20324 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated 

implementing instructions, and 

Environmental Planning COMDTINST 

5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone that will be enforced for 3 hours 

that will prohibit entry within a portion 

of the Anacostia River. It is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 

1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 

001–01, Rev. 1. A Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0212 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0212 Safety Zone; Anacostia 

River, Washington, DC. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters of the 

Anacostia River within 500 feet of the 

fireworks barge in approximate position 

latitude 38°52′15.39′′ N, longitude 

77°00′09.39′′ W located near Nationals 

Park, in Washington, DC. These 

coordinates are based on datum NAD 

83. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section— 

Captain of the Port (COTP) means the 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Maryland-National Capital Region. 

Designated representative means any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or 

petty officer who has been authorized 

by the Captain of the Port MarylandNational Capital Region to assist in 

enforcing the safety zone described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative by telephone at 410–576– 

2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF–FM 

channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast 

Guard vessels enforcing this section can 

be contacted on Marine Band Radio 

VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

Those in the safety zone must comply 

with all lawful orders or directions 

given to them by the COTP or the 

COTP’s designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. 

Coast Guard may be assisted in the 

patrol and enforcement of the safety 

zone by Federal, State, and local 

agencies. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 

p.m. on April 16, 2022, or in the event 

of inclement weather, from 7:30 p.m. 

through 9:30 p.m. on April 17, 2022. 

Dated: April 1, 2022. 

David E. O’Connell, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Maryland-National Capital Region. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07403 Filed 4–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2021–0411; FRL–9547–02– 

R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Bulk 

Silos PM10 FESOP Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a sitespecific revision to the Minnesota State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

particulate matter less than 10 microns 

(PM10) for the portland cement 

distribution terminal owned and 

operated by Bulk Silos, LLC (Bulk 

Silos), formerly known as Lafarge North 

America Corporation on Childs Road 

Terminal (Lafarge-Childs Road 

Terminal), located in Saint Paul, 

Ramsey County, Minnesota. In its June 

16, 2021, submittal, the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

requested that EPA approve certain 

conditions contained in Bulk Silos’ 

federally enforceable state operating 

permit (FESOP) into the Minnesota PM 

SIP. The request is approvable because 

it satisfies the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). MPCA’s submission 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20325 

included an updated modeling 

demonstration to show the construction 

changes incorporated in the title I SIP 

Conditions will not interfere with the 

ability to maintain the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), as Bulk Silos’ allowable PM10

emissions limits will be decreased with 

this action. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective June 6, 2022, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 9, 

2022. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2021–0411 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arra.sarah@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Olivia Davidson, Physical Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0266, 

davidson.olivia@epa.gov. The EPA 

Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays and facility 

closures due to COVID–19. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

Bulk Silos is a portland cement 

distribution terminal in the Ramsey 

County PM10 maintenance area, also 

known as the Red Rock Road 

maintenance area, in St. Paul (Ramsey 

County), Minnesota. The area was 

designated nonattainment for the 1987 

PM10 standard on March 15, 1991 (56 

FR 11101), and was redesignated to 

attainment on July 26, 2002 (67 FR 

48787). On June 16, 2021, MPCA 

submitted a request to EPA to approve 

into the Minnesota SIP the conditions 

cited as ‘‘Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.6 

(PM10 SIP).’’ The submission contains 

measures for Bulk Silos to implement 

changes that increase efficiency through 

new and existing equipment, as well as 

clarifying amendments to the 

document’s language. MPCA posted a 

background document and permit 

issuance notice for public comment in 

the Minnesota State Register on April 

30, 2021, and the comment period 

ended on June 1, 2021. MPCA received 

no comments on the document or 

permit. 

Bulk Silos currently operates six silos 

with pollution control equipment; the 

silos are used for storage and 

distribution of cementitious products. 

The material is currently received by 

rail, stored in silos, and distributed by 

truck. The facility is subject to a State 

Individual Permit containing title I PM10

SIP conditions (Permit No. 12300391– 

002, published September 11, 2007, 72 

FR 51713), which will continue to apply 

until this SIP revision is approved by 

the EPA. These conditions are intended 

to ensure that the Red Rock Road area 

continues to maintain the PM10 NAAQS. 

