[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2169]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 15, 1994]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN26-1-6056; FRL-4820-7]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 26, 1991, and August 31, 1992, and November 13, 
1992, the State of Minnesota submitted revisions to its State 
Implementation Plans (SIPs) for particulate matter. These SIP revisions 
were submitted by the State of Minnesota for the purpose of bringing 
about the attainment of the national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) for particulate matter for the Saint Paul and Rochester 
nonattainment areas, and for the purpose of satisfying certain Federal 
requirements for SIPs for such areas. USEPA proposed to approve these 
SIP revisions on June 25, 1993. One commenter commented on this 
proposal, and Minnesota provided further submittals on February 3, 
1993, April 30, 1993, and October 15, 1993. USEPA is granting full 
approval of the particulate matter SIP revisions for both areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective March 17, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittals, the public comment letter, 
and USEPA's technical support document of September 28, 1993, are 
available for inspection at the following address: (It is recommended 
that you telephone John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067, before visiting 
the Region 5 Office.)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division (AE-17J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    A copy of this revision to the Minnesota SIP is available for 
inspection at:
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Information Reference 
Unit, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
(312) 886-6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 1, 1987, USEPA promulgated revised air quality standards 
for particulate matter, replacing the former standard based on a broad 
range of particle size (known as total suspended particulate matter) 
with a standard based on finer particles. Specifically, the revised 
standard is based on particles having a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 
10 microns or less. Upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990, certain areas were designated nonattainment for particulate 
matter and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 
188(a) of the amended Clean Air Act (Act). See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 
1991) and 57 FR 13498, 13537 (April 16, 1992). The amended Act required 
that States submit SIP revisions by November 15, 1991, for such areas 
satisfying specified planning requirements which are delineated below. 
In Minnesota, portions of the Saint Paul and Rochester areas were 
designated nonattainment and were thus the subject of planning 
requirements pursuant to the amended Act.
    The State submitted SIP revisions intended to meet these planning 
requirements on November 26, 1991, August 31, 1992, and November 13, 
1992. Technical support documents reviewing the adequacy of these 
submittals were completed November 16, 1992, and April 8, 1993. Based 
on these reviews, a notice of proposed rulemaking was published on June 
25, 1993, at 58 FR 34397, proposing to approve the State's submittal as 
satisfying applicable requirements, provided suitable limitations for 
one company were adopted and submitted. The State provided further 
submittals on February 3, 1993, April 30, 1993, and October 15, 1993. A 
technical support document in support of this notice of final 
rulemaking was completed September 28, 1993.
    Pursuant to section 189 of the amended Clean Air Act (``Plan 
provisions and schedules for plan submissions''), those States 
containing initial moderate particulate matter nonattainment areas were 
required to submit by November 15, 1991, an implementation plan that 
includes:


    1. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that 
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable 
but no later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that 
attainment by that date is impracticable (section 189(a)(1)(B));
    2. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control 
measures (RACM) (including such reductions from existing sources in 
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of 
reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented 
no later than December 10, 1993 (section 189(a)(1)(C));
    3. Control requirements applicable to major stationary sources 
of particulate matter precursors except where the Administrator 
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to 
particulate matter levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area 
(section 189(e)); and
    4. Miscellaneous related provisions of section 172(c); for 
example, quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward 
attainment by December 31, 1994.


    Some submissions are due at a later date. By November 15, 1993, 
States must supplement their particulate matter nonattainment area SIPs 
by submitting contingency measures which become effective without 
further action by the State or USEPA, upon a determination by USEPA 
that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to attain the particulate 
matter NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline (section 172(c)(9) 
and 57 FR 13543-44). Nevertheless, Minnesota submitted contingency 
measures with its August 31, 1992, submittal. Therefore, the 
contingency measure requirement is addressed in this rulemaking. States 
with initial moderate particulate matter nonattainment areas were also 
required to submit a permit program for the construction and operation 
of new and modified stationary sources of particulate matter by June 
30, 1992 (section 189(a)(1)(A)). Minnesota addressed this requirement 
in a separate submittal. USEPA is conducting separate rulemaking with 
respect to this requirement.
    Additional discussion of these requirements is provided in prior 
notices published in the Federal Register. An extensive discussion is 
provided in a ``General Preamble,'' published on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 
13498), that describes USEPA's preliminary positions on how USEPA would 
review SIP revisions submitted under Title I of the Act. The notice of 
proposed rulemaking on Minnesota's submittals discusses these 
requirements further, with a focus on the application of USEPA's 
interpretations of Act requirements to the specific factual situation 
presented in Minnesota. Today's action merely summarizes these other 
more extensive discussions.

