Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Minnesota; Carbon Monoxide (CO) Limited Maintenance Plan for the Twin Cities Area, 54773-54778 [2010-22338]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the docket where indicated under
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that Order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded this action is one of a
category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule
involves establishing a safety zone
around a fireworks display and is
expected to have no impact on the water
or environment. This zone is designed
to protect mariners and spectators from
the hazards associated with aerial
fireworks displays. An environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Sep 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
ADDRESSES.
List of Subject 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
■ For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
54773
(d) Enforcement Period. This
regulation will be enforced from 9:15
p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 17, 2010.
Dated: August 10, 2010.
M.S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2010–22418 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
40 CFR Part 52
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T05–0755 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T05–0755 Safety Zone; Thunder on
the Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Buckroe Beach
Park, Hampton, VA.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All navigable waters of the
Chesapeake Bay within the area
bounded by a 210-foot radius circle
centered on position 37°02′23″ N/
076°17′22″ W (NAD 1983).
(b) Definition. Captain of the Port
Representative means any U.S. Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads,
Virginia to act on his or her behalf.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23 of
this part, entry into this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or
designated representative.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the
immediate vicinity of this safety zone
shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon
being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
on shore or on board a vessel that is
displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
on shore or on board a vessel that is
displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton
Roads can be reached through the
Command Duty Officer at Sector
Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia
at telephone number (757) 638–6641.
(4) The Coast Guard Representatives
enforcing the safety zone can be
contacted on VHF–FM marine band
radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0556; FRL–9197–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Limited Maintenance Plan for the Twin
Cities Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving a request
submitted by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) on June 16,
2010, to revise the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for carbon
monoxide (CO) under the Clean Air Act
(CAA). The State has submitted a
limited maintenance plan for CO
showing continued attainment of the CO
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul
(Twin Cities) area. The one hour CO
NAAQS and eight hour CO NAAQS are
35 parts per million (ppm), and 9 ppm,
respectively. This limited maintenance
plan satisfies section 175A of the CAA,
and is in accordance with EPA’s
October 29, 1999, approval of the State’s
redesignation request and maintenance
plan for the Twin Cities area.
Additionally, this limited maintenance
plan for CO satisfies the requirements
contained in the October 6, 1995, EPA
memorandum entitled ‘‘Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment
Areas.’’
SUMMARY:
This direct final rule will be
effective November 8, 2010, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by October
12, 2010. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2010–0556, by one of the
following methods:
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
54774
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2054.
4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief,
Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–
0556. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Sep 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Andy
Chang, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
886–0258 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Air Planning and Maintenance Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258,
chang.andy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
A. Why did the State make this submittal?
B. Limited Maintenance Plan
1. What is a limited maintenance plan, and
what are the general requirements that
must be met by a State in order to submit
a limited maintenance plan?
2. What additional elements does a State
need to include as part of a limited
maintenance plan?
C. Did the State hold public hearings for
the limited maintenance plan?
II. What criteria is EPA using to evaluate this
submittal?
III. What is EPA’s analysis of this submittal?
A. Requirements of Section 175A of the
CAA
B. Consistency With the October 6, 1995,
Memorandum
1. Attainment Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of
Continued Attainment
4. Contingency Plan
5. Conformity Determination Under
Limited Maintenance Plan
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Why did the State make this
submittal?
On November 6, 1991, EPA
designated most of the Twin Cities
seven county metropolitan area (Anoka,
Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey,
Scott, and Washington counties), along
with parts of Wright County, as being a
moderate nonattainment area for the CO
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NAAQS under section 107 of the CAA
(56 FR 56694).
On March 23, 1998, MPCA submitted
a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the Twin Cities
nonattainment area. EPA found that the
redesignation request met all applicable
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA, and also found that the
maintenance plan met the requirements
of section 175A of the CAA. MPCA’s
redesignation request and maintenance
plan for the Twin Cities area was
approved on October 29, 1999 (64 FR
58347); comprehensive details about the
maintenance plan can be found in EPA’s
proposed approval on May 13, 1999 (64
FR 25855).
Section 175A(b) of the CAA mandates
that the State shall submit an additional
revision to the maintenance plan eight
years after redesignation of any area as
an attainment area. Minnesota’s limited
maintenance plan satisfies this
requirement, and is also consistent with
the requirements for limited
maintenance plan elements outlined in
an October 6, 1995, memorandum from
the Group Leader of the Integrated
Policy and Strategies Group, entitled,
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment
Areas.’’ EPA observes that although the
Twin Cities area was designated as a
moderate nonattainment area for the CO
NAAQS, redesignation to attainment
status in conjunction with meeting all
requirements of the October 6, 1995,
memorandum, allows the State to be
eligible to submit a limited maintenance
plan as the update to its original
maintenance plan per section 175A(b) of
the CAA. The State submitted the
limited maintenance plan to EPA on
June 16, 2010.
