Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Minnesota

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN49-01-7274a; MN50-01-7275a; FRL-5990-6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;

Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action approves two State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions for the State of Minnesota which were submitted November 26,

1996. These SIP revisions modify Administrative Orders for Federal

Hoffman Incorporated located in Anoka, Minnesota and J. L. Shiely

Company located in St. Paul, Minnesota which are part of the Minnesota

SIP to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, respectively.

In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register,

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of, and

soliciting comments on, these SIP revisions. If adverse comments are

received on this action, EPA will withdraw this final rule and address

the comments received in response to this action in a final rule on the

related proposed rule, which is being published in the proposed rules

section of this Federal Register. A second public comment period will

not be held. Parties interested in commenting on this action should do

so at this time.

DATES: This ``direct final'' rule will be effective on June 2, 1998,

unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by May 4, 1998. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United

States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Madeline

Rucker at (312) 886-0661 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

A Copy of these SIP revisions are available for inspection at the

following location: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460, (202) 260-7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Rucker, 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)

886-0661.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Hoffman, Inc.

On May 29, 1992, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

submitted a revision to the sulfur dioxide (SO2) SIP for

Minneapolis-St. Paul, which included a demonstration of attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS for SO2. Included in this

attainment demonstration was an Administrative Order for Federal

Hoffman, Inc. The State submitted a supplemental SIP revision on July

12, 1993. A revised Administrative Order for Federal Hoffman, Inc., was

included in this submittal, and on April 14, 1994, at 59 FR 17703, EPA

took final action

[[Page 16436]]

to approve the SO2 SIP revisions for the Minneapolis-St.

Paul area.

The revision to the Administrative Order submitted on November 26,

1996, consists of a new equation to calculate the amount of residual

fuel oil Federal Hoffman, Inc., can use on a daily basis. The old Order

limited the sulfur content of the residual fuel oil to two percent by

weight and residual fuel usage to less than 2500 gallons per day. The

revised Order retains the sulfur content limit of the residual fuel oil

at two percent by weight and includes the following equation for the

amount of residual fuel oil which can be used by the Company on a daily

basis:

5000 gallons of fuel oil % of sulfur in the fuel oil = amount

of fuel allowed in gallons on a daily basis

This new fuel consumption calculation allows Federal Hoffman, Inc.,

the flexibility to use lower sulfur fuel in larger quantities without

increasing sulfur emissions. The revised Administrative Order contains

changes as to how daily residual fuel oil consumption is calculated.

These changes will not result in an increase of SO2

emissions in the area and do not jeopardize the attainment

demonstration submitted by the State on May 29, 1992, and approved by

EPA on April 14, 1994.

J. L. Shiely Company

Upon enactment of the Clean Air Act (Act) Amendments of 1990,

certain areas were designated nonattainment for particulate matter (PM)

and classified as moderate under sections 107(d) (4) (B) and 188 (a) of

the amended 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 which

satisfy the attainment demonstration requirements of the Act. The State

submitted SIP revisions to meet these requirements in 1991 and 1992.

The enforceable elements of the State's submittal were Administrative

Orders for facilities in the St. Paul area (J. L. Shiely Company is one

of these facilities). On February 15, 1994 at 59 FR 7218, EPA took

final action to approve Minnesota's submittals as satisfying the

requirements for the St. Paul PM nonattainment area. MPCA issued J. L.

Shiely amended Findings and Orders which were subsequently submitted

to, and approved by EPA as part of Minnesota's SIP on February 15, 1994

(59 FR 7218), December 8, 1994 40 CFR 52.1220 (c)(37) and June 13, 1995

(60 FR 31088).

On November 26, 1996, Minnesota submitted additional minor

amendments (Amendment Three) to the original Order by replacing

emission points No. 1 and No. 10 (barge unloading) and No. 2 and No. 11

(surge bin) with emission points Nos. 20-22 (hopper, directional

conveyor, and diesel backhoe). Amendment Three was adopted and

effective at the State on November 26, 1996. The new emission points

(Nos. 20-22) are not expected to cause any further environmental

degradation because they have more restrictive opacity limits than the

emission points they replaced. The hopper, directional conveyor, and

diesel backhoe unloading system are not to exceed any opacity limit of

20 percent; whereas, the previous barge unloading and surge bin system

was permitted to have a maximum of 40 percent opacity for four minutes

in any 60 minute period, while not exceeding a 20 percent opacity limit

for the remainder of the time. The new emission points are also

required to adhere to the same opacity compliance determination

methods, minimum frequencies, and testing procedures as the other

emission points. The new emission points at J. L. Shiely are not

expected to cause any further environmental degradation; therefore,

Amendment Three to original Order as requested by the State of

Minnesota is deemed approvable.

Action

EPA is approving the Administrative Order Amendments for Federal

Hoffman, Inc., and J. L. Shiely, Company. These Orders are included as

part of Minnesota's SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS for PM, and

S02. EPA has evaluated these SIP revisions and adopted the provisions

set forth at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. Because EPA considers this

action noncontroversial and routine, we are approving it without prior

proposal. This action will become effective on June 2, 1998. However,

if we receive adverse comments by May 4, 1998, EPA will publish a

notice that withdraws this action.

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.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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, EPA 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, the Administrator

certifies 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 flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State

action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U. S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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 approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal 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

preexisting 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.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. As added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a

[[Page 16437]]

copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller

General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from

section 801 the following types of rules: rules of particular

applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not

substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5

U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding

this action under section 801 because this is a rules of particular

applicability.

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 June 2, 1998. 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, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic

compounds.

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

Dated: March 17, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98-8790 Filed 4-2-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P