II. Summary of Proposed Rulemaking

    The June 25, 1993, notice of proposed rulemaking (58 FR 34397) 
included discussion of several issues pertinent to Minnesota's 
submittals. The first section of the notice discussed the requirements 
that the plan was intended to satisfy, as summarized above. The second 
section reviewed the State's submittal with respect to section 189, 
including subsections concerning the State's attainment demonstration, 
reasonably available control measures, and the significance of 
particulate matter precursors. The third section reviewed whether the 
State's submittal satisfied other requirements, particularly the 
requirements of section 172(c). The final section of the notice of 
proposed rulemaking identified the proposed action.

A. Attainment Demonstrations

    Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires a demonstration that the plan will 
provide for attainment (or a demonstration that timely attainment is 
infeasible). The principal guidance for such demonstrations is the 
Guideline on Air Quality Models, which specifies the criteria for 
selection of dispersion models and for estimation of emissions and 
other model inputs. In accordance with that guidance, Minnesota used 
the Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST) model for its 
analyses. These analyses used urban dispersion coefficients, five years 
of National Weather Service meteorological data (using surface data 
from Minneapolis-Saint Paul for the Saint Paul analysis and from 
Rochester for the Rochester analysis and in both cases using Saint 
Cloud upper air data), regulatory default parameters, and receptors 
spaced 100 meters apart in the key impact areas. The emissions inputs 
to the model reflect appropriate emissions estimates for the various 
sources in the two areas.
    The Saint Paul area includes thirteen industrial facilities. 
USEPA's proposed rulemaking is based on Minnesota's original 
submittals, which include Administrative orders specifying limits for 
eight of these facilities. In general, the stack limits specify a total 
emission rate and an exit gas concentration limit based on test methods 
that measure fine particulate matter and condensible particulate matter 
(i.e., methods known as Method 201/201A and Method 202), and are 
supplemented by opacity limits which permit more continuous compliance 
monitoring. A few sources with process fugitive sources have opacity 
limits limiting these emissions. Emissions from roadways and storage 
piles at these sources are typically limited by means of specific work 
practice requirements identifying required quantities and rates at 
which these sources must be watered. Based on USEPA's concerns, 
Minnesota subsequently adopted and submitted an administrative order 
for a ninth facility, Harvest States Cooperatives. The other four, less 
significant facilities are subject only to the emission limits in 
generic State regulations. The Rochester area includes only one 
significant source, which was subject to an administrative order 
providing limits similar to the limits on Saint Paul sources.
    Applicable guidance provides that the emissions estimates for 
significant sources shall reflect maximum allowable emissions rates. 
The proposed rulemaking concluded that this guidance was met for the 
Rochester source and for twelve of the thirteen sources in Saint Paul 
but was not met for the Harvest States Cooperatives facility. In 
response to this concern, the State adopted and submitted an 
administrative order for this facility. This order is discussed in a 
later section of this action.
    Other elements of the attainment demonstration include minor area 
sources, growth, and background concentrations. Minnesota used a 
dispersion model that is appropriate for modeling stack sources, 
process fugitive sources, and area sources such as private and public 
roadways. In Saint Paul, the State compiled a comprehensive inventory 
of public area source emissions as well as emissions from the above 
noted thirteen industrial facilities, and input all of these emissions 
in its dispersion modeling runs. Minnesota then added background 
concentrations of 24 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3) to 
the 24-hour average modeled concentrations and 12 g/m3 to 
the annual average modeled concentrations. In Rochester, the State did 
not inventory public area sources but compensated by using the same 
background concentrations as were used for Saint Paul, in effect 
arguing that local plus nonlocal sources in the Rochester area create 
the same background concentrations as nonlocal sources surrounding 
Saint Paul. In Saint Paul, an explicit growth margin for one source was 
included in the modeling analysis. Otherwise, growth was not explicitly 
addressed in Minnesota's submittal, but major source growth will be 
covered by new source permitting requirements (including requirements 
that assure no new violations), and minor source growth is unlikely to 
be sufficient to consume the entire margin between the modeled 
concentrations and the air quality standards.
    For analyses using 5 years of meteorological data, the sixth 
highest 24-hour average concentration at any receptor must not exceed 
150 g/m3, and no annual average concentration may exceed 
50 g/m3. The results of Minnesota's analyses based on 
controlled emissions in Saint Paul was a highest sixth highest 
concentration of approximately 140 g/m3 and a highest 
annual average concentration of 48 g/m3. For the 
Rochester area, the modeling provided by Minnesota indicates a highest 
sixth highest 24 hour average concentration of 106 g/m3 
and a highest annual average concentration of 32 g/m3. 
Based on these results and USEPA's review of the State's inventory and 
modeling procedures, USEPA proposed that once the State submitted an 
administrative order limiting Harvest States Coop emissions to the 
modeled emission rates, the State plan would then have satisfied the 
attainment demonstration requirements of section 189(a)(1)(B) for the 
Saint Paul area.

