Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Minnesota: Alternative Public Participation Process, 5205-5211 [E6-1367]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
alternatives to the recommended
treatment or procedure.
Under the current definition of
practitioner, residents may obtain the
informed consent and sign the consent
form even if they are not clinically
privileged. This rule would extend that
exception to other appropriately trained
health care professionals, e.g., advanced
practice nurses and physician assistants,
if designated by the VA health care
facility to perform this role. Allowing
these health care professionals, in
addition to residents, to complete the
informed consent process by signing the
form does not preclude discussion about
the recommended treatment or
procedure with the treating practitioner.
Nor does it eliminate the responsibility
of that practitioner to ensure that
patients receive necessary information
to make informed decisions and that
these decisions are then appropriately
documented in the health record.
We are also making nonsubstantive
changes to make the terminology used
in the regulation consistent with current
Department practice. These include
changing ‘‘health-care’’ to ‘‘health care’’
and ‘‘medical record’’ to ‘‘health record’’
throughout the section.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in an
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
given year. This rule would have no
such effect on State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector.
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This document contains no provisions
constituting a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501–3521). The existing
information collections associated with
the informed consent process have been
approved by OMB under control
number 2900–0583.
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) has examined the economic
implications of this proposed rule as
required by Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies
to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and,
when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 12866 classifies a rule
as significant if it meets any one of a
number of specified conditions,
including: having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million, adversely
affecting a sector of the economy in a
material way, adversely affecting
competition, or adversely affecting jobs.
A regulation is also considered a
significant regulatory action if it raises
novel legal or policy issues.
The VA concludes that this proposed
rule is a significant regulatory action
under the Executive Order since it raises
novel legal and policy issues under
Section 3(f)(4). The VA concludes,
however, that this proposed rule does
not meet the significance threshold of
$100 million effect on the economy in
any one year under Section 3(f)(1). The
VA requests comments regarding this
determination, and invites commenters
to submit any relevant data that will
assist the agency in estimating the
impact of this rulemaking.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as
they are defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The
rule will affect only individuals and
will not directly affect any small
entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b), this rule is exempt from the
initial and final regulatory flexibility
analysis requirements of sections 603
and 604.
5205
Approved: October 20, 2005.
Gordon H. Mansfield,
Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out above, VA
proposes to amend 38 CFR part 17 to
read as follows:
PART 17—MEDICAL
1. The authority citation for part 17 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, and as
stated in specific sections.
2. Section 17.32 is amended by:
a. Removing ‘‘health-care’’ each time
it appears and adding in its place
‘‘health care’’.
b. Removing ‘‘medical record’’ each
time it appears and adding in its place
‘‘health record’’.
c. In the list of definitions in
paragraph (a), revising the definition of
‘‘Practitioner’’.
The revision reads as follows:
§ 17.32 Informed consent and advance
care planning.
(a) * * *
Practitioner. Any physician, dentist,
or health care professional who has
been granted specific clinical privileges
to perform the treatment or procedure.
For the purpose of obtaining informed
consent for medical treatment, the term
practitioner includes medical and
dental residents and other appropriately
trained health care professionals
designated by VA regardless of whether
they have been granted clinical
privileges.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E6–1218 Filed 1–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance numbers and titles are
64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits;
64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care;
and 64.011, Veterans Dental Care.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug
abuse, Foreign relations, Government
contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant
programs-veterans, Health care, Health
facilities, Health professions, Health
records, Homeless, Medical and dental
schools, Medical devices, Medical
research, Mental health programs,
Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Scholarships and fellowships, Travel
and transportation expenses, Veterans.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0012; FRL–8027–3]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans: Minnesota:
Alternative Public Participation
Process
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting comment on
the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency’s (MPCA’s) use of informing the
public of upcoming rulemakings and
public hearings via the internet as
opposed to the past practice of using the
newspaper or some other widely
accessible printed media. Comments
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
5206
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
received may impact EPA’s approval of
the following requests made by the
MPCA.
The EPA is proposing to approve a
revision to the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that will
establish, pursuant to regulations on
public hearings, an alternative public
participation process for certain SIP
revisions. On December 7, 2005, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) submitted a request to change
certain procedures involving the public
hearing and notification process as it
applies to SIPs. Minnesota held a public
hearing on this SIP revision request on
November 17, 2005. In its request, the
MPCA has identified a number of types
of SIP revisions that are
noncontroversial and for which the
public has historically shown little or
no interest. For this limited number of
SIP revisions, the MPCA would, if
approved, offer the opportunity for a
public hearing, but would not hold a
hearing if one was not requested. The
EPA agrees that the SIP types that have
been identified by the MPCA have
historically been noncontroversial and
that offering the public the opportunity
to request a public hearing rather than
holding one automatically does not
limit or curtail the public participation
process.
Also, EPA is proposing to approve,
pursuant to regulations on public
hearings, a revision to the Minnesota
SIP that provides that SIP revisions for
which a public hearing was held at the
time of the MPCA rulemaking, and
where such public hearing met all the
criteria necessary for a SIP public
hearing, including, as discussed in this
proposal, effective electronic notice, and
the public was notified that the rule
would be submitted as a SIP revision,
no separate public hearing for SIP
purposes would be held. MPCA
included this revision to the Minnesota
SIP in its December 7, 2005 request to
EPA to revise certain provisions
involving the SIP public hearing and
notification process, and,
correspondingly, included this revision
in the public hearing which MPCA held
on November 17, 2005. EPA agrees that
a public hearing held at the time of the
MPCA rulemaking, which meets the
criteria for a SIP public hearing,
including notice requirements,
precludes the need for a separate public
hearing for SIP purposes.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 3, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2006–0012, by one of the
following methods:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
• Fax: (312) 886–5824.
• Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
• Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney,
Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR–
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional
Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2006–
0012. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional instructions
on submitting comments, go to Section
I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend that you
telephone Douglas Aburano,
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353–
6960 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Aburano, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6960,
aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we’’ or ‘‘us’’ is used, we mean EPA.
