3544 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Wisconsin’s Emergency NSR

regulations. Effective date November 15,

1992.

(B) On December 12, 1994, Donald

Theiler, Director, Bureau of Air

Management, WDNR sent a letter to

USEPA clarifying Wisconsin’s

interpretation of ‘‘any period of 5

consecutive years.’’ Wisconsin

interprets the term as referring to the

five-year period including the calendar

year in which the increase from the

particular change will occur and the

four immediately preceding years.

(76) On January 14, 1994, the State of

Wisconsin submitted its rules for an

Operating Permits program intended to

satisfy federal requirements for issuing

federally enforceable operating permits.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) NR 407—Wisconsin

Administrative Code, Operating

Permits, Effective date January 1, 1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–1085 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[MN20–2–6751a; FRL–5135–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is granting direct final

approval of proposed revisions to

Minnesota State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the St.

Paul Park area of Air Quality Control

Region 131. The revisions were

contained in a formal submittal dated

December 11, 1992, and a formal

amendment submitted on September 30,

1994. USEPA’s action is based upon a

revision request which was submitted

by the State to satisfy the requirements

of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This action will be effective

March 20, 1995, unless notice is

received by February 17, 1995, 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 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:

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 December 11, 1992, the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

submitted proposed revisions to its SIP

for SO2 for the St. Paul Park area of Air

Quality Control Region 131. The

submittal also contained technical

information to support demonstration

and maintenance of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for SO2. On September 2,

1994 (59 FR 45653) the USEPA

proposed to disapprove the MPCA

submittal based on several

enforceability and attainment

demonstration issues. However, that

notice also stated that if the MPCA

adequately addressed the concerns

before the end of the 30-day comment

period, and if no other substantive,

adverse comments were received,

USEPA would proceed with a direct

final approval. On September 30, 1994,

the MPCA submitted a revised proposed

SIP, along with technical information,

addressing the issues raised in the

proposed disapproval. The notice of

proposed rulemaking (59 FR 45653)

contained a comprehensive discussion

of the history of the submittal, the

attainment demonstration, the

requirements of section 172 of the CAA,

42 U.S.C. 7502, and the issues identified

by USEPA concerning enforceability

and attainment demonstration aspects of

the submittal. This notice of direct final

rulemaking will summarize the major

items of the submittal as well as provide

information as to how the September 30,

1994, MPCA submittal addressed the

issues identified in the proposed

rulemaking.

Background

The USEPA published the designation

of AQCR 131 as a primary

nonattainment area for SO2 on March 3,

1978 (43 FR 8692). The MPCA

submitted a final SO2 plan on August 4,

1980. The USEPA published its final

rule approving and promulgating the

Minnesota Part D SIP for SO2 for AQCR

131 on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20997).

AQCR 131, however, has not been

redesignated to attainment. The

promulgation of the Stack Height Rule

on July 8, 1985, required the MPCA to

review existing emission limitations to

determine if any sources were affected

by the new Rule. The MPCA determined

that Ashland Petroleum Company,

located in the St. Paul Park area of

AQCR 131, would require additional

permit revisions due to modeled

violations using the reduced creditable

stack heights.

In response to the modeled violations,

the MPCA submitted a proposed SIP

revision for SO2 for the St. Paul Park

area on December 11, 1992. The

submittal included an administrative

order for the Ashland Petroleum

Company-St. Paul Park Refinery, in

addition to dispersion modeling and

technical support intended to show that

the limits are sufficient to attain and

maintain the NAAQS for SO2. A

subsequent revision, containing an

amended administrative order for

Ashland Petroleum Company and

additional technical support, was

submitted on September 30, 1994.

II. Submittal Review Summary

This section will provide a summary

of USEPA’s review of the attainment

demonstration and administrative order

for Ashland Petroleum Company. A

more detailed description is contained

in the notice of proposed rulemaking

(59 FR 45653) and in the technical

support document associated with this

action.

Modeling Methodology

Section 172(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act

requires that plan revisions include

enforceable emission limitations and

other control measures, means or

techniques, necessary to provide for

attainment of the applicable NAAQS.