The previous SIP revision, approved 

September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51713), 

consisted of a FESOP issued to LafargeChilds Road Terminal which serves as 

a joint title I/FESOP document. In the 

September 11, 2007, action, EPA 

approved into the Minnesota PM10 SIP 

the portions of Minnesota Air Emission 

Permit No. 12300391–002 issued to 

Lafarge-Childs Road Terminal on 

November 17, 2006, cited as ‘‘Title I 

condition: SIP for PM10 NAAQS.’’ As 

part of that action, EPA approved 

Minnesota’s request to revoke from the 

SIP several Administrative Orders for 

Lafarge-Childs Road Terminal that had 

been approved on February 15, 1994 (60 

FR 7218), June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31088), 

and February 8, 1999 (64 FR 5936). 

The 2007 title I SIP revisions 

approved the installation of a new rail 

siding for rail delivery of material to the 

silos, the installation of a related railcarto-silo pneumatic conveyance, the 

redesign of the pneumatic conveyance 

system to allow dedicated use of Silos 

Nos. 1 and 2, and the installation of new 

pollution control devices (a low 

temperature fabric filter) on each of the 

two dedicated silos. The modeling 

results demonstrated that to comply 

with the FESOP, Lafarge-Childs Road 

Terminal was limited to a maximum 

daily throughput of 1,100 tons per day 

(tpd) using a 24-hour rolling average 

and an annual throughput of 100,000 

tons per year (tpy), using a 12-month 

rolling average. 

This SIP revision is being approved in 

conjunction with a major amendment to 

a State Individual Permit containing 

federally enforceable title I SIP 

conditions (Air Emission Permit No. 

12300391–102), submitted to EPA on 

June 16, 2021. The submittal included 

the replacement of three existing fabric 

filters, the construction of three new 

silos, a new bucket elevator, twelve new 

fabric filters, paving of roads, and new 

barge unloading operations. The 

suggested facility changes in operation 

require increased throughput limits for 

overall facility operations, truck loading 

operations, and bucket elevator 

operations. To offset increases in 

throughput limits, Bulk Silos’ new 

permit allows unloading of product 

from one silo at a time, and the emission 

limits of unloading will be decreased 

after approval of the updated title I SIP 

conditions. Further, MPCA included 

updated modeling with improved 

emission factors demonstrating 

decreased allowable PM10 emissions 

with the proposed facility changes and 

reduced emission limits. New 

equipment would not be operable by 

Bulk Silos until EPA approves the 

requirements into Minnesota’s SIP. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the SIP 

revision? 

MPCA’s June 16, 2021, submission 

contains amended SIP conditions that, 

when combined, decrease total 

allowable emission rates of PM10 from 

Bulk Silos while increasing throughput 

limits, adding/improving fabric filters, 

and constructing three new silos. See 

Table 1 at the end of this review for a 

list of detailed changes to PM10

allowable emissions limits associated 

with this action. Additionally, see 

‘‘Process flow diagram’’ included at the 

end of MPCA’s Background document 

submission for a detailed diagram of the 

facility’s operations. The amended SIP 

conditions in the provided background 

document include: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20326 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1New emission factors were calculated based on 

methods contained in AP–42 (Compilation of Air 

Pollution Emission Factors) Section 11.12 and an 

emission factor created using the results of Bulk 

Silos’ self-reported performance test (https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020–09/ 

documents/toc_kwrd.pdf). 

2See EPA’s documentation of AP–42 at https://

www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-andquantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissionsfactors#5thed. 

A. New Fabric Filters, New Construction 

New construction in the SIP revision 

would include the installation of twelve 

new fabric filters: Replacement of three 

fabric filters (Treatment ‘‘TREA’’ 5, 6 

and 9 replacing TREA 1–3) and 

installation of nine new fabric filters 

(TREA 7, 8, 10–16). Additionally, the 

revised SIP would authorize 

construction and operation of a new 

bucket elevator (Equipment ‘‘EQUI’’ 5) 

and three new silos (EQUI 8–10). 

