[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31088-31090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14450]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[MN37-1-6901a; FRL-5212-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

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

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Minnesota requested minor amendments to several previously 
approved administrative orders addressing emissions of particulate 
matter and sulfur. The amendments included deleting an order for a 
facility that no longer has significant emissions, eliminating 
reporting requirements for unscheduled startups and shutdowns, 
clarifying and enhancing dust control practices at one facility, and 
changing facility names. USEPA is approving this request. USEPA is also 
correcting the codification for a previous approval action.
DATES: This action will be effective on August 14, 1995 unless adverse 
or critical comments are received by July 13, 1995. If the effective 
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal 
Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L. 
MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement 
Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following addresses: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-
17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), 
Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), Room M1500, United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20460.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of State Submittal

    On February 15, 1994, USEPA approved State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revisions for particulate matter for the Saint Paul and 
Rochester, Minnesota, areas. On April 14, 1994, and September 9, 1994, 
USEPA approved SIP revisions for sulfur dioxide (SO2) for much of 
the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area. The regulatory portion of these 
revisions consisted of administrative orders limiting emissions from 
affected facilities. On December 22, 1994, Minnesota submitted 
amendments to the administrative orders for 12 of these facilities. For 
six administrative orders in the particulate matter SIP for Saint Paul, 
namely for Ashbach Construction, Commercial Asphalt, Great Lakes Coal 
and Dock, Harvest States Cooperatives, Lafarge, and North Star Steel, 
the administrative orders were amended to (1) revise the statement of 
air quality standards to reflect revisions in the underlying State 
rules, (2) reduce opacity reading requirements typically to an as 
requested basis, and (3) eliminate the requirement to report scheduled 
startups and shutdowns. Administrative orders for J.L. Shiely and the 
Metropolitan Council were revised the same way except that the order 
for J.L. Shiely was also revised to incorporate more frequent and more 
effective road treatment, and the order for the Metropolitan Council 
was revised to delete reference to the Metropolitan Waste Control 
Commission. The order for PM Ag Products was revoked because the 
relevant sources have shut down. For the one administrative order in 
the [[Page 31089]] particulate matter SIP for Rochester, i.e. for 
Rochester Public Utilities, the administrative order was amended to (1) 
revise the statement of air quality standards to reflect revisions in 
the underlying State rules, (2) reduce opacity reading requirements to 
an as requested basis, and (3) to require reporting of startups and 
shutdowns only if they are unscheduled and cause exceedances of the 
applicable limitations. (The company is required to operate continuous 
opacity monitors to identify periods of excessive emissions.) For 
SO2 in the Twin Cities area, the administrative order for Northern 
States Power was amended to authorize the company to burn natural gas 
at six oil-fired gas turbines, and the administrative order for FMC 
Corporation was amended to show ownership now by United Defense, LP.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

    USEPA reviewed each of the various amendments submitted by 
Minnesota. The revision of the statement of air quality standards is an 
administrative improvement that makes the orders better reflect new air 
quality standards in the underlying State rules. The elimination of the 
requirement for opacity testing according to preset schedules is a 
reasonable revision because these sources now have compliance histories 
to indicate the needed frequency of compliance testing. In any case, 
the orders provide that MPCA or USEPA can require opacity readings at 
any time, which is sufficient to assure enforceability of these limits. 
The elimination of requirements to report scheduled startups and 
shutdowns to MPCA does not eliminate the requirement that the sources 
record this information, and thus does not reduce MPCA's or USEPA's 
ability to obtain this information when necessary. For the special case 
of Rochester Public Utilities, because this facility uses electrostatic 
precipitators that routinely have unscheduled startups and shutdowns, 
and because this facility is required to operate continuous opacity 
monitors, it is reasonable to require this company to report only those 
startups and shutdowns that are unscheduled and cause exceedances of 
applicable limits. The name revisions obviously have no environmental 
impact. The enhancement of the road cleaning requirements for J.L. 
Shiely clearly will have beneficial environmental impacts. The order 
for the nonexistent equipment at the PM Ag Products facility is 
superfluous and may therefore be revoked without impact. The allowance 
for Northern States Power to burn natural gas at six gas turbines at 
its Inver Hills Station has no effect on legally allowable emissions 
but allows an operational alternative that in practice will reduce 
emissions. In summary, all of the amendments requested by Minnesota are 
approvable.

