Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Minnesota

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN58-01-7283; FRL-6342-6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;

Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve

a revision to the Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for

attainment and maintenance for the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for Carbon Monoxide (CO). The revision pertains to the

Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area which includes the following

counties: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, Washington,

and Wright. The revision proposed for approval is the maintenance plan

required pursuant to section 175A of the Clean Air Act (Act) for areas

redesignated from nonattainment to attainment. Correspondingly, EPA is

also proposing to approve the redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul

CO Area to attainment. EPA will not finalize this approval until the

EPA approves the vehicle Inspection/Maintenance program for the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by June 14,

1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United

States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone

[[Page 25856]]

Michael Leslie at (312) 353-6680 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

A copy of these SIP revisions are available for inspection at the

following location: 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, (202) 260-7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Leslie, Regulation

Development Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation

Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Minneapolis/St. Paul CO Nonattainment Area

On March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8902), pursuant to section 107 of the Act,

EPA designated the Minneapolis/St. Paul area as nonattainment with

respect to the CO NAAQS. The 1990 amendments to the Act authorized EPA

to designate nonattainment areas and to classify them according to

degree of severity. Therefore, on November 16, 1991 (56 FR 56694), the

EPA designated the Minneapolis/St. Paul area moderate CO nonattainment

with a design value of 11.4 parts per million (ppm). The Act defines

the design value as the second highest ambient CO concentration

averaged over two years. The Act establishes regulatory requirements

for CO nonattainment areas based on the area's design value.

B. Redesignation Request

Under the Act, nonattainment areas can be redesignated to

attainment if sufficient data are available to satisfy five criteria

contained in section 107(d)(3) of the Act. These criteria include the

requirements that the area has attained and can maintain the applicable

NAAQS standards.

For the period from 1995 to 1996, the Minneapolis/St. Paul area

ambient monitoring data shows no violations of the CO NAAQS. Therefore,

pursuant to section 107(d) of the Act, the area became eligible for

redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. On March 23, 1998,

pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Act, the State of Minnesota

requested the redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area to

attainment with respect to the CO NAAQS. In order to ensure continued

attainment of the CO standard, Minnesota also submitted a maintenance

plan as required by section 175A of the Act. If the redesignation is

approved, the section 175A maintenance plan would become a federally

enforceable part of the SIP for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. On

February 23, 1998, the State's 30 day public comment period closed on

the maintenance plan component of the redesignation request. The State

included responses to all public comments in the submittal.

II. Redesignation Under Section 107(d)(3)(E) Criteria

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act provides five specific requirements

that an area must meet to be redesignated from nonattainment to

attainment:

1. The area has attained the applicable NAAQS;

2. The area has met all relevant requirements under section 110 and

part D of the Act;

3. The area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the

Act;

4. The air quality improvement is permanent and enforceable;

5. The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to

section 175A of the Act.

III. Review of State Submittal

The Minnesota redesignation request for the Minneapolis/St. Paul

area meets the five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E). EPA's

Technical Support Document, dated May 3, 1999, from Michael Leslie to

the Docket, entitled ``Technical Review of Minnesota's State

Implementation Plan Revision for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Nonattainment

Area Carbon Monoxide Redesignation,'' contains a detailed analysis of

the Minnesota redesignation request and the Section 175A maintenance

plan for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. An abbreviated analysis of the

Minnesota redesignation request is set forth below.

A. Attainment of the CO NAAQS

The Minnesota request is based on ambient air CO monitoring data

for calendar year 1995 through calendar year 1996. The data, which has

been reviewed for technical precision and accuracy, shows no violations

of the CO NAAQS in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Further, EPA has

reviewed 1997 and 1998 CO monitoring data which also indicate no

violations of the CO NAAQS. Because the Minneapolis/St. Paul area has

quality-assured data which indicate no violations of the standard over

the two most recent and consecutive calendar year periods, the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area has met the first statutory criterion for

redesignation to attainment of the CO NAAQS. The State will continue to

monitor the area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. (If complete

quality assured data show violations of the CO NAAQS before the final

EPA action on this redesignation, the EPA proposes that it disapprove

the redesignation request.)