Further, because Bulk Silos’ roadways 

have been paved since the issuance of 

Permit No. 123000391–102, the SIP 

revision will remove the emission limit 

requirements for unpaved roads at the 

permit condition addressing fugitive 

emissions at ‘‘FUGI’’ 2. The facility will 

be subject to emission limit 

requirements for paved roads that were 

previously SIP-approved on July 27, 

2020 (85 FR 45094), and contain permit 

content requirements in Minnesota Rule 

(Minn. R.) 7007.0800, subpart 2(A) and 

subpart 5, prevention of airborne 

particulate matter in Minn. R. 

7011.0150, and standards for dry bulk 

agricultural commodity requirements in 

Minn. R. 7011.1005, subpart 1(A). 

B. Throughput Limits 

Throughput limits for facility 

operations, specifically silo unloading 

(COMG 2), truck loading operations 

(EQUI 4), and bucket elevator operations 

(EQUI 5), will be increased or 

established for new processes with this 

SIP revision. Previously, unloading 

operations were limited to rail and 

required throughput limits of 1,100 tpd/ 

100,000 tpy, truck loading operations 

had no emission limits, and the facility 

did not include bucket elevator 

operations or barge unloading. The 

proposed revisions add barge unloading 

to the facility’s operations, incorporate 

throughput limits of 2,500 tpd/740,000 

tpy each for unloading and truck 

loading, and 1,100 tpd/100,000 tpy for 

the proposed bucket elevator operations. 

Facility-specific emission factors and 

other proposed facility changes 

demonstrate no increased emissions of 

PM10 from increased throughput limits 

based on improved modeling. Permit 

No. 12300391–102 includes language 

specifying ‘‘This requirement expires 

upon startup of the Project’’ for current 

operational throughput, or silo 

unloading (COMG 2, 5.3.1 and 5.3.2). 

Additionally, the permit states the 

increased limits would go into effect 

‘‘Upon startup of the Project’’ (COMG 2, 

5.3.3 and 5.3.4) for operational 

throughput, and similarly for the newly 

established truck loading throughput 

limits (EQUI 4, 5.7.3 and 5.7.4) and 

bucket elevator throughput limits (EQUI 

5, 5.8.1 and 5.8.2). See Table 1 for 

equipment-specific emission limit 

changes from the effective permit (No. 

12300391–002, 72 FR 51713) to the new 

permit (No. 12300391–102). 

C. Changes to Modeling Requirements 

To approve the new conditions listed 

in Permit No. 12300391–102, the MPCA 

conducted Significant Impact Level 

(SIL) modeling to determine compliance 

with the PM10 NAAQS using both 

existing and new PM10 emissions 

sources. The permit update replaces 

equivalent-or-better modeling 

demonstration requirements at the 

permit condition titled Total Facility 

‘‘TFAC’’ 1, 5.1.1 and 6.1.1 to include 

specific modeling triggers when future 

changes are made in the parameters 

contained in Appendix A or emission 

sources. Specifically, TFAC 5.1.1 

indicates no change can be made to the 

facility that would result in an increase 

in PM10 or PM2.5 emissions until it can 

be demonstrated that it would not cause 

an exceedance of the NAAQS and 6.1.1 

contains corrective actions for failed 

emission rate performance tests. 

D. Facility-Specific Emissions Factors 

The required modeling exercise to 

review and reissue Permit No. 

12300391–102 to Bulk Silos included 

new, significantly lower processspecific factors not identified in prior 

modeling demonstrations for the 

facility, provided by Bulk Silos through 

performance testing 1 and reference from 

EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emissions Factors (AP–42).2 The SIL 

modeling demonstration allowed MPCA 

to increase throughput limits while 

decreasing the allowable PM10 emission 

rate (Table 1). Performance testing 

requirements at a minimum of once 

every 60 months will be used to 

demonstrate continued compliance and 

verify the updated emission factors (see 

6.2.1 (permit condition titled 

Component Group ‘‘COMG’’ 2 

unloading silos), 6.3.1 (COMG 3 existing 

unloading silos), 6.4.1 (COMG 4, bucket 

elevator and silo 3 operations), 6.5.1 

(EQUI 4, truck loading operations)). 