B. Limited Maintenance Plan
The definition, general requirements,
and additional elements of a limited
maintenance plan will be explained
below.
1. What is a limited maintenance plan,
and what are the general requirements
that must be met by a State in order to
submit a limited maintenance plan?
A maintenance plan, as defined in
section 175A of the CAA, is a revision
to the SIP to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS for the air
pollutant in question in the area
concerned for at least 10 years after the
redesignation. Eight years after the
redesignation, States should submit an
update to the maintenance plan to
provide for the maintenance of the
NAAQS for another 10 years after the
initial 10 year period has expired. As
previously mentioned, Minnesota’s
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
original maintenance plan was
approved on October 29, 1999 (64 FR
58347).
A limited maintenance plan for CO is
a maintenance plan that is available to
States who have demonstrated that the
design values for CO in the
nonclassifiable nonattainment area are
at, or below, 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the
eight hour CO NAAQS). The area’s
design value must not exceed the 7.65
ppm threshold throughout the entire
rulemaking process. The design value
for CO is defined as the second highest
reading in the area in a two year period.
Should an area have more than one
monitor, the monitor with the second
highest value in a two year period
serves as the design monitor. As
previously mentioned, EPA has
determined that the limited
maintenance plan for CO is available to
all States as part of their update to
maintenance plans per section 175A(b),
regardless of the original nonattainment
classification, or lack thereof.
2. What additional elements does a State
need to include as part of a limited
maintenance plan?
In addition to meeting all applicable
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA, States should also include the
following elements in a limited
maintenance plan for CO: Attainment
Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration,
Monitoring Network/Verification of
Continued Attainment, Contingency
Plan, and Conformity Determinations
Under Limited Maintenance Plans.
These elements were outlined in the
October 6, 1995, EPA memorandum,
and will be comprehensively discussed
below.
C. Did the State hold public hearings for
the limited maintenance plan?
Public notice was given on May 10,
2010, in the Minnesota State Register.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
II. What criteria is EPA using to
evaluate this submittal?
In addition to the general
requirements in section 175A of the
CAA, guidance for CO limited
maintenance plans is provided in the
October 6, 1995, memorandum, which
states that the following five
components need to be addressed:
Attainment Inventory, Maintenance
Demonstration, Monitoring Network/
Verification of Continued Attainment,
Contingency Plan, and Conformity
Determination Under Limited
Maintenance Plan.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Sep 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
III. What is EPA’s analysis of this
submittal?
A. Requirements of Section 175A of the
CAA
Section 175A contains four
subsections pertaining to maintenance
plans. Section 175A(a) establishes
requirements for initial SIP
redesignation request maintenance
plans, as addressed in EPA’s October 29,
1999, approval of the Minnesota plan.
Section 175A(b) requires States to
submit an update to the maintenance
plan eight years following the original
redesignation to attainment, and MPCA
has satisfied the requirements of this
element with its current submittal. It
also requires that within this update, the
State must outline methods for
maintaining the pertinent NAAQS for
ten years after the expiration of the tenyear period referred to in subsection (a),
i.e., Minnesota’s maintenance plan
update must outline methods for
maintaining the CO NAAQS through
2019. However, EPA stated in the
October 6, 1995, memorandum that it is
not necessary for States to project
emissions over this maintenance period.
Instead, EPA believes that if the area
begins the maintenance period at, or
below, 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the eight
hour CO NAAQS), the applicability of
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) requirements,1 control measures
already in the SIP, and other Federal
measures should provide adequate
assurance of maintenance throughout
the maintenance period. Section
175A(c) does not apply to this
rulemaking, given that EPA has
previously redesignated the Twin Cities
area to attainment for CO. The
contingency provisions requirements
outlined in section 175A(d) will be
addressed in detail in section B4, below.
B. Consistency With the October 6, 1995,
Memorandum
54775
emissions inventory for nonroad mobile,
stationary, and onroad mobile sources.
This set of estimated emissions was
identical to that which EPA approved
for the Twin Cities area on December 9,
2004 (69 FR 71375). The December 9,
2004, approval was not a full update to
the CO maintenance plan for the Twin
Cities area, but applied only to the 1996
and 2009 CO emissions inventory and
the 2009 Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets; both of these emissions were
estimated using the MOBILE6 model.
EPA observed in the December 9, 2004,
approval that the updated emissions
using the MOBILE6 model were much
better predictors of CO emissions in the
Twin Cities area because there had been
substantial changes made to the model
between MOBILE6 and its MOBILE5
predecessor, released in 1993. In its
June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA
highlighted that the total estimated CO
emissions in the Twin Cities area has
decreased from 2,506 tons per winter
day in 1996, to 1,856 tons per winter
day in 2009.2 This represents a 26
percent decrease in total CO emissions
in tons per winter day. The onroad
mobile emissions for the Twin Cities
area, thought to be the major source of
the original nonattainment designation,
decreased from 1,872 tons per winter
day in 1996 to 1,311 tons per winter day
in 2009. This represents a 30 percent
decrease in onroad mobile CO emissions
in tons per winter day. MPCA also
estimated that between 1996 and 2030,
there would be a 36 percent decrease in
onroad mobile CO emissions in tons per
winter day in the Twin Cities area.
Monitoring data from 1998 to 2009
shows consistent compliance with the
eight hour CO NAAQS at levels well
below the 85 percent threshold of 7.65
ppm; therefore the State has satisfied
the attainment inventory requirement
for limited maintenance plans.
The State is required to develop an
attainment emissions inventory to
identify a level of emissions in the area
which is sufficient to attain the CO
NAAQS. In its June 16, 2010, submittal,
MPCA provided a comprehensive CO
2. Maintenance Demonstration
In the October 6, 1995, memorandum,
EPA stated that the maintenance
demonstration requirement is
considered to be satisfied for
nonclassifiable areas if the monitoring
data show that the area is meeting the
air quality criteria for limited
maintenance areas, i.e., 85 percent of
the eight hour CO NAAQS, or 7.65 ppm.
As previously mentioned, EPA
determined in this same memo that
there is no requirement to project
emissions over the maintenance period.
Instead, EPA believes that if the area
begins the maintenance period at, or
1 EPA has delegated the authority to implement
the Federal PSD program pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21
to Minnesota.
2 CO emissions are generally highest during the
winter, and thus the modeling was performed in
such a way that yielded tons per winter day.
As discussed above, EPA’s
interpretation of section 175A of the
CAA, as it pertains to limited
maintenance plans for CO, is contained
in the October 6, 1995, memorandum.
Minnesota has addressed the five major
elements of that policy, as follows:
1. Attainment Inventory
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
54776
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
below, 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the eight
hour CO NAAQS), the applicability of
PSD requirements, control measures
already in the SIP, and other Federal
measures should provide adequate
assurance of maintenance throughout
the maintenance period.
In its submittal, MPCA showed, using
validated ambient monitoring data
collected between 1998 and July of
2009, that the Twin Cities area is
meeting both the one hour and eight
hour CO NAAQS. The design values for
the eight hour CO NAAQS in this area
are below the 7.65 ppm threshold;
therefore, the State has satisfied the
maintenance demonstration
requirement for limited maintenance
plans. In addition, the design values for
the one hour CO NAAQS in the Twin
Cities area are very low when compared
to the NAAQS; the highest design value
for the one hour CO NAAQS between
1998 and 2009 was 11.1 ppm, or 31
percent of the NAAQS. The design
values for the Twin Cities area for 2007
to 2009 (in its entirety) are shown below
in Table 1. Subsequent Air Quality
Systems (AQS) queries for validated
monitoring data for available 2010 data
indicates that the one hour and eight
hour CO NAAQS are being met in the
Twin Cities area at values well below
either NAAQS.
TABLE 1—CO DESIGN VALUES AND PERCENTAGE OF NAAQS FOR THE TWIN CITIES AREA
1 Hour CO
NAAQS
design
value (ppm)
Year
2007 .................................................................................................................
2008 .................................................................................................................
2009 .................................................................................................................
3. Monitoring Network and Verification
of Continued Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated,
the State should continue to operate an
appropriate air quality monitoring
network, in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 58, to verify the attainment status
of the area. This is particularly
important for areas using a limited
maintenance plan because there will be
no cap on emissions. In its submittal,
MPCA specifically identifies two
monitoring sites located in the Twin
Cities area, which are AQS I.D. 27–053–
0954 (528 Hennepin Ave. in
Minneapolis) and AQS I.D. 27–123–
0050 (1088 W. University Ave. in St.
Paul). MPCA commits to continue
monitoring CO at these two sites to
ensure that CO concentrations remain
well below the 7.65 ppm threshold for
limited maintenance plans.
Furthermore, MPCA commits to consult
with EPA should changes to the existing
monitoring network be needed, and the
State’s monitoring plan for 2011 can be
found at the following site: https://
www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/airmonitoring-and-reporting/air-emissionsand-monitoring/air-monitoring-networkplan.html. The State has satisfied the
monitoring network and verification of
continued attainment requirements for
the limited maintenance plan.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
4. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to
promptly correct any violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation
of an area. The October 6, 1995,
memorandum further requires that the
contingency provisions identify the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Sep 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
2.5
3.1
2.5
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a specific time
limit for action by the State.
In its June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA
committed to the same contingency
measures that EPA previously approved
on October 29, 1999. MPCA stated that
if CO levels in the Twin Cities area
reach 85 percent of the eight hour CO
NAAQS, it would work closely with
EPA to determine which of the
originally listed contingency measures
would be the most appropriate to
implement in the case of a NAAQS
violation.
MPCA also committed to use a
monitored air quality violation as the
trigger event for the contingency
measure. The triggering date will be the
date that the State certifies to EPA that
the air quality data are quality assured
and not found to be due to an
exceptional event, malfunction, or
noncompliance with a permit condition
or rule requirement. The triggering date
will be no more than 30 days after an
ambient air quality violation is
monitored. MPCA attested that it would
implement one or more appropriate
contingency measures if a violation
occurs and the triggering event is
confirmed. The applicable measure(s)
would be selected by the MPCA
commissioner within six months of a
triggering event; the measure(s) would
be implemented per the respective
schedules that EPA approved on
October 29, 1999. Specific details about
these measures and implementation
schedules can be found in EPA’s May
13, 1999 (64 FR 25855) proposed
approval. The State has satisfied the
contingency plan requirements pursuant
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Percent of
1 Hour CO
NAAQS
7.1
8.9
7.1
8 Hour CO
NAAQS
design
value (ppm)
1.8
2.4
2.0
Percent of
8 Hour CO
NAAQS
20.0
26.7
22.2
to section 175A(d) of the CAA as well
as those of the October 6, 1995,
memorandum.
5. Conformity Determination Under
Limited Maintenance Plan
The transportation conformity rule of
November 24, 1993, (58 FR 62188) and
the general conformity rule of November
30, 1993 (58 FR 63214) apply to
nonattainment areas and maintenance
areas operating under maintenance
plans. Under either rule, one means of
demonstrating conformity of Federal
actions is to indicate that expected
emissions from planned actions are
consistent with the emissions budget for
the area.
Minnesota currently uses the
‘‘Transportation Conformity Procedures
for Minnesota: A Handbook for
Transportation and Air Quality
Professionals,’’ developed by an
interagency workgroup, to determine
transportation conformity. This
handbook addresses the consultation
and other required portions of the
Federal transportation conformity
program. Minnesota is in the process of
developing a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to formally
implement the processes in the
handbook, which are already being
used. Additionally, Minnesota intends
to submit the MOU and handbook to
EPA for approval as Minnesota’s
transportation conformity SIP.
The October 6, 1995, memorandum
also states that emissions budgets in
limited maintenance plan areas may be
treated as essentially not constraining
for the length of the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that
such an area will experience so much
growth in that period that a violation of
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
the CO NAAQS would result. In other
words, EPA concluded that, for these
areas, emissions need not be capped for
the maintenance period.
For transportation conformity, Federal
actions requiring conformity
determinations under the transportation
conformity rule could be considered to
satisfy the ‘‘budget test’’ required in
sections 93.118, 93.119, and 93.120 of
the rule once the limited maintenance
plan is approved by EPA. In its June 16,
2010, submittal, MPCA observed that for
the Twin Cities area, transportation
plans, transportation improvement, and
regionally significant projects still
require conformity determinations in
order to proceed. Additionally,
Federally funded projects are still
subject to ‘‘hot spot’’ analysis
requirements. However, no regional
modeling analysis would be required.
The State has satisfied the conformity
determination under limited
maintenance plan requirements for the
limited maintenance plan.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
We are approving this CO limited
maintenance plan for the Twin Cities
area. The State of Minnesota has
complied with requirements of section
175A of the CAA, as interpreted by the
guidance provided in the October 6,
1995, memorandum. Minnesota has
shown through its submittal that CO
emissions in the Twin Cities area have
decreased steadily between 1996 and
2009. Minnesota has also shown that the
monitored levels of CO in the Twin
Cities area have been consistently well
below the requisite level of 7.65 ppm for
the eight hour CO NAAQS in order to
qualify for the limited maintenance plan
option. Lastly, Minnesota has shown
that all monitored values for the one
hour and eight hour CO NAAQS have
been consistently well below the
respective NAAQS levels. These low
monitored values of CO are expected
through the end of the maintenance
period.
We are publishing this action without
prior proposal because we view this as
a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the
State plan if relevant adverse written
comments are filed. This rule will be
effective November 8, 2010 without
further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by October
12, 2010. If we receive such comments,
we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Sep 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period;
therefore, any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so
at this time. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective
November 8, 2010.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54777
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because approval of
a CO limited maintenance plan does not
impose any new regulatory
requirements on Tribes, impact any
existing sources of air pollution Tribal
lands, nor impair the maintenance of
CO NAAQS in Tribal lands. However,
because there are Tribal lands located in
Scott County, we provided the affected
Tribe with the opportunity to consult
with EPA on the CO limited
maintenance plan. The affected Tribe
raised no concerns with the final rule.
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 action 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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by November 8, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the Proposed Rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
54778
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
attainment demonstration, a reasonable
further progress plan, contingency
measures, and other planning State
Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements
related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, are suspended for so
long as the area continues to attain the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference.