This supplementary information section
is arranged as follows:
I. General Information.
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
A. Automatic Public Hearing Is Not
Necessary Because SIP Revision Is Either
Nonsubstantive or Noncontroversial
B. Equivalent Hearing to a Public Hearing
C. Table Summarizing Proposed
Alternative Public Hearing Processes
D. Use of Internet Notification of
Upcoming Rulemakings and Public
Hearings Versus Using Newspapers
E. Summary
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This action applies to anyone who
would participate in the public
rulemaking process in Minnesota. This
proposal may be of particular interest to
parties who prefer notification of MPCA
rulemakings and hearings through
printed media, such as the newspaper,
versus electronic media such as postings
on the internet.
This proposal does not seek to limit
the public participation process; rather,
it is an effort to eliminate unnecessary
public hearings and save MPCA time
and resources. MPCA has identified a
number of different types of SIP
revisions that have received little, if
any, public interest in the past and,
when public hearings were held, no one
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
attended these hearings. These public
hearings are, therefore, viewed as
consuming both valuable time and
resources that the MPCA could utilize
better on other projects. For these types
of revisions, the state has revised its
procedures to provide that public
hearings will not automatically be held.
Rather, the public will be provided the
opportunity to request a public hearing
and a hearing will be held only if
requested. This revision regarding
public hearings will not affect the
public’s ability to submit written
comments on any SIP revision.
Also, MPCA has requested that when
a public hearing that meets specific
requirements has already been held in
the state that this would be found to be
the equivalent of a SIP public hearing.
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The EPA may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Additional Instructions for Specific
Comments. EPA is soliciting specific
comments on MPCA’s use of the
internet to inform the public of
upcoming rulemakings and public
hearings. In the past, before computer
usage was as widespread as it is today,
states would inform the public of
upcoming public hearings by placing
advertisements in the newspaper. Now
that the use of computers and the
internet is considered commonplace, we
would like feedback on whether it is
appropriate to no longer advertise
upcoming rulemakings and public
hearings in a printed format and to shift
to an all electronic notification through
use of internet publication. Additional
information regarding these practices
will follow in this notice. It is important
we receive comments on this aspect of
proposal because it may impact our
proposed approval of the alternative
public hearing processes submitted by
MPCA.
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
EPA is proposing to, under 40 CFR
51.102(g), approve an alternative public
participation process that would apply
to certain SIP revisions in the state of
Minnesota. The goal of this new process
is to preserve time and resources of the
MPCA by eliminating automatic public
hearings for the types of SIP revisions
that have historically generated little, if
any, public interest. This process,
however, preserves the opportunity for
the public to request a SIP public
hearing.
Currently, 40 CFR 51.102 and Clean
Air Act section 110(a)(2) and 110(l)
require the state to hold public hearings
for all SIP revisions prior to submitting
such revisions to EPA for approval. This
is true for all SIPs regardless of how
minor the action or how little public
interest has been expressed on the SIP
revision under consideration. Under
federal regulations found at 40 CFR
51.102(g)(2), alternative procedures may
be approved provided they still ensure
adequate public notification and public
participation.
On December 7, 2005, the MPCA
requested that its SIP be amended to
incorporate alternative public
participation procedures into the
Minnesota SIP. The MPCA has
identified limited types of SIP revisions
that, historically, have received little, if
any, public interest and when public
hearings have been held for these SIP
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5207
revisions, no one attended. For these
types of SIP revisions, MPCA would
instead offer the opportunity for a
public hearing. Under this alternative
method of public participation, only one
request would be necessary and a public
hearing would be held.
MPCA has also requested that when a
state public hearing has been held on an
MPCA rulemaking, that can be
considered the equivalent of a SIP
public hearing, when measured against
the criteria for a SIP public hearing as
provided at 40 CFR 51.102(d)–(f) [see
the discussion on the use of electronic
notification of rulmakings and public
hearing in section II. C. of this notice],
and where the public was notified that
such rule would be submitted as a SIP
revision, then a public hearing for SIP
purposes only need not be held.
Included in MPCA’s SIP amendment
request were two exhibits. Exhibit 1 is
a table describing the various types of
SIP submittals that are made by the
state. In the table, each SIP revision
category is described and a reason is
given why a public hearing should
automatically be held or why an
automatic public hearing is not
necessary but the opportunity to request
a public hearing still exists. The phrase
‘‘Administrative Permit Amendments’’
is used in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2
identifies how that phrase is defined by
Minnesota Rules.
While Exhibit 1 describes all of the
various SIP revisions that MPCA might
make, for the purposes of this
rulemaking we will discuss only: (1) the
categories for which MPCA is requesting
that public hearings would be held only
if requested and (2) the category for
which MPCA believes the equivalent of
a SIP public hearing has already been
held which obviates the need for a
public hearing for SIP purposes only.
A. Automatic Public Hearing Is Not
Necessary Because SIP Revision Is
Either Nonsubstantive or
Noncontroversial
In these instances, MPCA indicates
that the public will have the
opportunity to request a public hearing.
The MPCA will schedule a tentative
hearing, but stating in the public notice
document (which is published in the
Minnesota State Register in an online
format only) that the hearing will not be
held if there are no affirmative requests
for it to be held.
1. Purely Administrative Changes—
MPCA gives the examples of correcting
typographical or grammatical errors.
There is a presumption that this is not
a change that would be of public
concern as it is not substantive.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
5208
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
2. De minimis change to a
‘‘secondary’’ compliance requirement—
Here, MPCA defines ‘‘secondary’’
requirement as a requirement that
supports a ‘‘primary’’ requirement for a
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). ‘‘Primary’’ requirements
include, but are not limited to,
restrictions such as an emission limit or
fuel usage limit. An example of de
minimis change to a ‘‘secondary’’
requirement could include, a change to
a monitoring or testing method that is
within the scope of the method and
does not adversely impact the accuracy
or precision of the method (e.g.,
increasing sample volume above the
minimum required by the method in
order to ensure an adequate detection
limit is achieved.) There is a
presumption of no public interest in
these types of SIP revisions because the
changes described here are ‘‘de
minimis’’ and should not adversely
affect compliance with the primary
NAAQS.
3. Changes categorized as
‘‘administrative amendments’’ under
MPCA’s operating permit rules—MPCA
included, as Exhibit 2, the portion of the
Minnesota Rules that define
‘‘administrative amendments.’’ Minn. R.
