Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Minnesota; Gopher Resource, LLC, 2263-2267 [2011-337]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
OCS block area means the names
given by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and
Enforcement (BOE) to define the OCS
areas used to facilitate management or
leasing on the OCS.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
§ 146.405 Safety and Security notice of
arrival for vessels arriving at a place on the
OCS.
(a) General. The owner or operator of
each vessel subject to this section must
submit an initial NOA to the National
Vessel Movement Center (NVMC):
(1) If the voyage time is more than 96
hours, at least 96 hours before the vessel
arrives at a place on the OCS from a
foreign port or place or from a different
OCS block area to engage in OCS
activities;
(2) If the voyage time is less than 96
hours and more than 24 hours, before
departure, or;
(3) If the voyage time is less than 24
hours, at least 24 hours before the vessel
arrives at a place on the OCS.
(b) Information required in an NOA.
The following information is required
from the owners or operators of vessels
submitting an NOA:
(1) All the information specified in 33
CFR Table 160.206 with the exception
of information required in items (2)(iii)
through (2)(vi) and item (6). Item (8) is
also not required except as pursuant to
the laws on vessel entry (19 U.S.C.
1434) and clearance (46 U.S.C. 60105).
Vessel owners and operators should
protect any personal information they
gather in preparing notices for
transmittal to the NVMC so as to
prevent unauthorized disclosure of that
information;
(2) The area in which they are
conducting their operations. This area
can be submitted as either the name of
the places, the BOE block numbers, or
the latitudes and longitudes of the
places on the OCS where operations are
being conducted; and
(3) If any person onboard, including a
crewmember, is not required to carry a
passport for travel, then passport
information required in Table 160.206,
items (4)(iv) through (vi), and (5)(iv)
through (vi), need not be provided for
that person.
(c) Updates to a submitted NOA.
Unless otherwise specified in this
section, whenever the most recently
submitted NOA information becomes
inaccurate, the owner or operator of that
vessel must revise and re-submit the
NOA within the times required in
paragraph (e) of this section. An owner
or operator does not need to revise and
re-submit an NOA for the following:
(1) A change in submitted arrival time
that is less than 6 hours;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
(2) Changes in the location, latitude
and longitude, of the vessel from the
location at the time the NOA was
reported; or
(3) Changes to personnel positions or
duties on the vessel.
(d) Methods of submission. The notice
must be submitted to the NVMC by
electronic Notice of Arrival and
Departure format using methods
specified at the NVMC’s Web site at
https://www.nvmc.uscg.gov/.
(e) Required reporting time of an NOA
update. The owner or operator of each
vessel subject to this section must
submit an NOA update:
(1) If the most recently submitted
NOA, or NOA update, differs by 24
hours or more from the current
estimated time of arrival, the owner or
operator of the vessel must provide an
update as soon as practicable but at least
24 hours before the vessel arrives at the
OCS location where the owner or
operator plans to perform OCS
activities;
(2) If the most recently submitted
NOA, or NOA update, differs by less
than 24 hours from the current
estimated time of arrival, the owner or
operator of the vessel must provide an
update as soon as practicable but at least
12 hours before the vessel arrives at the
OCS location where the owner or
operator plans to perform OCS
activities; or
(3) If the remaining voyage time is less
than 24 hours, the owner or operator of
the vessel must provide an update as
soon as practicable, but at least 12 hours
before the vessel arrives at a place on
the OCS.
(f) Towing vessels. When a towing
vessel controls a vessel required to
submit an NOA under this subpart, the
owner or operator of the towing vessel,
or lead towing vessel if there is more
than one, is responsible for submitting
only one NOA containing the
information required for the towing
vessels and the vessel under its control.
(g) This section does not apply to
vessels merely transiting the waters
superjacent to the OCS and not engaged
in OCS activities.
Dated: December 22, 2010.
Robert J. Papp, Jr.,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2011–569 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2263
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0675; FRL–9250–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Gopher Resource, LLC
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving a request
submitted by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) on July 29,
2010, to revise the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead (Pb)
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
State has submitted a joint Title I/Title
V document (joint document) in the
form of Air Emission Permit No.