Dated: August 26, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
■
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Y—Minnesota
2. Section 52.1237 is amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1237 Control strategy: Carbon
monoxide.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Approval—On June 16, 2010,
Minnesota submitted a carbon
monoxide (CO) limited maintenance
plan for the Minneapolis-St. Paul area
under section 175A of the CAA for the
continued attainment of the one hour
and eight hour CO NAAQS.
[FR Doc. 2010–22338 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0113; FRL–9197–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Baton Rouge 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area; Determination of
Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA has determined that
the Baton Rouge (BR) moderate 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area has attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This determination is based
upon complete, quality assured,
certified ambient air monitoring data
that show the area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the 2006–2008 and 2007–
2009 monitoring periods. Preliminary
data available for 2010 is consistent
with continued attainment.
Under the provisions of EPA’s 8-hour
ozone implementation rule, as a
consequence of this determination the
requirements for this area to submit an
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Sep 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R06–OAR–
2010–0113. All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Section (6PDL),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public
inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review
Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays.
Contact the person listed in the FOR
ADDRESSES:
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective
October 12, 2010.
DATES:
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below to make an
appointment. If possible, please make
the appointment at least two working
days in advance of your visit. There will
be a fee of 15 cents per page for making
photocopies of documents. On the day
of the visit, please check in at the EPA
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–
2733.
Ms.
Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,
telephone (214) 665–7367, fax (214)
665–7263, e-mail address
rennie.sandra@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. This
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is
arranged as follows:
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the effect of this action?
III. Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. What action is EPA taking?
We are determining that the BR 8hour ozone nonattainment area is
currently attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). This determination
is based upon complete, qualityassured, certified ambient air
monitoring data that show the area has
monitored attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2006–2008
and 2007–2009 monitoring periods, and
that preliminary data available for 2010
is consistent with continued attainment
of the NAAQS.
As a consequence of this
determination, under the provisions of
EPA’s ozone implementation rule (see
40 CFR section 51.918), the
requirements for this area to submit an
attainment demonstration, a reasonable
further progress plan (RFP), applicable
contingency measures, and other
planning State Implementation Plan
(SIP) requirements related to attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, are
suspended for so long as the area
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
The rationale for our action is
explained in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPR) published on June
25, 2010 (75 FR 36316) and in today’s
rulemaking. We received one comment
in support of the proposal.
II. What is the effect of this action?
Under the provisions of EPA’s ozone
implementation rule, 40 CFR 51.918, the
requirements for the State of Louisiana
to submit an attainment demonstration,
a RFP plan, contingency measures
under sections 172(c)(9), and any other
planning SIPS related to attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are
suspended for so long as the area
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
standard.
If EPA subsequently determines, after
notice-and-comment rulemaking in the
Federal Register, that the BR area has
violated the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
the basis for the suspension of the
requirements would no longer exist, and
EPA would take action to withdraw the
determination and direct the area to
address the suspended requirements.
This final action does not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under CAA
section 107(d)(3), because we do not yet
have an approved maintenance plan for
the area as required under section 175A
of the CAA, nor a determination that the
area has met the other requirements for
redesignation. The classification and
designation status of the area remain
moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS until such time as
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 174 (Thursday, September 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54773-54778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22338]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0556; FRL-9197-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Carbon Monoxide (CO) Limited Maintenance Plan for the Twin
Cities Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on June 16, 2010, to revise the
Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for carbon monoxide (CO)
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The State has submitted a limited
maintenance plan for CO showing continued attainment of the CO National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul (Twin
Cities) area. The one hour CO NAAQS and eight hour CO NAAQS are 35
parts per million (ppm), and 9 ppm, respectively. This limited
maintenance plan satisfies section 175A of the CAA, and is in
accordance with EPA's October 29, 1999, approval of the State's
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Twin Cities area.
Additionally, this limited maintenance plan for CO satisfies the
requirements contained in the October 6, 1995, EPA memorandum entitled
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment
Areas.''
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 8, 2010,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 12, 2010. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0556, by one of the following methods:
[[Page 54774]]
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692-2054.
4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0556. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Air Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0258, chang.andy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
A. Why did the State make this submittal?
B. Limited Maintenance Plan
1. What is a limited maintenance plan, and what are the general
requirements that must be met by a State in order to submit a
limited maintenance plan?
2. What additional elements does a State need to include as part
of a limited maintenance plan?
C. Did the State hold public hearings for the limited
maintenance plan?
II. What criteria is EPA using to evaluate this submittal?
III. What is EPA's analysis of this submittal?
A. Requirements of Section 175A of the CAA
B. Consistency With the October 6, 1995, Memorandum
1. Attainment Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
4. Contingency Plan
5. Conformity Determination Under Limited Maintenance Plan
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Why did the State make this submittal?
