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

[Federal Register: February 8, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 25)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 5936-5939]

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

[DOCID:fr08fe99-6]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN55-01-7280a; MN56-01-7281a; MN57-01-7282a; FRL-6230-3]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action approves three State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for the State of Minnesota which were submitted on October 17, 1997. These SIP revisions modify Administrative Orders for North Star Steel Company and LaFarge Corporation (North Star Steel and LaFarge) located in St. Paul, Minnesota, and GAF Building Materials (GAF) located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Orders to these facilities are included as part of Minnesota's SIP to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide (SO‹INF›2‹/INF›).

In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of, and soliciting comments on, these SIP revisions. If adverse comments are received on this action, EPA will withdraw this final rule and address the comments received in response to this action in a final rule based on the related proposed rule, which is being published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register. A second public comment period will not be held. Parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: This ``direct final'' rule is effective April 9, 1999, unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by March 10, 1999. If adverse comment is received, EPA with publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register, informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

A Copy of these SIP revisions are available for inspection at the following location: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7548.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

   PM SIP. The State submitted SIP revisions intended to demonstrate

   [[Page 5937]]

   attainment and maintenance of the PM NAAQS on November 26, 1991, August 31, 1992, and November 13, 1992. Included in these submittals were Administrative Orders for North Star Steel and LaFarge. On February 15, 1994, at 59 FR 7218, EPA took final action to approve these PM SIP revisions. This final rulemaking also took into consideration three new submittals, provided by the State on February 3, 1993, April 30, 1993, and October 15, 1993. A revised Administrative Order for North Star Steel was included in the April 30, 1993, submittal.

   On December 22, 1994, the State submitted amendments to the administrative orders for Lafarge and North Star Steel. EPA took final action to approve these amendments into the Minnesota PM SIP on June 13, 1995, at 60 FR 31088.

   SO‹INF›2‹/INF› SIP. On May 29, 1992, the State submitted a revision to the SO‹INF›2‹/INF› SIP for Minneapolis-St. Paul, which included a demonstration of attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for SO‹INF›2‹/INF›. Included in the attainment demonstration was an Administrative Order for GAF. The State submitted a supplemental SIP revision on July 12, 1993. A revised Administrative Order for GAF was included in this submittal and, on April 14, 1994, at 59 FR 17703, EPA took final action to approve the SO‹INF›2‹/INF› SIP revisions for the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

2. Review of Minnesota's Plan

   LaFarge Corporation, Childs Road Facility

   The revision submitted on October 17, 1997, consists of applying a chemical dust suppressant to the unpaved roads at the facility. The old Order required daily watering of these roads with the following exceptions: (1) if there was a 0.1 inch rainfall in the preceding 24 hours, (2) if the temperature fell below 32 degrees, or (3) on any day there was no traffic on the road. The revised Order requires LaFarge to apply a chemical dust suppressant on all unpaved roadways, except when the ground is frozen (November-March). Calcium chloride (CaCl) will be applied to all unpaved roads each April. Daily inspections of these roads will be performed to determine if additional dust suppressant is necessary and re-application of CaCl is required to those areas where fugitive dust is observed. These inspections do not need to be performed if there is no traffic on the roads or if the facility is closed for the entire day. The Company is required to keep records of: (1) the day in April every year of initial application of dust suppressant, (2) daily observations of the unpaved roads or if there was no traffic on the roads, and (3) if needed, where and how much additional dust suppressant was applied. The revision also allows the Company to use a dust suppressant other than CaCl only after written approval from the State is obtained.

