[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31088-31090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14450]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