B. Meeting Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part D

Minnesota is required to have a fully adopted SIP before the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area can be redesignated to attainment for CO. On

June 16, 1980 (45 FR 40581), EPA gave final approval to Minnesota's SIP

for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area as meeting the requirements of

section 110(a)(2) and part D of the Act. For the purpose of fulfilling

the Part D requirements for all nonattainment areas in the State,

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted, and EPA approved

on May 2, 1995, and April 28, 1994, respectively, the State's operating

permit program (60 FR 21451) and the New Source Review program (59 FR

21941). Specific requirements under section 110 and additional sections

under part D of the Act are discussed below, including those

requirements arising under the 1990 amendments to the Act.

1. Section 110 Requirements

The Minneapolis/St. Paul area SIP meets the requirements of section

110(a)(2) of the Act as amended by the 1990 amendments. As noted above,

on June 16, 1980 (45 FR 40581) EPA approved Minnesota's SIP for the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area for meeting, among other things, the

requirements of section 110. Although the 1990 amendments amended

certain provisions of section 110 of the Act (57 FR 27936 and 57 FR

23939, June 23, 1993), the EPA analyzed the SIP and has determined that

it is consistent with the requirements of amended section 110(a)(2).

2. Part D Requirements

The Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area must fulfill the

applicable requirements of part D before it can be redesignated to

attainment. Under part D, applicable requirements are based upon an

area's severity classification. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the

basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas,

classified as well as nonclassifiable. Subpart 3 of part D sets forth

additional requirements for CO nonattainment areas classified pursuant

to table 1 of section 186(a). Because the Minneapolis/St. Paul area has

a design value of 12.7 ppm CO, it is classified as moderate CO

nonattainment pursuant to table 1 of section 186(a). Therefore, prior

to

[[Page 25857]]

redesignation, the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area must meet

all of the applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D (including

the requirements set forth at sections 172(c) and 176 of the Act) and

subpart 3 of part D.

a. Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 172(c) Provisions. Section 172(c)

sets forth general requirements applicable to all nonattainment area

SIPs, including provisions which implement reasonably available control

technology (RACT) for existing sources, a new source review (NSR)

program which meets the requirements of section 173, reasonable further

progress (RFP) toward attainment of the applicable standard, an

emission inventory of sources of the relevant pollutant, and a

demonstration of attainment by the applicable attainment date. Under

172(b), a schedule of plan submissions to fulfill the section 172(c)

requirements must be submitted to EPA no later than three years after

an area has been designated as nonattainment.

Minnesota has satisfied all of the section 172(c) requirements

necessary for redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Further,

because the Minneapolis/St. Paul area was subject to the nonattainment

plan requirements in effect prior to the enactment of the 1990

Amendments, many of the subpart 1 requirements had been met prior to

the enactment of the amendments.

The Minnesota SIP provides for the implementation of RACT for

existing CO sources, as required by section 172(c)(1). The Minnesota

SIP meets the requirements for RFP. Further, because the Minneapolis/

St. Paul area has attained the CO NAAQS, no new RFP requirements under

section 172(c)(2) apply. The Section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory

requirements were met when EPA approved the 1990 base year inventory on

September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47807).

Section 172(c)(4) requires states to demonstrate that emissions

quantified based upon growth will be consistent with the achievement of

RFP, and will not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.

The proposed maintenance plan demonstrates continued attainment through

the year 2009. Further, the State will maintain an ambient monitoring

network to ensure that the NAAQS continue to be met.

Section 172(c)(5) requires states to implement NSR permitting

requirements that meet the requirements of section 173 of the Act.

Minnesota's operating permit program and New Source Review program,

which EPA approved on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21451) and April 28, 1994 (59

FR 21941), respectively, meet section 173 requirements.

Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires contingency plans in the

event that the nonattainment fails to make RFP or the standard. Here,

however, the area has met its RFP requirements and has attained the

standard. Further, Minnesota has provided contingency measures in the

proposed 175A maintenance plan. Therefore, it is unnecessary to apply

the requirement for contingency measures for this nonattainment area

under the de minimis approach.

b. Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 176 Conformity Provisions. Section

176(c) of the Act requires States to revise their SIPs to establish

criteria and procedures to ensure that Federal actions, before they are

taken, conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable

State SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to

transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or

approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act

(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal

actions (``general conformity''). Section 176 of the Act further

provides that the conformity revisions to be submitted by States must

be consistent with Federal conformity regulations that the Act required

the EPA to promulgate. EPA approved Minnesota's general conformity rule

on April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19674).

