 and EU 002), but there will be additional emissions limits added to the SIP based on Federal standards in 40 CFR part 62, which will result in limited emissions of 77 parts per million (ppm) or 16.3 lbs/hour, based on a 24-hour average. The new waste combustor (EU 007) will have limited SO
Further, since the last SIP revision to the facility, the existing waste combustor units (EU 001 and EU 002) have undergone an air pollution control retrofit project including installation of spray-dryer absorbers (SDAs) for control of SO
The previous air quality dispersion modeling for the SIP, conducted in 1998, was done prior to the installation of SO
Revised air dispersion modeling was conducted using the AERMOD model with Rochester meteorological data to ensure continued attainment of the SO
SIP control measures were contained in permits issued to culpable sources in Minnesota until 1990 when EPA determined that limits in state-issued permits are not Federally enforceable because the permits expire. The state then issued permanent Administrative Orders to culpable sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
Minnesota's consolidated permitting regulations, approved into the Minnesota SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), include the term “Title I condition” which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements that SIP control measures remain permanent. A “Title I condition” is defined as “any condition based on source-specific determination of ambient impacts imposed for the purposes of achieving or maintaining attainment with the national ambient air quality standard and which was part of the state implementation plan approved by EPA or submitted to the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act * * *.” The rule also states that “Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the other conditions of the permit.” Further, “any title I condition shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.”
Minnesota has also initiated using joint Title I/Title V documents as the enforceable document for imposing emission limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in joint Title I/Title V documents submitted by MPCA are cited as “Title I conditions,” therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain permanent and enforceable. EPA reviewed the state's procedure for using joint Title I/Title V documents to implement site-specific SIP requirements and found it to be acceptable under both titles I and V of the Act (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15, 2006, letter from EPA to MPCA clarifies procedures to transfer requirements from Administrative Orders to joint Title I/Title V documents.
EPA is approving into the Minnesota SO
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 22, 2009. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *