[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25681]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 18, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[MN25-1-6002a, MN-1-6093a; FRL-5083-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 22, 1993, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision and request
for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This submittal was in response
to a designation to nonattainment, effective January 6, 1992, for an
area in Dakota County, Minnesota. The MPCA submittal consisted of an
administrative order for the Gopher Smelting and Refining Company, a
secondary lead smelter located in Eagan, Minnesota. The submittal also
contained technical support information in the form of air dispersion
modeling an ambient air monitoring data. The proposed SIP revision and
request for redesignation was submitted to satisfy the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). A letter, identifying specific issues
pertaining to the proposed SIP revision, was sent to the MPCA on April
8, 1994. In response to those issues, the MPCA amended the original
administrative order and has submitted it to USEPA. In this action,
USEPA is granting direct final approval of the SIP revision and
redesignation requests.
DATES: This final rule is effective December 19, 1994 unless notice is
received by November 17, 1994, that someone wishes to submit adverse or
critical comments. 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 State submittal and USEPA's analysis are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the following
address: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-17J), Chicago,
Illinois 60604; and Air Docket (6102), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson, Air Enforcement
Branch, Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), United States
Environmental Protection, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-
6713.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of State Submittal
On November 6, 1991, USEPA, in accordance with the Clean Air Act
(CAA), title I, section 107(d)(3), designated an area in Dakota County,
Minnesota as nonattainment for the primary and secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead of 1.5 micrograms per
cubic meter (g/m\3\). The nonattainment area is bounded by
Lone Oak Road (County Road 26) to the north, County Road 63 to the
east, Westcott Road to the south, and Lexington Avenue (County Road 43)
to the west. The basis for the nonattainment designation was monitored
violations of the NAAQS. The major lead source in the area is the
Gopher Smelting and Refining Company (Gopher Smelting), located in
Eagan, Minnesota. As a result of this nonattainment designation, the
State of Minnesota was required to submit to the USEPA a revised SIP
for the area within 18 months from January 6, 1992, which was the
effective date of the redesignation.
The State submitted to USEPA, a SIP revision and a request for
redesignation to attainment, dated June 22, 1993. The submittal was
determined to be complete, in accordance with the requirements found in
40 CFR part 51, appendix V, on September 1, 1993. The submittal
consisted of an administrative order which includes specific
information pertaining to emission limits and operating restrictions,
compliance demonstrations, and recording/reporting requirements. In
addition, the submittal contained technical support pertaining to the
attainment demonstration and ambient air monitoring data. Initial
review of the proposed SIP revision identified several issues which
needed to be addressed by the State before the revision could be
approved. The issues were detailed in an April 8, 1994, letter from
George Czerniak, Chief, Air Enforcement Branch, USEPA, to David
Thornton, Administrator, Program Development and Air Analysis Section,
MPCA. The issues involved clarification of language pertaining to
source descriptions and sweeping requirements and additional
information regarding negative pressure testing methodology and stack
testing conditions. The issues identified in the April 8, 1994, letter
were adequately addressed by the State and an amended administrative
order, dated September 13, 1994, was submitted to USEPA. The remainder
of this rulemaking summarizes USEPA's review of the Minnesota lead SIP
revision package, followed by a review of the request for
redesignation, and then the final rulemaking action.
II. Analysis of SIP Revision Submittal
The State SIP revision submittal consisted of four major sections:
(1) The completeness review material; (2) the SIP revision request
providing background information and citing statutory requirements; (3)
materials from the MPCA including the administrative order issued to
Gopher Smelting and Refining Company and public hearing material; and
(4) technical information supporting the attainment demonstration. This
section will discuss the modeling analysis of the attainment
demonstration, provisions of the administrative order, and whether the
submittal meets the requirements of sections 172(c), 191, and 192, of
the CAA. Section 172(c), pertaining to nonattainment plan provisions,
and sections 191 and 192 pertaining to lead nonattainment plan
deadlines and attainment dates.
Administrative Order Provisions
The administrative order submitted by MPCA on June 22, 1993, was
amended, pursuant to comments by USEPA, on September 13, 1994. The
comments were identified in a previous section. The following analysis
refers to the amended administrative order.
Emission Limits and Operating Restrictions
Gopher Smelting emits lead through two stacks: Emission points 1
and 3. Emissions point 1 is limited to no more than 7000 micrograms of
lead per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.00306 grains per
dry standard cubic foot); emission point 3 is limited to no more than
5720 g/dscm (0.00250 grains per dry standard cubic foot). In
addition, emission points 1 and 3 are subject to a 5 percent opacity
limit.
The Gopher Smelting facility is also subject to numerous operating
restrictions. These restrictions are designed to control fugitives from
building openings, reentrained traffic dust, and wind erosion.
Additionally, Gopher Smelting must store slag material inside the
facility building and must apply water as a suppressant when the
material is transported. Gopher Smelting must store other raw material
inside the facility building. Further operating restrictions affect the
maintenance of air pollution control equipment.
Compliance Demonstration
Gopher Smelting must demonstrate compliance with the emission
limits and operating restrictions by annual stack tests and opacity
tests, negative pressure testing, inspections, and recordkeeping.
Gopher Smelting will demonstrate compliance with the operating
restrictions to control fugitives through negative pressure testing and
mandatory monthly inspections of vegetative cover and railway ballast
and pavement to insure cover is continuous. Additionally, the
administrative order requires regularly scheduled inspections and
maintenance of control monitoring equipment and property access
restrictions.
Reporting
Pursuant to the administrative order, the Company is required to
report the results of any performance stack test as well as report each
shutdown or breakdown of any control equipment or process equipment if
that process equipment shutdown causes increased lead emissions.
Contingency Measures
Section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act defines contingency measures
as measures in a SIP which are to be implemented if an area fails to
make reasonable further progress or to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. These measures should become effective
without further action by the State or the Administrator and should
consist of available control measures that are not included in the
primary control strategy.
The administrative order contains contingency measures which shall
be implemented by the Company within 30 days following notification by
the MPCA or USEPA. Since the submittal provides for immediate
attainment, it therefore satisfies reasonable further progress
requirements. Implementation of the contingency measures would result
from a finding that the area has failed to attain the NAAQS. The
measures consist of increased frequency (twice daily) sweeping with a
vacuum equipped road sweeper over areas that are normally daily swept
and daily sweeping with a vacuum sweeper over areas that are normally
swept on a weekly basis.
Modeling Analysis
In order to demonstrate that the limits and restrictions imposed by
the administrative order are sufficient to demonstrate attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead, air
dispersion modeling must be conducted. The dispersion modeling
accompanying this submittal was performed using the Industrial Source
Complex--Long Term (ISCLT2) model, version 92062. The modeling
methodology used was compared against the guidance contained in the
``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)''; July 1986, including
Supplement A.
The Gopher Smelting and Refining Company facility is located just
south of St. Paul in Eagan, Minnesota. The modeling analysis used five
years (1985 through 1989) of surface meteorological data from the
Minneapolis/St. Paul National Weather Service station, and upper air
data from the St. Cloud, Minnesota, National Weather Service station.
The data sets are representative of the meteorological conditions at
Gopher Smelting.
The process sources at Gopher Smelting which discharge lead into
the atmosphere are: Two reverberatory furnaces, a blast furnace, six
refining kettles, a flue dust agglomeration furnace, a scrap dryer for
the feed desulfurization system, and the central vacuum system.
Fugitive emissions are also generated from raw material handling. Lead
emissions from these sources are vented to four dust collectors
(baghouses or cartridge filters). The lead emissions passing through
these dust collectors are emitted through two stacks.
The dispersion modeling also took into account fugitive emissions
generated from vehicular traffic at the facility as well as emissions
generated by wind erosion of the area surrounding the facility. The
lead emissions from unpaved areas at the facility were estimated using
the ``PM10 Open Fugitive Dust Source Computer Model'' package
distributed by USEPA. The lead content of emissions due to wind erosion
was based on soil sample analyses conducted at the facility. Snowcover
was assumed for the months of November through March, therefore
fugitives from grassy areas was considered to be zero for these months.
The receptor grid used in the analysis consisted of a cartesian
coordinate system with various spacing resolutions. After initial
screening runs with receptor grids extending as far as 50 kilometers, a
refined receptor grid, with 100 meter spacing, was established for a
1.0 kilometer square area surrounding the facility. Lead impacts at the
fenceline of the property were modeled.
Background levels of lead were estimated in order to consider the
contribution to the total ambient air concentration made by sources
other than Gopher Smelting. The background value was determined using a
wind direction analysis which identified when air monitors were upwind
of the Gopher Smelting Facility. The resulting value of 0.11 micrograms
per cubic meter (g/m\3\) is representative of background lead
concentrations in the area. The background concentration was added to
the maximum modeled concentration for a total maximum lead
concentration of 0.97 g/m\3\. This is well below the NAAQS
value of 1.5 g/m\3\.