On November 6, 1991, EPA designated most of the Twin Cities seven
county metropolitan area (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey,
Scott, and Washington counties), along with parts of Wright County, as
being a moderate nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS under section 107
of the CAA (56 FR 56694).
On March 23, 1998, MPCA submitted a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the Twin Cities nonattainment area. EPA found that
the redesignation request met all applicable requirements under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and also found that the maintenance plan met
the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. MPCA's redesignation
request and maintenance plan for the Twin Cities area was approved on
October 29, 1999 (64 FR 58347); comprehensive details about the
maintenance plan can be found in EPA's proposed approval on May 13,
1999 (64 FR 25855).
Section 175A(b) of the CAA mandates that the State shall submit an
additional revision to the maintenance plan eight years after
redesignation of any area as an attainment area. Minnesota's limited
maintenance plan satisfies this requirement, and is also consistent
with the requirements for limited maintenance plan elements outlined in
an October 6, 1995, memorandum from the Group Leader of the Integrated
Policy and Strategies Group, entitled, ``Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas.'' EPA observes that
although the Twin Cities area was designated as a moderate
nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS, redesignation to attainment status
in conjunction with meeting all requirements of the October 6, 1995,
memorandum, allows the State to be eligible to submit a limited
maintenance plan as the update to its original maintenance plan per
section 175A(b) of the CAA. The State submitted the limited maintenance
plan to EPA on June 16, 2010.
B. Limited Maintenance Plan
The definition, general requirements, and additional elements of a
limited maintenance plan will be explained below.
1. What is a limited maintenance plan, and what are the general
requirements that must be met by a State in order to submit a limited
maintenance plan?
A maintenance plan, as defined in section 175A of the CAA, is a
revision to the SIP to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS for the
air pollutant in question in the area concerned for at least 10 years
after the redesignation. Eight years after the redesignation, States
should submit an update to the maintenance plan to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS for another 10 years after the initial 10 year
period has expired. As previously mentioned, Minnesota's
[[Page 54775]]
original maintenance plan was approved on October 29, 1999 (64 FR
58347).
A limited maintenance plan for CO is a maintenance plan that is
available to States who have demonstrated that the design values for CO
in the nonclassifiable nonattainment area are at, or below, 7.65 ppm
(85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS). The area's design value must
not exceed the 7.65 ppm threshold throughout the entire rulemaking
process. The design value for CO is defined as the second highest
reading in the area in a two year period. Should an area have more than
one monitor, the monitor with the second highest value in a two year
period serves as the design monitor. As previously mentioned, EPA has
determined that the limited maintenance plan for CO is available to all
States as part of their update to maintenance plans per section
175A(b), regardless of the original nonattainment classification, or
lack thereof.
2. What additional elements does a State need to include as part of a
limited maintenance plan?
In addition to meeting all applicable requirements of section 175A
of the CAA, States should also include the following elements in a
limited maintenance plan for CO: Attainment Inventory, Maintenance
Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment,
Contingency Plan, and Conformity Determinations Under Limited
Maintenance Plans. These elements were outlined in the October 6, 1995,
EPA memorandum, and will be comprehensively discussed below.
C. Did the State hold public hearings for the limited maintenance plan?
Public notice was given on May 10, 2010, in the Minnesota State
Register.
II. What criteria is EPA using to evaluate this submittal?
In addition to the general requirements in section 175A of the CAA,
guidance for CO limited maintenance plans is provided in the October 6,
1995, memorandum, which states that the following five components need
to be addressed: Attainment Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration,
Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment, Contingency
Plan, and Conformity Determination Under Limited Maintenance Plan.
III. What is EPA's analysis of this submittal?
A. Requirements of Section 175A of the CAA
Section 175A contains four subsections pertaining to maintenance
plans. Section 175A(a) establishes requirements for initial SIP
redesignation request maintenance plans, as addressed in EPA's October
29, 1999, approval of the Minnesota plan. Section 175A(b) requires
States to submit an update to the maintenance plan eight years
following the original redesignation to attainment, and MPCA has
satisfied the requirements of this element with its current submittal.
It also requires that within this update, the State must outline
methods for maintaining the pertinent NAAQS for ten years after the
expiration of the ten-year period referred to in subsection (a), i.e.,
Minnesota's maintenance plan update must outline methods for
maintaining the CO NAAQS through 2019. However, EPA stated in the
October 6, 1995, memorandum that it is not necessary for States to
project emissions over this maintenance period. Instead, EPA believes
that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 7.65 ppm
(85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS), the applicability of
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements,\1\ control
measures already in the SIP, and other Federal measures should provide
adequate assurance of maintenance throughout the maintenance period.
