

[Federal Register: June 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 107)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 32274-32276]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05jn06-7]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0012; FRL-8178-6]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota; Alternative Public Participation Process

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving 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. EPA is approving the Minnesota SIP revision 
because we believe that the procedures set forth in Minnesota's request 
afford the public adequate opportunity to comment on these 
noncontroversial SIP revisions. In its SIP revision, Minnesota has 
identified a limited number of types of SIP revisions that have been 
found to be noncontroversial and in which the public has historically 
shown little or no interest. For this limited number of SIP revisions, 
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will offer the 
opportunity for a public hearing, but will not hold a hearing if one is 
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 acknowledging that a public hearing 
held at the time of the MPCA rulemaking, which meets the criteria for a 
SIP public hearing, precludes the need for a separate public hearing 
solely for SIP purposes.
    EPA proposed to approve these revisions to the Minnesota SIP on 
February 1, 2006 and no adverse comments were received on this 
proposal. We are also taking this opportunity to correct a 
typographical error made in that proposed approval.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 5, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0012. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://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 Federal 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), 
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,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. Does This Action Apply to Me?
II. What Public Comments Were Received and What Is EPA's Response?
III. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
IV. Additional Information
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to anyone who participates in the public 
rulemaking process in Minnesota by submitting comments in writing or at 
public hearings held by the MPCA.

II. What Public Comments Were Received and What is EPA's Response?

    No adverse comments were received. A comment from the State of 
Maryland was supportive of this approval. The comment stated that, 
``the revised administrative procedures will utilize the technological 
advances available today to save tax dollars while not compromising the 
public's ability to access and comment on SIP revisions.'' Since this 
comment was supportive of the action being taken there is no need to 
respond to it.

[[Page 32275]]

III. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving alternative public hearing processes in the State 
of Minnesota. The MPCA submitted a SIP revision listing a limited 
number of various types of SIP revisions that are noncontroversial and 
that the public has shown little or no interest in. The request to 
approve these alternative public hearing processes was submitted by 
MPCA on December 7, 2005. The MPCA held a public hearing on these 
alternative public hearing processes on November 17, 2005. EPA proposed 
to approve these alternative public hearing processes on February 1, 
2006 (see 71 FR 5205). No adverse comments were received during the 
EPA's public comment period on the proposed approval.
    We are approving an alternative process for a limited number of 
noncontroversial SIP revisions that will not require automatic public 
hearings. For this limited number of noncontroversial SIP revisions 
Minnesota will instead offer the public the opportunity to request a 
public hearing. If any one person requests a public hearing, then the 
MPCA will hold a public hearing at the end of the comment period for 
that SIP submittal. The approval of this alternative process is 
consistent with requirements found in 40 CFR 51.102(g). A description 
of the types of SIP revisions that would use this alternative process 
was provided in the proposed rule (see 71 FR 5209).
    Minnesota also requested that we approve, pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.102(g), public hearings held during the state rulemaking process as 
an alternative to a SIP public hearing. Because we view these public 
hearings as meeting the criteria under 40 CFR 51.102 we do not need to 
approve these as alternatives. EPA acknowledges that a public hearing 
held at the time of an MPCA rulemaking which meets the criteria for a 
SIP rulemaking precludes the need for a public hearing solely for SIP 
purposes.

IV. Additional Information

    In the proposed approval of MPCA's SIP revision, we also solicited 
comments on the state's use of the Internet, via the Minnesota State 
Register and MPCA's own Web site, to inform the public of upcoming SIP 
revisions and public hearings. The one comment made in support of the 
February 1, 2006 proposed approval seemed to specifically support the 
use of electronic public notification.
    We are also correcting a typographical error. On page 5208 of the 
proposed approval a reference was made to rule Minn. R. 7077.1400, it 
should have referred to rule Minn. R. 7007.1400.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this 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 approves 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 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This 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 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 approves 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 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This 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.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This 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.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register.

[[Page 32276]]

This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 4, 2006. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations.

    Dated: May 24, 2006.
Cyndy Colantoni,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an 
entry for ``Alternative Public Participation Process'' after the 
existing entries to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable        State submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      date/effective     EPA approved date       Comments
            provision             nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Alternative Public Participation  Statewide.........  12/07/05..........  07/05/06 [Insert
 Process.                                                                  page number where
                                                                           the document
                                                                           begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-5052 Filed 6-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