7077.1400, subp. 1, as reproduced
below, defines the term ‘‘administrative
amendments’’ as including the
following actions:
• An amendment to correct a
typographical error;
• An amendment to change the name,
mailing address, or telephone number of
any person identified in the permit, or
that reflects a similar minor
administrative change at the permitted
facility. A change in the stationary
source’s location of operation is not
covered by this item;
• An amendment requiring the
permittee to comply with additional,
more frequent, or expanded, testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting
requirements;
• An amendment to eliminate
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting
requirements if: (1) The requirements
are rendered meaningless because the
only emissions to which the
requirements apply will no longer
occur; (2) the change is to eliminate one
validated reference test method for a
pollutant and source category in order
to add another; (3) the requirements are
redundant to or less strict than other
existing requirements; (4) the
requirements are technically incorrect
and their elimination does not affect the
accuracy of the data generated or of the
monitoring information recorded or
reported; or, (5) the piece of equipment
to which the monitoring, record
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
keeping, or reporting requirement
applies no longer exists or has been
permanently disabled from use at the
stationary source.
• An amendment reflecting a change
in ownership or operational control of a
stationary source where the agency
determines that no other change in the
permit is necessary, provided that a
written agreement containing a specific
date for transfer of permit responsibility,
coverage, and liability between the
current and new permittee has been
submitted to the agency;
• An amendment to incorporate into
a permit the requirements from
preconstruction review permits issued
by the agency, incorporate into a permit
the requirements from standards
adopted under Code of Federal
Regulations, title 40, part 63, as
amended (National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories), or to lower the plantwide
emission limits in permits with
Plantwide Applicability Limits to reflect
the impact of standards adopted under
Code of Federal Regulations, title 40,
part 63, as amended;
• An amendment to clarify the
meaning of a permit term;
• An amendment to extend a
deadline in a permit by no more than
120 days, provided that the agency may
only extend a deadline established by
an applicable requirement described in
part 7007.0100, subpart 7, items A to K,
if the agency has been delegated
authority to make such extensions by
the administrator. Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, the agency may do
an administrative amendment to extend
a testing deadline in a permit up to 365
days if the agency finds that the
extension is needed to allow the
permittee to test at worst case
conditions as required by part
7017.2025, subpart 2;
• An amendment to remove any
condition from a permit which was
based on an applicable requirement that
has been repealed, but only if the permit
condition: (1) Is neither required nor
replaced by another applicable
requirement; and, (2) was not
established for a specific facility to
protect human health and the
environment, to prevent pollution, as a
mitigation measure in an environmental
impact statement, or to obtain a negative
declaration in an environmental
assessment worksheet;
• An amendment to correct or update
a citation to an applicable requirement
where the corresponding permit
condition is not changed; and,
• An amendment to include operating
conditions that ensure that waste
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
combustors emit mercury at less than 50
percent of the applicable standard.
These ‘‘administrative amendments’’
either do not substantively change the
SIP or they actually strengthen the SIP
(e.g., require more frequent testing,
reporting or recordkeeping) and are not
expected to generate public interest.
4. Unit or plant permanently shut
down—In this case, all SIP conditions
have become obsolete because the unit
or facility no longer exists and these SIP
conditions no longer apply. We agree
that if the unit or facility no longer
exists, an automatic public hearing is
not necessary to remove those SIP
conditions that no longer apply.
5. Non-controversial update to an
existing maintenance plan—This would
be a ‘‘technical change’’ (e.g., 10-year
update to a maintenance plan) with no
substantive compliance or inventory
changes.
6. Incorporation of federal rule by
reference into state rule—In these cases,
the federal rules have already been
through public notice and comment.
Also, the state’s incorporation by
reference is likely to be in response to
a Federal Register noticed delegation or
a memorandum of agreement that
dictates that MPCA must incorporate
the rule in order to administer the
federal program.
7. Rulemaking where a state public
hearing has been offered but no one was
interested—For some rulemakings,
MPCA will hold non-mandatory
meetings to discuss the merits of the
rulemaking and to invite comment on
draft or proposed rule language when
ready. At the commencement of every
rulemaking, state law requires MPCA to
publish a Notice of Request for
Comments (the State Register is
currently published online only). This
occurs before a rule has been drafted
and is intended to inform potentially
interested persons of the likely subject
matter of the rule that the MPCA is
considering. The Notice is published in
the State Register (which is available
only via the Internet), posted on the
MPCA’s website and physically mailed
to all persons that have previously
requested to be kept informed of such
proposals. The Notice does not specify
meeting dates but invites public
participation generally.
During the public participation
process, requests for a state public
hearing (different than a SIP public
hearing) can be made. If any request for
a state public hearing is made, then
MPCA has committed to hold a public
hearing on the SIP because public
interest has been expressed. However, if
no requests for a state public hearing are
made or if such requests are withdrawn,
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
then a SIP public hearing will only be
held if requested.
B. Equivalent Hearing to a Public
Hearing
In these instances, a public hearing
that would meet the criteria in 40 CFR
51.102(d)–(f) for a SIP public hearing
[see the discussion on the use of
electronic notification of rulmakings
and public hearing in section II.C. of
this notice] has already been held as
part of the procedure for some other
MPCA action. Minnesota has requested
that we approve this process under 40
CFR 51.102(g) as equivalent to the
public hearing requirement in 40 CFR
51.102. In the past, the state has held
separate SIP public hearings to satisfy
the requirements of the Clean Air Act,
specifically noting that the materials
available for the public to comment on
would be submitted for inclusion in the
SIP. MPCA has noted that in the future
if a state public hearing will be held,
MPCA will include language in rule
5209
proposal notices that specifies which
rule changes will be submitted to EPA
as a SIP revision. If this is done, the
state public hearing would also serve as
the SIP public hearing.
C. Table Summarizing Proposed
Alternative Public Hearing Processes
Below is a table summarizing the
hearing procedures for SIP submittals
for the state of Minnesota under this
new process.
SUMMARY TABLE OF SIP TYPES
Category
Public participation on process
(1) Purely administrative—e.g., correction of typographical or grammatical error ...............................................
(2) De minimis change to a ‘‘secondary’’ compliance requirement. ‘‘Secondary’’ means that the requirement
supports a primary requirement NAAQS related restriction such as an emission limit or fuel usage limit.
(3) Changes categorized as ‘‘administrative amendments’’ under MPCA’s operating permit rules (see Exhibit
2; Minn. R. 7007.1400) and see 40 CFR § 70.7(d)(3)).
