[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28339-28344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13179]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MN-36-1-6752a; FRL-5202-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 7, 1994, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
(MPCA) submitted a request for redesignation to attainment for 
particulate matter (PM) in the Rochester portion of Olmsted County and 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131 
Twin Cities and Pine Bend areas (excluding the St. Paul Park area). A 
revision to the administrative order for Rochester Public Utilities 
(RPU) was also submitted in support of the Olmsted County redesignation 
request. The USEPA is approving, through the use of direct final 
rulemaking procedures, the redesignation requests and the 
administrative order revision for RPU.

EFFECTIVE DATES: This action will be effective July 31, 1995 unless 
notice is received by June 30, 1995, that someone wishes to submit 
adverse or critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely 
notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L. 
MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement 
Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the redesignation request and USEPA's analysis are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following address: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-
17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), 
Docket and Information Center (Air Docket (6102) Room M1500, United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, 
D.C., 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson, Air Enforcement 
Branch, Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), United States 
Environmental Protection, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-
6713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of State Submittal

    A request for redesignation to attainment for PM for the Rochester 
area of Olmsted County and for SO2 for the Twin Cities area 
(excluding the St. Paul Park area) was submitted by the MPCA on 
September 7, 1994. The submittal was received by USEPA on September 12, 
1994. In addition to the redesignation requests, a revision to the 
administrative order for RPU was submitted to support the request for 
the Rochester area.
    The Rochester area was designated as a moderate nonattainment area 
for PM upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 
(56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). As required in the CAAA, revisions to 
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) were submitted on November 26, 
1991, August 31, 1992, and November 13, 1992. These revisions were 
approved by USEPA on February 15, 1994 (59 FR 7218).
    The AQCR 131 area of Minnesota was designated primary nonattainment 
for SO2 on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8692). In response to the 
redesignation, the MPCA submitted a SO2 plan in August 1980. The 
USEPA published a final rule approving the State's SO2 Part D plan 
on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20997). Subsequent monitored violations of the 
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) prompted a 1982 
notice of SIP inadequacy for the Dakota County area of AQCR 131. Also, 
as a result of the promulgation of the Good Engineering stack height 
rule in 1985, the MPCA identified modeled attainment problems in other 
areas of AQCR 131. The submittal of a revised plan for the area was 
further delayed by the passage of the CAAA in 1990. Final SO2 SIP 
revisions were submitted to USEPA in [[Page 28340]] three parts. The 
plan for the majority of the AQCR 131 area was submitted May 29, 1992, 
and approved by USEPA on April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17703). The plan for the 
Pine Bend area (including the Koch Refining Company) of Dakota County 
was submitted on July 29, 1992, and approved by USEPA on September 9, 
1994 (59 FR 46553). The plan for the St. Paul Park area (Ashland 
Petroleum Company) of AQCR 131 was submitted on December 22, 1992, and 
was approved on January 18, 1995 (60 FR 3544), effective March 20, 
1995.
    The remainder of this rulemaking will (1) evaluate the PM request 
for redesignation including the revised administrative order, (2) 
detail a review of the SO2 request for redesignation, and (3) 
present the final rulemaking action.