The EPA believes the conformity requirements are not applicable

requirements for evaluating the redesignation request under section

107(d). This is based on two related factors. First, redesignated areas

are required by their section 175A maintenance plans to submit SIP

revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the Act. Second,

EPA's Federal conformity rules require conformity analyses for areas

that lack federally approved State rules. Therefore, areas are subject

to the conformity requirements when designated to attainment or when

not subject to federally approved State rules. Therefore, conformity

requirements are not required for purposes of evaluating a

redesignation request. Consequently, the CO redesignation request for

the Minneapolis/St. Paul area may be approved notwithstanding the lack

of a fully approved conformity SIP.

Included in the submittal is a commitment by the State to satisfy

the applicable requirements of the final transportation conformity

rules. This is acceptable because the transportation conformity rule

applies to maintenance areas.

For purposes of transportation conformity, the control measures in

the maintenance plan establish an emissions budget. The State has

defined this budget for year 2009 as 993 tons per day of CO for onroad

mobile sources. This level of emissions provides for continued

maintenance of the CO standard.

c. Subpart 3 of Part D Requirements. The Minneapolis/St. Paul area

is classified as moderate nonattainment (less than 12.7 ppm CO). Hence,

part D, Subpart 3, section 187(a) requirements apply. Section 187(a)

requirements that were in effect prior to the submission of the request

to redesignate the Minneapolis/St. Paul area must be fully approved

into the SIP prior to redesignating the area to attainment. EPA's

approval of these provisions are discussed below:

(1) 1990 Base Year Emission Inventory

On September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47807), EPA approved the 1990 base

year emission inventory for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

(2) Oxygenated Fuel Program

On October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50493), EPA approved the Oxygenated fuel

program for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

(3) 1993 Periodic CO Emissions Inventory

On October 27, 1997 (62 FR 55203), EPA approved the 1993 Periodic

CO emissions inventory for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

(4) Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)

Section 187(a)(4) of the Act requires states with areas designed

moderate nonattainment for CO to improve existing I/M programs or

implement new ones. Because the Minneapolis/St. Paul area is classified

as a moderate CO nonattainment area, Section 187 required the State to

develop a SIP for I/M that met the basic I/M requirements contained in

the Act and in the corresponding regulations codified at 40 CFR part

51, subpart S.

On November 10, 1992, the State submitted its initial I/M plan to

the EPA, which it supplemented by submittals made on November 12, 1993,

and December 15, 1993. On October 13, 1994, the EPA published a

rulemaking action approving, and conditionally approving, portions of

Minnesota's I/M plan. A detailed discussion of EPA's rulemaking action

can be found in the final rule at 59 FR 51860. As part of the

rulemaking action the EPA identified a number of deficiencies in the

State's plan and issued a conditional approval,

[[Page 25858]]

requiring Minnesota to submit a revised plan within one year of the

conditional approval date. Although the State timely responded to the

deficiencies by submittals dated July 8, 1996, and September 24, 1996,

the State legislature is currently modifying the existing I/M

legislation to finalize corrections to the deficiencies. EPA has not

yet acted on these submittals. EPA will not finalize its approval of

the redesignation until such time that EPA approves the State's I/M SIP

for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

As described above, the State has presented an adequate

demonstration that it has met the requirements applicable to the area

under section 110 and part D.

C. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the Act.

The third redesignation requirement set forth in section

107(d)(3)(E) is that the area have a fully approved SIP under section

110(k) of the Act. Upon EPA's approval of the Minneapolis/St. Paul I/M

program and of this maintenance plan submittal, the State will have a

fully approved SIP under section 110(k). As discussed above, these

approvals will also satisfy the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirement that

the area meet all requirements under section 110 and part D of the Act.

D. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable Measures

The fourth redesignation requirement set forth in section

107(d)(3)(E) requires the State to demonstrate that the actual

enforceable emission reductions are responsible for the recent

improvement in air quality. This demonstration may be accomplished

through an estimate of the percent reduction (from the year that was

used to determine the design value for designation and classification)

achieved through Federal measures, such as the Federal Motor Vehicle

Control Program (FMVCP) or the fuel volatility rules, or through

control measures that the State has adopted and implemented.