   North Star Steel Company

   The revision submitted on October 17, 1997, would allow the Company to add equipment as long as they adhere to the State's insignificant modifications guidelines. The old Order allowed the Company to make changes to their facility without obtaining a modification to the Order as long as the changes did not increase, from any emission point, the Facility's PM emission rate or overall PM emissions, or alter equipment or parameters described in Exhibit 1 of the Order which formed the basis for the PM modeling. The new Order will allow the Company to make changes to their facility without obtaining a modification to the Order as long as the changes do not increase, from any emission point in Exhibit 1, the Facility's PM emission rate, or alter equipment or parameters described in Exhibit 1 of the Order which formed the basis for the PM modeling. The new Order will also allow North Star Steel to install, modify, and operate process or control equipment not listed in Exhibit 1 without obtaining a modification to the Order as long as the installation, modification, and operation of the equipment is an insignificant modification as described in Minn. R. 7007.1250, subp. 1, item A or B, and the Company complies with the requirements of Minn. R. 7007.1250 (previously approved into the SIP on May 24, 1995 at 60 FR 27411).

   GAF Building Materials Corporation

   The revision submitted on October 17, 1997, consists of the removal of the requirement to use asphalt sulfur content as an indication of the sulfur content of the fuel being burned, and a new process, when oil is being used as a fuel, for sampling and analyzing the mixture of No. 6 fuel oil and knockout oil. The old Order required the Company to sample and analyze the mixture of No. 6 fuel oil and knockout oil on a weekly basis at the burner inlet in order to determine the sulfur content and the heating value of the fuel. The revised Order requires GAF to sample and analyze the mixture of No. 6 fuel oil and knockout oil on a daily basis to determine the percent sulfur content of the blend and on a weekly basis to determine the heating value of the fuel mixture, at a point between the fuel oil storage tank and the combustion units. The new Order also revises all references made to any applicable ASTM Method or another EPA approved ASTM method (as listed in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 19, Section 5.2.2).

3. Final Action

   Based on the rationale set forth above, EPA is approving the Administrative Order revisions for LaFarge Corporation and North Star Steel Company, located in St. Paul, Minnesota, and GAF Building Materials, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as submitted by the State on October 17, 1997. These Orders are included as part of Minnesota's SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS for PM, and SO‹INF›2‹/INF›. EPA has evaluated these SIP revisions and determined that the changes to operations at each facility, as described above, will not result in an increase of emissions and do not jeopardize the PM and SO‹INF›2‹/INF› attainment demonstrations that had previously been submitted by the State and approved by EPA on February 15, 1994, at 59 FR 7218, and April 14, 1994, at 59 FR 17703, respectively.

   EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the State Plan should adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse written comment by March 10, 1999. Should EPA receive such comments, it will publish a final rule informing the public that this action will not take effect. 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 on April 9, 1999.

4. Administrative Requirements

   1. Executive Order 12866

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

   2. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

      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

      [[Page 5938]]

      the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB 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 elective 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.'' This 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 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

      Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on these communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB 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 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.'' This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

   4. 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 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.

   5. Regulatory Flexibility

      The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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 direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because plan approvals under section 111(d) do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act (Act) preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of a State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 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 annual 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 annual 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 Comptroller General of the United States. The 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 the 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 April 9, 1999. 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

      [[Page 5939]]

      Dated: January 19, 1999. JoLynn Traub, 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 et seq.

         Subpart Y--Minnesota

      2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(47) to read as follows:

         Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.

         * * * * *

         (c) * * *

         (47) On October 17, 1997, the State of Minnesota submitted amendments to three previously approved Administrative Orders for North Star Steel Company, LaFarge Corporation, and GAF Building Materials, all located in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

         (i) Incorporation by reference.

         (A) Amendments, both dated and effective September 23, 1997, to administrative orders and amendments approved in paragraphs (c)(29) and (c)(41) of this section, respectively, of this section for: LaFarge Corporation (Childs Road facility) and North Star Steel Company.

         (B) Amendment Two, dated and effective September 18, 1997, to administrative order and amendment approved in paragraph (c)(30) of this section for GAF Building Materials.

         [FR Doc. 99-2787Filed2-5-99; 8:45 am]

         BILLING CODE 6560-50-P