Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

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