[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32028-32030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12642]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN60-01-7285a; FRL-6604-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are approving a site-specific revision to the Minnesota 
particulate matter (PM) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for LTV Steel 
Mining Company (LTV), formerly known as Erie Mining Company, located in 
St. Louis County, Minnesota. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
(MPCA) submitted this SIP revision on September 29, 1998 in response to 
a request from LTV that EPA remove the Stipulation Agreement for Erie 
Mining Company from the State SIP. The rationale for the approval and 
other information are provided in this notice.

DATES: This action is effective on July 21, 2000 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by June 21, 2000. 
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: This supplementary information section is 
organized as follows:

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
B. Why Was This SIP Revision Submitted?
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 September 29, 1998 request for a site-
specific revision to the Minnesota PM SIP. Specifically, we are 
approving the removal of the Stipulation Agreement for LTV Steel Mining 
Company, formerly known as Erie Mining Company, from the State PM SIP.

B. Why Was This SIP Revision Submitted?

    The State requested that EPA remove the Stipulation Agreement from 
the SIP because the Agreement was initially submitted as a SIP to: (a) 
Provide a variance from state SIP rules for three years; and (b) 
provide a mechanism to make the 90 percent control efficiency federally 
enforceable. In its submittal, MPCA concludes that the Stipulation 
Agreement was satisfied on LTV's part because the source modified their 
air pollution control equipment to achieve 90 percent control 
efficiency, tested the furnaces, and submitted opacity data to support 
a higher opacity limit during the specified time frame. Further, MPCA 
did not act on the adjusted opacity limit provided for in the 
Stipulation Agreement by not issuing a facility permit which would have 
finalized a revised opacity limitation.

C. Why Can We Approve This Request?

    At the time of the approval of the Stipulation Agreement, the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter 
were based on the total suspended particulates (TSP) indicator. On July 
1, 1987 EPA replaced TSP as the indicator for the PM ambient standard 
with a new indicator that includes only those particles with an 
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers.
    We are approving the current SIP submittal as a Direct Final 
Federal Register notice because removing the Stipulation Agreement from 
the SIP would pose no threat to continued maintenance of the PM NAAQS 
in the area. The state rules for particulate and opacity standards, 
which would become applicable to LTV, are contained in the federally 
approved PM SIP for Minnesota and are therefore federally enforceable.
    Further, although section 193 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 (November 15, 1990) requires equivalent or greater emission 
reductions for modifications to control requirements in effect before 
the date of enactment of the 1990 Amendments, this requirement does not 
apply in this case because the area is designated attainment for PM and 
the Stipulation Agreement was not required for a nonattainment area 
plan. Additional information is available in our November 30, 1999 
Technical Support Document (TSD).

D. What Is the Background for This Rulemaking?

    On February 20, 1981 the State submitted to EPA a Stipulation 
Agreement for LTV as a revision to Minnesota's total suspended 
particulates (TSP) SIP. Emissions from 27 furnaces at LTV, located in 
St. Louis County, Minnesota, (designated a TSP attainment area), 
exceeded the State's opacity and particulate matter limitations. 
Therefore, MPCA and LTV entered into a Stipulation Agreement which 
would allow LTV to exceed the requirements of the State rules until 
December 31, 1983.
    The Stipulation Agreement required LTV to implement a control 
strategy which would provide for 90 percent control, 5 percent more 
than required by the State rules, by December 31, 1983. An opacity 
limit was also to be

[[Page 32029]]

developed to reflect 90 percent control. Because LTV was located in a 
TSP attainment area and the TSP NAAQS would be protected during the 
period of the agreement, EPA approved the Stipulation Agreement into 
Minnesota's TSP SIP on November 27, 1981 at 46 FR 57893.

EPA Action

    In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the removal of the 
Stipulation Agreement for LTV Steel Mining Company, formerly known as 
Erie Mining Company, from the State PM SIP. 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 July 21, 2000 without 
further notice unless relevant adverse comments are received by June 
21, 2000. 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 July 21, 2000.
    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 12866

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

B. 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 
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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, Executive Order 
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, Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

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 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 Clean Air 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 create 
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial

[[Page 32030]]

number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs 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 sections 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 
the 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.
    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. section 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. Section 804, however, exempts from 
section 801 the following types of rules: rules of particular 
applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and 
rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not 
substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 
U.S.C. section 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report 
regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of 
particular applicability.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 21, 2000. 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: April 27, 2000.
David Ullrich,
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.

    2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(53) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (53) On September 29, 1998, the State of Minnesota submitted a 
site-specific revision to the particulate matter (PM) SIP for LTV Steel 
Mining Company (LTV), formerly known as Erie Mining Company, located in 
St. Louis County, Minnesota. This SIP revision was submitted in 
response to a request from LTV that EPA remove the Stipulation 
Agreement for Erie Mining Company from the State SIP, as was approved 
by EPA in paragraph (c)(18) of this section. Accordingly the 
Stipulation Agreement for Erie Mining Company referenced in paragraph 
(c)(18) of this section is removed from the SIP without replacement.

[FR Doc. 00-12642 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P