Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28339

40 CFR Part 52

[SIPTRAX NO. DC23–1–6790a; FRL–5213–

1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; District

of Columbia; Withdrawal of the Final

Rule Pertaining to the Promulgation of

the GSA Central and West Heating

Plants Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of Notice of Direct

Final Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On May 2, 1995, EPA

published a final rule approving a

revision to the State implementation

plan for the District of Columbia. The

revision limits air pollution from two

steam-generating facilities operated by

the General Services Administration

(GSA) in the District of Columbia. This

action was published without prior

proposal because EPA anticipated no

adverse comment. Because EPA

received adverse comments on this

action, EPA is withdrawing the May 2,

1995 final rulemaking action pertaining

to the State implementation plan for the

District of Columbia.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Campbell, Technical

Assessment Section (3AT22), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107,

phone: 215 597–9781.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 2,

1995, EPA published a final rule to

approve a revision to the District of

Columbia State implementation plan

(SIP) (60 FR 21453). The revision

consists of a September 8, 1994

operating permit issued by the District

of Columbia to GSA for its Central and

West Heating Plants. The permit

establishes general operating procedures

and emission limitations at GSA’s

Central Heating Plant (CHP) and West

Heating Plant (WHP). EPA approved

this direct final rulemaking without

prior proposal because the Agency

viewed it as non-controversial and

anticipated no adverse comments. The

final rule was published in the Federal

Register with a provision for a 30 day

comment period. At the same time, EPA

published a proposed rule which

announced that this final rule would

convert to a proposed rule in the event

that adverse comments were submitted

to EPA within 30 days of publication of

the rule in the Federal Register (60 FR

21489). By publishing a notice

announcing withdrawal of the final

rulemaking action, this action would be

withdrawn. EPA received adverse

comment within the prescribed

comment period. Therefore, EPA is

withdrawing the May 2, 1995 final

rulemaking action pertaining to the

District of Columbia SIP. All public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent rulemaking action based

on the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

Oxides.

Dated: May 18, 1995.

William T. Wisniewski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 95–13283 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MN–36–1–6752a; FRL–5202–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes: Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On September 7, 1994, the

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

(MPCA) submitted a request for

redesignation to attainment for

particulate matter (PM) in the Rochester

portion of Olmsted County and sulfur

dioxide (SO2) in the Air Quality Control

Region (AQCR) 131 Twin Cities and

Pine Bend areas (excluding the St. Paul

Park area). A revision to the

administrative order for Rochester

Public Utilities (RPU) was also

submitted in support of the Olmsted

County redesignation request. The

USEPA is approving, through the use of

direct final rulemaking procedures, the

redesignation requests and the

administrative order revision for RPU.

EFFECTIVE DATES: This action will be

effective July 31, 1995 unless notice is

received by June 30, 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 redesignation request

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

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR),

Docket and Information Center (Air

Docket (6102) Room M1500, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. Washington,

D.C., 20460.

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

A request for redesignation to

attainment for PM for the Rochester area

of Olmsted County and for SO2 for the

Twin Cities area (excluding the St. Paul

Park area) was submitted by the MPCA

on September 7, 1994. The submittal

was received by USEPA on September

12, 1994. In addition to the

redesignation requests, a revision to the

administrative order for RPU was

submitted to support the request for the

Rochester area.

The Rochester area was designated as

a moderate nonattainment area for PM

upon enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 (56 FR

56694, November 6, 1991). As required

in the CAAA, revisions to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) were

submitted on November 26, 1991,

August 31, 1992, and November 13,

1992. These revisions were approved by

USEPA on February 15, 1994 (59 FR

7218).

