Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Minnesota

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MN58-01-7283; FRL-6465-4]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;

Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the

State of Minnesota's request to redesignate the Minneapolis/St. Paul

area, which includes Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott,

Washington, and Wright Counties to attainment for carbon monoxide (CO).

The EPA is also approving the corresponding 175A maintenance plan

associated with the redesignation request as a revision to the

Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining and maintaining

the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO. The EPA

proposed to approve this plan on May 13, 1999 (64 FR 25855).

DATES: This rule will be effective November 29, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision, public comments and EPA's

responses are available for inspection at the following address:

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 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:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Public Comments

A. Comments from the Izaak Walton League of America

B. Comments from Envirotest Corporation

C. Comments from Environ Corporation

III. EPA Final Action

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 12875

C. Executive Order 13045

D. Executive Order 13084

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates Act

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. Background

A. Minneapolis/St. Paul CO Nonattainment Area

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

Air Act (Act), EPA designated the Minneapolis/St. Paul area as

nonattainment for CO. Under the 1990 amendments to the Act, the EPA is

authorized 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.

[[Page 58348]]

B. Redesignation Request

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

qualify for redesignation, an area must first demonstrate that

monitored air quality levels are within the applicable NAAQS. Since

attaining the standard in 1995 and 1996, air quality monitors in the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area continue to show attainment of the CO NAAQS.

Therefore, pursuant to section 107(d) of the Act, the area is eligible

for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. In order to ensure

continued attainment of the CO standard, Minnesota also submitted a

maintenance plan under section 175A of the Act. Once redesignation is

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

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

II. Public Comments

On May 13, 1999, the EPA proposed approval of a revision to the

Minnesota SIP for attainment and maintenance for the NAAQS for CO (64

FR 25855) and opened a 30 day comment period on the proposed action.

During the comment period, the Izaak Walton League of America,

Envirotest Corporation, and Envirotest Corporation's consultant ENVIRON

submitted adverse comments on EPA's proposed action. These comments are

summarized below, along with EPA's response.

A. Comments From the Izaak Walton League of America

Comment: Discontinuance of the Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)

Program Leaves the State without a Fully-Approved SIP for the Area.

In the proposal, EPA stated that the Agency ``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.'' 64 FR 25855, 25858

(May 13, 1999). But the Legislature has subsequently discontinued the

I/M program. Clearly, EPA cannot finalize this proposed redesignation

without a fully approved SIP in place. 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 7407(d)(3)(E)(ii). Just as clearly, EPA has stated that a fully

approved SIP sufficient to justify a redesignation to attainment for CO

must include an EPA-approved vehicle I/M program.

EPA Response: As discussed in the May 13, 1999 proposal, the SIP

for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area must be fully approved in order to be

redesignated to attainment. At the time of proposal, the EPA had

approved every required element into the SIP, except for the I/M

program. As noted in EPA's proposed action on the redesignation

request, final approval of the redesignation request is contingent on

the approval of the I/M program. EPA proposed full approval of the I/M

plan on August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42888) and is finalizing its approval

elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

Furthermore, EPA policy contained in a September 4, 1992,

memorandum from John Calcagni, Director of the Air Quality Management

Division entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memo) notes that ``the State will be

expected to maintain its implemented control strategy despite

redesignation to attainment, unless such measures are shown to be

unnecessary for maintenance.'' Additional guidance on this issue is

contained in a memorandum dated September 17, 1993, from Michael

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation entitled,

``State Implementation Plan Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests

for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

National Ambient Air Quality Standards on or after November 15, 1992''

(Shapiro memo). This memo states:

As a general policy, a State may not relax the adopted and

implemented SIP upon the area's redesignation to attainment. States

should continue to implement existing control strategies in order to

maintain the standard. However, section 175A recognizes that States

may be able to move SIP measures to the contingency plan upon

redesignation if the State can adequately demonstrate that such

action will not interfere with maintenance of the standard. The type

of demonstration necessary is dependent upon the pollutant for which

the area has been redesignated to attainment.