03700016–003, and has requested that
the conditions laid out with the citation
‘‘Title I Condition: SIP for Lead NAAQS’’
replace an existing Administrative
Order (Order) as the enforceable SIP
conditions for Gopher Resource, LLC.
The existing Order was approved by
EPA on October 18, 1994. MPCA’s July
29, 2010, revisions were meant to satisfy
the maintenance requirements for the
1978 Pb National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), promulgated at 1.5
micrograms per cubic meter, or 1.5
μg/m3.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective March 14, 2011, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by February
14, 2011. 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: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2010–0675, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2551.
4. Mail: John Mooney, Chief,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Chief,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
2264
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
information. The Regional Office official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–
0675. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Andy
Chang, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
886–0258 before visiting the Region 5
office.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258,
chang.andy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
A. When and why did the State make this
submittal?
B. Did the State hold public hearings for
this submittal?
II. What is EPA’s analysis of MPCA’s
submittal?
A. Gopher Resource, LLC, and General SIP
Conditions
B. Emissions Units, Processes, and Limits
C. Stack Emissions Testing
D. Consistency With the Existing Order
E. Rescission of the Order.
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. When and why did the State make
this submittal?
MPCA submitted this revision to the
Minnesota SIP on July 29, 2010. Air
Emission Permit No. 03700016–003 was
submitted as a joint document, and
MPCA requested that the conditions
labeled ‘‘Title I Condition: SIP for Lead
NAAQS’’ serve as the enforceable SIP
conditions for the Gopher Resource,
LLC, (Gopher) facility. The State’s
submittal, as well as EPA’s analysis of
the submittal elements, will be
discussed in subsequent sections of this
document.
Portions of Dakota County were
designated as nonattainment for the
1978 Pb NAAQS on January 6, 1992. It
was found that Gopher was the primary
source of elevated Pb levels in the area.
Gopher was formerly known as Gopher
Smelting and Refining Company, and
the change to Gopher Resource, LLC
will be discussed in Section IIA, below.
EPA approved a request to redesignate
Dakota County as attainment for the
1978 Pb NAAQS on October 18, 1994.
The redesignation request was part of a
SIP revision which also included a
maintenance plan in accordance with
section 175A of the CAA, as interpreted
by a September 4, 1992, EPA
memorandum entitled, ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment.’’ EPA also
approved the Order for Gopher on
October 18, 1994. This Order was
originally issued by MPCA for the
facility on June 22, 1993, and contained
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
emissions limits and other requirements
ensuring attainment of the 1978 Pb
NAAQS.
Section 175A(b) of the CAA required
MPCA to submit an update to its
maintenance plan, which the agency did
on November 18, 2002. On this date, the
State also submitted a request to replace
the existing Order with a joint
document, in this case, a permit. This
concept does not set any new precedent,
because Minnesota routinely houses the
conditions necessary to attain and
maintain the NAAQS in facility permits.
The required SIP conditions are denoted
as, ‘‘Title I Condition: SIP for (pollutant)
NAAQS.’’ However, EPA did not act on
the submittal because, among other
things, the revisions to the SIP for
Gopher removed contingency measures
from the maintenance plan.
On November 19, 2007, MPCA
formally withdrew the request to
replace the Order with the joint
document, but asked that EPA consider
the maintenance plan update, which
EPA approved on June 3, 2008 (73 FR
31614). On November 16, 2010, the
Administrator of EPA signed
designations for Pb nonattainment areas
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, for those areas
exceeding 0.15 μg/m3. A subsequent
Federal Register notice published on
November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033),
confirmed that portions of Eagan,
located in Dakota County, and identical
to the current maintenance area for the
1978 Pb NAAQS, are in nonattainment
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. However, the
1978 Pb NAAQS remains in effect for
the Eagan area until December 31, 2011.
MPCA’s July 29, 2010, requested
revisions are meant to address only the
maintenance requirements of the 1978
Pb NAAQS.