II. Analysis of Submittal

Particulate Matter Request

    The State PM redesignation request submittal consisted primarily of 
a maintenance plan and air quality monitoring data. An administrative 
order was also included in the submittal in support of the maintenance 
demonstration. The submittal contained text describing how the 
statutory requirements were met. These requirements are detailed in 
Title I, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The specific criteria and how 
the State complied with the requirements are detailed below.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires a determination of whether the 
area has attained the NAAQS. The State used both air quality monitoring 
data and a dispersion modeling analysis to show that the area has 
attained the 24-hour and annual NAAQS of 150 g/m3 and 50 
g/m3, respectively. The modeling demonstration was 
included in the proposed SIP revision initially submitted to USEPA on 
November 26, 1991, and August 31, 1992. The modeling was performed in 
accordance with the USEPA document entitled ``Guideline on Air Quality 
Models, (Revised), including Supplement A,'' 1987. The Industrial 
Source Complex-Short Term (ISCST) model was used for the analysis. The 
modeling utilized urban dispersion coefficient, 5 years of National 
Weather Service meteorological data, regulatory default modeling 
options, and 100 meter spacing in high predicted impact areas. The 
demonstration explicitly modeled impacts from Rochester Public 
Utilities, and added in a concentration representative of local 
background sources. The analysis showed that, with all control measures 
in operation, modeled plus background concentrations of PM did not 
violate the NAAQS. A more detailed discussion of the modeling 
demonstration can be found in the June 25, 1993, notice of proposed 
rulemaking on the Rochester PM SIP revision (58 FR 34297). That 
proposed rulemaking concluded that the air dispersion modeling met the 
appropriate requirements.
    Ambient air monitoring data for the years 1988 through the first 
quarter of 1994, was submitted from a PM monitor located at 7th Street 
and West Silver Lake Drive. This data has been quality assured and is 
available for review in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System 
(AIRS), monitor number 271090015. No monitored exceedances of the PM 
NAAQS have occurred in Olmsted County since the violation on June 14, 
1988, which precipitated the redesignation to nonattainment for the 
Rochester area.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) states that USEPA may not promulgate a 
redesignation to attainment unless USEPA has fully approved the area 
SIP under section 110(k). The PM SIP for the Rochester area of Olmsted 
County was approved by USEPA on February 15, 1994. The revised 
administrative order for RPU, submitted with the redesignation requests 
and discussed more fully in a later section, is being approved in this 
direct final rulemaking.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) states that USEPA may not promulgate a 
redesignation request to attainment unless USEPA determines that ``the 
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable 
implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control 
regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions.''
    The primary source of PM emissions in the Rochester nonattainment 
area is RPU. An administrative order, which does not expire and which 
was approved by USEPA on February 15, 1994, imposes emission limits and 
operating restrictions upon the Company. The initial order became 
effective at the State level in November 1992. The attainment 
demonstration submitted with the proposed SIP revision showed that the 
NAAQS for PM were not violated with the limits and restrictions in 
effect. Ambient air monitoring data shows there have been no 
exceedances since June 1988. Additionally, in 1988, RPU emitted 14.0 
tons of PM, compared to 1992 annual emissions of 8.9 tons. The 
information presented by the State adequately demonstrates that the 
improvement in air quality can reasonably be attributed to reductions 
in emissions which are permanent and enforceable.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) states that USEPA may not promulgate a 
redesignation request to attainment unless USEPA has fully approved a 
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 
175A.
    Section 175A defines the general framework of a maintenance plan as 
a SIP revision and that it must provide for maintenance of the NAAQS in 
the area for at least 10 years after redesignation. Section 175A 
further states that the plan shall contain such additional measures, as 
may be necessary to ensure such maintenance. In addition, the 
maintenance plan must contain contingency measures to promptly correct 
a violation of the NAAQS.

Maintenance Plan

    The primary components of a maintenance plan are (1) the attainment 
inventory; (2) the maintenance demonstration; (3) verification of 
continued attainment; (4) the monitoring network; and (5) the 
contingency plan.

Attainment Inventory

    The SIP revision submittal, approved on February 15, 1994, included 
a PM emission inventory as part of the modeling demonstration. The 
modeling analysis showed that the level of emissions in the area was 
sufficient to attain the PM NAAQS.

Maintenance Demonstration

    As stated previously, RPU is the primary source of PM in the 
nonattainment area. An administrative order, issued to RPU, contains 
emission limits and operating restrictions which were shown through the 
modeling demonstration to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The 
administrative order does not expire, therefore assuring that emissions 
from RPU will not increase over the next 10 years. A significant part 
of the modeled attainment demonstration is the contribution made from 
sources not included in the modeling inventory. The contribution from 
these sources is called the background concentration and is added to 
the modeled concentration for a total PM concentration. The background 
concentrations for the 24-hour and annual values were approximately 24 
g/m3 and 12 g/m3, respectively. Vehicle 
emissions represent a background source of PM that change over time. 
The submittal projected a 14 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT) for the period from 1990 to 2005, based on information from 
[[Page 28341]] Olmsted County. This percentage increase, when applied 
entirely to VMT results in a 24-hour background value of 27 g/
m3, which results in a total area concentration of about 132 
g/m3. This is well below the NAAQS of 150 g/
m3. The new annual total area concentration would be about 34 
g/m3, also well below the NAAQS. To account for future 
industrial growth, the State permitting process requires any PM source 
potentially emitting 25 tons a year to demonstrate, through dispersion 
modeling, that attainment is met before the source may obtain a permit. 
Minor source growth will be checked through ambient air monitoring, but 
is unlikely to be significant enough to threaten the NAAQS given the 
current level of modeled and monitored concentrations.