General Statutory Requirements
The purpose of this section is to discuss whether the SIP revision
submittal meets the statutory requirements set forth in the Clean Air
Act. The Gopher Smelting area of Dakota County, Minnesota is designated
nonattainment for lead. Therefore, the SIP for this area must meet the
applicable requirements of Subpart 1 and 5 of Part D of Title 1 of the
Clean Air Act, specifically, Sections 172(c), 191, and 192.
Section 172(c)(1) states that Part D plans must require reasonably
available control measures, including reasonably available control
technology (RACT). The submittal includes modeling which demonstrates
that the Gopher Smelting area of Dakota County will achieve attainment
of the lead NAAQS with the control measures fully implemented. The
control measures were required to be fully implemented on June 22, 1993
(the effective date of the order). Consequently, the application of
additional available measures would not result in attainment any
faster. Therefore, the control measures included in the SIP revision
satisfy the RACT requirements.
Section 172(c)(2) states that plans shall require reasonable
further progress. The Minnesota submittal provides for immediate
attainment.
Section 172(c)(3) requires a suitable emission inventory. A
suitable inventory of actual and allowable lead emissions from the
Gopher Smelting facility was provided in Attachment C.1 of the
submittal.
Section 172(c)(4) mandates that any stationary source growth margin
included in the submittal be expressly identified and quantified. The
submittal provides for a zero growth margin.
Section 172(c)(5) mandates a suitable permit program for new and
modified major stationary sources. A new source permitting program for
nonattainment areas has been approved by USEPA on April 4, 1994 (59 FR
21939). In addition, MPCA has been delegated authority to implement the
Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration rules in attainment
areas.
Section 172(c)(6) requires enforceable limitations sufficient to
provide for attainment. The administrative order contains emission and
operating limits which, when implemented, provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) mandates satisfaction of Section 110(a)(2). The
USEPA has determined that the submittal meets the applicable provisions
of Section 110(a)(2).
Section 172(c)(8) states that the Administrator, in some
circumstances, may allow the use of equivalent modeling emission
inventory, and planning procedures. In the Gopher Smelting submittal,
no equivalent techniques were used for modeling, emission inventory, or
planning procedures.
Section 172(c)(9) requires the plan to provide for implementation
of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make
reasonable further progress or to attain the primary NAAQS by the
attainment date applicable under this part (i.e., contingency
measures). The administrative order for Gopher Smelting contains
measures to be taken if the area fails to attain the NAAQS. The
administrative order provides for immediate attainment which precludes
the need for a schedule by which the company would demonstrate
reasonable further progress toward attainment. Therefore, any future
violations of the NAAQS in the area would require the Company to
implement the contingency measures.
Section 191(a) requires a State with an area designated as
nonattainment subsequent to the date of enactment of the CAA, to submit
an applicable plan to the Administrator within 18 months. A part of
Dakota County, Minnesota was designated nonattainment for lead,
effective January 6, 1992. The SIP revision was submitted on June 23,
1993; in accordance with the 18 month schedule.
Section 192(a) requires that a plan submitted pursuant to section
191(a) provide for attainment of the relevant standard no later than 5
years from the date of the nonattainment designation. The limits and
restrictions in the Minnesota lead plan revision are effective
immediately and have been demonstrated to provide for immediate
attainment.
III. Analysis of the Redesignation Request
The State redesignation request consisted primarily of a
maintenance plan and air quality monitoring data. The request also
referenced the provisions and technical information in the SIP revision
submittal. The State submitted this information to comply with title I,
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, which requires that USEPA determine
whether certain criteria have been met before a redesignation of a
nonattainment area to attainment can be promulgated. The CAA criteria
and the State responses are discussed below.
Redesignation Request Requirements
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires a determination of whether the
area has attained the NAAQS. The State used both air quality monitoring
data and a dispersion modeling analysis to show that the area has
attained the NAAQS for lead of 1.5 g/m\3\ based on a quarterly
average.