(4) Unit or plant permanently shut down—all SIP conditions have become obsolete (e.g., Continental Nitrogen—no longer operates the boilers that were the only regulated units in its Admin Order).
(5) Addition or modification of emission unit to facility with SIP conditions with no overall increase in emissions. [Amendment of a Permit or Administrative Order that is part of SIP].
(6) Addition or modification of emission unit to facility with SIP conditions with overall increase in emissions.
[Involves amendment of a Permit or Administrative Order that is part of SIP].
(7a) Non-controversial update to an existing maintenance plan that is a ‘‘technical change;’’ or 10-year update to maintenance plan with no substantive compliance or inventory changes.
(7b) Update to an existing maintenance plan that changes the compliance scheme, including 10-year update
with compliance or inventory changes. Also any update that involves a known controversy.
(8) Redesignation requests ...................................................................................................................................
(9) New Plans (e.g., PM2.5, Ozone, Regional Haze) .............................................................................................
(10a) Rulemaking that has been the subject of a formal state public hearing. Minnesota will include language
in rule proposal notices that specifies which rule changes will be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. [Formal public hearing before an ALJ—Minn. Stat. § 14.14].
(10b) Rulemaking where non-mandatory stakeholder meetings are convened and the MPCA receives no requests for a formal public hearing on the proposed rule (or receives requests but all requests are withdrawn in a timely manner).
(10c) Rulemaking where non-mandatory stakeholder meetings are convened and the MPCA receives one or
more requests for a formal public hearing on the proposed rule (and if requests withdrawn, not done so in
time for cancellation of the public hearing).
(10d) Rulemaking where stakeholder meetings were not held or where meetings were too informal or selective. If the rule is potentially of interest in the SIP context but for some reason the type of meeting in 11(b)
was not held, a SIP-specific meeting should be held. This might occur if response to the rulemaking was
minimal but the rule is part of a larger SIP plan and in that context may have special significance to a specific state action.
(11) Incorporation of federal rule by reference into state rule ..............................................................................
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
D. Use of Internet Notification of
Upcoming Rulemakings and Public
Hearings Versus Using Newspapers
EPA is particularly interested in your
opinion on the use of electronic
notification, via the internet, of
rulemakings and public hearings. 40
CFR 51.102(d)–(f) describe the specific
requirements states must meet in
conducting public hearings for SIP
submittals. However, 40 CFR 51.102(g)
provides that alternative procedures
may be approved provided they still
ensure adequate public notification and
public participation. The following
provisions of 40 CFR 51.102(d) may be
impacted by the use of electronic notice:
(d) Any hearing required by paragraph
(a) of this section will be held only after
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
reasonable notice, which will be
considered to include, at least 30 days
prior to the date of such hearing(s):
(1) Notice given to the public by
prominent advertisement in the area
affected announcing the date(s), time(s),
and place(s) of such hearing(s);
(2) Availability of each proposed plan
or revision for public inspection in at
least one location in each region to
which it will apply, and the availability
of each compliance schedule for public
inspection in at least one location in the
region in which the affected source is
located.
Currently, the MPCA does not use
printed media to inform the general
public of upcoming rulemakings or
public hearings. This is different from
the more common and accepted practice
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Opportunity to request hearing.
Opportunity to request hearing.
Opportunity to request hearing.
Opportunity to request hearing.
Mandatory SIP hearing.
Mandatory SIP hearing.
Opportunity to request hearing.
Mandatory SIP hearing.
Mandatory SIP hearing.
Mandatory SIP hearing.
State hearing would serve as the
SIP public hearing.
Opportunity to request hearing.
Mandatory SIP hearing.
Mandatory SIP hearing.
Opportunity to request hearing.
of states publishing notices in
newspapers, or other widely available
printed media, in the area affected by
the rulemaking. In the past, the MPCA
would use the newspaper and the State
Register as a means of publishing such
public notices. MPCA has discontinued
using newspaper notices and, as of July
1, 2004, the Minnesota State Register is
no longer printed in a hardcopy format
and can only be accessed on the
internet. The Minnesota State Register
does offer an additional tailored
subscription service but there is a $180
annual fee associated with this service.
Access to the Minnesota State Register
is otherwise free assuming a person
already has access to the internet.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
5210
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
At the beginning of the rulemaking
process, MPCA will publish a Notice of
Request for Comments in the Minnesota
State Register which is only available
online. At this point in time, a rule or
rule language has not yet been drafted
and the Notice of Request for Comments
serves to inform potentially interested
parties of the likely subject matter of the
rule that MPCA is considering. This
notice also appears on the MPCA’s
website and notification is also mailed
to those parties that have expressed
interest in rulemakings of this type. This
initial notice helps generate a more
extensive list of interested parties than
the MPCA may already have. In many
cases the MPCA will invite these parties
to meetings to discuss the merits of
MPCA’s rulemaking and to comment on
draft or proposed rule language when
ready.
In past practice, the MPCA would
have published these notices in the
Minnesota State Register when it was in
print and the Minnesota State Register
was available at any public library.
Copies of draft or proposed rule
language would be available at MPCA
offices.
It is MPCA’s current practice to then
publish a Notice of Intent to Adopt
online in the State Register. It is at this
point the rule, as well as a detailed
statement of basis, is now made
available on the MPCA’s Web site for
public review and comment.
The argument can be made that,
because our society is now highly
computerized, making all of these
documents available electronically is as
accessible to the public, if not more so,
than it was in the past when these
documents were actually printed. For
example, in the past if someone was
interested in environmental rules he or
she could go to the library to read the
State Register. Now that same person
can go to the same library and access the
State Register online to view the same
type of information once carried in the
printed version of the Minnesota State
Register. Since the use of home
computers and access to the internet is
widespread, a person can now access
the Minnesota State Register from home
whether they live in Minnesota or not.
We would like your comments on
whether electronic notification of
upcoming rulemakings and public
hearings is an acceptable alternative to
printed notice which ensures public
notice and participation. It is important
for us to hear your comments now as we
will consider all of them before
rendering a final decision on this matter
and we will not be reproposing on this
in the future.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
E. Summary
In summary, we are proposing to
approve under 40 CFR 51.102(g)
MPCA’s request to allow the aboveidentified types of SIP revisions to
forego automatic public hearings.