MPCA has worked closely with EPA
to form a joint document that meets all
the requirements to replace the existing
Order as the enforceable SIP conditions
for the Gopher facility. As previously
mentioned, Minnesota houses all
conditions necessary to attain and
maintain the NAAQS in facility permits
through a joint document. The
conditions of this joint document are
established under Minnesota’s Clean Air
Act Title I authority and Title V
permitting authority. The State’s July
29, 2010, submittal from MPCA is the
Title V permit for Gopher Resource,
LLC, with appropriately denoted Title I
SIP conditions. This joint document
will replace the existing Order, and
although this SIP revision has been
submitted in conjunction with
reissuance of the facility’s operating
permit, this action will focus only on
the relevant changes to the facility’s
Title I SIP conditions for Pb.
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
B. Did the State hold public hearings for
this submittal?
The public notice for the joint
document and associated SIP revision
was published in the St. Paul Pioneer
Press on February 17, 2010. The public
notice period for the joint document
began on February 18, 2010, and lasted
until March 19, 2010. MPCA did not
receive a request to hold a public
hearing, but did receive comments on
the reissuance of the Title V permit.
However, none of the comments that
MPCA received were applicable to the
maintenance requirements for the 1978
Pb NAAQS, and no changes to the joint
document were made as a result of the
comments.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
II. What is EPA’s analysis of MPCA’s
submittal?
A. Gopher Resource, LLC, and General
SIP Conditions
The existing Order refers to the
facility as ‘‘Gopher Smelting and
Refining Company,’’ whereas the joint
document submitted by MPCA on July
29, 2010, correctly identifies the facility
as ‘‘Gopher Resource, LLC.’’ This change
reflects only a change of ownership
structure, whereas the actual ownership
remained largely unchanged. General
SIP conditions, such as those that
describe when facility changes require a
SIP revision, have been reworded or
clarified to fit with MPCA’s current
format for such conditions. Additional
conditions that allowed the facility a
choice in compliance options in the
Order have been updated to reflect the
compliance choice made by Gopher.
Lastly, the joint document organizes and
names emissions units differently than
the Order, thereby reflecting current
operations. Aligning the current name of
the facility into the SIP prevents
potential confusion as to the correct
name of the facility, and the enforceable
conditions in the joint document now
apply to the same properly designated
entity on both the State and Federal
levels. Therefore, EPA finds the updated
name of Gopher Resource, LLC, to be
approvable. The changes to the general
SIP conditions as outlined in the joint
document pertain to format only; these
changes ensure that MPCA has been
consistent with other joint documents,
and because there are no significant
emissions changes that stem from
formatting, rewording, or clarifications,
EPA finds these revisions to be
approvable. Gopher has selected a set of
compliance options based on EPA
regulations and guidelines, or based on
the previously approved Order, and
therefore, EPA finds these changes to be
approvable. Organizing emissions units
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
to reflect current operations aligns State
and Federal nomenclature; therefore,
EPA finds these changes to be
approvable.
B. Emissions Units, Processes, and
Limits
The State-submitted joint document
contains updated emissions units and
processes that reflect current operations.
Flue dust agglomeration is no longer a
process at Gopher, nor does there exist
a central vacuum system. The existing
Order refers to six refining kettles
instead of the ten that are currently in
operation; these ten kettles are reflected
in the joint document. These kettles
vent to the main stack SV003, and
although there has been a change in the
specifics of the emissions units, the
emissions limits for SV003 in the joint
document are identical to those found
in the Order. Therefore, EPA does not
expect a net effect on the emissions
exiting at SV003, nor does EPA expect
a violation of the 1978 Pb NAAQS to
occur as a result of these added units.
Gopher has added two additional
Torit dust collectors that collect fugitive
Pb emissions from raw material
handling, the battery breaking dock,
material transfer rooms, and the furnace
areas. These dust collectors exhaust into
the new Torit stack SV008, and the
purpose of these collectors is to control
dust that was observed to ‘‘leak’’ from
various points, i.e., it was assumed that
the dust at these new collectors was
going into Torit stack SV002. Emissions
that were assumed to be entering the
SV002 in their entirety are now being
split between SV002 and SV008.
MPCA performed a modeling analysis
showing that the added Torit stack
SV008 would not result in negative
ambient impacts. The modeling shows
that the area of maximum impact, on a
monthly average level, is 0.78 μg/m3.