III. PM10 SIP and Emissions Impacts 

The approval of MPCA’s submittal 

would strengthen the Minnesota SIP by 

requiring more stringent emission 

limits, counteracting the revision of 

increased throughput limits. Table 1, 

below, shows the previous emission 

limit and new emission limit applicable 

to each unit at the facility. Considered 

together, allowable emissions will be 

decreased by 1.18 lb/hr and 0.45 lb/hr 

for the 24-hour limit and the annual 

limit, respectively. These changes 

become effective upon the effective date 

of EPA’s approval of MPCA’s June 16, 

2021, request. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO ALLOWABLE PM10 EMISSIONS IN REVISED TITLE I SIP CONDITIONS FOR BULK

SILOS

Unit description Previous unit ID New unit ID Previous PM10 emission limit New emission 

PM10 limit 

Pneumatic Conveyance to 

Silo 6.

EQUI 1 .................................. COMG 2 (EQUI 11 excluded) 0.25 lb/hr * ............................. 0.009 lb/hr.* 

Pneumatic Conveyance to 

Silo 5.

EQUI 2 .................................. 0.25 lb/hr. * 

Unloading Silos ..................... EQUI 3 (EQUI 6, 7, 11, AND 

12).

0.84 lb/hr. * 

New Silos .............................. EQUI 8, 9, 10 ........................ NA.

Silo 3 (storage silo) ............... EQUI 11 ................................ EQUI 11 ................................ 0.84 lb/hr * ............................. 0.0008 lb/hr.* 

Truck loading ........................ EQUI 4 .................................. EQUI 4 .................................. .04 lb/hr, * 0.15 tpy ** ............ .009 lb/hr.* 

New Bucket Elevator ............ NA ......................................... EQUI 5 (bucket elevator ....... NA ......................................... .0031 lb/hr.* 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20327 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO ALLOWABLE PM10 EMISSIONS IN REVISED TITLE I SIP CONDITIONS FOR BULK

SILOS—Continued 

Unit description Previous unit ID New unit ID Previous PM10 emission limit New emission 

PM10 limit 

Unpaved roads ...................... FUGI 2 .................................. FUGI 2 .................................. 0.3 tpy ** ................................ NA. 

* Daily average. 

** 24-Hour rolling average and 12 month rolling average. 

The approval of the SIP revisions 

allows the unloading of product into 

EQUIs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 12, 

contained in COMG 2. Product would 

no longer be loaded into Silo 3 (EQUI 

11). Instead, Silo 3 would serve as a 

storage silo to transfer cementitious 

product between silos 7–9 (EQUI 8, 9 

and 10). Units contained in COMG 2 are 

collectively subject to the Unloading 

Process Throughput limits and the 

‘‘New SIP PM10 Limit’’ of 0.009 lb/hr. 

Previously, EQUI 3 contained EQUI 6, 

EQUI 7, EQUI 11, and EQUI 12. These 

four units are subject to the combined 

PM10 limit of 0.84 lb/hr at COMG 1 until 

startup of the Project. Then, the PM10

limit for EQUIs 6, 7, and 12 will be 

encompassed by the PM10 limit at 

COMG 2 and the PM10 limit for EQUI 11 

will be at EQUI 11. 

IV. Section 110(l) Obligations 

In this action, EPA is approving 

MPCA’s request to update title I SIP 

Conditions related to the Bulk Silos’ 

portland cement distribution terminal. 

MPCA’s submission includes a 

noninterference demonstration 

clarification letter included within the 

docket of this rulemaking intended to 

show that its SIP revision is approvable 

under Section 110(l) of the CAA; such 

a demonstration is sometimes called an 

anti-backsliding demonstration. Section 

110(l) provides that EPA cannot approve 

a SIP revision if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

reasonable further progress (RFP), or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. 