Instead the public would be offered the
opportunity to request a public hearing
on these SIP revisions. Approval of this
alternative public participation process
is allowed under the Code of Federal
Regulations Title 40 Part 51 at 51.102(g).
We believe that the requirements found
in 40 CFR 51.102(g) have been met.
Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the
Clean Air Act require public hearings on
all SIP revisions before they are
submitted to the EPA. We believe that
the process that MPCA has submitted
for approval preserves the opportunity
for the public to request the same public
hearing and does not curtail the public
participation process. Additionally,
where MPCA provides a state public
hearing that meets the requirements of
51.102(d)–(f), including effective
electronic notice [see the discussion on
the use of electronic notification of
rulemakings and public hearing in
section II. C. of this notice], and notifies
the public that the rule changes will be
submitted as a SIP revision, then such
process is consistent with 40 CFR
51.102 and can be approved under 40
CFR 51.102(g). We are also soliciting
specific comments on the use of
electronic notice of MPCA rulemakings
and hearings. Public comments on the
use of electronic notice of hearings and
rulemakings may impact the EPA’s
approval of the proposed alternative
public hearing processes.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews.
Executive Order 12866; Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, September 30, 1993), this action
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
and therefore is not subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve
pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it 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).
Executive Order 13132 Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999) This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
Executive Order 13175 Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045 Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This proposed rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272,
requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus to
carry out policy objectives, so long as
such standards are not inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use
voluntary consensus standards, EPA has
no authority to disapprove a SIP
submission for failure to use such
standards, and it would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in place of a program
submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Therefore, the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTA do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations.
Dated: January 19, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6–1367 Filed 1–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2005–0557b; FRL–8025–1]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District, YoloSolano Air Quality Management
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
and Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District (YSAQMD)
portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from
polyester resin material use operations
and organic liquid chemical storage and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
transfer operations. We are proposing to
approve local rules to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).
Any comments on this proposal
must arrive by March 3, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number [DOCKET
NUMBER], by one of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at
either (415) 947–4111, or
wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.
DATES:
This
proposal addresses local rules VCAPCD
74.14 and YSAQMD 2.21. In the Rules
and Regulations section of this Federal
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5211
Register, we are approving these local
rules in a direct final action without
prior proposal because we believe these
SIP revisions are not controversial.
However, if we receive adverse
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule and
address the comments in subsequent
action based on this proposed rule.
Please note that if we receive adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, we may adopt as
final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.
We do not plan to open a second
comment period, so anyone interested
in commenting should do so at this
time. If we do not receive adverse
comments, no further activity is
planned. For further information, please
see the direct final action.
Dated: December 22, 2005.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 06–892 Filed 1–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE
45 CFR Part 2554
RIN 3045–AA42
Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
Corporation for National and
Community Service.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Corporation for National
and Community Service (Corporation)
proposes regulations to implement the
Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of
1986 (Act). The Act authorizes certain
Federal agencies, including the
Corporation, to impose, through
administrative adjudication, civil
penalties and assessments against any
person who makes, submits, or presents
a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim or
written statement to the agency. The
proposed regulations establish the
procedures the Corporation will follow
in implementing the provisions of the
Act and specifies the hearing and appeal
rights of persons subject to penalties
and assessments under the Act. They
also designate the Corporation’s Chief
Financial Officer to act on behalf of the
Chief Executive Officer in carrying out
certain duties and responsibilities under
the regulations.
DATES: The comment period expires on
April 3, 2006. Comments received after
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5205-5211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1367]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0012; FRL-8027-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Minnesota:
Alternative Public Participation Process
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting comment on the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's (MPCA's) use of informing the public of upcoming rulemakings
and public hearings via the internet as opposed to the past practice of
using the newspaper or some other widely accessible printed media.
Comments
[[Page 5206]]
received may impact EPA's approval of the following requests made by
the MPCA.
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that will establish, pursuant to regulations
on public hearings, an alternative public participation process for
certain SIP revisions. On December 7, 2005, the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a request to change certain procedures
involving the public hearing and notification process as it applies to
SIPs. Minnesota held a public hearing on this SIP revision request on
November 17, 2005. In its request, the MPCA has identified a number of
types of SIP revisions that are noncontroversial and for which the
public has historically shown little or no interest. For this limited
number of SIP revisions, the MPCA would, if approved, offer the
opportunity for a public hearing, but would not hold a hearing if one
was not requested. The EPA agrees that the SIP types that have been
identified by the MPCA have historically been noncontroversial and that
offering the public the opportunity to request a public hearing rather
than holding one automatically does not limit or curtail the public
participation process.
Also, EPA is proposing to approve, pursuant to regulations on
public hearings, a revision to the Minnesota SIP that provides that SIP
revisions for which a public hearing was held at the time of the MPCA
rulemaking, and where such public hearing met all the criteria
necessary for a SIP public hearing, including, as discussed in this
proposal, effective electronic notice, and the public was notified that
the rule would be submitted as a SIP revision, no separate public
hearing for SIP purposes would be held. MPCA included this revision to
the Minnesota SIP in its December 7, 2005 request to EPA to revise
certain provisions involving the SIP public hearing and notification
process, and, correspondingly, included this revision in the public
hearing which MPCA held on November 17, 2005. EPA agrees that a public
hearing held at the time of the MPCA rulemaking, which meets the
criteria for a SIP public hearing, including notice requirements,
precludes the need for a separate public hearing for SIP purposes.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0012, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
Fax: (312) 886-5824.
Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0012. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Douglas Aburano, Environmental Engineer,
at (312) 353-6960 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6960,
aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'' or
``us'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:
I. General Information.
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
A. Automatic Public Hearing Is Not Necessary Because SIP
Revision Is Either Nonsubstantive or Noncontroversial
B. Equivalent Hearing to a Public Hearing
C. Table Summarizing Proposed Alternative Public Hearing
Processes
D. Use of Internet Notification of Upcoming Rulemakings and
Public Hearings Versus Using Newspapers
E. Summary
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This action applies to anyone who would participate in the public
rulemaking process in Minnesota. This proposal may be of particular
interest to parties who prefer notification of MPCA rulemakings and
hearings through printed media, such as the newspaper, versus
electronic media such as postings on the internet.