B. RACM

    Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require that States submit 
provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented in 
initial moderate particulate matter nonattainment areas no later than 
December 10, 1993. The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion 
of USEPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 
57 FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561).
    Minnesota's administrative orders require immediate compliance for 
most sources. The only extended compliance date is for the electric arc 
furnace at North Star Steel, which provides for installation of a new 
baghouse by November 26, 1993, and for 75 percent closure of the roof 
monitor by December 31, 1993. The limitations effective November 26, 
1993, require this source to achieve the control normally representing 
RACT as identified in an August 7, 1980, memorandum and attached table 
entitled ``Steel Industry Particulate Emission Limitations Generally 
Achievable on a Retrofit Basis.'' In addition, the State has required 
adequate measures to provide for attainment shortly after the December 
10, 1993, RACT deadline, and no control options are known to be 
available that would provide for attainment any more quickly. 
Therefore, USEPA proposed to conclude that Minnesota's submittal 
satisfies the requirement for RACT.

C. Other Provisions

    Section 189(e) specifies that ``control requirements * * * for 
major stationary sources of PM-10 shall also apply to major stationary 
sources of PM-10 precursors, except where the Administrator determines 
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which 
exceed the standard in the area.'' Particulate matter precursors are 
pollutants emitted as gases that undergo chemical transformations to 
become particulate, and principally include sulfates and nitrates. 
Minnesota's submittals document receptor modeling results that 
demonstrate that secondary particulate matter is a small fraction of 
monitored concentrations in Minnesota. For this and other reasons, 
USEPA proposed to conclude that precursors do not contribute 
significantly to particulate matter concentrations in either of 
Minnesota's nonattainment areas.
    In addition to the requirements in section 189, particulate matter 
nonattainment area plans must also meet the requirements of subpart 1 
of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act, particularly section 172(c). 
Section 172(c) imposes several requirements which all nonattainment 
area SIPs, including particulate matter nonattainment area SIPs, must 
meet. Most notable among these requirements is the requirement of 
section 172(c)(9) that the State submit a contingency plan comprised of 
measures which would be implemented upon failure to achieve timely 
attainment without the need for any further planning or adoption effort 
by the State. The notice of proposed rulemaking included a discussion 
of each of these requirements and why USEPA believed that each 
requirement was satisfied.

III. Comments and Responses

    In response to the request for public comments on the proposed 
rulemaking, USEPA received one set of comments. These comments were 
received from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) in a 
letter dated August 6, 1993. The following discussion summarizes the 
three comments made by MWCC and USEPA's responses. It is noteworthy 
that two of these comments address the State SIP development and one 
comment addresses a statement in the proposed rulemaking, but none of 
the comments address or object to USEPA's proposed action.
    Comment: MWCC expressed an understanding that the administrative 
orders included in the State's SIP submittal would terminate upon USEPA 
approval of Minnesota's forthcoming operating permit program.
    Response: This understanding is incorrect. The operating permit 
program regulations that Minnesota is developing indeed are intended to 
provide for permits that could replace preexisting administrative 
orders such as the order for MWCC. However, actual termination of the 
administrative order would not occur unless and until the State grants 
a permit that could replace the order, requests a SIP revision to 
replace the administrative order with a substitute permit, and USEPA 
approves the SIP revision.
    Comment: MWCC notes that area sources are not ``relatively minor,'' 
insofar as area sources (emitting 486 tons per year) emit more 
emissions than all but one industrial source (emitting 552 tons per 
year.)
    Response: MWCC's figures are approximately correct. However, these 
area sources, by their very distribution, have a relatively minor 
impact as compared to the impact of the concentrated emissions from 
industrial sources. More importantly, the impact of industrial sources 
is sufficiently significant relative to the impact of area sources that 
the choice of dispersion models used by the State is appropriate.
    Comment: MWCC expresses the concern that the development of 
administrative orders was less effective and efficient than use of 
State permits would have been.
    Response: The State submitted administrative orders to address a 
USEPA concern that permit limits could be unenforceable after permit 
expiration. In any case, MWCC does not appear to disagree with USEPA's 
proposed conclusion, which is that the administrative orders submitted 
by the State should be approved.

