[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5936-5939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2787]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (SO2).
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:
I. 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.
SO2 SIP. On May 29, 1992, the State submitted a revision
to the SO2 SIP for Minneapolis-St. Paul, which included a
demonstration of attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for
SO2. 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 SO2 SIP revisions for the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area.
II. 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).
III. 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 SO2. 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 SO2
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.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. 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.''
B. 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.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. 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).
F. 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.
G. 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).
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by 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. 99-2787 Filed 2-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P