This proposal does not seek to limit the public participation
process; rather, it is an effort to eliminate unnecessary public
hearings and save MPCA time and resources. MPCA has identified a number
of different types of SIP revisions that have received little, if any,
public interest in the past and, when public hearings were held, no one
[[Page 5207]]
attended these hearings. These public hearings are, therefore, viewed
as consuming both valuable time and resources that the MPCA could
utilize better on other projects. For these types of revisions, the
state has revised its procedures to provide that public hearings will
not automatically be held. Rather, the public will be provided the
opportunity to request a public hearing and a hearing will be held only
if requested. This revision regarding public hearings will not affect
the public's ability to submit written comments on any SIP revision.
Also, MPCA has requested that when a public hearing that meets
specific requirements has already been held in the state that this
would be found to be the equivalent of a SIP public hearing.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Additional Instructions for Specific Comments. EPA is soliciting
specific comments on MPCA's use of the internet to inform the public of
upcoming rulemakings and public hearings. In the past, before computer
usage was as widespread as it is today, states would inform the public
of upcoming public hearings by placing advertisements in the newspaper.
Now that the use of computers and the internet is considered
commonplace, we would like feedback on whether it is appropriate to no
longer advertise upcoming rulemakings and public hearings in a printed
format and to shift to an all electronic notification through use of
internet publication. Additional information regarding these practices
will follow in this notice. It is important we receive comments on this
aspect of proposal because it may impact our proposed approval of the
alternative public hearing processes submitted by MPCA.
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
EPA is proposing to, under 40 CFR 51.102(g), approve an alternative
public participation process that would apply to certain SIP revisions
in the state of Minnesota. The goal of this new process is to preserve
time and resources of the MPCA by eliminating automatic public hearings
for the types of SIP revisions that have historically generated little,
if any, public interest. This process, however, preserves the
opportunity for the public to request a SIP public hearing.
Currently, 40 CFR 51.102 and Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) and
110(l) require the state to hold public hearings for all SIP revisions
prior to submitting such revisions to EPA for approval. This is true
for all SIPs regardless of how minor the action or how little public
interest has been expressed on the SIP revision under consideration.
Under federal regulations found at 40 CFR 51.102(g)(2), alternative
procedures may be approved provided they still ensure adequate public
notification and public participation.
On December 7, 2005, the MPCA requested that its SIP be amended to
incorporate alternative public participation procedures into the
Minnesota SIP. The MPCA has identified limited types of SIP revisions
that, historically, have received little, if any, public interest and
when public hearings have been held for these SIP revisions, no one
attended. For these types of SIP revisions, MPCA would instead offer
the opportunity for a public hearing. Under this alternative method of
public participation, only one request would be necessary and a public
hearing would be held.
MPCA has also requested that when a state public hearing has been
held on an MPCA rulemaking, that can be considered the equivalent of a
SIP public hearing, when measured against the criteria for a SIP public
hearing as provided at 40 CFR 51.102(d)-(f) [see the discussion on the
use of electronic notification of rulmakings and public hearing in
section II. C. of this notice], and where the public was notified that
such rule would be submitted as a SIP revision, then a public hearing
for SIP purposes only need not be held.
Included in MPCA's SIP amendment request were two exhibits. Exhibit
1 is a table describing the various types of SIP submittals that are
made by the state. In the table, each SIP revision category is
described and a reason is given why a public hearing should
automatically be held or why an automatic public hearing is not
necessary but the opportunity to request a public hearing still exists.
The phrase ``Administrative Permit Amendments'' is used in Exhibit 1
and Exhibit 2 identifies how that phrase is defined by Minnesota Rules.
While Exhibit 1 describes all of the various SIP revisions that
MPCA might make, for the purposes of this rulemaking we will discuss
only: (1) the categories for which MPCA is requesting that public
hearings would be held only if requested and (2) the category for which
MPCA believes the equivalent of a SIP public hearing has already been
held which obviates the need for a public hearing for SIP purposes
only.
A. Automatic Public Hearing Is Not Necessary Because SIP Revision Is
Either Nonsubstantive or Noncontroversial
In these instances, MPCA indicates that the public will have the
opportunity to request a public hearing. The MPCA will schedule a
tentative hearing, but stating in the public notice document (which is
published in the Minnesota State Register in an online format only)
that the hearing will not be held if there are no affirmative requests
for it to be held.
1. Purely Administrative Changes--MPCA gives the examples of
correcting typographical or grammatical errors. There is a presumption
that this is not a change that would be of public concern as it is not
substantive.
[[Page 5208]]
2. De minimis change to a ``secondary'' compliance requirement--
Here, MPCA defines ``secondary'' requirement as a requirement that
supports a ``primary'' requirement for a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). ``Primary'' requirements include, but are not limited
to, restrictions such as an emission limit or fuel usage limit. An
example of de minimis change to a ``secondary'' requirement could
include, a change to a monitoring or testing method that is within the
scope of the method and does not adversely impact the accuracy or
precision of the method (e.g., increasing sample volume above the
minimum required by the method in order to ensure an adequate detection
limit is achieved.) There is a presumption of no public interest in
these types of SIP revisions because the changes described here are
``de minimis'' and should not adversely affect compliance with the
primary NAAQS.
3. Changes categorized as ``administrative amendments'' under
MPCA's operating permit rules--MPCA included, as Exhibit 2, the portion
of the Minnesota Rules that define ``administrative amendments.'' Minn.
R. 7077.1400, subp. 1, as reproduced below, defines the term
``administrative amendments'' as including the following actions:
An amendment to correct a typographical error;
An amendment to change the name, mailing address, or
telephone number of any person identified in the permit, or that
reflects a similar minor administrative change at the permitted
facility. A change in the stationary source's location of operation is
not covered by this item;
An amendment requiring the permittee to comply with
additional, more frequent, or expanded, testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting requirements;
An amendment to eliminate monitoring, recordkeeping, or
reporting requirements if: (1) The requirements are rendered
meaningless because the only emissions to which the requirements apply
will no longer occur; (2) the change is to eliminate one validated
reference test method for a pollutant and source category in order to
add another; (3) the requirements are redundant to or less strict than
other existing requirements; (4) the requirements are technically
incorrect and their elimination does not affect the accuracy of the
data generated or of the monitoring information recorded or reported;
or, (5) the piece of equipment to which the monitoring, record keeping,
or reporting requirement applies no longer exists or has been
permanently disabled from use at the stationary source.