In order to make such a demonstration for an area redesignated

to attainment for CO, EPA believes that the State could submit a

revised control strategy demonstration showing that the measure is

not necessary to maintain the standard.

In its redesignation request, Minnesota shows through an emissions

analysis, as well as through microscale modeling, that the area can

maintain the CO NAAQS without the implementation of the I/M program.

This analysis is described in more detail in EPA's proposed approval of

the State's I/M SIP published on August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42888). The EPA

has reviewed the State's emissions inventory and modeling analyses and

finds that they meet applicable guidance and requirements. Therefore,

the State has made the necessary demonstration that the I/M program is

not necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS. In accordance with this policy,

the State must include the program as a contingency measure in the

maintenance plan for the redesignated area, which it has done.

Today's approval of Minnesota's I/M SIP applies to the program

while it remains in effect, while recognizing the potential

redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area to attainment. This

action also approves the State's plan to discontinue the program after

the area is redesignated to attainment and move it to the contingency

measures portion of the maintenance plan for the area in accordance

with the policy noted above and the requirements of the Act. The State

has made the necessary corrections to its I/M plan, and has also made

the appropriate demonstrations that the program is not necessary for

attainment. Therefore, the I/M plan has been fully approved, fulfilling

the requirement that the area have a fully approved SIP in order to be

redesignated to attainment.

Comment: Minnesota has not demonstrated that the improvements to CO

are due to permanent and enforceable emissions decreases.

EPA also must determine that the improvement in air quality is due

to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions before an area can

be redesignated. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(iii). The State has based its

request on statements that this element has been met through the

implementation of federally enforceable FMVCP, oxygenated fuel and

vehicle I/M reductions. But as noted above, the vehicle I/M program

will no longer be implemented.

EPA response: Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that, for the EPA

to approve a redesignation, it must determine that the improvement in

air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in

emissions. The Calcagni memo clarifies this requirement by stating that

``attainment resulting from temporary reductions in emission rates

(e.g., reduced production or shutdown due to temporary adverse economic

conditions) or unusually favorable meteorology would not qualify as an

air quality improvement due to permanent and enforceable emission

reductions.'' As discussed in the May 13, 1999 Federal Register notice,

the Minneapolis/St. Paul area has reasonably demonstrated that

permanent and enforceable emission reductions are responsible for the

recent improvement in air quality. This demonstration was accomplished

through an estimate of the reductions

[[Page 58349]]

(from a nonattainment year, 1990 to an attainment year, 1996) of CO

achieved primarily through implementation of the Federal Motor Vehicle

Control Program (FMVCP), oxygenated gasoline and the I/M program, in

line with the Calcagni memo. However, since the I/M program may be

discontinued upon redesignation, the EPA has analyzed the State's

emissions data to ensure that the area can meet the permanent and

enforceable test without counting the I/M program. This analysis

indicates that the permanent and enforceable reductions from FMVCP and

the oxygenated gasoline programs are large enough to meet the permanent

and enforceable test without reductions from I/M. The State, therefore,

adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable emission reductions.

The commentor notes that the I/M program will be discontinued in

future years. A future year analysis is necessary as part of an

approvable maintenance plan under sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175(A)

of the Act. In general, maintenance plans are designed to show that an

area will continue to remain in attainment of the applicable NAAQS for

a period of at least ten years beyond approval of a redesignation

request. As noted in the Calcagni memo, States must make a maintenance

demonstration, either through an emissions analysis, or through

computer modeling, that future year emissions levels will not cause a

violation of the NAAQS. This demonstration should include an analysis

of future growth in industry and population, increases in the number of

vehicle miles traveled, and other changes that would affect air quality

levels in the area, such as the discontinuation of a required control

program. The State of Minnesota has made this demonstration through

both the emissions analysis and modeling methods in accordance with

EPA's emissions inventory and modeling guidance. The State's Technical

Support Document (TSD) for the redesignation request contains an

analysis of emissions levels with and without the I/M program, and has

shown that the CO standard can be maintained without I/M in the future.