The AQCR 131 area of Minnesota was

designated primary nonattainment for

SO2 on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8692). In

response to the redesignation, the

MPCA submitted a SO2 plan in August

1980. The USEPA published a final rule

approving the State’s SO2 Part D plan on

April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20997). Subsequent

monitored violations of the SO2

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) prompted a 1982 notice of SIP

inadequacy for the Dakota County area

of AQCR 131. Also, as a result of the

promulgation of the Good Engineering

stack height rule in 1985, the MPCA

identified modeled attainment problems

in other areas of AQCR 131. The

submittal of a revised plan for the area

was further delayed by the passage of

the CAAA in 1990. Final SO2 SIP

revisions were submitted to USEPA in
28340 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

three parts. The plan for the majority of

the AQCR 131 area was submitted May

29, 1992, and approved by USEPA on

April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17703). The plan

for the Pine Bend area (including the

Koch Refining Company) of Dakota

County was submitted on July 29, 1992,

and approved by USEPA on September

9, 1994 (59 FR 46553). The plan for the

St. Paul Park area (Ashland Petroleum

Company) of AQCR 131 was submitted

on December 22, 1992, and was

approved on January 18, 1995 (60 FR

3544), effective March 20, 1995.

The remainder of this rulemaking will

(1) evaluate the PM request for

redesignation including the revised

administrative order, (2) detail a review

of the SO2 request for redesignation, and

(3) present the final rulemaking action.

II. Analysis of Submittal

Particulate Matter Request

The State PM redesignation request

submittal consisted primarily of a

maintenance plan and air quality

monitoring data. An administrative

order was also included in the submittal

in support of the maintenance

demonstration. The submittal contained

text describing how the statutory

requirements were met. These

requirements are detailed in Title I,

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The

specific criteria and how the State

complied with the requirements are

detailed below.

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 24-hour

and annual NAAQS of 150 μg/m3 and 50

μg/m3, respectively. The modeling

demonstration was included in the

proposed SIP revision initially

submitted to USEPA on November 26,

1991, and August 31, 1992. The

modeling was performed in accordance

with the USEPA document entitled

‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models,

(Revised), including Supplement A,’’

1987. The Industrial Source ComplexShort Term (ISCST) model was used for

the analysis. The modeling utilized

urban dispersion coefficient, 5 years of

National Weather Service

meteorological data, regulatory default

modeling options, and 100 meter

spacing in high predicted impact areas.

The demonstration explicitly modeled

impacts from Rochester Public Utilities,

and added in a concentration

representative of local background

sources. The analysis showed that, with

all control measures in operation,

modeled plus background

concentrations of PM did not violate the

NAAQS. A more detailed discussion of

the modeling demonstration can be

found in the June 25, 1993, notice of

proposed rulemaking on the Rochester

PM SIP revision (58 FR 34297). That

proposed rulemaking concluded that the

air dispersion modeling met the

appropriate requirements.

Ambient air monitoring data for the

years 1988 through the first quarter of

1994, was submitted from a PM monitor

located at 7th Street and West Silver

Lake Drive. This data has been quality

assured and is available for review in

the Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS), monitor number

271090015. No monitored exceedances

of the PM NAAQS have occurred in

Olmsted County since the violation on

June 14, 1988, which precipitated the

redesignation to nonattainment for the

Rochester area.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) states that

USEPA may not promulgate a

redesignation to attainment unless

USEPA has fully approved the area SIP

under section 110(k). The PM SIP for

the Rochester area of Olmsted County

was approved by USEPA on February

15, 1994. The revised administrative

order for RPU, submitted with the

redesignation requests and discussed

more fully in a later section, is being

approved in this direct final rulemaking.

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.’’

The primary source of PM emissions

in the Rochester nonattainment area is

RPU. An administrative order, which

does not expire and which was

approved by USEPA on February 15,

1994, imposes emission limits and

operating restrictions upon the

Company. The initial order became

effective at the State level in November

1992. The attainment demonstration

submitted with the proposed SIP

revision showed that the NAAQS for

PM were not violated with the limits

and restrictions in effect. Ambient air

monitoring data shows there have been

no exceedances since June 1988.

