Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Minnesota,

[Federal Register: August 13, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 156)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 44131-44134]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr13au99-16]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN44-02-7269a; FRL-6414-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: We are approving a supplemental revision to the Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Saint Paul particulate matter (PM) nonattainment area, located in Ramsey County, Minnesota. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted the supplemental SIP for the purpose of maintaining the attainment of the PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and is in response to our July 22, 1997 conditional approval (62 FR 39120), of the State's February 9, 1996 SIP revision for Red Rock Road. We are also taking action to revoke the Administrative Order for the Lafarge Corporation that we had approved into the SIP in our July 22, 1997 conditional approval. We are providing the rationale for the approval and other information in this notice.

DATES: This action is effective on October 12, 1999 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by September 13, 1999. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to: Carlton Nash, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for inspection during normal business hours at the above address. (Please telephone Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328, before visiting the Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Air and Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

We have organized this Supplementary Information section as follows:

1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

2. Why Was this SIP Revision Needed?

3. Why Can We Approve this Request?

4. What Is the Background for this Rulemaking?

1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

   We are approving MPCA's July 22, 1998 request for a revision to the Minnesota PM SIP. Specifically, we are approving the following: (A) the Title I (non-expiring) conditions of Minnesota Air Emission Permit No. 12300353-001, issued to Lafarge Corporation--Red Rock Terminal on April 14, 1998; (B) a modeled attainment demonstration for the Red Rock Road PM nonattainment area in Ramsey County, Minnesota; and (C) a request that we withdraw from the SIP the February 2, 1996 Administrative Order for Lafarge's Red Rock Road facility.

2. Why Was This SIP Revision Needed?

   In response to monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM NAAQS between 1992 and 1995, on February 9, 1996 the State submitted a SIP revision with emission limits and/or control measures for certain facilities located in the Red Rock Road area in order to bring the area into modeled attainment. Two of these facilities were required to commit to control measures to reduce their PM emissions and the third facility was required to either quantify their PM emissions to show that they can meet the NAAQS, or commit to control measures to reduce their PM emissions. The MPCA put these requirements into Administrative Orders (dated February 2, 1996) for St. Paul Terminals, Inc., AMG Resources Corporation and Lafarge Corporation.

   We agreed that the February 9, 1996 submittal would more than satisfy the nonattainment area requirements. However, the attainment demonstration submitted with the Red Rock Road SIP revision was not fully approvable because specific emission limits for

   [[Page 44132]]

   Lafarge Corporation were not known due to the installation of new control equipment at the facility. Given this, and the State's need to further analyze other sources outside of the 2 kilometer area but within 4 kilometers from the ambient monitor, we approved the SIP submittal on July 22, 1997 at 62 FR 39120, conditioned upon the receipt of an approvable attainment demonstration and revised administrative orders incorporating the required information and changes. We also stated that an additional modeling analysis would need to be submitted by the State. Additional information regarding the details of our conditional approval is available in the July 22, 1997 Federal Register document and our June 6, 1997 Technical Support Document (TSD).

3. Why Can We Approve This Request?

   We are approving the current SIP submittal as a Direct Final Federal Register document because the State has met the conditions set forth in our July 22, 1997 conditional approval of a February 9, 1996 SIP revision for Ramsey County, Minnesota. As detailed in our May 26, 1999 TSD, the attainment demonstration for the Red Rock Road portion of the Ramsey County PM nonattainment area is now fully approvable. In addition, we are withdrawing, at the State's request, the Administrative Order issued to Lafarge Corporation on February 2, 1996 from the SIP and are replacing it with the Title I SIP requirements found in the April 14, 1998 operating permit issued to Lafarge Corporation.

4. What Is the Background for This Rulemaking?

   A portion of the St. Paul area was designated nonattainment for PM upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The State submitted SIP revisions intended to satisfy the PM attainment demonstration requirements of the Act in 1991, 1992, and 1993. The enforceable element of the State's submittals were administrative orders for nine facilities in the St. Paul area. The EPA took final action on February 15, 1994 at 59 FR 7218, to approve Minnesota's submittals as satisfying the applicable requirements for the St. Paul PM nonattainment area.