The State established the emission reductions for the period from

1990 to 1996 based on the FMVCP and fuels programs, which the State

determined are responsible for the improvement in air quality. All

emission projections are based on the 1990 base year emission

inventory, which EPA approved on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47807).

Consistent with emission inventory guidance, the 1990 base year

emission inventory represents 1990 average winter day actual emissions

for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Arbor area. The State projected the 1990

base year emissions forward to 1996, in order to determine the emission

reductions during this time period. The State developed the growth

factors for the projections.

Based on available actual emission data from 1995, Minnesota

estimated the 1996 point source emissions as equivalent to the 1995

actual emissions. Minnesota estimated future years (1998 and beyond)

point source emissions by using the maximum potential to emit, which

included current controls.

Minnesota developed area source growth factors from the Twin Cities

Metropolitan Council and the State Planning Office projections of

employment, housing, and population data. Minnesota applied the growth

factors to the 1990 base year inventory for the Minneapolis/St. Paul

area. The State also utilized growth factors for railroad emissions

developed from the United States Bureau of Public Analysis projections.

The State used the MOBILE5a model to develop the mobile source

emission estimates. The significant input parameters for the MOBILE5a

model are presented in Chapter 3 of the State's TSD. The State employed

methodologies to develop the on-highway mobile source emissions, which

included the Federal highway administration (FHWA) highway performance

monitoring system (HPMS) traffic count for 1990 vehicle miles traveled

(VMT), supplemental traffic count data meeting HPMS standards for 1990,

projection of VMT to projection years using a transportation model

calibrated with HPMS VMT data, and MOBILE5a emission factors and

estimating emissions with modeled VMT and MOBILE5a. Mobile source

methodologies are described in detail in Chapter 3 of the State's TSD.

The following tables present the CO emissions for 1990 and 1996 and

emission reductions from 1990 to 1996. The State claimed credit for

emission reductions achieved as a result of implementation of the

federally enforceable FMVCP, oxygenated fuel, and I/M control measures.

The emission reductions claimed are conservative since they do not

account for emission reductions resulting from other control measures

and programs implemented during this time period.

As illustrated by the tables and discussed in the State's

submittal, the total reductions achieved from 1990 to 1996 are 931 tons

of CO per day.

Table 1.--CO Emission Inventory Summary for Demonstration of Emission Reductions From 1990-1996

[Tons per day]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net change

Category 1990 1996 1988-1993

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point........................................................... 274 169 -105

Area............................................................ 283 303 +20

Non-Road Mobile................................................. 173 189 +16

On-Road Mobile.................................................. 1976 1114 -862

Total....................................................... 2706 1775 -931

Net Reduction............................................... .............. .............. -931

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The State has demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is

due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions of 931 tons of CO

per day as a result of implementing the federally enforceable FMVCP,

Oxygenated Fuel, and Inspection/Maintenance reductions.

E. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A

The final requirement for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(e)

is that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to

section 175A of the Act. Section 175A of the Act sets forth the

elements for maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation. Such

plans must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for

at least 10 years after the EPA approves a redesignation to attainment.

Eight years after the redesignation, States must submit revised

maintenance plans which demonstrate attainment for the 10 years

following the initial 10-year

[[Page 25859]]

period. To address potential future NAAQS violations, maintenance plans

must contain contingency measures, with schedules to assure prompt

correction of any air quality problems. Section 175A(d) requires that

the contingency provisions include a requirement that States implement

all control measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation.

In this action, EPA is proposing approval of the State of

Minnesota's 175A maintenance plan for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

EPA finds that Minnesota's submittal meets the requirements of section

175A, provided that the State continues to implement all the control

measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation as an attainment

area. If, after notice and comment, EPA determines that it should give

final approval to the maintenance plan, the Minneapolis/St. Paul

nonattainment area will have a fully approved maintenance plan in

accordance with section 175A. The following is a discussion of the

basis for proposing approval of Minnesota's 175A maintenance plan.

1. Emissions Inventory--Attainment Inventory

The State has developed an attainment emission inventory for 1996

that identifies 1775 tons of CO per day as the level of emissions in

the area sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS.