Additionally, in 1988, RPU emitted 14.0

tons of PM, compared to 1992 annual

emissions of 8.9 tons. The information

presented by the State adequately

demonstrates that the improvement in

air quality can reasonably be attributed

to reductions in emissions which are

permanent and enforceable.

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.

Section 175A defines the general

framework of a maintenance plan as a

SIP revision and that it must provide for

maintenance of the NAAQS in the area

for at least 10 years after redesignation.

Section 175A further states that the plan

shall contain such additional measures,

as may be necessary to ensure such

maintenance. In addition, the

maintenance plan must contain

contingency measures to promptly

correct a violation of the NAAQS.

Maintenance Plan

The primary components of a

maintenance plan are (1) the attainment

inventory; (2) the maintenance

demonstration; (3) verification of

continued attainment; (4) the

monitoring network; and (5) the

contingency plan.

Attainment Inventory

The SIP revision submittal, approved

on February 15, 1994, included a PM

emission inventory as part of the

modeling demonstration. The modeling

analysis showed that the level of

emissions in the area was sufficient to

attain the PM NAAQS.

Maintenance Demonstration

As stated previously, RPU is the

primary source of PM in the

nonattainment area. An administrative

order, issued to RPU, contains emission

limits and operating restrictions which

were shown through the modeling

demonstration to provide for attainment

of the NAAQS. The administrative order

does not expire, therefore assuring that

emissions from RPU will not increase

over the next 10 years. A significant part

of the modeled attainment

demonstration is the contribution made

from sources not included in the

modeling inventory. The contribution

from these sources is called the

background concentration and is added

to the modeled concentration for a total

PM concentration. The background

concentrations for the 24-hour and

annual values were approximately 24

μg/m3 and 12 μg/m3, respectively.

Vehicle emissions represent a

background source of PM that change

over time. The submittal projected a 14

percent increase in vehicle miles

traveled (VMT) for the period from 1990

to 2005, based on information from
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28341

Olmsted County. This percentage

increase, when applied entirely to VMT

results in a 24-hour background value of

27 μg/m3, which results in a total area

concentration of about 132 μg/m3. This

is well below the NAAQS of 150 μg/m3.

The new annual total area concentration

would be about 34 μg/m3, also well

below the NAAQS. To account for

future industrial growth, the State

permitting process requires any PM

source potentially emitting 25 tons a

year to demonstrate, through dispersion

modeling, that attainment is met before

the source may obtain a permit. Minor

source growth will be checked through

ambient air monitoring, but is unlikely

to be significant enough to threaten the

NAAQS given the current level of

modeled and monitored concentrations.

Verification of Continued Attainment

Growth in the area will be monitored

by use of the following: tracking new

permit applications; tracking requests

for permit amendments; review of

annual emission inventories required by

all permitted facilities.

Monitoring Network

The monitor currently in operation in

the Rochester nonattainment area will

remain operating to verify the

attainment status of the area. The

monitor will continue to operate in

accordance with 40 Code of Federal

Regulations Part 58, and the data will

continue to be reported in AIRS.

Contingency Plan

Section 175(A)(d) of the CAA requires

the submission of contingency

provisions to assure that the State will

promptly correct any violation of the

PM standard which occurs after the area

has been redesignated to attainment.

The administrative order for RPU

contains a contingency plan. A

proposed amendment to the order was

submitted so that the contingency plan

shall be implemented if a violation of

the NAAQS is determined from

monitoring the area after the area has

been designated attainment. Prior to the

amendment, the plan would be

implemented if timely attainment failed

to occur. Thus, the amendment changes

the triggering criteria but not the

substance of the contingency measures

that were approved in the February 15,

1994, final rulemaking. The contingency

plan consists of applying a chemical

binding agent to the coal pile, along

with appropriate recordkeeping, and, if

the violation is severe enough, wheel

washing of vehicles leaving the coal

yard. These measures become

enforceable without further legislative

or rulemaking action by either the State

or USEPA and are to be implemented

immediately upon a violation of the PM

NAAQS.