Verification of Continued Attainment

    Growth in the area will be monitored by use of the following: 
tracking new permit applications; tracking requests for permit 
amendments; review of annual emission inventories required by all 
permitted facilities.

Monitoring Network

    The monitor currently in operation in the Rochester nonattainment 
area will remain operating to verify the attainment status of the area. 
The monitor will continue to operate in accordance with 40 Code of 
Federal Regulations Part 58, and the data will continue to be reported 
in AIRS.

Contingency Plan

    Section 175(A)(d) of the CAA requires the submission of contingency 
provisions to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation 
of the PM standard which occurs after the area has been redesignated to 
attainment. The administrative order for RPU contains a contingency 
plan. A proposed amendment to the order was submitted so that the 
contingency plan shall be implemented if a violation of the NAAQS is 
determined from monitoring the area after the area has been designated 
attainment. Prior to the amendment, the plan would be implemented if 
timely attainment failed to occur. Thus, the amendment changes the 
triggering criteria but not the substance of the contingency measures 
that were approved in the February 15, 1994, final rulemaking. The 
contingency plan consists of applying a chemical binding agent to the 
coal pile, along with appropriate recordkeeping, and, if the violation 
is severe enough, wheel washing of vehicles leaving the coal yard. 
These measures become enforceable without further legislative or 
rulemaking action by either the State or USEPA and are to be 
implemented immediately upon a violation of the PM NAAQS.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that USEPA may not promulgate a 
redesignation request to attainment unless the State has met all the 
requirements applicable to the nonattainment area under section 110 and 
part D. The State initially submitted revisions to its SIP for the 
Rochester nonattainment area on November 26, 1991. The submittal was 
reviewed against the requirements of the CAA, including section 110, 
section 189, and section 172. A final approval rulemaking, dated 
February 15, 1994, concluded that the submittal met the applicable 
requirements.

Sulfur Dioxide Request

    The request for redesignation to attainment for the Twin Cities and 
Pine Bend area of AQCR 131 included technical support information such 
as ambient air monitoring data and air dispersion modeling summaries. 
The request package referenced the attainment demonstration which 
supported the recently approved SIP revision submittals for the Twin 
Cities and Pine Bend areas. The request also describes how it meets the 
requirements of Section 107, Title I, of the CAA. The specific 
requirements, although listed above, are summarized again in this 
section along with details of how the State complies with those 
requirements.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) states that the Administrator may not 
promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment unless 
the Administrator determines that the area has attained the NAAQS. On 
May 29, 1992, and July 29, 1992, the MPCA submitted SIP revisions for 
the Twin Cities and Pine Bend areas of AQCR 131. The SIP revision 
submittals demonstrated attainment with the SO2 NAAQS through the 
use of air dispersion modeling. These modeling demonstrations were 
found to meet the applicable requirements (59 FR 17703 and 59 FR 
46553). In addition to the modeled attainment demonstration, ambient 
air monitoring data from the area network was included which showed no 
violations. The most recent exceedances occurred in 1987.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) states that an area may not be 
redesignated to attainment unless it has a fully approved SIP under 
section 110(k). The SIP for the Twin Cities area was approved by USEPA 
on April 14, 1994. The SIP revision for the Pine Bend area was approved 
by USEPA on September 9, 1994. The combination of these two area SIPs 
comprises the region requested to be redesignated to attainment.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) states that an area may not be 
redesignated to attainment unless it is determined that the improvement 
in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in 
emissions resulting from the implementation of applicable SIP limits 
and operating restrictions. The AQCR 131 Twin cities area was 
originally designated nonattainment based on monitored violations of 
the NAAQS which occurred in the late seventies. Many factors could have 
contributed to the improvement in air quality since that time (e.g., 
better technology, lower sulfur fuels, reduction in number of sources). 
However, it can reasonably be determined that the enforceable emission 
limits, fuel quality specifications, and operating restrictions that 
have been imposed on the significant sources in the Twin Cities area 
have contributed greatly to, and are the primary reason for, the 
continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the area. The State 
submitted data showing the percent reductions in emissions for the 
facilities which were issued administrative orders as part of the SIP 
revision. Those facilities are Federal Hoffman, Incorporated, GAF 
Building Materials Corporation, Minneapolis Energy Center, 
Incorporated, Northern States Power Company-Riverside, United Defense, 
L.P., Koch Refining Company and Sulfur Acid Unit Plant, Continental 
Nitrogen and Resources Company, and Northern States Power Company-Inver 
Hills. The reductions are primarily the result of tighter emission 
limits imposed by the administrative orders.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) states that the Administrator may not 
promulgate a redesignation to attainment unless the area has a fully 
approved maintenance plan. The maintenance plan must meet the 
requirements of section 175(A) as mentioned previously. The primary 
requirement is for the SIP to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for 
at least 10 years after the redesignation.