All inventories in the maintenance plan were derived from the 1990

base year emission inventory. The methodologies used in developing

these inventories are discussed in section (3) of EPA's TSD and in

further detail in sections 4.0 and 6.0 of the State's TSD. EPA approved

the 1990 base year emission inventory on September 19, 1994 (59 FR

47806). The State has adequately developed an attainment emissions

inventory for 1996 that identifies the levels of emissions as 1775 tons

of CO per days the level of emissions in the area sufficient to attain

the NAAQS.

2. Demonstration of Maintenance--Projected Inventories

To demonstrate continued attainment the State projected CO

emissions through the maintenance period to the year 2009 and for

interim years 1998 and 2008. These emissions are presented in Table 2

of the submittal and summarized below in Table 2. These projected

emission inventories demonstrate that the CO emissions will remain

below the attainment year, 1996, emission levels. The emissions

projections through the year 2009 show an emissions reduction of 1026

tons of CO per day by 2009. These emission reductions are primarily the

result of continued implementation of the federally enforceable FMVCP.

The methodologies used in developing the projection inventories are

the same as those employed for the other inventories contained in the

submittal and are discussed in EPA's TSD and in further detail in

sections 4.0 and 6.0 of the State's TSD.

Table 2.--CO Maintenance Emission Inventory Projection Summary through 2009

[Tons per day]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net change

Category 1990 1996 1998 2008 2009 1993-2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point................................................... 274 169 229 229 229 -45

Area.................................................... 283 303 311 338 340 57

Non-Road Mobile......................................... 173 189 195 212 213 40

On-Road Mobile.......................................... 1976 1114 1032 882 898 -1078

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total............................................... 2706 1775 1767 1661 1680 -1026

Net Reduction........................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. -1026

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The State has adequately demonstrated continued attainment of the

CO NAAQS through the projection of CO emissions through the 10 year

maintenance period to 2009 and for the interim years 1998 and 2008.

These projections indicate that CO emissions throughout the maintenance

period will remain well below the 1996 attainment inventory.

The performed microscale CO modeling to predict maximum CO

concentrations for ten ``hot-spot'' intersections. The State used the

procedures outlined in EPA's guidance entitled, ``Guideline for

Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections,'' to select the

appropriate intersections for the modeling analysis. The intersections

in Table 3 were selected based traffic volumes and Level of Service

(LOS), which are indicators of potential hot-spots.

Table 3.--Intersections Used for Microscale CO Modeling

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intersection Area type

------------------------------------------------------------------------

T.H. 169 at CSAH 81...................... Developing.

T.H. 101 at T.H. 7....................... Developing.

T.H. 100 at CSAH 81...................... Developing.

T.H. 10 at University.................... Developing.

T.H. 252 at 85th Ave..................... Developing.

T.H. 252 at 66th Ave..................... Developing/Developing.

T.H. 252 at Brookdale Dr................. Developing.

University at Lexington Ave.............. St. Paul.

Snelling at University................... St. Paul.

Hennepin Ave. at Lake St................. Minneapolis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information on the approach volumes, intersection signal timing,

intersection geometries, meteorological condition are necessary to

perform the analysis. The State obtained this traffic data from the

Minnesota Department of Transportation, the city of Minneapolis, the

city of St. Paul, various consultants. Growth factors for the

intersections future year volumes were developed by the Metropolitan

Council, the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Minneapolis/St.

Paul area.

Two scenario's were modeled as part of the analysis. First, CO

concentrations were modeled with the current I/M program and oxygenated

fuel program in place. Second, CO concentrations were modeled with only

oxygenated fuel program in place, assuming that the I/M program is

discontinued in 1998.

The State used EPA approved models CAL3QHC and CAL3QHCR to generate

CO concentrations for the microscale analysis. The MOBILE5a model was

used to generate idle and free flow emission factors for the analysis.

The submittal provides detailed information on the I/M program (with

the associated anti-tampering program), parameters for the oxygenated

fuel program, ambient temperature, and Reid Vapor Pressure. MOBILE

model defaults were used for the vehicle population mix and vehicle

mileage accumulation. Results of the modeling analysis are shown in

Tables 4 and 5.