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 State initially submitted

revisions to its SIP for the Rochester

nonattainment area on November 26,

1991. The submittal was reviewed

against the requirements of the CAA,

including section 110, section 189, and

section 172. A final approval

rulemaking, dated February 15, 1994,

concluded that the submittal met the

applicable requirements.

Sulfur Dioxide Request

The request for redesignation to

attainment for the Twin Cities and Pine

Bend area of AQCR 131 included

technical support information such as

ambient air monitoring data and air

dispersion modeling summaries. The

request package referenced the

attainment demonstration which

supported the recently approved SIP

revision submittals for the Twin Cities

and Pine Bend areas. The request also

describes how it meets the requirements

of Section 107, Title I, of the CAA. The

specific requirements, although listed

above, are summarized again in this

section along with details of how the

State complies with those requirements.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) states that the

Administrator may not promulgate a

redesignation of a nonattainment area to

attainment unless the Administrator

determines that the area has attained the

NAAQS. On May 29, 1992, and July 29,

1992, the MPCA submitted SIP revisions

for the Twin Cities and Pine Bend areas

of AQCR 131. The SIP revision

submittals demonstrated attainment

with the SO2 NAAQS through the use of

air dispersion modeling. These

modeling demonstrations were found to

meet the applicable requirements (59 FR

17703 and 59 FR 46553). In addition to

the modeled attainment demonstration,

ambient air monitoring data from the

area network was included which

showed no violations. The most recent

exceedances occurred in 1987.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) states that an

area may not be redesignated to

attainment unless it has a fully

approved SIP under section 110(k). The

SIP for the Twin Cities area was

approved by USEPA on April 14, 1994.

The SIP revision for the Pine Bend area

was approved by USEPA on September

9, 1994. The combination of these two

area SIPs comprises the region

requested to be redesignated to

attainment.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) states that an

area may not be redesignated to

attainment unless it is determined that

the improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from the

implementation of applicable SIP limits

and operating restrictions. The AQCR

131 Twin cities area was originally

designated nonattainment based on

monitored violations of the NAAQS

which occurred in the late seventies.

Many factors could have contributed to

the improvement in air quality since

that time (e.g., better technology, lower

sulfur fuels, reduction in number of

sources). However, it can reasonably be

determined that the enforceable

emission limits, fuel quality

specifications, and operating restrictions

that have been imposed on the

significant sources in the Twin Cities

area have contributed greatly to, and are

the primary reason for, the continued

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the

area. The State submitted data showing

the percent reductions in emissions for

the facilities which were issued

administrative orders as part of the SIP

revision. Those facilities are Federal

Hoffman, Incorporated, GAF Building

Materials Corporation, Minneapolis

Energy Center, Incorporated, Northern

States Power Company-Riverside,

United Defense, L.P., Koch Refining

Company and Sulfur Acid Unit Plant,

Continental Nitrogen and Resources

Company, and Northern States Power

Company-Inver Hills. The reductions

are primarily the result of tighter

emission limits imposed by the

administrative orders.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) states that the

Administrator may not promulgate a

redesignation to attainment unless the

area has a fully approved maintenance

plan. The maintenance plan must meet

the requirements of section 175(A) as

mentioned previously. The primary

requirement is for the SIP to provide for

maintenance of the NAAQS for at least

10 years after the redesignation.

Maintenance Plan

The basic components needed to

ensure proper maintenance of the

NAAQS are: attainment inventory,

maintenance demonstration, verification

of continued attainment, ambient air

monitoring network, and a contingency

plan.

Attainment Inventory

The air dispersion modeling included

in the May 29, 1992, and July 29, 1992,

SIP submittals contained an emission

inventory of the significant SO2 sources
28342 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

in the Twin Cities and Pine Bend areas.

The inventory was used in the computer

dispersion modeling analyses to

demonstrate attainment. The modeling

demonstrations met the appropriate

requirements.