Maintenance Plan

    The basic components needed to ensure proper maintenance of the 
NAAQS are: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, 
verification of continued attainment, ambient air monitoring network, 
and a contingency plan.
Attainment Inventory

    The air dispersion modeling included in the May 29, 1992, and July 
29, 1992, SIP submittals contained an emission inventory of the 
significant SO2 sources [[Page 28342]] in the Twin Cities and Pine 
Bend areas. The inventory was used in the computer dispersion modeling 
analyses to demonstrate attainment. The modeling demonstrations met the 
appropriate requirements.

Maintenance Demonstration and Verification

    The critical component of a maintenance demonstration is the 
ability to project attainment for a period of at least 10 years 
following the redesignation. The MPCA relied on the dispersion 
modeling, submitted with the earlier SIP revisions, to demonstrate that 
the limits and operating restrictions contained in the administrative 
orders were adequate to reach attainment. The administrative orders are 
Federally enforceable and do not expire. Future growth in the area will 
be monitored on a regular basis through the State's permitting process. 
The permitting threshold for SO2 is 50 tons a year. Emission 
inventories must be submitted to the State on an annual basis. This 
will allow for monitoring of inventory changes and growth in the area.
    There are several reasons to expect that future actual and 
estimated emissions of SO2 will not increase in the Twin Cities 
and Pine Bend areas; production and use of lower sulfur diesel fuel, 
reducing SO2 emissions to avoid the permitting process, and the 
conservative nature of the air dispersion modeling demonstration.

Ambient Air Monitoring

    The SO2 ambient air monitoring network, currently in place in 
the Twin Cities and Pine Bend areas, will remain in operation in order 
to continue verification of attainment status and the data will 
continue to be reported in AIRS.

Contingency Plan

    Section 175A of the CAA requires that the maintenance plan include 
contingency provisions to correct any violation of the NAAQS after 
redesignation of the area. However, in the proposed General Preamble 
for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, (57 FR 
13498), it states that SO2 provisions require special 
considerations. A primary reason is that SO2 control methods are 
well established and understood. This results in less uncertainty in 
the modeled attainment demonstrations. It is considered unlikely that 
an area would fail to attain the standards after it has demonstrated, 
through modeling, that attainment is reached after the limits and 
restrictions are fully enforced. Therefore, contingency measures for 
SO2 need only consist of a comprehensive program to identify 
sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an 
aggressive followup for compliance and enforcement. The MPCA has the 
necessary enforcement and compliance programs, as well as means by 
which to identify violators.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that the Administrator may not 
redesignate an area to attainment unless the area has met the 
applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D. It was determined 
in the final rulemaking approval of the Twin Cities and Pine Bend area 
plans that the requirements under section 110 and Part D were met.

III. Rulemaking Action

    The USEPA has evaluated the approvability of a request for 
redesignation to attainment for PM for Rochester, MN, (including an 
amendment to the administrative order for Rochester Public Utilities-
Silver Lake Plant), and for SO2 for the Twin Cities area and the 
Pine Bend area of AQCR 131. The submittal is being approved based on 
the determination that it meets the applicable requirements of Title I 
of the CAA. The USEPA is also using this publication to correct 
codification information for the Dakota County, MN lead SIP revision 
and redesignation approved on October 18, 1994 (59 FR 52431).
    The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates 
no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document 
in this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed 
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the 
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical 
comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on 
July 31, 1995, unless USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by 
June 30, 1995.
    If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the approval 
discussed above, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its effective 
date, and publish a subsequent Federal Register notice which withdraws 
this final action. All public comments received will then be addressed 
in a subsequent rulemaking notice.
    Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at 
this time. If no such comments are received, USEPA hereby advises the 
public that this action will be effective on July 31, 1995.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). 
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA 
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements 
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The 
CAA forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPS on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.CT. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 1995. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).) [[Page 28343]] 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate 
matter.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control.