[[Page 25860]]

Table 4.--CO Concentrations for year 1998

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current I/M Program

-------------------------------

Intersection 1 hour 8 hour

concentration concentration

------------------------------------------------------------------------

T.H. 169 at CSAH 81..................... 11.8 8.5

T.H. 101 at T.H. 7...................... 11.2 8.1

T.H. 100 at CSAH 81..................... 11.1 8.0

T.H. 10 at University................... 10.9 7.8

T.H. 252 at 85th Ave.................... 12.5 9.0

T.H. 252 at 66th Ave.................... 10.8 7.8

T.H. 252 at Brookdale Dr................ 10.2 7.3

University at Lexington Ave............. 9.3 6.8

Snelling at University.................. 9.9 7.2

Hennepin Ave. at Lake St................ 9.2 6.6

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5.--CO Concentrations for year 2008

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current I/M Program Without current I/M program

---------------------------------------------------------------

Intersection 1 hour 8 hour 1 hour 8 hour

concentration concentration concentration concentration

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T.H. 169 at CSAH 81............................. 9.7 7.0 10.7 7.7

T.H. 101 at T.H. 7.............................. 9.0 6.5 10.0 7.2

T.H. 100 at CSAH 81............................. 8.2 5.9 9.1 6.5

T.H. 10 at University........................... 8.1 5.8 9.0 6.5

T.H. 252 at 85th Ave............................ 9.9 7.1 10.7 7.7

T.H. 252 at 66th Ave............................ 8.4 6.0 9.4 6.8

T.H. 252 at Brookdale Dr........................ 8.5 6.1 9.2 6.6

University at Lexington Ave..................... 7.7 5.6 8.4 6.1

Snelling at University.......................... 8.0 5.8 8.8 6.4

Hennepin Ave. at Lake St........................ 6.9 5.0 8.7 5.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These modeled values are below the NAAQS for both the 1 hour (35 ppm)

and the 8 hour (9 ppm) standard through the maintenance period.

3. Verification of Continued Attainment

Section 175A requires States to set up a process to assess the

area's continued maintenance of the applicable NAAQS. This process must

include operation of the area's monitoring network, tracking of

emissions through modeling or emissions inventories, and setting up

triggers for implementing the contingency plan. The following is a

discussion of Minnesota's fulfillment of these requirements.

a. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network. In its submittal and

TSD, the State commits to continue to operate and maintain the network

of ambient CO monitoring stations in accordance with provisions of 40

CFR part 58, in order to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the CO

NAAQS.

b. Tracking of Attainment. The State's submittal presents a

tracking plan for the maintenance period which consists of two

components: continued CO monitoring and inventory or modeling updates.

The State will continue to monitor CO levels throughout the area to

demonstrate ongoing compliance with the CO NAAQS. The State also

commits to conduct periodic inventories for the redesignated area every

three years using the most recent emission factors, models and

methodologies. The inventories will begin in 2002, with reviews

conducted every 3 years. The State will submit to EPA a review of the

assumptions and data used for the development of the attainment

inventory in 2002. The periodic inventory will consist of reviewing the

assumptions of the maintenance demonstration such as VMT, population,

and employment.

The modeling demonstrations will be reevaluated every three years.

The State will determine the validity of the modeling assumptions and

the input data as part of this analysis.

c. Triggers. The contingency plan contains one trigger, a monitored

air quality violation of the CO NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR 50.8. The

trigger date will be the date that the State certifies to the U.S. EPA

that the air quality data are quality assured, which will be no later

than 30 days after an ambient air quality violation is monitored. The

justification for providing only one trigger is that section 175A(d)

explicitly stipulates that a contingency measure must ensure prompt

correction of any violation of the NAAQS once the area is redesignated.

4. Contingency Plan

The level of CO emissions in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area will

largely determine its ability to stay in compliance with the CO NAAQS

in the future. Despite best efforts to demonstrate continued compliance

with the NAAQS, the ambient air pollutant concentrations may exceed or

violate the NAAQS. Therefore, as required by section 175A of the Act,

Minnesota has provided contingency measures with a schedule for

implementation in the event of a future CO air quality problem.