A more detailed discussion of the I/M demonstration is contained in

EPA's proposed approval of the I/M SIP, published on August 6, 1999 (64

FR 42888).

Comment: Minnesota does not have an approvable maintenance plan for

the area.

Minnesota also must submit, and EPA must approve, a maintenance

plan for the area. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(iv). EPA has stated that an

approvable maintenance plan for the area must include the state's

continuance of ``all the control measures contained in the SIP prior to

redesignation,'' and contingency measures in the event of a future CO

problem. 64 FR 25855, 25859 (May 13, 1999). Among those contingency

measures is a basic vehicle I/M program. Id. at 25860-61. But EPA seems

unaware that the Minnesota Legislature has invalidated such programs.

EPA response: As noted in the Calcagni memo ``the State will be

expected to maintain its implemented control strategy despite

redesignation to attainment, unless such measures are shown to be

unnecessary for maintenance.'' Additional guidance on moving

implemented programs to the contingency plan portion of the maintenance

plan is contained in the Shapiro memo. As noted above, this memo allows

for an area to discontinue a required measure and move it to the

contingency plan if the State is able to make the appropriate

demonstrations. Minnesota has submitted a modeling-based revised

control strategy demonstration showing that the area can maintain the

CO NAAQS without the implementation of the I/M program. This analysis

is described in more detail in EPA's proposed approval of the State's

I/M SIP published on August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42888). The EPA has reviewed

the State's emissions inventory and modeling analyses and finds that

they meet applicable guidance and requirements. Therefore, the State

has made the necessary demonstration that the I/M program is not

necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS in accordance with the Shapiro memo.

As required, the State has included the program as a contingency

measure in the maintenance plan for the redesignated area. The

commentor is incorrect in stating that the ``Minnesota Legislature has

invalidated such programs,'' since the I/M program continues to operate

and is clearly identified as a contingency measure in the State's

maintenance plan.

Comment: The redesignation request, coupled with the vehicle I/M

discontinuance, means that all requirements of section 110 of the Act

are not met.

In order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the state

must show that it has met ``all requirements applicable to the area

under Section 110 of this title and part D of this subchapter.'' 42

U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(v). We read this as requiring the state to

demonstrate and the Agency to consider and determine whether plans for

implementation, maintenance and enforcement of all NAAQS, promulgated

or revised, would continue in the event of the redesignation. This

proposal, however, accompanied as it will be by the discontinuance of

the vehicle I/M program, will undoubtedly result in increased oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) emissions (as well as increased CO).

NOX are precursors, along with volatile organic compounds

(VOCs), of ozone smog. Automobiles and other vehicles emit

NOX and VOCs, as well as CO. When the vehicle I/M program is

discontinued, we believe that automobiles will pollute in an unchecked

fashion in Minnesota, causing increases in NOX and VOC

emissions. Increased NOX emissions, however, and the

resulting implications for the area's and state's ability to meet the

1-hour and 8-hour NAAQS for ozone have not been assessed as part of

this redesignation. We believe that the statute requires EPA to make

such an analysis where it is aware that there is a risk that any air

quality problem may ensue. Indeed the Agency has noted that contingency

plans must be in place ``to assure prompt correction of any air quality

problems.'' 64 FR 25855, 25859 (May 13, 1999). However the proposed

redesignation does not include analysis of the potential effects on the

area's ozone status to be expected from the CO redesignation and

subsequent lifting of the vehicle I/M program. We believe this makes

the redesignation request unapprovable.

EPA response: As noted above, the State's I/M SIP is approved

elsewhere in today's Federal Register. As a result, the area has met

all requirements of section 110 and Part D of the Act. At present, the

I/M program remains in operation and the State has made the required

demonstrations to discontinue the program after redesignation to

attainment for CO.