The State submittal demonstrated

attainment through the use of air

dispersion modeling. The primary

guidance for such demonstrations is the

‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models

(Revised)’’ (1986), Supplement A (1987),

and Supplement B (1993), which

specifies the criteria for selection of

dispersion models and for estimation of

emissions and other model inputs. In

accordance with that guidance, the

dispersion modeling conducted for the

administrative order in the submittal

was performed using the Industrial
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3545

Source Complex Short-term (ISCST)

model (version 90346) for calculation of

the 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual average

concentrations. The model used the

regulatory default option, urban mode 3

(McElroy-Pooler) dispersion

coefficients, one year of on-site

meteorological surface data with upper

air data from St. Cloud, Minnesota, and

receptors spaced at 100 meter intervals

at areas of maximum predicted impact.

The emissions used in the modeling

were based on the maximum emissions

allowed at each source. The modeled

concentrations, plus monitored

background concentrations, showed

attainment with the 3-hour, 24-hour,

and annual NAAQS.

Issue Resolution

As stated previously, several issues

were identified in the original December

1992 submittal. The issues were

detailed in the September 2, 1994,

notice of proposed disapproval. The

issues and how they were addressed in

the amended submittal sent to USEPA

on September 30, 1994, are discussed

below.

(1) The definition of 24-hour average

was incorrect. It has been revised to

correctly define the 24-hour average as

the quantity of pollutant emitted during

any 24 consecutive hours divided by 24.

(2) There was a discrepency between

the modeling demonstration and the

administrative order as to the number of

allowable hours during which the

Company is allowed to conduct

decoking operations. The number of

allowable decoking hours in the

administrative order was changed to

reflect what was used in the modeled

attainment demonstration.

(3) The limit on hydrogen sulfide in

the refinery gas of 162 parts per million,

as written in the original administrative

order, did not apply during periods of

startup, shutdown, breakdown,

maintenance and repair of the fuel gas

amine system, SRU1, SRU2, the tailgas

recovery unit (SCOT), the heavy

distillate hydrotreater, and significant

decreases in hydrogen production. An

USEPA concern was that allowing these

exemptions may jeopardize the SO2

standards since these scenarios were not

included in the attainment

demonstration. The amended

administrative order removes all of the

exemptions except for regularly

scheduled maintenance and repair of

the tailgas recovery unit and the amine

regenerating unit. Air dispersion

modeling, following the modeling

guidance, was conducted to

demonstrate that the SO2 NAAQS are

not violated during these periods. This

information was submitted with the

amended order that included revised

emission limits and recordkeeping

requirements which are effective during

these scheduled maintenance and repair

periods.

(4) A provision in the original

administrative order stated that no

facility be allowed to operate if it

experienced an unreasonable

breakdown freqency of control

equipment. This provision was

determined to be unenforceable and was

removed.

(5) The original administrative order

stated that to the extent that additional

requirements were imposed upon the

Company, the Company shall comply

with the more stringent requirements.

This presented an enforceability issue

and the language was revised to read

that the Company shall also comply

with the additional requirements.

(6) An issue was raised regarding air

quality impacts when the tailgas unit is

bypassed. This issue was addressed

through the dispersion modeling

conducted for the scheduled

maintenance scenarios discussed above.

The modeling indicated that when the

tailgas unit is being bypassed, the

standards are not violated.

Recordkeeping requirements remain in

effect during these bypass periods and

emissions are monitored by continuous

emission monitors.

(7) The amended administrative order

revised a section title to apply to

sources not subject to New Source

Performance Standards. Additionally,

the amended administrative order

revised testing language to state that

testing capacity may be specified by

USEPA as well as by the MPCA.

Section 172 Requirements

Air Quality Control Region 131 is

designated as a nonattainment area for

the primary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide.

Sulfur dioxide nonattainment areas

must meet the requirements of Subpart

I of Part D of Subchapter I of the Clean

Air Act, particularly section 172(c).

Guidance on the requirements of section

172 is given in the General Preamble for

the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 at

57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). The

USEPA has determined that the State

submittal meets the applicable

requirements of section 172. A detailed

justification of this determination is

provided in the September 2, 1994,

notice of proposed rulemaking. 59 FR

45653.