Maintenance Demonstration and

Verification

The critical component of a

maintenance demonstration is the

ability to project attainment for a period

of at least 10 years following the

redesignation. The MPCA relied on the

dispersion modeling, submitted with

the earlier SIP revisions, to demonstrate

that the limits and operating restrictions

contained in the administrative orders

were adequate to reach attainment. The

administrative orders are Federally

enforceable and do not expire. Future

growth in the area will be monitored on

a regular basis through the State’s

permitting process. The permitting

threshold for SO2 is 50 tons a year.

Emission inventories must be submitted

to the State on an annual basis. This

will allow for monitoring of inventory

changes and growth in the area.

There are several reasons to expect

that future actual and estimated

emissions of SO2 will not increase in the

Twin Cities and Pine Bend areas;

production and use of lower sulfur

diesel fuel, reducing SO2 emissions to

avoid the permitting process, and the

conservative nature of the air dispersion

modeling demonstration.

Ambient Air Monitoring

The SO2 ambient air monitoring

network, currently in place in the Twin

Cities and Pine Bend areas, will remain

in operation in order to continue

verification of attainment status and the

data will continue to be reported in

AIRS.

Contingency Plan

Section 175A of the CAA requires that

the maintenance plan include

contingency provisions to correct any

violation of the NAAQS after

redesignation of the area. However, in

the proposed General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the CAA

Amendments of 1990, (57 FR 13498), it

states that SO2 provisions require

special considerations. A primary

reason is that SO2 control methods are

well established and understood. This

results in less uncertainty in the

modeled attainment demonstrations. It

is considered unlikely that an area

would fail to attain the standards after

it has demonstrated, through modeling,

that attainment is reached after the

limits and restrictions are fully

enforced. Therefore, contingency

measures for SO2 need only consist of

a comprehensive program to identify

sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS

and to undertake an aggressive followup

for compliance and enforcement. The

MPCA has the necessary enforcement

and compliance programs, as well as

means by which to identify violators.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that the

Administrator may not redesignate an

area to attainment unless the area has

met the applicable requirements under

section 110 and Part D. It was

determined in the final rulemaking

approval of the Twin Cities and Pine

Bend area plans that the requirements

under section 110 and Part D were met.

III. Rulemaking Action

The USEPA has evaluated the

approvability of a request for

redesignation to attainment for PM for

Rochester, MN, (including an

amendment to the administrative order

for Rochester Public Utilities-Silver

Lake Plant), and for SO2 for the Twin

Cities area and the Pine Bend area of

AQCR 131. The submittal is being

approved based on the determination

that it meets the applicable

requirements of Title I of the CAA. The

USEPA is also using this publication to

correct codification information for the

Dakota County, MN lead SIP revision

and redesignation approved on October

18, 1994 (59 FR 52431).

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 July 31, 1995,

unless USEPA receives adverse or

critical comments by June 30, 1995.

If USEPA receives comments adverse

to or critical of the approval discussed

above, USEPA will withdraw this

approval before its effective date, and

publish a subsequent Federal Register

notice which withdraws this final

action. 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.

If no such comments are received,

USEPA hereby advises the public that

this action will be effective on July 31,

1995.

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 2 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.

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 July 31, 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).)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28343

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Incorporation

by reference, Particulate matter.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control.

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: April 19, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Chapter I, parts 52 and 81,

are 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)(42) to read as

follows.

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(42) On September 7, 1994, the State

of Minnesota submitted a revision to its

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for

particulate matter for the Rochester area

of Olmsted County, Minnesota.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Amendment Two to the

administrative order for the Silver Lake

Plant of Rochester Public Utilities,

located in Rochester, Minnesota, dated

and effective August 31, 1994,

submitted September 7, 1994.

3. Section 52.1229 is revised to read

as follows: § 52.1229 Maintenance of

national standards.