IV. New State Submittals

    This final rulemaking must also consider three State submittals 
which were not considered in the proposed rulemaking. The first 
submittal, dated February 3, 1993, provides an administrative order for 
Harvest States Cooperatives, in response to USEPA's concern that 
emissions at this facility be limited to levels that would provide for 
attainment. This administrative order was adopted after proper public 
notice and opportunity for comment, and enforceably limits emissions 
from this facility. Although the allowable emission rates under this 
order are slightly higher than the actual emission rates used in the 
State's attainment demonstration, the differential is small relative to 
the margin of attainment near this facility. Therefore, USEPA now finds 
that the State's modeling analyses demonstrate, in accordance with 
applicable guidance, that attainment is assured in both nonattainment 
areas even if all sources emit their full allowable emissions.
    A second State submittal, dated April 30, 1993, provided a 
replacement administrative order for North Star Steel. In most respects 
this administrative order is the same as the earlier order on which 
USEPA proposed action, and is equally as enforceable as the prior 
order. Although the new order reflects a new furnace configuration, 
replacing a two furnace system with a system involving one larger 
furnace and a ladle metallurgy station, these new operations emit 
through the same emission points and have similar allowable emissions 
as the prior order.
    The changes in allowable emissions include a lower allowable 
emissions rate for the existing baghouse (essentially implementing one 
of the source's contingency measures) and an enlarged growth margin 
that takes credit for the lesser emissions that will be caused by the 
new system. Thus, attainment is equally as well assured with the new 
order as with the prior order. Although the new order reduces the 
quantity of emissions reductions provided in the contingency plan (by 
implementing one of the contingency measures), the remaining 
contingency plan is adequate to meet USEPA's criteria for contingency 
plan adequacy.
    A third submittal, dated October 15, 1993, makes only a minor 
amendment to the administrative order for Rochester Public Utilities, 
namely to defer the date for required testing for emission points which 
are currently shut down. This amendment does not alter the prior 
conclusion that the administrative order in particular and the 
Rochester SIP in general are approvable.

V. Final Action

    On June 25, 1993, USEPA proposed to approve the State's plans for 
the Saint Paul and Rochester nonattainment areas as meeting the 
requirements of sections 189(a)(1)(B) and 189(a)(1)(C) as well as 
various provisions of section 172(c) (specifically subsections (1), 
(2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), and (9)), provided the State adopted and 
submitted the intended administrative order for Harvest States Coop. 
USEPA further proposed to determine pursuant to section 189(e) that 
secondary particulate matter formed from particulate matter precursors 
does not contribute significantly to exceedances of the NAAQS.
    Minnesota submitted the requested administrative order for Harvest 
States Cooperatives on February 3, 1993, thereby satisfying the 
condition for fully providing for attainment. A second submittal, a 
replacement administrative order for North Star Steel submitted April 
30, 1993, and a third submittal, an amendment to the administrative 
order for Rochester Public Utilities submitted October 15, 1993, do not 
alter the plan's approvability. Although USEPA received one set of 
comments on the proposed rulemaking, these comments did not object to 
USEPA's proposed action or its underlying rationale. Therefore, USEPA 
is taking final action to approve Minnesota's submittals as satisfying 
applicable requirements for the Saint Paul and Rochester particulate 
matter nonattainment areas. Specifically, USEPA concludes that these 
submittals fully satisfy the attainment demonstration requirement in 
section 189(a)(1)(B), the reasonably available control measures 
requirement in section 189(a)(1)(C), the contingency plan requirement 
in section 172(c)(9), and other applicable requirements of subsections 
(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), and (8) of section 172, which by 
reference also includes the requirements of section 110(a)(2). In 
addition, USEPA is making a determination pursuant to section 189(e) 
that secondary particulate matter formed from particulate matter 
precursors does not contribute significantly to exceedances of the 
NAAQS. The State has made separate submittals to address the permit 
program requirements specified in section 189(a)(1)(A), section 
172(c)(5), and section 173, which will be addressed in separate 
rulemaking.
    As noted previously, the enforceable element of the State's 
submittals are the administrative orders for nine facilities in Saint 
Paul and one facility in Rochester. The codification portion of this 
action identifies the dates of the administrative orders and the names 
and locations of the facilities covered. In brief, this final action 
incorporates into the SIP and makes Federally enforceable the 
administrative orders for (1) Ashbach Construction Company, (2) 
Commercial Asphalt, (3) Great Lakes Coal & Dock, (4) Harvest States 
Cooperatives, (5) LaFarge Corporation, (6) Metropolitan Waste Control 
Commission and the Metropolitan Council, (7) North Star Steel, (8) PM 
Ag Products, (9) Rochester Public Utilities, and (10) J.L. Shiely.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.) 
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act 
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements 
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act, 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    This action makes final the action proposed at 57 FR 34397. As 
noted elsewhere in this action, USEPA received no adverse public 
comment on the proposed action. As a direct result, the Regional 
Administrator has reclassified this action from Table One to Table Two 
under the processing procedures established at 54 FR 2214, January 19, 
1989. On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
waived Table Two and Three SIP revisions (54 FR 2222) from the 
requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866 for a period of 2 
years. OMB has agreed to continue the temporary waiver until such time 
as it rules on USEPA's request. This request continues in effect under 
Executive Order 12866, which superseded Executive Order 12291 on 
September 30, 1993.
    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 April 18, 1994. 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