An amendment reflecting a change in ownership or
operational control of a stationary source where the agency determines
that no other change in the permit is necessary, provided that a
written agreement containing a specific date for transfer of permit
responsibility, coverage, and liability between the current and new
permittee has been submitted to the agency;
An amendment to incorporate into a permit the requirements
from preconstruction review permits issued by the agency, incorporate
into a permit the requirements from standards adopted under Code of
Federal Regulations, title 40, part 63, as amended (National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories), or to
lower the plantwide emission limits in permits with Plantwide
Applicability Limits to reflect the impact of standards adopted under
Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, part 63, as amended;
An amendment to clarify the meaning of a permit term;
An amendment to extend a deadline in a permit by no more
than 120 days, provided that the agency may only extend a deadline
established by an applicable requirement described in part 7007.0100,
subpart 7, items A to K, if the agency has been delegated authority to
make such extensions by the administrator. Notwithstanding the previous
sentence, the agency may do an administrative amendment to extend a
testing deadline in a permit up to 365 days if the agency finds that
the extension is needed to allow the permittee to test at worst case
conditions as required by part 7017.2025, subpart 2;
An amendment to remove any condition from a permit which
was based on an applicable requirement that has been repealed, but only
if the permit condition: (1) Is neither required nor replaced by
another applicable requirement; and, (2) was not established for a
specific facility to protect human health and the environment, to
prevent pollution, as a mitigation measure in an environmental impact
statement, or to obtain a negative declaration in an environmental
assessment worksheet;
An amendment to correct or update a citation to an
applicable requirement where the corresponding permit condition is not
changed; and,
An amendment to include operating conditions that ensure
that waste combustors emit mercury at less than 50 percent of the
applicable standard.
These ``administrative amendments'' either do not substantively
change the SIP or they actually strengthen the SIP (e.g., require more
frequent testing, reporting or recordkeeping) and are not expected to
generate public interest.
4. Unit or plant permanently shut down--In this case, all SIP
conditions have become obsolete because the unit or facility no longer
exists and these SIP conditions no longer apply. We agree that if the
unit or facility no longer exists, an automatic public hearing is not
necessary to remove those SIP conditions that no longer apply.
5. Non-controversial update to an existing maintenance plan--This
would be a ``technical change'' (e.g., 10-year update to a maintenance
plan) with no substantive compliance or inventory changes.
6. Incorporation of federal rule by reference into state rule--In
these cases, the federal rules have already been through public notice
and comment. Also, the state's incorporation by reference is likely to
be in response to a Federal Register noticed delegation or a memorandum
of agreement that dictates that MPCA must incorporate the rule in order
to administer the federal program.
7. Rulemaking where a state public hearing has been offered but no
one was interested--For some rulemakings, MPCA will hold non-mandatory
meetings to discuss the merits of the rulemaking and to invite comment
on draft or proposed rule language when ready. At the commencement of
every rulemaking, state law requires MPCA to publish a Notice of
Request for Comments (the State Register is currently published online
only). This occurs before a rule has been drafted and is intended to
inform potentially interested persons of the likely subject matter of
the rule that the MPCA is considering. The Notice is published in the
State Register (which is available only via the Internet), posted on
the MPCA's website and physically mailed to all persons that have
previously requested to be kept informed of such proposals. The Notice
does not specify meeting dates but invites public participation
generally.
During the public participation process, requests for a state
public hearing (different than a SIP public hearing) can be made. If
any request for a state public hearing is made, then MPCA has committed
to hold a public hearing on the SIP because public interest has been
expressed. However, if no requests for a state public hearing are made
or if such requests are withdrawn,
[[Page 5209]]
then a SIP public hearing will only be held if requested.
B. Equivalent Hearing to a Public Hearing
In these instances, a public hearing that would meet the criteria
in 40 CFR 51.102(d)-(f) for a SIP public hearing [see the discussion on
the use of electronic notification of rulmakings and public hearing in
section II.C. of this notice] has already been held as part of the
procedure for some other MPCA action. Minnesota has requested that we
approve this process under 40 CFR 51.102(g) as equivalent to the public
hearing requirement in 40 CFR 51.102. In the past, the state has held
separate SIP public hearings to satisfy the requirements of the Clean
Air Act, specifically noting that the materials available for the
public to comment on would be submitted for inclusion in the SIP. MPCA
has noted that in the future if a state public hearing will be held,
MPCA will include language in rule proposal notices that specifies
which rule changes will be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. If this
is done, the state public hearing would also serve as the SIP public
hearing.
C. Table Summarizing Proposed Alternative Public Hearing Processes
Below is a table summarizing the hearing procedures for SIP
submittals for the state of Minnesota under this new process.
Summary Table of SIP Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Public participation on process
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Purely administrative--e.g., correction of Opportunity to request hearing.
typographical or grammatical error.
(2) De minimis change to a ``secondary'' compliance Opportunity to request hearing.
requirement. ``Secondary'' means that the requirement
supports a primary requirement NAAQS related
restriction such as an emission limit or fuel usage
limit.
(3) Changes categorized as ``administrative Opportunity to request hearing.
amendments'' under MPCA's operating permit rules (see
Exhibit 2; Minn. R. 7007.1400) and see 40 CFR Sec.
70.7(d)(3)).
(4) Unit or plant permanently shut down--all SIP Opportunity to request hearing.
conditions have become obsolete (e.g., Continental
Nitrogen--no longer operates the boilers that were the
only regulated units in its Admin Order).
(5) Addition or modification of emission unit to Mandatory SIP hearing.
facility with SIP conditions with no overall increase
in emissions. [Amendment of a Permit or Administrative
Order that is part of SIP].
(6) Addition or modification of emission unit to Mandatory SIP hearing.
facility with SIP conditions with overall increase in
emissions. [Involves amendment of a Permit or
Administrative Order that is part of SIP].
(7a) Non-controversial update to an existing Opportunity to request hearing.
maintenance plan that is a ``technical change;'' or 10-
year update to maintenance plan with no substantive
compliance or inventory changes.
(7b) Update to an existing maintenance plan that Mandatory SIP hearing.
changes the compliance scheme, including 10-year
update with compliance or inventory changes. Also any
update that involves a known controversy.