Contingency measures contained in the plan include basic I/M,

Transportation Control Measures (TCM), and expansion of the Oxygenated

fuels program. Once the triggering event, a violation of the CO NAAQS,

is confirmed, the State will implement one or more appropriate

contingency measures. Minnesota will select the contingency measures

within 6 months of a triggering event. The EPA understands, on the

basis of the State's submission, that the adoption and implementation

schedules specified in the Act and any corresponding regulations will

be used. Therefore, the following schedules are applicable for the

contingency measures specified in the contingency plan. Section 175A of

the Act requires that a maintenance plan

[[Page 25861]]

contain a contingency plan that will promptly correct a violation of

the CO NAAQS that occurs after the area is redesignated to attainment.

a. Inspection and Maintenance. The State will implement a basic I/M

program in the seven county Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area to

meet 40 CFR 51.352 basic I/M requirements. The enabling legislation was

adopted in June 1, 1996 and authorizes the State to use these I/M

upgrades as a contingency measure in areas redesignated to attainment.

I/M will be implemented within two years of the selection of this

contingency measure. This time is necessary to develop the Request for

Proposal, solicit and assess bids, select a contractor, negotiate a

contract, and start up the program. The schedule for adoption and

implementation of basic I/M as a contingency measure, will be

consistent with that provided for in the Act and the I/M regulation.

b. Transportation Control Measures. The State will require the

implementation of the appropriate transportation control Measures

(TCMs) to correct local CO hot spot problems. The type of TCMs will be

selected by best engineering practice to address the problem. TCMs will

be implemented within one year of the selection of this contingency

measure. This time would be necessary to coordinate with local and/or

state governments to assure that these entities complete any

appropriate processes such as form policy, change local ordinances,

etc.

c. Oxygenated Fuel Program. The State of Minnesota is currently

implementing an oxygenated fuel programs for CO control. The State will

propose amending existing legislation to change the oxygen content of

fuel from the current level of 2.7 percent to 3.5 percent in the

control area. Implementation of this measure would occur within one

year of selection. This time line is necessary to amend existing

legislation.

The EPA finds that the three contingency measures provided in the

State submittal meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the Act

since they would promptly correct any violation of the CO NAAQS.

5. Commitment To Submit Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

The State has committed to submit a new maintenance plan within

eight years of the redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area as

required by section 175(A)(b). This subsequent maintenance plan must

constitute a SIP revision and provide for the maintenance of the CO

NAAQS for a period of 10 years after the expiration of the initial 10

year maintenance period.

IV. Proposed Action

The EPA proposes to approve the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO maintenance

plan as a SIP revision meeting the requirements of section 175A. In

addition, the EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request

for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, subject to final approval of the

maintenance plan, because the State has demonstrated compliance with

the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation pending full

approval of the SIP element listed above. (In the alternative, if

ambient air quality violations occur before EPA takes final action on

the proposed redesignation or if the EPA does not fully approve any of

the SIP revisions listed above, the EPA proposes to disapprove this

redesignation request.) EPA will not finalize the approval of the

maintenance plan and redesignation request until the Minneapolis/St.

Paul I/M program is approved by EPA.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

CO SIPs are designed to satisfy the requirements of part D of the

Act and to provide for attainment and maintenance of the CO NAAQS. This

proposed redesignation should not be interpreted as authorizing the

State to delete, alter, or rescind any of the CO emission limitations

and restrictions contained in the approved CO SIP. Changes to CO SIP

regulations rendering them less stringent than those contained in the

EPA approved plan cannot be made unless a revised plan for attainment

and maintenance is submitted to and approved by EPA. Unauthorized

relaxations, deletions, and changes could result in both a finding of

nonimplementation (section 173(b) of the Act) and in a SIP deficiency

call made pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled

``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or

tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the

nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the

governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elective officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.'' This rule does not create a

mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose

any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements

of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on these communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,

EPA must provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' This rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian

tribal governments. Accordingly, the

[[Page 25862]]

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This direct final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities because plan approvals

under section 111(d) do not create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal approval does not create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of

the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act (Act)

preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry

into the economic reasonableness of a State action. The Act forbids EPA

to base its actions on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does

not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs

of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments

in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and

imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,

local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from

this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Carbon monoxide.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Dated: May 5, 1999.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 99-12161 Filed 5-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U