[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39120-39123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19213]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN44-01-7269a; FRL-5861-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
conditionally approving a revision to the Minnesota State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Saint Paul particulate matter (PM) 
nonattainment area, located in Ramsey County Minnesota. The SIP was 
submitted by the State for the purpose of bringing about the attainment 
of the PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The rationale 
for the conditional approval and other information are provided in this 
notice.

DATES: This ``direct final'' rule is effective September 22, 1997, 
unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by August 21, 1997. If 
the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed 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 this SIP revision and 
EPA's analysis 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 (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312) 353-
8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, certain 
areas were designated nonattainment for M 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). A portion of the St. Paul area was designated nonattainment 
thus requiring the State to submit SIP revisions by November 15, 1991, 
satisfying the attainment demonstration requirements of the Act.
    The State submitted SIP revisions and intended to meet these 
requirements in 1991 and 1992. The enforceable element of the State's 
submittals were administrative orders for nine facilities in the St. 
Paul area. On February 15, 1994 at 59 FR 7218, EPA took final action to 
approve Minnesota's submittals as satisfying the applicable 
requirements for the St. Paul M nonattainment area. The EPA also made a 
final determination pursuant to section 189(e) that secondary PM formed 
from PM precursors does not contribute significantly to exceedances of 
the NAAQS.
    The EPA received a request from the Minnesota Pollution Control 
Agency (MPCA) on February 9, 1996 to revise the PM SIP for Ramsey 
County, Minnesota. The revision to the SIP is for the control of PM 
emissions from certain sources located along Red Rock Road (Red Rock 
Road Area), within the boundaries of Ramsey County. The SIP revision 
request was reviewed for completeness based on the completeness 
requirements contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
part 51, appendix V. The EPA determined the submittal to be complete, 
and notified the State of Minnesota in a May 6, 1996 letter from Valdas 
Adamkus, EPA to Charles Williams, MPCA.
    Red Rock Road Area. St. Paul has three ``pockets'' of M problems in 
the nonattainment area: University Avenue/Mississippi Street, Childs 
Road, and Red Rock Road. At the time of the original air dispersion 
modeling and the SIP revision submittals (1992), MPCA staff believed 
all culpable sources were accounted for and that the control strategies 
demonstrated in the modeling and the Administrative Orders would be 
adequate for the area to attain the PM NAAQS. However, exceedances have 
been recorded between 1992 and 1995 at an ambient monitor located at 
1303 Red Rock Road.
    Two facilities on Red Rock Road have administrative orders that are 
part of the 1992 M SIP: Commercial Asphalt, Inc. (a subsidiary of 
Tiller Corporation), and North Star Steel Company. The MPCA believes 
that these sources were not culpable for a major fraction of these M 
exceedances (based upon microscopic analysis of the filters and wind 
directions during the relevant days).
    Since the original air quality dispersion modeling for the SIP was 
completed, several small sources, whose activities did not require 
permits, have located along Red Rock Road. Consequently, the changes in 
land use has resulted in increased vehicle traffic on unpaved roads. 
Because of the changing dynamics of the area, MPCA recognized that the 
M SIP submitted in 1992 no longer accurately characterized the area.
    After reviewing the data collected from air monitoring, site 
visits, and meetings with sources in the area, MPCA staff concluded 
that the changes along Red Rock Road are the cause of the recent 
problems in the area, and not

[[Page 39121]]

because the former SIP was inadequate. The MPCA believes the original 
SIP was adequate to attain the PM NAAQS at the time of the original 
submittal. With the new information on Red Rock Road collected, MPCA 
staff performed new dispersion modeling which showed that the control 
strategies included in North Star Steel's and Commercial Asphalt's 
Administrative Orders were still adequate. However, the MPCA recognizes 
that changes which have occurred along Red Rock Road since the original 
SIP was submitted necessitate revision to this area's SIP. Moreover, 
the MPCA believes that the Red Rock Road area situation is an isolated 
problem that does not affect the rest of the nonattainment area in St. 
Paul. An ambient monitor located across from the Childs Road sources in 
St. Paul has not shown any exceedances since before 1987. This monitor 
is located approximately 1.5 miles from the monitor on Red Rock Road.

II. Evaluation of State's Submission

A. Evaluation of the State Administrative Orders

    The modeling identified three facilities in the area that either 
are, or could be, significant contributors to the current exceedances. 
In order to bring the area into modeled attainment, two of these 
facilities are required to commit to control measures to reduce their 
PM emissions. The third facility is required to either quantify their 
PM emissions to show that they can meet the NAAQS, or commit to control 
measures to reduce their PM emissions. MPCA put these requirements into 
Administrative Orders which were signed by St. Paul Terminals, Inc., 
AMG Resources Corporation, and Lafarge Corporation on February 2, 1996. 
In addition, the State also hopes to further analyze other sources 
outside of the 2 kilometer area from the ambient monitor, but within 4 
kilometers. This is because there have been emission changes to some of 
these sources and the State will need to evaluate whether emissions 
from these sources cause additional concern for this nonattainment 
area. Because of these changes, as well as potentially significant 
changes by the other sources in the 4 kilometer area and other 
revisions, an additional modeling analysis will be submitted by the 
State to EPA.
    St. Paul Terminals. St. Paul Terminals contributes significant 
amounts of PM from truck traffic on its roads without the 
implementation of controls. The Administrative Order for St. Paul 
Terminals includes applying dust suppressant on unpaved roads and 
pressure washing paved roads. However, St. Paul Terminals has committed 
to implementing control measures on its property roads with a greater 
control efficiency than the control measures assumed in the modeling. 
The company chose to pave some previously unpaved areas, ``power wash'' 
with water all paved areas, and apply chemical dust suppressants 
(salts) in the remaining unpaved areas. In addition, to prevent the 
entrainment of fugitive dust from sediment tracked onto Red Rock Road, 
the Company will pressure wash Red Rock Road to the extent that track 
out of sediment from the facility can be seen on Red Rock Road.
    AMG Resources Corporation. The PM emissions at the facility are 
generated from three metal shredders. Particulate emissions are 
controlled by cyclones, one for each shredder. The cyclone exhaust 
gases are vented into the building and escape the building through two 
wall vents with fans. The State initially assumed that all of the PM 
emissions from the metal shredders (subsequently emitted through the 
wall vents) are equal to that limited by Minnesota's Industrial Process 
Rule (Minn. R.7011.0735). However, because AMG could not model 
attainment with this emission rate, AMG Resources disputed the State's 
assumption that the shredder wall vents emit the amount limited within 
Minn. R. 7011.0735, and that all shredder emissions reach the outside 
air. The State later assumed that the vents emit at a rate 10 percent 
of the original assumption and issued an Administrative Order to AMG 
Resources allowing them to conduct a performance stack test on the 
shredders (in absence of any approved methods for testing the wall 
vents), in order to prove that additional controls at the facility are 
not needed. Performance testing of the shredder emissions has 
subsequently been performed by AMG. A letter from MPCA to EPA, dated 
May 20, 1997 states that MPCA has verified the test results showing 
that AMG is able to meet the PM emission rate assumed in the State 
attainment modeling. Because AMG has fulfilled the requirements of the 
Administrative Order, MPCA has requested that the Administrative Order 
for AMG be removed from the SIP submittal.
    Lafarge Corporation. At the end of 1994, Lafarge Corporation 
purchased Red Rock Road of Minnesota, Inc. The facility receives, 
transfers, stores, and ships cement. The cement is received by river 
barge, transferred to a hopper by crane and clamshell bucket, conveyed 
into storage silos and storage dome, and shipped by truck. The PM 
emission sources at Lafarge Corporation are five baghouses, fugitive 
emissions from the transfer of the cement from the barge to the hopper, 
and truck and car traffic on the paved industrial roads. The modeling 
for Lafarge demonstrated that the operation of unloading cement from a 
barge with a clamshell bucket could not demonstrate compliance with the 
PM NAAQS. In addition, it is unclear if the five baghouses are in 
compliance with the PM NAAQS without further testing (Lafarge has not 
conducted performance testing to determine their emissions).
    The Administrative Order requires the Company to: (1) Complete 
installation of a pneumatic unloader in place of the clamshell bucket 
by March 31, 1998; (2) operate the clamshell bucket in a prescribed 
manner in the interim until the pneumatic unloader is operational; and 
(3) submit revised modeling to MPCA which will include baghouse and 
stack parameters for the pneumatic unloading system. The Order also 
requires vendor certification and/or performance testing of all their 
baghouses. When vendor certification and/or performance testing is 
complete, Lafarge's Order will be revised to include specific limits 
for the baghouses.
    The pneumatic unloading system is assumed to be a much cleaner 
system for unloading the barges. However, at the time of the submittal, 
no system had been chosen, therefore, no emissions data was available 
for the modeling analysis. Assumptions were made in the modeled 
attainment demonstration regarding the distribution of emissions with 
the pneumatic unloader installed, however, these will not be truly 
representative of operating conditions after April 1, 1998. In the 
interim, the administrative order requires the company to operate its 
current clam-shell unloading system in accordance with prescribed 
measures designed to reduce the amount of fugitive emissions. The 
operating measures remain in effect until the pneumatic unloader is in 
operation. However, this scenario was not modeled. Specific information 
on dispersion characteristics associated with pneumatic unloader 
operation will be available in early 1998. The MPCA has assumed that 
the pneumatic unloader's fugitive PM emissions will be zero. However, 
emissions from other points will change as a result of the unloader. 
The MPCA will remodel the Red Rock Road area with the specific emission 
information from Lafarge once it becomes available.

[[Page 39122]]

B. EPA Analysis of Air Quality Data Modeling and Results

    The results from the modeling analysis preliminarily demonstrate 
protection of the PM NAAQS. However, due to the lack of emission limits 
and specific information regarding emission distribution at Lafarge 
Corporation following the installation of the pneumatic unloader, EPA 
is conditionally approving the attainment demonstration/SIP revision at 
this time. Final approval will be conditioned upon EPA receiving a 
subsequent modeled attainment demonstration taking into consideration 
the sources which have experienced emission changes that may impact the 
Red Rock Road attainment demonstration. A more detailed discussion of 
the state's modeling analysis can be found in EPA's June 6, 1997 
Technical Support Document.

C. Conditions and Commitments

    The EPA has determined that the attainment demonstration for the 
Red Rock Road portion of the Ramsey County PM nonattainment area is not 
fully approvable at this time. As previously explained in this 
document, the demonstration lacks specific emissions data related to 
the operation of the pneumatic loading system to be installed by 
Lafarge Corporation. This information will not be available until early 
1998. However, EPA believes that the SIP submittal is adequate to be 
approved on a conditional basis. When the emissions associated with the 
installation of the pneumatic loading system are known, the 
administrative order for Lafarge will be revised to reflect those 
limits on specific emission units. Additionally, a new modeling 
demonstration must be submitted reflecting the new limits as well as 
additional changes identified in this document. This remodeling must be 
submitted to EPA within 1 year of publication of the notice of 
conditional approval for the Red Rock Road area SIP revision.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving this SIP revision, based on the condition that 
the State will submit a revised modeling demonstration which will 
contain the corrections detailed in this notice within 12 months of 
this final approval action. If the State fails to submit a SIP 
revision, this conditional approval under section 110(k) will be 
converted to a disapproval and the sanctions clock will begin. If the 
State does not submit a SIP, and the EPA does not approve the SIP on 
which the disapproval was based within 18 months of the disapproval, 
the EPA must impose the sanctions under section 179 of the Act.

IV. Miscellaneous

A. Comment and Approval Procedure

    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
the EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be 
effective on September 22, 1997, unless adverse or critical comments 
concerning this action are submitted and postmarked by August 21, 1997. 
If the 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 concerning this 
action will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this 
action serving as a proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on 
this action should do so at this time. If no such comments are received 
on this action, the public is advised that this action will be 
effective on September 22, 1997.

B. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. Each request for a 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.

C. Executive Order 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA 
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, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA may certify that the rule 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities (see 46 FR 8709). Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and governmental entities with 
jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.
    Conditional 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, the EPA 
certifies that it does not have a significant impact on small entities. 
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 the EPA from basing its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 
1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
Section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect 
its State-enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the 
submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, the EPA 
certifies that such a disapproval will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because it does not remove 
existing State requirements, nor does it substitute a new Federal 
requirement.

E. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the conditional approval action promulgated 
does not include a Federal

[[Page 39123]]

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.

F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in the 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

G. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 22, 1997. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for 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.

    Dated: July 8, 1997.
Michelle D. Jordan,
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 52.1219 is amended by adding new paragraph (b) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1219  Identification of plan--Conditional Approval.

* * * * *
    (b) On February 9, 1996, the State of Minnesota submitted a request 
to revise its particulate matter (PM) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
for the Saint Paul area. This SIP submittal contains administrative 
orders which include control measures for three companies located in 
the Red Rock Road area--St. Paul Terminals, Inc., Lafarge Corporation 
and AMG Resources Corporation. Recent exceedances were attributed to 
changes of emissions/operations that had occurred at particular sources 
in the area. The results from the modeling analysis submitted with the 
Red Rock Road SIP revision, preliminarily demonstrate protection of the 
PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However, due to the 
lack of emission limits and specific information regarding emission 
distribution at Lafarge Corporation following the installation of the 
pneumatic unloader, EPA is conditionally approving the SIP revision at 
this time. Final approval will be conditioned upon EPA receiving a 
subsequent modeled attainment demonstration with specific emission 
limits for Lafarge Corporation, corrected inputs for Peavey/Con-Agra, 
and consideration of the sources in the 2-4 km range which have 
experienced emission changes that may impact the Red Rock Road 
attainment demonstration.

[FR Doc. 97-19213 Filed 7-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P