Additionally, Section 110(l) makes 

clear that each SIP revision is subject to 

the requirements of Section 110(l). A 

state may demonstrate the revision will 

not interfere with attainment of the 

NAAQS through an air quality modeling 

analysis. As previously mentioned, 

MPCA performed a SIL modeling 

demonstration to determine compliance 

with the PM10 NAAQS, concluding that 

the facility changes at Bulk Silos will 

not interfere with the facility’s ability to 

maintain the PM10 NAAQS and total 

allowable PM10 emissions will be 

decreased. The modeling demonstration 

included updated facility-specific 

emission factors developed through 

performance testing. Further, MPCA has 

made updates to the modeling 

requirements in the Bulk Silos’ permit, 

specifically, TFAC 5.1.1 states no 

change can be made to the facility that 

would result in an increase in PM10 or 

PM2.5 emissions until it can be 

demonstrated that it would not cause an 

exceedance of the NAAQS. For these 

reasons, we conclude that the revisions 

will not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS, RFP, or any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. EPA has determined that MPCA’s 

SIP submission meets the requirements 

of section 110(l) of the CAA. 

V. What is a ‘‘Title I condition?’’ 

SIP control measures were contained 

in permits issued to culpable sources in 

Minnesota until 1990 when EPA 

determined that limits in state-issued 

permits are not federally enforceable 

because the permits expire. The state 

then issued permanent Administrative 

Orders to culpable sources in 

nonattainment areas from 1991 to 

February of 1996. 

Minnesota’s consolidated permitting 

regulations, approved into the State SIP 

on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), include 

the term ‘‘Title I condition’’ which was 

written, in part, to satisfy EPA 

requirements that SIP control measures 

remain permanent. A ‘‘Title I condition’’ 

is defined as ‘‘any condition based on 

source-specific determination of 

ambient impacts imposed for the 

purposes of achieving or maintaining 

attainment with the national ambient air 

quality standard and which was part of 

the state implementation plan approved 

by EPA or submitted to the EPA 

pending approval under section 110 of 

the act . . .’’ The rule also states that 

‘‘Title I conditions and the permittee’s 

obligation to comply with them, shall 

not expire, regardless of the expiration 

of the other conditions of the permit.’’ 

Further, ‘‘any title I condition shall 

remain in effect without regard to 

permit expiration or reissuance, and 

shall be restated in the reissued permit.’’ 

Minnesota has also initiated using 

joint title I/title V–FESOP documents as 

the enforceable document for imposing 

emission limitations and compliance 

requirements in SIPs. The SIP 

requirements in joint title I/title V– 

FESOP documents submitted by MPCA 

are cited as ‘‘Title I conditions,’’ 

therefore ensuring that SIP requirements 

remain permanent and enforceable. EPA 

reviewed the State’s procedure for using 

joint title I/title V–FESOP documents to 

implement site-specific SIP 

requirements and found it to be 

acceptable under both titles I and V of 

the Act (July 3, 1997 letter from David 

Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky, 

MPCA). 

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving a revision to 

Minnesota’s PM10 SIP for Bulk Silos, as 

submitted by MPCA on June 16, 2021, 

and reflected in conditions labeled ‘‘40 

CFR pt. 51, Title I Condition: 40 CFR 

50.6 (PM10 SIP), Title I Condition: 40 

CFR pt. 52, subp. Y’’ in the background 

document and permit (No. 12300391– 

102). 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

State plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective June 6, 2022 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by May 9, 

2022. If we receive such comments, we 

will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. If we do not receive any 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20328 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

3 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

comments, this action will be effective 

June 6, 2022. 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the Minnesota 

Regulations described in this preamble 

and set forth in the amendments to 40 

CFR part 52 below. EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 5 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.3

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and EPA will 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 6, 2022. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the proposed rules 

section of this Federal Register, rather 

than file an immediate petition for 

judicial review of this direct final rule, 

so that EPA can withdraw this direct 

final rule and address the comment in 

the proposed rulemaking. 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. 