Monitoring data from Air Quality
System ID# 270370465 has corroborated
compliance with the 1978 Pb NAAQS;
the highest quarterly average recorded
between 2007 and 2009 (consistent with
the form of the 1978 Pb NAAQS) was
0.70 μg/m3. Available data from 2010
have demonstrated compliance with the
1978 Pb NAAQS as well. Based on the
static emission limits, as well as
supporting modeling and monitoring
data, EPA finds the requested revisions
concerning emissions units, processes,
and limits to be approvable.
C. Stack Emissions Testing
MPCA requested in the joint
document that the stack testing
frequency be changed from once every
year to once every two years. The basis
of the request is found in the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2265
Amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) From Secondary Lead
Smelting (62 FR 32209). The
amendments affirm that if a compliance
test shows a source emitted Pb
compounds at 1.0 milligram of lead per
dry standard cubic meter (0.00044
grains of lead per dry standard cubic
foot) or less during the time of the
compliance test, the owner or operator
of the lead smelter would be allowed up
to 24 calendar months from the previous
compliance test to conduct the next
annual compliance test for Pb
compounds. MPCA submitted emissions
test reports from 2006 and 2008; the
highest average concentration was
recorded in 2006 at the main stack, and
the concentration was .16 milligrams of
lead per dry standard cubic meter. This
value is 16% of the bi-annual stack
testing frequency threshold. The facility
has been complying with the NESHAP
for secondary lead smelters since
December 23, 1997, and to the extent
that the NESHAP requirements are more
stringent than the requirements
contained in the SIP, EPA approves
Gopher’s request for bi-annual stack
testing.
D. Consistency With the Existing Order
EPA did not act on MPCA’s November
18, 2002, joint document because
provisions in that document would
remove contingency plan elements from
the maintenance plan. In its July 29,
2010, submittal, MPCA included
contingency plans and associated record
keeping requirements identical to those
found in the Order. EPA finds the
inclusion of contingency measures in
the joint document to be appropriate
and necessary in conjunction with
section 175A(d) of the CAA.
Significant changes have been
discussed in detail already, and EPA has
determined that any other minor
deviations from the existing Order are
de minimis. For example, MPCA
requested that mobile equipment traffic
be allowed on non-paved areas for
maintenance and inspection purposes.
These activities are not expected to have
a negative impact on the surrounding
ambient air quality.
EPA finds that all elements included
in the existing Order are included in the
July 29, 2010, joint document. Adopting
the joint document in lieu of the Order
should not result in any applicability,
emissions, or otherwise detrimental
gaps. EPA also expects the Eagan area of
Dakota County to continue to meet the
1978 Pb NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
2266
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
E. Rescission of the Order
On July 27, 2010, MPCA revoked the
Order and subsequent amendments to
the Order. For the reasons discussed in
previous sections, the joint document
submitted by MPCA on July 29, 2010, is
appropriate and sufficient to serve as
the only document that contains SIP
conditions for Gopher Resource, LLC.
As such, EPA finds it appropriate to
rescind the original Order from the SIP.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving a joint Title I/Title
V document submitted by MPCA for
Gopher Resource, LLC. The conditions
labeled, ‘‘Title I Condition: SIP for Lead’’
will replace the existing Order as the
enforceable SIP conditions for the
facility. Specifically, these conditions
can be found in Air Emission Permit No.
03700016–003. The joint document
includes elements necessary for Dakota
County to continue meeting the 1978 Pb
NAAQS. EPA is simultaneously
rescinding the existing Order from the
SIP.
We are publishing this action without
prior proposal because we view this as
a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the
State plan if relevant adverse written
comments are filed. This rule will be
effective March 14, 2011 without further
notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by February
14, 2011. If we receive such comments,
we will withdraw this action 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. EPA will
not institute a second comment period;
therefore, any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so
at this time. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective
March 14, 2011.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves State law as meeting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
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. EPA will submit a
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
report containing this action 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 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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by March 14, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the Proposed Rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. 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, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 29, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Y—Minnesota
2. In § 52.1220 the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by removing the entry
for ‘‘Gopher Smelting and Refining
Company’’ and adding an entry for
‘‘Gopher Resource, LLC’’ in its place to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.1220
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
*
*
2267
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS
Name of source
*
*
Gopher Resource, LLC ................
*
*
*
*
03700016–003
*
*
*
State effective
date
Permit No.
EPA approval date
*
06/29/10
*
Comments
*
01/13/11, [Insert page number
where the document begins].
*
*
Only conditions cited as ‘‘Title I
condition:
SIP
for
Lead
NAAQS.’’
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–337 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2263-2267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-337]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0675; FRL-9250-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Gopher Resource, LLC
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on July 29, 2010, to revise the
Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead (Pb) under the Clean
Air Act (CAA). The State has submitted a joint Title I/Title V document
(joint document) in the form of Air Emission Permit No. 03700016-003,
and has requested that the conditions laid out with the citation
``Title I Condition: SIP for Lead NAAQS'' replace an existing
Administrative Order (Order) as the enforceable SIP conditions for
Gopher Resource, LLC. The existing Order was approved by EPA on October
18, 1994. MPCA's July 29, 2010, revisions were meant to satisfy the
maintenance requirements for the 1978 Pb National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), promulgated at 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter, or 1.5
[mu]g/m3.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective March 14, 2011, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by February 14, 2011. 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: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0675, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692-2551.
4. Mail: John Mooney, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
[[Page 2264]]
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0675. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0258, chang.andy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
A. When and why did the State make this submittal?
B. Did the State hold public hearings for this submittal?
II. What is EPA's analysis of MPCA's submittal?
A. Gopher Resource, LLC, and General SIP Conditions
B. Emissions Units, Processes, and Limits
C. Stack Emissions Testing
D. Consistency With the Existing Order
E. Rescission of the Order.
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. When and why did the State make this submittal?
MPCA submitted this revision to the Minnesota SIP on July 29, 2010.
Air Emission Permit No. 03700016-003 was submitted as a joint document,
and MPCA requested that the conditions labeled ``Title I Condition: SIP
for Lead NAAQS'' serve as the enforceable SIP conditions for the Gopher
Resource, LLC, (Gopher) facility. The State's submittal, as well as
EPA's analysis of the submittal elements, will be discussed in
subsequent sections of this document.
Portions of Dakota County were designated as nonattainment for the
1978 Pb NAAQS on January 6, 1992. It was found that Gopher was the
primary source of elevated Pb levels in the area. Gopher was formerly
known as Gopher Smelting and Refining Company, and the change to Gopher
Resource, LLC will be discussed in Section IIA, below.
EPA approved a request to redesignate Dakota County as attainment
for the 1978 Pb NAAQS on October 18, 1994. The redesignation request
was part of a SIP revision which also included a maintenance plan in
accordance with section 175A of the CAA, as interpreted by a September
4, 1992, EPA memorandum entitled, ``Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.'' EPA also approved the Order for
Gopher on October 18, 1994. This Order was originally issued by MPCA
for the facility on June 22, 1993, and contained emissions limits and
other requirements ensuring attainment of the 1978 Pb NAAQS.
Section 175A(b) of the CAA required MPCA to submit an update to its
maintenance plan, which the agency did on November 18, 2002. On this
date, the State also submitted a request to replace the existing Order
with a joint document, in this case, a permit. This concept does not
set any new precedent, because Minnesota routinely houses the
conditions necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS in facility
permits. The required SIP conditions are denoted as, ``Title I
Condition: SIP for (pollutant) NAAQS.'' However, EPA did not act on the
submittal because, among other things, the revisions to the SIP for
Gopher removed contingency measures from the maintenance plan.
On November 19, 2007, MPCA formally withdrew the request to replace
the Order with the joint document, but asked that EPA consider the
maintenance plan update, which EPA approved on June 3, 2008 (73 FR
31614). On November 16, 2010, the Administrator of EPA signed
designations for Pb nonattainment areas for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, for
those areas exceeding 0.15 [mu]g/m3. A subsequent Federal
Register notice published on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), confirmed
that portions of Eagan, located in Dakota County, and identical to the
current maintenance area for the 1978 Pb NAAQS, are in nonattainment
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. However, the 1978 Pb NAAQS remains in effect for
the Eagan area until December 31, 2011. MPCA's July 29, 2010, requested
revisions are meant to address only the maintenance requirements of the
1978 Pb NAAQS.
MPCA has worked closely with EPA to form a joint document that
meets all the requirements to replace the existing Order as the
enforceable SIP conditions for the Gopher facility. As previously
mentioned, Minnesota houses all conditions necessary to attain and
maintain the NAAQS in facility permits through a joint document. The
conditions of this joint document are established under Minnesota's
Clean Air Act Title I authority and Title V permitting authority. The
State's July 29, 2010, submittal from MPCA is the Title V permit for
Gopher Resource, LLC, with appropriately denoted Title I SIP
conditions. This joint document will replace the existing Order, and
although this SIP revision has been submitted in conjunction with
reissuance of the facility's operating permit, this action will focus
only on the relevant changes to the facility's Title I SIP conditions
for Pb.
[[Page 2265]]
B. Did the State hold public hearings for this submittal?
The public notice for the joint document and associated SIP
revision was published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on February 17,
2010. The public notice period for the joint document began on February
18, 2010, and lasted until March 19, 2010. MPCA did not receive a
request to hold a public hearing, but did receive comments on the
reissuance of the Title V permit. However, none of the comments that
MPCA received were applicable to the maintenance requirements for the
1978 Pb NAAQS, and no changes to the joint document were made as a
result of the comments.
II. What is EPA's analysis of MPCA's submittal?
A. Gopher Resource, LLC, and General SIP Conditions
The existing Order refers to the facility as ``Gopher Smelting and
Refining Company,'' whereas the joint document submitted by MPCA on
July 29, 2010, correctly identifies the facility as ``Gopher Resource,
LLC.'' This change reflects only a change of ownership structure,
whereas the actual ownership remained largely unchanged. General SIP
conditions, such as those that describe when facility changes require a
SIP revision, have been reworded or clarified to fit with MPCA's
current format for such conditions. Additional conditions that allowed
the facility a choice in compliance options in the Order have been
updated to reflect the compliance choice made by Gopher. Lastly, the
joint document organizes and names emissions units differently than the
Order, thereby reflecting current operations. Aligning the current name
of the facility into the SIP prevents potential confusion as to the
correct name of the facility, and the enforceable conditions in the
joint document now apply to the same properly designated entity on both
the State and Federal levels. Therefore, EPA finds the updated name of
Gopher Resource, LLC, to be approvable. The changes to the general SIP
conditions as outlined in the joint document pertain to format only;
these changes ensure that MPCA has been consistent with other joint
documents, and because there are no significant emissions changes that
stem from formatting, rewording, or clarifications, EPA finds these
revisions to be approvable. Gopher has selected a set of compliance
options based on EPA regulations and guidelines, or based on the
previously approved Order, and therefore, EPA finds these changes to be
approvable. Organizing emissions units to reflect current operations
aligns State and Federal nomenclature; therefore, EPA finds these
changes to be approvable.
B. Emissions Units, Processes, and Limits
The State-submitted joint document contains updated emissions units
and processes that reflect current operations. Flue dust agglomeration
is no longer a process at Gopher, nor does there exist a central vacuum
system. The existing Order refers to six refining kettles instead of
the ten that are currently in operation; these ten kettles are
reflected in the joint document. These kettles vent to the main stack
SV003, and although there has been a change in the specifics of the
emissions units, the emissions limits for SV003 in the joint document
are identical to those found in the Order. Therefore, EPA does not
expect a net effect on the emissions exiting at SV003, nor does EPA
expect a violation of the 1978 Pb NAAQS to occur as a result of these
added units.
Gopher has added two additional Torit dust collectors that collect
fugitive Pb emissions from raw material handling, the battery breaking
dock, material transfer rooms, and the furnace areas. These dust
collectors exhaust into the new Torit stack SV008, and the purpose of
these collectors is to control dust that was observed to ``leak'' from
various points, i.e., it was assumed that the dust at these new
collectors was going into Torit stack SV002. Emissions that were
assumed to be entering the SV002 in their entirety are now being split
between SV002 and SV008.