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by 
Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of Minnesota was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: December 7, 1993.
William H. Sanders III,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows

     :Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(29) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (29) On November 26, 1991, August 31, 1992, November 13, 1992, 
February 3, 1993, April 30, 1993, and October 15, 1993, the State of 
Minnesota submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 
for particulate matter for the Saint Paul and Rochester areas.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) An administrative order for Ashbach Construction Company, dated 
August 25, 1992, submitted August 31, 1992, for the facility at 
University Avenue and Omstead Street.
    (B) An administrative order for Commercial Asphalt, Inc., dated 
August 25, 1992, submitted August 31, 1992, for the facility at Red 
Rock Road.
    (C) An administrative order for Great Lakes Coal & Dock Company 
dated August 25, 1992, submitted August 31, 1992, for the facility at 
1031 Childs Road.
    (D) An administrative order for Harvest States Cooperatives dated 
January 26, 1993, submitted February 3, 1993, for the facility at 935 
Childs Road.
    (E) An administrative order for LaFarge Corporation dated November 
30, 1992, submitted in a letter dated November 13, 1992, for the 
facility at 2145 Childs Road.
    (F) An administrative order for the Metropolitan Waste Control 
Commission and the Metropolitan Council dated November 30, 1992, 
submitted in a letter dated November 13, 1992, for the facility at 2400 
Childs Road.
    (G) An administrative order for North Star Steel Company dated 
April 22, 1993, submitted April 30, 1993, for the facility at 1678 Red 
Rock Road.
    (H) An administrative order for PM Ag Products, Inc., dated August 
25, 1992, submitted August 31, 1992, for the facility at 2225 Childs 
Road.
    (I) An administrative order for Rochester Public Utilities dated 
November 30, 1992, submitted in a letter dated November 13, 1992, for 
the facility at 425 Silver Lake Drive.
    (J) An amendment to the administrative order for Rochester Public 
Utilities, dated October 14, 1993, submitted October 15, 1993, for the 
facility at 425 Silver Lake Drive.
    (K) An administrative order for J.L. Shiely Company dated August 
25, 1992, submitted August 31, 1992, for the facility at 1177 Childs 
Road.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated November 
26, 1991, with attachments.
    (B) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated August 
31, 1992, with attachments.
    (C) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated November 
13, 1992, with attachments.
    (D) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated February 
3, 1993, with attachments.
    (E) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated April 
30, 1993, with attachments.
    (F) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated October 
15, 1993, with attachments.
    3. Section 52.1230 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1230  Control strategy and rules: Particulates.

    (a) Part D. (1) Approval. The State of Minnesota has satisfied the 
requirements of sections 189(a)(1)(B) and 189(a)(1)(C) and paragraphs 
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of section 172(c) for the Saint Paul and 
Rochester areas. The Administrator has determined pursuant to section 
189(e) that secondary particulate matter formed from particulate matter 
precursors does not contribute significantly to exceedances of the 
NAAQS.
    (2) No Action. USEPA takes no action on the alternative test method 
provision of Rule 7005.2910.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-2169 Filed 2-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 6560-50-P