Monitoring data for four ambient air monitors was included in the
June 22, 1993, redesignation submittal. Additional ambient air
monitoring data was submitted by the State on December 3, 1993. The
additional data set replaced some 1992 data for two monitors due to
problems identified by the State with the testing method used
(flameless atomic absorption). The revised 1992 data was analyzed using
flame atomic absorption (atomic absorption using an air-acetylene flame
is the 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50 Appendix G
reference method). The flame atomic absorption method had much better
recovery results with spiked samples of lead. The monitors are all
located near the Gopher facility. The data collected from the four
monitors has been quality assured according to the procedures specified
in 40 (CFR) Part 58, and is submitted to USEPA Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS).
The Lead Guideline Document (EPA-452/R-93-009), April 1993, states
that in demonstrating, through monitoring data, that an area is
attaining the lead NAAQS, the area must show no exceedances on a
quarterly basis. Based on a April 21, 1983, memorandum from Meyers, S.,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the demonstration should
consist of ``the most recent eight quarters of quality-assured
representative air quality data.'' The State has submitted ambient
monitoring data for the period from first quarter 1990 to the third
quarter 1993. The first quarter of 1990 shows the NAAQS violation which
precipitated the nonattainment designation. No violations of the NAAQS
for lead have been recorded at any of the monitors since that time.
The State also submitted an air dispersion modeling analysis to
demonstrate that the Gopher facility, with the emission limits and
operating restrictions applied, attains the NAAQS for lead. The
modeling demonstration was an integral part of the proposed SIP
revision submittal and has been assessed as part of the regulatory
review process pertaining to the SIP revision.
The dispersion modeling accompanying the submittal was performed
using the Industrial Source Complex--Long Term (ISCLT2) model, version
92062. The modeling methodology used was compared against the guidance
contained in the ``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)''; July
1986. The modeling analysis used surface meteorological data from the
Minneapolis/St. Paul National Weather Service station, and upper air
data from the St. Cloud, Minnesota, National Weather Service station.
The data sets are considered to be representative of the meteorological
conditions at Gopher Smelting. The sources that were modeled included
both process and fugitive. Concentrations of lead were predicted around
the Gopher facility through the use of a receptor grid with 100 meter
spacing near identified areas of maximum concentrations. Background
levels of lead, determined from the ambient air monitors, were added to
the maximum modeled concentration. The resulting value of 0.97
g/m\3\ is well below the NAAQS value of 1.5 g/m\3\.
Based on the monitoring and modeling information included in the
June 22, 1993 proposed SIP revision and redesignation request
submittal, USEPA has determined that the State has demonstrated that
the area around the Gopher facility, which encompasses the current
nonattainment area, has attained the NAAQS for lead.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) states that USEPA may not promulgate a
redesignation request to attainment unless USEPA has fully approved the
area SIP under section 110(k). The June 22, 1993 package consisted of a
proposed SIP revision and a redesignation request. The SIP revision was
submitted to meet the Clean Air Act requirements of Title I, Part D.
The SIP revision was discussed earlier in this notice and is being
approved in this notice.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) states that USEPA may not promulgate a
redesignation request to attainment unless USEPA determines that ``the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control
regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions.'' In the
first quarter of 1990, three of the four ambient air monitors sited
around the Gopher facility recorded a violation of the lead NAAQS. Lead
violations were also recorded in the fourth quarter of 1988 and the
second quarter of 1989. As a result, the area near the Gopher facility
was designated nonattainment, effective on January 6, 1992. An
investigation into the cause of the violations concluded that fugitive
emissions from process sources and also from general work practices
were the primary reason for the high monitored values. The Gopher
Smelting and Refining Company implemented a program that included
improved materials handling procedures and work practices. These
initial procedures and practices, among other controls, are included in
the Federally enforceable Administrative Order, which was discussed
earlier. No violations of the lead NAAQS have been recorded at any of
the ambient air monitors surrounding the Gopher facility since the
first quarter of 1990. The State has reasonably attributed the
improvement in air quality to the changes in work practices at the
Gopher facility. Additionally, the Gopher facility has installed
control equipment (i.e., baghouses and a negative pressure system
vented through cartridge filters) to further limit process fugitive
emissions. The operation, testing, and maintenance of this control
equipment is required in the administrative order for the facility. The
administrative order for the Gopher facility has no expiration date.
Therefore, USEPA agrees with the State that the improvement in air
quality over the last four years in the nonattainment area surrounding
the Gopher facility is attributable to permanent and enforceable lead
emission reductions.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) states that USEPA may not promulgate a
redesignation request to attainment unless USEPA has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section
175A. The redesignation request submitted on June 22, 1993 by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), was accompanied by a
proposed SIP revision affecting the primary lead source in the
nonattainment area. The measures required in the proposed SIP revision
(i.e., administrative order for Gopher Smelting and Refining Company),
provided for attainment of the lead NAAQS as demonstrated by the
modeling analysis performed for the area. The limits and operating
restrictions detailed in the administrative order do not expire.