MPCA performed a modeling analysis showing that the added Torit
stack SV008 would not result in negative ambient impacts. The modeling
shows that the area of maximum impact, on a monthly average level, is
0.78 [mu]g/m3. Monitoring data from Air Quality System
ID 270370465 has corroborated compliance with the 1978 Pb
NAAQS; the highest quarterly average recorded between 2007 and 2009
(consistent with the form of the 1978 Pb NAAQS) was 0.70 [mu]g/
m3. Available data from 2010 have demonstrated compliance
with the 1978 Pb NAAQS as well. Based on the static emission limits, as
well as supporting modeling and monitoring data, EPA finds the
requested revisions concerning emissions units, processes, and limits
to be approvable.
C. Stack Emissions Testing
MPCA requested in the joint document that the stack testing
frequency be changed from once every year to once every two years. The
basis of the request is found in the Amendments to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) From Secondary
Lead Smelting (62 FR 32209). The amendments affirm that if a compliance
test shows a source emitted Pb compounds at 1.0 milligram of lead per
dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains of lead per dry standard cubic
foot) or less during the time of the compliance test, the owner or
operator of the lead smelter would be allowed up to 24 calendar months
from the previous compliance test to conduct the next annual compliance
test for Pb compounds. MPCA submitted emissions test reports from 2006
and 2008; the highest average concentration was recorded in 2006 at the
main stack, and the concentration was .16 milligrams of lead per dry
standard cubic meter. This value is 16% of the bi-annual stack testing
frequency threshold. The facility has been complying with the NESHAP
for secondary lead smelters since December 23, 1997, and to the extent
that the NESHAP requirements are more stringent than the requirements
contained in the SIP, EPA approves Gopher's request for bi-annual stack
testing.
D. Consistency With the Existing Order
EPA did not act on MPCA's November 18, 2002, joint document because
provisions in that document would remove contingency plan elements from
the maintenance plan. In its July 29, 2010, submittal, MPCA included
contingency plans and associated record keeping requirements identical
to those found in the Order. EPA finds the inclusion of contingency
measures in the joint document to be appropriate and necessary in
conjunction with section 175A(d) of the CAA.
Significant changes have been discussed in detail already, and EPA
has determined that any other minor deviations from the existing Order
are de minimis. For example, MPCA requested that mobile equipment
traffic be allowed on non-paved areas for maintenance and inspection
purposes. These activities are not expected to have a negative impact
on the surrounding ambient air quality.
EPA finds that all elements included in the existing Order are
included in the July 29, 2010, joint document. Adopting the joint
document in lieu of the Order should not result in any applicability,
emissions, or otherwise detrimental gaps. EPA also expects the Eagan
area of Dakota County to continue to meet the 1978 Pb NAAQS.
[[Page 2266]]
E. Rescission of the Order
On July 27, 2010, MPCA revoked the Order and subsequent amendments
to the Order. For the reasons discussed in previous sections, the joint
document submitted by MPCA on July 29, 2010, is appropriate and
sufficient to serve as the only document that contains SIP conditions
for Gopher Resource, LLC. As such, EPA finds it appropriate to rescind
the original Order from the SIP.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving a joint Title I/Title V document submitted by MPCA
for Gopher Resource, LLC. The conditions labeled, ``Title I Condition:
SIP for Lead'' will replace the existing Order as the enforceable SIP
conditions for the facility. Specifically, these conditions can be
found in Air Emission Permit No. 03700016-003. The joint document
includes elements necessary for Dakota County to continue meeting the
1978 Pb NAAQS. EPA is simultaneously rescinding the existing Order from
the SIP.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective March 14, 2011
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by February 14, 2011. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action 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. EPA will not institute a second comment
period; therefore, any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective March 14, 2011.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
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. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 14, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 29, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Y--Minnesota
0
2. In Sec. 52.1220 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the entry for ``Gopher Smelting and Refining Company'' and adding an
entry for ``Gopher Resource, LLC'' in its place to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
[[Page 2267]]
EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective
Name of source Permit No. date EPA approval date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Gopher Resource, LLC............. 03700016-003 06/29/10 01/13/11, [Insert Only conditions
page number where cited as ``Title I
the document condition: SIP for
begins]. Lead NAAQS.''
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-337 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