Dated: March 31, 2022. 

Debra Shore, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 

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 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by: 

■ a. Adding an entry for ‘‘Bulk Silos’’ 

immediately following the entry for 

‘‘BAE Technology Center’’; and 

■ b. Removing the entry for ‘‘Lafarge 

North America Corporation, Childs 

Road Terminal’’. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20329 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS

Name of source Permit No. 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Bulk Silos ............... 12300391–102 6/3/2021 4/7/2022, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION].Only conditions cited as ‘‘Title I Condition: 

40 CFR 50.6 (PM10 SIP).’’ 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–07288 Filed 4–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0932; FRL–9461–02– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Determination 

of Attainment by the Attainment Date 

for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

determine that the Muscatine sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area 

attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment 

date of October 4, 2018, based upon a 

weight-of-evidence analysis using 

available air quality information. 

Additional analysis of the attainment 

determination is provided in a 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

included in the docket to this 

rulemaking. This action addresses the 

EPA’s obligation under a consent decree 

which established a deadline of March 

31, 2022 for the EPA to determine under 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 179(c) 

whether the Muscatine SO2

nonattainment area attained the NAAQS 

by the October 4, 2018, attainment date. 

The consent decree deadline was 

extended to June 30, 2022. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 9, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0932. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Heitman, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7664; 

email address: heitman.jason@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Determination 

III. Final Action 

IV. Environmental Justice Concerns 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is taking final action to 

determine that the Muscatine SO2

nonattainment area attained the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 primary NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of October 4, 

2018, based upon a weight-of-evidence 

analysis using available air quality 

information. This action also fulfills the 

EPA’s obligation under a consent decree 

in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. 

v. Regan, No. 3:20–cv–05436–EMC 

(N.D. Cal June 25, 2021), which 

established a deadline of March 31, 

2022, for the EPA to determine under 

CAA section 179(c) whether the 

Muscatine SO2 nonattainment area 

attained the NAAQS by the October 4, 

2018, attainment date. The consent 

decree deadline was extended by 

stipulation to June 30, 2022. 

II. Determination 

CAA section 179(c)(1) requires the 

Agency to ‘‘determine, based on the 

area’s air quality as of the attainment 

date, whether the area attained the 

standard by that date.’’ 

On January 26, 2022, the EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to determine that 

the Muscatine SO2 nonattainment area 

attained the NAAQS by the October 4, 

2018, attainment date. (87 FR 3958) 

During the comment period on EPA’s 

NPRM, open from January 26, 2022, to 

February 25, 2022, EPA received no 

comments. 

As discussed in the NPRM, the EPA 

first assessed what air quality 

information was available related to 

making a determination of attainment 

by the attainment date for the Muscatine 

area. The EPA chose to employ a 

weight-of-evidence approach for making 

this determination because the EPA 

does not have any analysis (including 

modeling) associated with the monitor 

siting to demonstrate that the monitors 

record maximum ambient SO2

concentrations in the NAA, nor does 

EPA have modeling of actual emissions 

to support a determination based on 

modeled ambient concentrations 

whether the area attained the NAAQS 

by the attainment date. The available 

modeling of permitted allowable 

emissions in the area, as discussed in 

the NPRM, does not on its own provide 

a basis for determining whether the area 

attained by the attainment date. Thus, 

EPA relied upon SO2 emissions data 

and trends, relevant air monitoring data 

and trends, SO2 monitoring data 

incorporated with local meteorological 

data, as well as available modeling 

information in order to make its 

determination under CAA section 

179(c)(1). 

The EPA finds that the analysis of 

multiple types of air-quality related 

information supports our determination 

and is consistent with section 

179(c)(1)’s direction to determine the 

area’s air quality as of the attainment 

date. Further detail on EPA’s weight-ofevidence analysis is contained in the 

NPRM and TSD included in the docket 

for this action. 

As discussed in the NPRM and in the 

TSD, we find that the weight of the 

available evidence indicates that the 

Muscatine area attained the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS in the 2015–2017 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES