[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