Under the sections 107 and 175A of the Act, the State is only

required to address the pollutant for which the area was violating and

demonstrate that there will not be subsequent violations of the

applicable NAAQS following redesignation. The State has performed

modeling that shows continued attainment of the CO standard, and

projected CO emissions through the maintenance period which show

decreases from the attainment level. Notwithstanding the commentor's

interpretation of EPA's proposed action, which stated that

``maintenance plans must contain contingency measures, with schedules

to assure prompt correction of any air quality problems' (64 FR 25859),

section 175A(d) of the Act specifies that ``each plan revision

submitted under this section shall

[[Page 58350]]

contain such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems

necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation

of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an

attainment area.'' Clearly, this language indicates that contingency

plans need only include measures for the pollutant for which the area

is being redesignated.

Section 110(l) of the Act notes that ``the Administrator shall not

approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any

applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further

progress, or any other applicable requirement of this Act.'' While the

I/M program was put into place for purposes of CO, the issue of whether

the discontinuation of the I/M program will interfere with the area's

ability to meet other applicable NAAQS must be addressed. As noted

above,

I/M programs do have additional air quality benefits in that they

reduce emissions of VOC and NOx, both precursors of ground

level ozone.

Historically, however, the Minneapolis/St. Paul area has never

experienced a ground level ozone nonattainment problem. The EPA has

reviewed monitoring data for the one-hour ozone levels recorded since

1980, showing attainment of the one-hour NAAQS. In fact, monitors in

the area have not shown a single exceedance of the one-hour ozone NAAQS

since 1990. The one-hour ozone NAAQS that was established in 1979

allows three exceedances of the standard at any monitor over a three

year period before an area is considered to violate the standard. In no

year since 1980 have more than two exceedances occurred, including

1988, a year known for its high ozone levels around the country. In

1980, by far the worst year on record in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area,

three monitors in the area recorded only five exceedances of the one-

hour ozone standard. Even then, the three year values at these monitors

did not show a violation of the NAAQS. Since the last exceedance in

1990, ozone levels measured in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area have

continued to drop off and remain well below the health based one-hour

ozone standard. The current ozone design value, the measure that EPA

uses to assess the nonattainment status of an area, in Minneapolis/St.

Paul is 24 percent below the one-hour ozone NAAQS with a value of .091

ppm compared to the .120 ppm standard.

In 1997, the EPA established a new, more stringent eight-hour ozone

standard based on more recent health effects information. Since that

time, EPA has been developing guidance and regulations to establish

compliance strategies for the new standard. As part of this effort, the

EPA will be establishing new nonattainment areas for the eight-hour

standard in July 2000. In preparation for this activity, the EPA has

analyzed eight-hour ozone data for areas around the country to see

which areas have monitored levels over the new standard. The analysis

that was done for Minnesota concludes that since 1993, the first year

that eight-hour ozone information is available, current eight-hour

concentrations are well below the health-based NAAQS. Unlike the one-

hour standard which is exceedance based, allowing three exceedances

over a three year period, the eight-hour standard looks at the average

of the fourth highest level over a three year period. Since 1993, no

monitor in the area has recorded a fourth high over the eight-hour

standard at any time. In order to be considered in violation of the

NAAQS, the average of the fourth high over a three year period would

need to be over the standard. EPA's analysis shows that monitors in the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area are well below these levels, and does not

expect the area to experience a nonattainment problem in the future.

Much of the improvement in ozone levels nationwide has been

attributed to the reduction in emissions from the automobile. The EPA

continues to establish more stringent motor vehicle emissions standards

at the national level and emissions from the automobile continue to

drop dramatically. This, along with other control programs, has brought

many areas into attainment with the one-hour ozone NAAQS without

implementation of I/M programs. The ozone levels recorded in

Minneapolis/St. Paul are well below levels seen in areas that have been

successfully redesignated. Since the area has never experienced an

exceedance of the one-hour ozone standard, continues to show low eight-

hour ozone values, and automobile emissions continue to decline

overall, the EPA has no reason to believe that any marginal increase in

VOC and NOX emissions resulting from the shutdown of the I/M

program will interfere with the area's ability to meet either the one-

hour or the eight-hour ozone NAAQS standard.