(a) USEPA has approved the following

maintenance plans:

(1) The maintenance plan for lead for

Dakota County, submitted June 22,

1993.

(2) The maintenance plan for

particulate matter for Rochester,

submitted September 7, 1994.

(3) The maintenance plan for sulfur

dioxide for the Twin Cities area except

for the Ashland Refinery area, submitted

September 7, 1994.

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING

PURPOSES

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. In § 81.324, the table ‘‘Minnesota

SO2’’ is amended by revising the entry

for ‘‘AQCR 131’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.324 Minnesota.

* * * * *

MINNESOTA—SO2

Designated area

Does not

meet primary standards

Does not

meet secondary

standards

Cannot be

classified

Better than

national

standards

AQCR 131:

Anoka County ............................................................................................................ X

Carver County ............................................................................................................ X

Dakota County ........................................................................................................... X

Hennepin County ....................................................................................................... X

Ramsey County ......................................................................................................... X

Scott County (part) The area bounded on the north by Interstate 494; on the west

by Highway 52; on the south by a line from the intersection of Highway 52 and

56 east to the County Line; on the east by the County line .................................. X

Rest of Scott County .................................................................................................. X

Washington County (part) The area bounded on the west by the County line; on

the south by a line extending from the County line east to 100th Street; on the

east by Jamaica Avenue; on the north by Military Road and Interstate 494 ........ X

Rest of Washington County ....................................................................................... X

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

3. In § 81.324 the table ‘‘Minnesota

PM10’’ is amended by revising the entry

for ‘‘Olmstead County’’ to read as

follows:

§ 81.324 Minnesota.

* * * * *

MINNESOTA—PM10

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

* * * * * * *

Olmsted County ............................... July 31, 1995 .................................. Attainment ....

* * * * * * *

* * * * * 4. In § 81.324 the table ‘‘Minnesota

Lead’’ is revised to read as follows:

§ 81.324 Minnesota

* * * * *
28344 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

MINNESOTA—LEAD

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

Dakota County .................................................................................................... 12/19/94 Attainment ....

Rest of State not designated.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–13179 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 8F3671/R2137; FRL–4955–7]

RIN 2070–AB78

Alachlor; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes an

increased tolerance for residues of the

herbicide alachlor (2-chloro-2’,6’-

diethyl-N-(methoxymethyl) acetanilide)

and its metabolites in or on the raw

agricultural commodity (RAC) sorghum

forage at 2.0 parts per million (ppm).

The Monsanto Co. requested the

establishment of this maximum

permissible residue of the herbicide

pursuant the Federal Food, Drug and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective May 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [PP 8F3671/

R2137], may be submitted to: Hearing

Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. 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.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [PP 8F3671/R2137].

No Confidential Business Information

(CBI) should be submitted through email. Electronic copies of objections and

hearing requests on this rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found

below in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Robert J. Taylor, Product Manager,

(PM 25), Registration Division (7505C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 241, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-

6800; e-mail:

taylor.robert@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of April 12, 1995 (60

FR 18558), EPA issued a proposed rule

that gave notice that the Monsanto Co.,

1101 17th St., NW., Washington, DC

20036, proposed amending 40 CFR

180.249 by establishing a regulation to

permit the residues of the herbicide

alachlor (2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-

(methoxymethyl) acetanilide) and its

metabolites in or or sorghum forage at

2.0 part per million (ppm).

There were no comments or requests

for referral to an advisory committee

received in response to the proposed

rule.

The data submitted with 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 tolerance will protect

the public health. Therefore, the

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

regulation deemed objectionable and the

grounds for the objections (40 CFR

178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issue(s) on

which a hearing is requested, the

requestor’s contentions on such issues,

and a summary of any evidence relied

upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is a genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issue(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

8F3671/R2137] (including any

objections and hearing requests

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to

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

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in Room 1132 of the

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA.

Written objections and hearing

requests, identified by the document

control number [PP 8F3671/R2137],

may be submitted to the Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. 3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.