Public Comments

A public comment period was

associated with the notice of proposed

rulemaking. No comments were

received.

III. Rulemaking Action

This action has evaluated the

approvability of the Minnesota SO2 SIP

revision submittal for the St. Paul Park

area of Air Quality Control Region 131.

It has been determined that the

submittal meets the applicable

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Therefore, USEPA is granting direct

final approval.

Because USEPA considers this action

noncontroversial and routine, we are

approving it through direct final

rulemaking. The action will become

effective on March 20, 1995, unless

notice is received by February 17, 1995,

that someone wishes to submit adverse

or critical comments. If the effective

date is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the 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. 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-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

State Implementation Plan approvals

under section 110 and subchapter I, Part

D of the Clean Air 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 Clean Air Act,
3546 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The

Clean Air 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 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 March 20, 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, 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: December 16, 1994.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, chapter I, part 52, 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)(38) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(38) On December 22, 1992 and

September 30, 1994, the State of

Minnesota submitted revisions to its

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for

sulfur dioxide for the St. Paul Park area

of Air Quality Control Region (AQCR)

131.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) For Ashland Petroleum Company,

located in St. Paul Park, Minnesota:

(1) An administrative order, dated and

effective December 15, 1992, submitted

December 22, 1992.

(2) Amendment One to the

administrative order, dated and effective

September 30, 1994, submitted

September 30, 1994.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) A letter from Charles Williams to

Valdas Adamkus dated December 22,

1992, with enclosures providing

technical support (e.g., computer

modeling) for the revision to the

administrative order for Ashland

Petroleum Company.

(B) A letter from Charles Williams to

Valdas Adamkus dated September 30,

1994, with enclosures, submitting

Amendment One to the administrative

order for Ashland Petroleum Company.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–1083 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 2E4057/R2099; FRL–4929–9]

RIN 2070–AB78

Pesticide Tolerance for Glufosinate

Ammonium

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes a

time-limited tolerance for combined

residues of the herbicide glufosinate

ammonium, monoammonium 2-amino4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoate,

and its metabolite, 3-

methylphosphinicopropionic acid

expressed as 2-amino-4-

(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic

acid equivalents, in or on the imported

raw agricultural commodity bananas at

0.3 part per million. (Not more than 0.2

ppm shall be present in the pulp after

the peel is removed.) Hoechst Celanese

Corp. (now AgrEVO Corp.) petitioned

for this regulation to establish a

maximum permissible level for

combined residues of the herbicide.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective January 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections,

identified by the document control

number, [PP 2E4057/R2099], may be

submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900),

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460. A copy of any objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk should be identified by the

document control number and

submitted to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

copy of objections and hearing requests

to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Fees

accompanying objections shall be

labeled ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees’’ and

forwarded to: EPA Headquarters

Accounting Operations Branch, OPP

(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M,

Pittsburgh, PA 15251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Joanne I. Miller, Product Manager

(PM) 23, Registration Division (7505C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 237, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305–

7830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of November 14, 1994

(59 FR 56452), EPA issued a proposed

rule that gave notice that the AgrEVO

Corp., Little Falls Center One, 2711

Centerville Rd., Wilmington, DE 19808,

had submitted pesticide petition (PP)

2E4057 to EPA. The petition requested

that the Administrator, pursuant to

section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.

346a(e), etablish a tolerance for

combined residues of the herbicide

glufosinate ammonium

(monoammonium 2-amino-4-

(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) butanoate)

and its metabolite, 3-

methylphosphinicopropionic acid, in or

on the imported raw agricultural

commodity bananas at 0.2 ppm. The

petition was subsequently amended to

raise the tolerance level to 0.3 ppm.

There were no comments or requests

for referral to an advisory committee

received in response to the proposed

rule.

The data submitted on the proposal

and other relevant material have been

evaluated and discussed in the

proposed rule. Based on the data and

information considered, the Agency

concludes that the time-limited

tolerance will protect the public health.

Therefore, the time-limited tolerance is

established as set forth below.

Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register, file written objections

and/or request a hearing with the

Hearing Clerk, at the address given

above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the

objections and/or hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

submitted to the OPP docket for this

rulemaking. The objections submitted

must specify the provisions of the