Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

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