Furthermore, once the SIP revision is promulgated, it cannot be revised
without approval of USEPA. Therefore, attainment of the lead NAAQS has
been projected for the required 10 year period as is discussed in
Section 175A.
Section 175A(d) requires contingency provisions be submitted to
assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the lead
standard which occurs after the area has been redesignated to
attainment. The current monitoring network is continuing to operate in
order to verify the attainment status of the area. The proposed SIP
revision, discussed earlier, contained specific measures which the
Gopher facility will implement, without further action to be taken by
the State or USEPA, upon notification that a violation of lead NAAQS
has occurred. These measures consist of sweeping with a wet vacuum
sweeper areas that are swept daily and daily sweeping with a vacuum
sweeper areas that are normally swept on a weekly basis. The
contingency measures are designed to immediately reduce emissions from
areas likely to be causing the violation. The administrative order
became effective on June 22, 1993, and enforced by the authority of
MPCA. The changes included in the amended administrative order, dated
September 13, 1994, did not affect the contingency measures. Therefore,
the limits and restrictions in the administrative order will have been
implemented prior to promulgation of redesignation to attainment.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that USEPA may not promulgate a
redesignation request to attainment unless the State has met all the
requirements applicable to the nonattainment area under section 110 and
part D. The Gopher Smelting area of Dakota County, Minnesota is
designated nonattainment for lead. Therefore, the SIP revision for this
area must meet the requirements of Subpart 1 and 5 of Part D of Title 1
of the Clean Air Act, specifically Section 172(c) and Sections 191 and
192. Based on the regulatory review, the SIP revision is being approved
as having satisfied the requirements of the applicable CAA sections.
IV. Rulemaking Action
This action has evaluated the approvability of the Minnesota Lead
SIP revision submittal and request for redesignation to attainment for
the area around Gopher Smelting and Refining Company, located in the
city of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota. It has been determined that
the submittal meets the applicable requirements of the CAA.
Because U.S. EPA considers this action noncontroversial and
routine, we are approving it without prior proposal. The action will
become effective on December 19, 1994. However, if we receive notice by
November 17, 1994 that someone wishes to submit adverse comments, then
USEPA will publish a document that withdraws this action and will
address the comments received in the final rule on the requested
redesignation and SIP revision which have been proposed for approval in
the proposed rules section of this Federal Register.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. U.S. EPA 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 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). A revision to the SIP processing
review tables was approved by the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Office of Air and Radiation on October 4, 1993 (Michael Shapiro's
memorandum to Regional Administrators). A future document will inform
the general public of these tables. Under the revised tables this
action remains classified as a Table 2 action. On January 6, 1989, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP
revisions (54 FR 222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291 for a period of 2 years. The USEPA has submitted a request
for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has
agreed to continue the temporary waiver until such time as it rules on
USEPA's request. This request continued in effect under Executive Order
12866 which superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.
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 CAA
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 CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
CAA 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 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 December 19, 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
40 CFR Part 52
Air Pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control.
Dated: September 20, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, 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 paragraph (c)(36) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(36) On June 22, 1993, and September 13, 1994, the State of
Minnesota submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plan for lead
for a portion of Dakota County.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) For Gopher Smelting and Refining Company, located in the city
of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota:
(1) An administrative order, dated, submitted, and effective June
22, 1993.
(2) Amendment One to the administrative order, dated, submitted,
and effective, September 13, 1994.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) A letter from Charles W. Williams to Valdas V. Adamkus, dated
June 22, 1993, with enclosures providing technical support (e.g.,
computer modeling) for the revisions to the State Implementation Plan
for lead.
(B) A letter from Charles W. Williams to Valdas V. Adamkus, dated
September 13, 1994, with enclosures providing technical support for the
revised administrative order for Gopher Smelting and Refining Company.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. In Sec. 81.324 the table ``Minnesota Lead'' is revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 81.324 Minnesota.
* * * * *
Minnesota--Lead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota County (part) ... Lone Oak Road Dec. 19, 1994.............
(County Road 26) to the north, County
Road 63 to the east, Westcott Road to
the south, and Lexington Avenue (County
Road 43) to the west.
Rest of State not designated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-25681 Filed 10-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