B. Comments from Envirotest Corporation

Comment: We are concerned with the disposition of a series of CO

violations that took place in September 1998. According to the EPA

Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) web page (http://

www.epa.pov/airs/nonattn.html) Minneapolis had experienced violations

of the NAAQS for CO. We learned that EPA allowed MPCA to erase these

violations. It is our understanding that the MPCA was successful in

getting these violations erased from the database because the problem

was explained to be an equipment malfunction, yet that same piece of

equipment is still in place and there were no repairs made to it! This

seems odd to us. It appears that the monitoring system is used as a

measure of air quality until such time as the air quality levels are

exceeded.

EPA response: The EPA retrieved the air quality data for the 1997

and 1998 CO season from AIRS. The data illustrates that all the

monitors in the area continue to demonstrate attainment of the CO

NAAQS.

On September 26-28, 1998, a downtown Minneapolis, MN CO monitor

(27-053-0954), located at 528 Hennepin Avenue, measured three periods

of high concentrations. In a February 26, 1999 letter, the MPCA

requested EPA concurrence on the removal of the September 26-28, 1998

CO monitoring data from AIRS for this site. MPCA prepared a report on

an investigation into the validity of this data. This report concluded

that this data is the result of equipment malfunction, most likely due

to thunderstorm activity in the area.

The MPCA monitoring network was granted approval in November of

1998. On December 29 and 30, 1998, EPA-Region 5 Air Monitoring Section

staff performed a Technical Systems Audit (TSA) on the Minnesota

monitoring network. The TSA concluded that there are no deficiencies in

the monitoring network. The Air Monitoring Section further documented

information on the CO episode in a memorandum entitled ``Minnesota

Carbon Monoxide Episode,'' dated February 26, 1999. The MPCA

investigation coupled with the TSA and additional information was used

to make a decision on the validity of the abnormally high CO monitoring

data. On March 2, 1999, USEPA concurred on the MPCA request to withdraw

the erroneous data from AIRS. The likely malfunction identified in the

State's report is uncommon but has been seen in other areas.

Malfunctions of this type do not typically require replacement of the

monitor, and the EPA believes that the State has acted appropriately to

ensure that this monitoring site records accurate data. The EPA has

reviewed the monitoring quality assurance procedures present in the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area and finds that they meet the requirements of

40 CFR 51.110(k).

[[Page 58351]]

C. Comments From ENVIRON Corporation

i. Impact of Discontinuing I/M Program on Ambient CO Concentrations

Comment: VMT growth factors used to estimate future year mobile

source CO emissions appear to exhibit anomalous behavior within

individual areas, with rates of growth varying widely from one five

year period to the next and from one area to the next. For example, VMT

growth rates for the St. Paul Central Business district alternate

between positive and negative for each successive time interval and

these rates bear no apparent relationship to the rates for any other

area (most of which exhibit there own fluctuating and highly unusual

growth rates). Emission projections based on such anomalous growth

rates are highly suspect.

EPA response: The Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Planning

Organization for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, provides the VMT growth

factors used to estimate future VMT. These growth rates are consistent

with the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan for the area. On November

25, 1997, the EPA made a determination that this plan was adequate for

transportation planning purposes. This information represents the best

available forecast of on-road travel, and has been developed in

accordance with EPA and Department of Transportation guidance. The EPA

believes that these estimates are appropriate for use in the State's

maintenance projections.

Comment: CO dispersion modeling methods used by the MPCA to

estimate future year CO concentrations are not consistent with EPA

guidelines. The deviation from guideline procedures affected the model

results in at least two ways:

1. A Gaussian dispersion model (CAL3QHC) was used to estimate peak

concentrations around ten major intersections in the nonattainment

area. This model only estimates the contribution of the specific

intersection being modeled to the total CO concentration; the urban

background concentration must be added to the model predictions.

Current state-of-the-art procedures rely on an urban-wide grid model

such as the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) for estimating this urban

background concentration under current and future emission conditions.