Section 175A(c) does not apply to this rulemaking, given that EPA has
previously redesignated the Twin Cities area to attainment for CO. The
contingency provisions requirements outlined in section 175A(d) will be
addressed in detail in section B4, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA has delegated the authority to implement the Federal PSD
program pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 to Minnesota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consistency With the October 6, 1995, Memorandum
As discussed above, EPA's interpretation of section 175A of the
CAA, as it pertains to limited maintenance plans for CO, is contained
in the October 6, 1995, memorandum. Minnesota has addressed the five
major elements of that policy, as follows:
1. Attainment Inventory
The State is required to develop an attainment emissions inventory
to identify a level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
attain the CO NAAQS. In its June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA provided a
comprehensive CO emissions inventory for nonroad mobile, stationary,
and onroad mobile sources. This set of estimated emissions was
identical to that which EPA approved for the Twin Cities area on
December 9, 2004 (69 FR 71375). The December 9, 2004, approval was not
a full update to the CO maintenance plan for the Twin Cities area, but
applied only to the 1996 and 2009 CO emissions inventory and the 2009
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets; both of these emissions were estimated
using the MOBILE6 model. EPA observed in the December 9, 2004, approval
that the updated emissions using the MOBILE6 model were much better
predictors of CO emissions in the Twin Cities area because there had
been substantial changes made to the model between MOBILE6 and its
MOBILE5 predecessor, released in 1993. In its June 16, 2010, submittal,
MPCA highlighted that the total estimated CO emissions in the Twin
Cities area has decreased from 2,506 tons per winter day in 1996, to
1,856 tons per winter day in 2009.\2\ This represents a 26 percent
decrease in total CO emissions in tons per winter day. The onroad
mobile emissions for the Twin Cities area, thought to be the major
source of the original nonattainment designation, decreased from 1,872
tons per winter day in 1996 to 1,311 tons per winter day in 2009. This
represents a 30 percent decrease in onroad mobile CO emissions in tons
per winter day. MPCA also estimated that between 1996 and 2030, there
would be a 36 percent decrease in onroad mobile CO emissions in tons
per winter day in the Twin Cities area. Monitoring data from 1998 to
2009 shows consistent compliance with the eight hour CO NAAQS at levels
well below the 85 percent threshold of 7.65 ppm; therefore the State
has satisfied the attainment inventory requirement for limited
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CO emissions are generally highest during the winter, and
thus the modeling was performed in such a way that yielded tons per
winter day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Maintenance Demonstration
In the October 6, 1995, memorandum, EPA stated that the maintenance
demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied for
nonclassifiable areas if the monitoring data show that the area is
meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas, i.e.,
85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS, or 7.65 ppm. As previously
mentioned, EPA determined in this same memo that there is no
requirement to project emissions over the maintenance period. Instead,
EPA believes that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or
[[Page 54776]]
below, 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS), the
applicability of PSD requirements, control measures already in the SIP,
and other Federal measures should provide adequate assurance of
maintenance throughout the maintenance period.
In its submittal, MPCA showed, using validated ambient monitoring
data collected between 1998 and July of 2009, that the Twin Cities area
is meeting both the one hour and eight hour CO NAAQS. The design values
for the eight hour CO NAAQS in this area are below the 7.65 ppm
threshold; therefore, the State has satisfied the maintenance
demonstration requirement for limited maintenance plans. In addition,
the design values for the one hour CO NAAQS in the Twin Cities area are
very low when compared to the NAAQS; the highest design value for the
one hour CO NAAQS between 1998 and 2009 was 11.1 ppm, or 31 percent of
the NAAQS. The design values for the Twin Cities area for 2007 to 2009
(in its entirety) are shown below in Table 1. Subsequent Air Quality
Systems (AQS) queries for validated monitoring data for available 2010
data indicates that the one hour and eight hour CO NAAQS are being met
in the Twin Cities area at values well below either NAAQS.
Table 1--CO Design Values and Percentage of NAAQS for the Twin Cities Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Hour CO 8 Hour CO
Year NAAQS design Percent of 1 NAAQS design Percent of 8
value (ppm) Hour CO NAAQS value (ppm) Hour CO NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................................ 2.5 7.1 1.8 20.0
2008............................................ 3.1 8.9 2.4 26.7
2009............................................ 2.5 7.1 2.0 22.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated, the State should continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. This
is particularly important for areas using a limited maintenance plan
because there will be no cap on emissions. In its submittal, MPCA
specifically identifies two monitoring sites located in the Twin Cities
area, which are AQS I.D. 27-053-0954 (528 Hennepin Ave. in Minneapolis)
and AQS I.D. 27-123-0050 (1088 W. University Ave. in St. Paul). MPCA
commits to continue monitoring CO at these two sites to ensure that CO
concentrations remain well below the 7.65 ppm threshold for limited
maintenance plans. Furthermore, MPCA commits to consult with EPA should
changes to the existing monitoring network be needed, and the State's
monitoring plan for 2011 can be found at the following site: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-monitoring-and-reporting/air-emissions-and-monitoring/air-monitoring-network-plan.html. The State
has satisfied the monitoring network and verification of continued
attainment requirements for the limited maintenance plan.
4. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of an area. The October 6,
1995, memorandum further requires that the contingency provisions
identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for
adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by
the State.
In its June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA committed to the same
contingency measures that EPA previously approved on October 29, 1999.
MPCA stated that if CO levels in the Twin Cities area reach 85 percent
of the eight hour CO NAAQS, it would work closely with EPA to determine
which of the originally listed contingency measures would be the most
appropriate to implement in the case of a NAAQS violation.
MPCA also committed to use a monitored air quality violation as the
trigger event for the contingency measure. The triggering date will be
the date that the State certifies to EPA that the air quality data are
quality assured and not found to be due to an exceptional event,
malfunction, or noncompliance with a permit condition or rule
requirement. The triggering date will be no more than 30 days after an
ambient air quality violation is monitored. MPCA attested that it would
implement one or more appropriate contingency measures if a violation
occurs and the triggering event is confirmed. The applicable measure(s)
would be selected by the MPCA commissioner within six months of a
triggering event; the measure(s) would be implemented per the
respective schedules that EPA approved on October 29, 1999. Specific
details about these measures and implementation schedules can be found
in EPA's May 13, 1999 (64 FR 25855) proposed approval. The State has
satisfied the contingency plan requirements pursuant to section 175A(d)
of the CAA as well as those of the October 6, 1995, memorandum.
5. Conformity Determination Under Limited Maintenance Plan
The transportation conformity rule of November 24, 1993, (58 FR
62188) and the general conformity rule of November 30, 1993 (58 FR
63214) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas operating
under maintenance plans. Under either rule, one means of demonstrating
conformity of Federal actions is to indicate that expected emissions
from planned actions are consistent with the emissions budget for the
area.
Minnesota currently uses the ``Transportation Conformity Procedures
for Minnesota: A Handbook for Transportation and Air Quality
Professionals,'' developed by an interagency workgroup, to determine
transportation conformity. This handbook addresses the consultation and
other required portions of the Federal transportation conformity
program. Minnesota is in the process of developing a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to formally implement the processes in the
handbook, which are already being used. Additionally, Minnesota intends
to submit the MOU and handbook to EPA for approval as Minnesota's
transportation conformity SIP.
The October 6, 1995, memorandum also states that emissions budgets
in limited maintenance plan areas may be treated as essentially not
constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is
unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth
in that period that a violation of
[[Page 54777]]
the CO NAAQS would result. In other words, EPA concluded that, for
these areas, emissions need not be capped for the maintenance period.
For transportation conformity, Federal actions requiring conformity
determinations under the transportation conformity rule could be
considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' required in sections 93.118,
93.119, and 93.120 of the rule once the limited maintenance plan is
approved by EPA. In its June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA observed that
for the Twin Cities area, transportation plans, transportation
improvement, and regionally significant projects still require
conformity determinations in order to proceed. Additionally, Federally
funded projects are still subject to ``hot spot'' analysis
requirements. However, no regional modeling analysis would be required.
The State has satisfied the conformity determination under limited
maintenance plan requirements for the limited maintenance plan.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
We are approving this CO limited maintenance plan for the Twin
Cities area. The State of Minnesota has complied with requirements of
section 175A of the CAA, as interpreted by the guidance provided in the
October 6, 1995, memorandum. Minnesota has shown through its submittal
that CO emissions in the Twin Cities area have decreased steadily
between 1996 and 2009. Minnesota has also shown that the monitored
levels of CO in the Twin Cities area have been consistently well below
the requisite level of 7.65 ppm for the eight hour CO NAAQS in order to
qualify for the limited maintenance plan option. Lastly, Minnesota has
shown that all monitored values for the one hour and eight hour CO
NAAQS have been consistently well below the respective NAAQS levels.
These low monitored values of CO are expected through the end of the
maintenance period.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 8,
2010 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by October 12, 2010. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period; therefore, any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective November 8, 2010.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because approval of a CO limited maintenance plan does not impose any
new regulatory requirements on Tribes, impact any existing sources of
air pollution Tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of CO NAAQS in
Tribal lands. However, because there are Tribal lands located in Scott
County, we provided the affected Tribe with the opportunity to consult
with EPA on the CO limited maintenance plan. The affected Tribe raised
no concerns with the final rule.
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 action 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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 8, 2010. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
[[Page 54778]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference.
Dated: August 26, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Y--Minnesota
0
2. Section 52.1237 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1237 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.
* * * * *
(e) Approval--On June 16, 2010, Minnesota submitted a carbon
monoxide (CO) limited maintenance plan for the Minneapolis-St. Paul
area under section 175A of the CAA for the continued attainment of the
one hour and eight hour CO NAAQS.
[FR Doc. 2010-22338 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P