    Note--Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of Minnesota was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: April 19, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.

    Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, parts 52 
and 81, are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

    2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(42) to read 
as follows.


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (42) On September 7, 1994, the State of Minnesota submitted a 
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for particulate matter 
for the Rochester area of Olmsted County, Minnesota.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Amendment Two to the administrative order for the Silver Lake 
Plant of Rochester Public Utilities, located in Rochester, Minnesota, 
dated and effective August 31, 1994, submitted September 7, 1994.
    3. Section 52.1229 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 52.1229 
Maintenance of national standards.
    (a) USEPA has approved the following maintenance plans:
    (1) The maintenance plan for lead for Dakota County, submitted June 
22, 1993.
    (2) The maintenance plan for particulate matter for Rochester, 
submitted September 7, 1994.
    (3) The maintenance plan for sulfur dioxide for the Twin Cities 
area except for the Ashland Refinery area, submitted September 7, 1994.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

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

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

    2. In Sec. 81.324, the table ``Minnesota SO2'' is amended by 
revising the entry for ``AQCR 131'' to read as follows:


Sec. 81.324  Minnesota.

* * * * *

                             Minnesota--SO2                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Does not                              
                    Does not        meet        Cannot be    Better than
 Designated area  meet primary    secondary    classified     national  
                    standards     standards                   standards 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQCR 131:                                                               
    Anoka County                                                      X 
    Carver                                                              
     County.....                                                      X 
    Dakota                                                              
     County.....                                                      X 
    Hennepin                                                            
     County.....                                                      X 
    Ramsey                                                              
     County.....                                                      X 
    Scott County                                                        
     (part) The                                                         
     area                                                               
     bounded on                                                         
     the north                                                          
     by                                                                 
     Interstate                                                         
     494; on the                                                        
     west by                                                            
     Highway 52;                                                        
     on the                                                             
     south by a                                                         
     line from                                                          
     the                                                                
     intersectio                                                        
     n of                                                               
     Highway 52                                                         
     and 56 east                                                        
     to the                                                             
     County                                                             
     Line; on                                                           
     the east by                                                        
     the County                                                         
     line.......            X                                           
    Rest of                                                             
     Scott                                                              
     County.....                                                      X 
    Washington                                                          
     County                                                             
     (part) The                                                         
     area                                                               
     bounded on                                                         
     the west by                                                        
     the County                                                         
     line; on                                                           
     the south                                                          
     by a line                                                          
     extending                                                          
     from the                                                           
     County line                                                        
     east to                                                            
     100th                                                              
     Street; on                                                         
     the east by                                                        
     Jamaica                                                            
     Avenue; on                                                         
     the north                                                          
     by Military                                                        
     Road and                                                           
     Interstate                                                         
     494........            X                                           
    Rest of                                                             
     Washington                                                         
     County.....                                                      X 
                                                                        
*                  *                  *                  *              
                  *                  *                  *               
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 81.324 the table ``Minnesota PM10'' is amended by 
revising the entry for ``Olmstead County'' to read as follows:


Sec. 81.324  Minnesota.

* * * * *

                                                 Minnesota--PM10                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Designation                               Classification              
     Designated area     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Date                  Type                  Date                  Type      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
Olmsted County..........  July 31, 1995...........  Attainment......                                            
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    4. In Sec. 81.324 the table ``Minnesota Lead'' is revised to read 
as follows:


Sec. 81.324  Minnesota

* * * * *

                                                                                                                
[[Page 28344]]
                                                 Minnesota--Lead                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Designation                     Classification         
               Designated area               -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Date             Type             Date             Type      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota County...............................        12/19/94  Attainment......                                  
Rest of State not designated................                                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-13179 Filed 5-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P