These models are able to account for the fact that the appropriate

``background'' concentration may vary from one intersection to the next

based on the distribution of surrounding sources and prevailing

meteorological conditions. This is the EPA guideline procedure for

preparation of CO State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and would therefore

be the most appropriate procedure for use in a CO redesignation

request. Despite this, the TSD did not include a UAM analysis and

instead used a very limited amount of ambient data from a single

monitoring site to estimate the background concentration for each

intersection. No justification is given in the TSD for not following

the SIP guideline procedure. Projected background levels given in the

TSD were based on the anomalous regional VMT growth projections noted

above. As the individual region-type growth factors are suspect (see

above), the future-year background concentrations are equally suspect.

For example, this projection procedure predicts that, by 2018, the

highest background concentrations (by a significant margin) will be in

the rural areas and the lowest will be in the Minneapolis and St. Paul

CBDs. This makes no sense. Furthermore, according to the SAI report, no

allowance was made for the expected growth in non-road mobile and

stationary sources. This is significant as the area and non-road mobile

emissions are projected to increase by 2018 as shown in Table 3-1 of

the TSD and the fraction of total emissions contributed by these

sources is also projected to increase as shown in Figure 3-1 of the

TSD.

2. Dispersion modeling was based on a single year of meteorological

data. This represents a significant departure from the EPA guidelines

which require the use of at least five years of meteorological data so

as to maximize the opportunity to simulate the worst-case conditions

that can lead to CO exceedances. Additional years of meteorological

data are readily available for the study area from EPA and from the

National Climatic Data Center and should be used. It should also be

noted that the TSD relies on meteorological data collected at the

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport which is located a

considerable distance from most of the modeled intersections. These

data may therefore not be representative of actual conditions at the

intersections.

EPA response: The Calcagni memo states that areas may assess

areawide maintenance through emissions projections, demonstrating that

emissions do not increase from the attainment year, or through areawide

modeling such as UAM. The State utilized the emissions projection

method and an intersection ``hot-spot'' analysis to show that emissions

levels will be below the attainment level, and the CO concentrations at

the selected intersections. The Calcagni memo notes that hot-spot

modeling is EPA's preferred approach for CO demonstrations. The CAL3QHC

model is EPA's approved model for performing CO hot-spot analysis. The

EPA believes that the States analysis is appropriate and meets

redesignation and modeling criteria.

The State's TSD describes the meteorological inputs used in the

first screen microscale analysis. The State assumed worst case

meteorological conditions for wind speed, wind direction, stability

class, and mixing height as defined by the EPA's ``Guideline for

Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersection.'' The State

developed temperature inputs for the modeling using methodology which

is consistent with EPA's ``Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from

Roadway Intersections'' and ``procedure for Emission Inventory

Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources.'' As a result, the EPA believes

that the State has developed the appropriate inputs for the modeling

analysis.

Comment: Intersections selected for the TSD modeling analysis

resulted in the selection of seven intersections (in addition to the

three ``required'' intersections where monitoring data are available)

with some unusual characteristics one would not normally associate with

transportation facilities that produce peak CO concentrations. The

seven selected intersections were all located well away from the

congested Minneapolis and St. Paul urban centers, had free flow speeds

of 45 to 55 mph on at least one artery, and had free-flow right turn

lanes in every case. These seven intersections represent primarily busy

highways intersecting with relatively low volume secondary roads so

that the bulk of the traffic volume is accounted for by the high speed

links. Based on additional information provided by the MPCA about the

intersection ranking procedure, it appears that the selection process

gave too much weight to the average daily traffic volume (ADT) of

intersections without taking into consideration the number of traffic

lanes present or the degree to which cross traffic interferes with the

free flow of vehicles. This resulted in high volume, high capacity

suburban intersections being favored over lower volume (but more

congested) urban intersections. The level of service ranking procedure

was apparently insufficient to overcome this bias. This is evident from

the fact that the three modeled intersections with a known history of

NAAQS exceedances (e.g., University at

[[Page 58352]]

Lexington Ave., Snelling at University, and Hennepin Ave. at Lake St.)

received the three lowest ranks in the selection procedure.

