32028 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

corporation, association, or entity at its

principal office or place of business.

(5) Service on Natural Persons.

Service of any subpoena may be made

upon any natural person by:

(i) delivering a duly executed copy to

the person to be served; or

(ii) depositing such copy in the

United States mails, by registered or

certified mail, return receipt requested,

duly addressed to such person at his

residence or principal office or place of

business.

(6) Verified Return. A verified return

by the individual serving any such

subpoena setting forth the manner of

such service shall be proof of service. In

the case of service by registered or

certified mail, such return shall be

accompanied by the return post office

receipt of delivery of such subpoena.

(g) Contumacy or refusal to obey a

subpoena. In the case of contumacy or

refusal to obey a subpoena, the Judicial

Officer may request the Attorney

General to petition the district court for

any district in which the person

receiving the subpoena resides, is

found, or conducts business (or in the

case of a person outside the territorial

jurisdiction of any district court, the

district court for the District of

Columbia) to issue an appropriate order

for the enforcement of such subpoena.

Any failure to obey such order of the

court may be punishable as contempt.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 00–12784 Filed 5–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–U

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 sitespecific 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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

32030 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 costeffective 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:

§ 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IA 104–1104; FRL–6702–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of Iowa;

Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: On April 12, 1999 (64 FR

17548), EPA published a direct final

action approving revisions to the Iowa

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This

document makes corrections to the table

of EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations. The

state effective date is corrected to read

May 13, 1998, and notations are added

to or deleted from the ‘‘Comments’’

column.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective May 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551–7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the part

52 table in subpart Q, § 52.820(c), which

accompanied the April 12, 1999,

document, the ‘‘state effective date’’ was

listed as May 3, 1998. This action

corrects the ‘‘state effective date’’ for all

the rules listed, for which there has not

been a subsequent revision and more

current effective date, to May 13, 1998.

Additionally, for rule 20.2, information

has been added in the ‘‘Comments’’

column which specifies that certain

portions of the rule are not SIP

approved. Finally, we are deleting the

notation in the ‘‘Comments’’ column for

rule 25.1, which indicated that

paragraph 25.1(12) was not SIP

approved. All of rule 25.1 is SIP

approved.

Section 553 of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),