III. Rulemaking Action

    USEPA is approving the amendments to 12 administrative orders as 
requested by the State. All of these amendments were adopted and 
effective at the State on December 21, 1994. Specifically, for 
particulate matter in Saint Paul, USEPA is approving amendments to the 
administrative orders for the following facilities: (1) The Ashbach 
Construction Company facility at University Avenue and Omstead Street, 
(2) the Commercial Asphalt, Inc., facility at Red Rock Road, (3) the 
Great Lakes Coal & Dock Company facility at 1031 Childs Road, (4) the 
Harvest States Cooperatives facility at 935 Childs Road, (5) the 
LaFarge Corporation facility at 2145 Childs Road, (6) the Metropolitan 
Council facility at 2400 Childs Road, (7) the North Star Steel Company 
facility at 1678 Red Rock Road, and (8) the J.L. Shiely Company 
facility at 1177 Childs Road. USEPA is revoking the previously approved 
administrative order for the PM Ag Products, Inc., facility at 2225 
Childs Road. For particulate matter in Rochester, USEPA is approving 
amendments to the administrative order for the Rochester Public 
Utilities facility at 425 Silver Lake Drive. For sulfur dioxide in the 
Minneapolis-Saint Paul area, USEPA is approving amendments to the 
administrative orders for the Northern States Power Inver Hills 
Station, and the United Defense, LP facility (formerly the FMC/U.S. 
Navy facility) in Fridley.
    For convenience, USEPA is also using this rulemaking to correct the 
codification of its prior approval of Minnesota's offset rule. Rule 
7005.3050 was included as an approved rule, and yet Minnesota had 
repealed this rule. Therefore, USEPA is amending the codification of 
approved Minnesota submittals to delete reference to this rule.
    The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates 
no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document 
in this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed 
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the 
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical 
comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on 
August 14, 1995, unless USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by 
July 13, 1995.
    If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the approval 
discussed above, USEPA will withdraw this approval. All public comments 
received will then be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking notice. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this 
time.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
    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 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA must undertake 
various actions in association with proposed or [[Page 31090]] final 
rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs 
of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State, local, or 
tribal governments in the aggregate.
    Through submission of the State implementation plan or plan 
revisions approved in this action, the State has elected to adopt the 
program provided for under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. The rules 
and commitments being approved in this action may bind State, local and 
tribal governments to perform certain actions and also may ultimately 
lead to the private sector being required to perform certain duties. To 
the extent that the rules and commitments being approved by this action 
will impose or lead to the imposition of any mandate upon the State, 
local or tribal governments either as the owner or operator of a source 
or as a regulator, or would impose or lead to the imposition of any 
mandate upon the private sector, EPA's action will impose no new 
requirements; such sources are already subject to these requirements 
under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. 
The USEPA has also determined that this action does not include a 
mandate that may result in estimated costs or $100 million or more to 
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private 
sector.
    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 August 14, 1995. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    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: May 15, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.

    Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, 
subpart Y, 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 revising paragraph (c)(33)(i)(A) 
and by adding paragraph (c)(41) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (33) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Rules 7005.3020, 7005.3030, and 7005.3040, with amendments 
effective August 24, 1992.
* * * * *
    (41) On December 22, 1994, Minnesota submitted miscellaneous 
amendments to 11 previously approved administrative orders. In 
addition, the previously approved administrative order for PM Ag 
Products (dated August 25, 1992) is revoked.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Amendments, all effective December 21, 1994, to administrative 
orders approved in paragraph (c)(29) of this section for: Ashbach 
Construction Company; Commercial Asphalt, Inc.; Great Lakes Coal & Dock 
Company; Harvest States Cooperatives; LaFarge Corporation; Metropolitan 
Council; North Star Steel Company; Rochester Public Utilities; and J.L. 
Shiely Company.
    (B) Amendments, effective December 21, 1994, to the administrative 
order approved in paragraph (c)(30) of this section for United Defense, 
LP (formerly FMC/U.S. Navy).
    (C) Amendments, effective December 21, 1994, to the administrative 
order approved in paragraph (c)(35) of this section for Northern States 
Power-Inver Hills Station.

[FR Doc. 95-14450 Filed 6-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P