Furthermore, two of these intersections receive mid-level ranks when

sorted by maximum CAL3QHC predicted concentrations instead of the

bottom rankings suggested by the intersection selection procedure.

EPA response: The State selected intersections for modeling based

on traffic and congestion. The State initially identified 30

intersections in the nonattainment area as potential candidates for

modeling. These 30 intersections were ranked by level of congestion,

and ultimately reduced to ten, the top seven ranked and the three

historic CO NAAQS violating intersections, for the modeling analysis.

As a result, the EPA believes that the State's selection of

intersections to model for hot-spot analysis is appropriate and

represents a good mix of high congestion intersections and

intersections where high levels of CO have been monitored.

The method utilized by the State is consistent with EPA guidelines

which require areas to model the top three intersections based on

traffic volume and congestion level. None of the intersections selected

for modeling by the State exceeded the CO NAAQS in the modeling and,

therefore, adequately demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS.

ii. Impact of Discontinuing I/M Program on O3, PM and

Regional Haze

Comment: When evaluating the impact of discontinuing the current I/

M program in Minneapolis/St. Paul as is proposed in Minnesota's

maintenance plan, it must be recognized that such an action, by itself,

can be expected to result not only in higher CO emissions than would

otherwise occur but also higher emissions of reactive organic gases

(commonly referred to as VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)

that are an important precursor of ground-level ozone, particulate

matter, and regional haze. Thus, irrespective of the program's

continuing role in maintaining attainment of the ambient CO standard,

discontinuation of the program can be expected to have an adverse

impact on ozone levels and PM levels in the Twin Cities as well as

regional haze in nearby Class I areas. This issue is particularly

critical in light of EPA's recent promulgation of a revised NAAQS for

8-hour ozone which is significantly more stringent than the previous 1-

hour standard, a new PM2.5 NAAQS, and a Regional Haze regulation.

EPA response: As discussed above, Section 110(l) of the Act notes

that ``the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the

revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning

attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable

requirement of this Act.'' This includes an area's ability to meet the

NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5, as well as the requirements of EPA's

Regional Haze regulation. A detailed discussion on why EPA believes

that discontinuation of the I/M program will not interfere with

attainment of the ozone NAAQS has already been discussed in today's

action.

In the past, the PM10 problems that have been experienced in the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area have been due to emissions from large

factories or groups of factories or other stationary sources, or from

road dust that is blown in the air from wind or heavy duty vehicle

traffic. The area has never experienced a PM10 nonattainment problem

caused by motor vehicle emissions. As a result, the EPA has no reason

to believe that the discontinuation of the I/M program and the

potential increase in NOX or VOC emissions would interfere

with the area's ability to meet the PM10 NAAQS.

For fine particles, or PM2.5, the EPA is currently working with

States to establish monitoring networks to assess the magnitude of the

problem. Without accurate monitoring data, it is impossible to identify

where PM2.5 problems exist, assess the cause of these problems, or

develop control strategies to correct the problem and bring areas to

attainment. At present, there is not enough information to indicate

whether there is a PM2.5 problem in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area or

not, much less enough information to indicate whether motor vehicle

emissions cause or contribute to the problem. As a result, the EPA has

no reason to believe that disconinuation of the I/M program will

contribute to the area's ability to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS.

For regional haze, the EPA has developed regulations to address the

impairment of visibility in Federal Class I areas. Like PM2.5, the

first part of this process is focused on monitoring where visibility is

impaired, and then assessing the causes of the problem. At present, a

nationwide monitoring network is being established and information on

the contributors to regional haze problems is not yet available.

Studies that have been performed to date indicate that in the Midwest,

sulfate emissions are the major contributor to haze problems, and that

the problem is regional in nature. As a result, EPA expects that

control strategies for regional haze in the Midwest will focus on

region wide industrial source controls, rather than local controls on

the automobile. At present, therefore, the EPA has no reason to believe

that discontinuation of the I/M program will contribute to the area's

ability to meet the regional haze regulations.

