[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44131-44134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20547]


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

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:

    A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
    B. Why Was this SIP Revision Needed?
    C. Why Can We Approve this Request?
    D. What Is the Background for this Rulemaking?

A. 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.

B. 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).

C. 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.

D. 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

A. 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.''

B. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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).

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 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.

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 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).

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 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. 99-20547 Filed 8-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P