(8) Redesignation requests............................. Mandatory SIP hearing.
(9) New Plans (e.g., PM2.5, Ozone, Regional Haze)...... Mandatory SIP hearing.
(10a) Rulemaking that has been the subject of a formal State hearing would serve as the SIP public hearing.
state public hearing. Minnesota will include language
in rule proposal notices that specifies which rule
changes will be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
[Formal public hearing before an ALJ--Minn. Stat. Sec.
14.14].
(10b) Rulemaking where non-mandatory stakeholder Opportunity to request hearing.
meetings are convened and the MPCA receives no
requests for a formal public hearing on the proposed
rule (or receives requests but all requests are
withdrawn in a timely manner).
(10c) Rulemaking where non-mandatory stakeholder Mandatory SIP hearing.
meetings are convened and the MPCA receives one or
more requests for a formal public hearing on the
proposed rule (and if requests withdrawn, not done so
in time for cancellation of the public hearing).
(10d) Rulemaking where stakeholder meetings were not Mandatory SIP hearing.
held or where meetings were too informal or selective.
If the rule is potentially of interest in the SIP
context but for some reason the type of meeting in
11(b) was not held, a SIP-specific meeting should be
held. This might occur if response to the rulemaking
was minimal but the rule is part of a larger SIP plan
and in that context may have special significance to a
specific state action.
(11) Incorporation of federal rule by reference into Opportunity to request hearing.
state rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Use of Internet Notification of Upcoming Rulemakings and Public
Hearings Versus Using Newspapers
EPA is particularly interested in your opinion on the use of
electronic notification, via the internet, of rulemakings and public
hearings. 40 CFR 51.102(d)-(f) describe the specific requirements
states must meet in conducting public hearings for SIP submittals.
However, 40 CFR 51.102(g) provides that alternative procedures may be
approved provided they still ensure adequate public notification and
public participation. The following provisions of 40 CFR 51.102(d) may
be impacted by the use of electronic notice:
(d) Any hearing required by paragraph (a) of this section will be
held only after reasonable notice, which will be considered to include,
at least 30 days prior to the date of such hearing(s):
(1) Notice given to the public by prominent advertisement in the
area affected announcing the date(s), time(s), and place(s) of such
hearing(s);
(2) Availability of each proposed plan or revision for public
inspection in at least one location in each region to which it will
apply, and the availability of each compliance schedule for public
inspection in at least one location in the region in which the affected
source is located.
Currently, the MPCA does not use printed media to inform the
general public of upcoming rulemakings or public hearings. This is
different from the more common and accepted practice of states
publishing notices in newspapers, or other widely available printed
media, in the area affected by the rulemaking. In the past, the MPCA
would use the newspaper and the State Register as a means of publishing
such public notices. MPCA has discontinued using newspaper notices and,
as of July 1, 2004, the Minnesota State Register is no longer printed
in a hardcopy format and can only be accessed on the internet. The
Minnesota State Register does offer an additional tailored subscription
service but there is a $180 annual fee associated with this service.
Access to the Minnesota State Register is otherwise free assuming a
person already has access to the internet.
[[Page 5210]]
At the beginning of the rulemaking process, MPCA will publish a
Notice of Request for Comments in the Minnesota State Register which is
only available online. At this point in time, a rule or rule language
has not yet been drafted and the Notice of Request for Comments serves
to inform potentially interested parties of the likely subject matter
of the rule that MPCA is considering. This notice also appears on the
MPCA's website and notification is also mailed to those parties that
have expressed interest in rulemakings of this type. This initial
notice helps generate a more extensive list of interested parties than
the MPCA may already have. In many cases the MPCA will invite these
parties to meetings to discuss the merits of MPCA's rulemaking and to
comment on draft or proposed rule language when ready.
In past practice, the MPCA would have published these notices in
the Minnesota State Register when it was in print and the Minnesota
State Register was available at any public library. Copies of draft or
proposed rule language would be available at MPCA offices.
It is MPCA's current practice to then publish a Notice of Intent to
Adopt online in the State Register. It is at this point the rule, as
well as a detailed statement of basis, is now made available on the
MPCA's Web site for public review and comment.
The argument can be made that, because our society is now highly
computerized, making all of these documents available electronically is
as accessible to the public, if not more so, than it was in the past
when these documents were actually printed. For example, in the past if
someone was interested in environmental rules he or she could go to the
library to read the State Register. Now that same person can go to the
same library and access the State Register online to view the same type
of information once carried in the printed version of the Minnesota
State Register. Since the use of home computers and access to the
internet is widespread, a person can now access the Minnesota State
Register from home whether they live in Minnesota or not.
We would like your comments on whether electronic notification of
upcoming rulemakings and public hearings is an acceptable alternative
to printed notice which ensures public notice and participation. It is
important for us to hear your comments now as we will consider all of
them before rendering a final decision on this matter and we will not
be reproposing on this in the future.
E. Summary
In summary, we are proposing to approve under 40 CFR 51.102(g)
MPCA's request to allow the above-identified types of SIP revisions to
forego automatic public hearings. Instead the public would be offered
the opportunity to request a public hearing on these SIP revisions.
Approval of this alternative public participation process is allowed
under the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 51 at 51.102(g). We
believe that the requirements found in 40 CFR 51.102(g) have been met.
Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the Clean Air Act require public
hearings on all SIP revisions before they are submitted to the EPA. We
believe that the process that MPCA has submitted for approval preserves
the opportunity for the public to request the same public hearing and
does not curtail the public participation process. Additionally, where
MPCA provides a state public hearing that meets the requirements of
51.102(d)-(f), including effective electronic notice [see the
discussion on the use of electronic notification of rulemakings and
public hearing in section II. C. of this notice], and notifies the
public that the rule changes will be submitted as a SIP revision, then
such process is consistent with 40 CFR 51.102 and can be approved under
40 CFR 51.102(g). We are also soliciting specific comments on the use
of electronic notice of MPCA rulemakings and hearings. Public comments
on the use of electronic notice of hearings and rulemakings may impact
the EPA's approval of the proposed alternative public hearing
processes.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it 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).
Executive Order 13132 Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
[[Page 5211]]
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA
do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations.
Dated: January 19, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6-1367 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P