III. EPA Final Action

The EPA approves the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO maintenance plan as a

SIP revision meeting the requirements of section 175A. In addition, the

EPA is approving the redesignation request for the Minneapolis/St. Paul

area because the State has demonstrated compliance with the

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation.

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.

IV. 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

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

[[Page 58353]]

Office of Management and Budget 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 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 elected 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.'' Today's 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.

On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order

on federalism, Executive Order 13132 [64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)]

which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current

Executive Order 12612 [52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)] on federalism

still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on

States, on the relationship between the national government and the

States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 12612.

The rule affects only one State, and does not alter the relationship or

the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act.

C. 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.

D. Executive Order 13084

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

required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those 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 Office of Management and Budget, 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.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely

affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the

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

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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 final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP 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 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, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs 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 Act

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.

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.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot

take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal

Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

[[Page 58354]]

agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary

consensus standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's

action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to

the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 December 28, 1999. 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

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Carbon monoxide.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National Parks,

Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 et seq.

Dated: October 21, 1999.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Y--Minnesota

2. Section 52.1237 is amended by adding paragraph(c) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.1237 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * * *

(c) Approval--On March 23, 1998, the Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency submitted a request to redesignate the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO

nonattainment area (consisting of portions of Anoka, Carver, Dakota,

Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, Washington, and Wright) to attainment for CO.

As part of the redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance

plan as required by 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990.

Elements of the section 175A maintenance plan include a base year (1996

attainment year) emission inventory for CO, a demonstration of

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS with projected emission inventories to

the year 2009, a plan to verify continued attainment, a contingency

plan, and an obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan

revision in 8 years as required by the Clean Air Act. If the area

records a violation of the CO NAAQS (which must be confirmed by the

State), Minnesota will implement one or more appropriate contingency

measure(s) which are contained in the contingency plan. The menu of

contingency measures includes oxygenated fuel, transportation control

measures, or a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The

redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the redesignation

requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the Act as amended in

1990, respectively.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7871q.

2. In Sec. 81.324 the table for ``Minnesota-CO'' is amended by

revising the entry for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area for carbon

monoxide to read as follows:

Sec. 81.324 Minnesota

* * * * *

Minnesota-CO

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

Designation Classification

Designated Areas -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type

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

Minneapolis-Saint Paul Area:

Anoka................................. November 29, 1999...... Attainment.............

County.................................. ......do............... Attainment.............

Carver County (part)

Carver, Chanhassen, Chaska, Hamburg, ......do............... Attainment.............

Norwood, Victoria, Waconia,

Watertown, Young America, Chaska

Township, Laketown Township,

Waconia Township, Watertown

Township, Young America Township.

Dakota County (part)

Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, ......do............... Attainment.............

Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove

Heights, Lakeville, Lilydale,

Mendota, Mendota Heights,

Rosemount, South St. Paul, Sunfish

Lake, West St. Paul.

Hennepin.............................. ......do............... Attainment.............

County.................................. ......do............... Attainment.............

Ramsey

County

Scott County (part) ......do............... Attainment.............

Belle Plaine, Elko, New Market, New ......do............... Attainment.............

Prague, Prior Lake, Savage,

Shakopee, Credit River Township,

Jackson Township, Louisville

Township, New Market Township,

Spring Lake Township.

[[Page 58355]]

Washington County (part)

All cities and townships except

Denmark Township

Wright County (part)

Albertville, Annandale, Buffalo,

Clearwater, Cokato, Delano,

Hanover, Monticello, Montrose,

Rockford, St. Michael, South Haven,

Waverly, Dayton (Wright Co. part),

Buffalo Township, Chatham Township,

Clearwater Township, Cokato

Township, Corrinna Township,

Frankfort Township, Maple Lake

Township, Franklin Township,

Marysville Township, Monticello

Township, Ostego Township, Rockford

Township, Silver Creek Township,

Southside Township

* * * * * *

*

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

\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 99-28310 Filed 10-28-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P