   However, an ambient monitor located on Red Rock Road monitored five exceedances of the 24-hour PM NAAQS between 1992 and 1995. The State determined that the exceedances were attributable to shifts and increases in local source activity (such as traffic newly occurring on unpaved surfaces) which had occurred since development of the prior plan, and not to any deficiencies in the prior plan. Based upon analysis of the monitoring conditions, it was determined that three companies located in the Red Rock Road area were significant contributors to the most recent monitored exceedances. On February 9, 1996 the State submitted a SIP revision with emission limits and/or control measures for these facilities in order to bring the area into modeled attainment. Two of these facilities were required to commit to control measures to reduce their PM emissions and the third facility was required to either quantify their PM emissions to show that they can meet the NAAQS, or commit to control measures to reduce their PM emissions. The MPCA put these requirements into Administrative Orders (dated February 2, 1996) for St. Paul Terminals, Inc., AMG Resources Corporation and Lafarge Corporation.

   EPA Action

   In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the Title I (non-expiring) conditions of Minnesota Air Emission Permit No. 12300353-001, issued to Lafarge Corporation--Red Rock Terminal on April 14, 1998 and the modeled attainment demonstration for the Red Rock Road PM nonattainment area in Ramsey County, Minnesota. In addition, EPA withdraws from the SIP the February 2, 1996 Administrative Order for Lafarge's Red Rock Road facility. The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the State Plan should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 12, 1999 without further notice unless relevant adverse comments are received by September 13, 1999. If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be effective October 12, 1999.

   Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

   Administrative Requirements

1. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

   The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

2. Executive Order 12875

   Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

   Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

3. Executive Order 13045

   Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is

   [[Page 44133]]

   preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

   This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

4. Executive Order 13084

   Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

   Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

   The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids the EPA from basing its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).

6. Unfunded Mandates

   Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

   The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

7. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

   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 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. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

8. Petitions for Judicial Review

   Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filedin the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 12, 1999. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

   Dated: July 22, 1999. Jerri-Anne Garl, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

   Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is amended as follows:

   PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

      Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

   2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(50) to read as follows:

      Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.

      * * * * *

      (c) * * *

      (50) On July 22, 1998 the State of Minnesota submitted a supplemental SIP revision for the control of particulate matter emissions from certain sources located along Red Rock Road, within the boundaries of Ramsey County. This supplemental SIP revision is in response to EPA's July 22, 1997 conditional approval (62 FR 39120), of a February 9, 1996 SIP revision for Red Rock Road. In addition, the previously approved administrative order for Lafarge Corporation (dated February 2, 1996) is revoked.

      (i) Incorporation by reference.

      (A) Air Emission Permit No. 12300353-001, issued by the MPCA to Lafarge Corporation--Red Rock Terminal on April 14, 1998, Title I conditions only.

      (B) Revocation of Findings and Order, dated and effective July 21, 1998, to

      [[Page 44134]]

      Findings and Order issued to Lafarge Corporation on February 2, 1996.

      (ii) Additional material.

      (A) Letter submitting vendor certifications of performance for the pollution control equipment at Lafarge Corporation's facility on Red Rock Road in St. Paul, Minnesota, dated May 4, 1998, from Arthur C. Granfield, Regional Environmental Manager for Lafarge Corporation, to Michael J. Sandusky, MPCA Air Quality Division Manager.

      (B) Letter submitting operating ranges for the pollution control equipment at Lafarge Corporation's facility on Red Rock Road in St. Paul, Minnesota, dated July 13, 1998, from Arthur C. Granfield, Regional Environmental Manager for Lafarge Corporation, to Michael J. Sandusky, MPCA Air Quality Division Manager.

      [FR Doc. 99-20547Filed8-12-99; 8:45 am]

      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P