[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25855-25862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12161]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve 
a revision to the Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 
attainment and maintenance for the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) for Carbon Monoxide (CO). The revision pertains to the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area which includes the following 
counties: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, Washington, 
and Wright. The revision proposed for approval is the maintenance plan 
required pursuant to section 175A of the Clean Air Act (Act) for areas 
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment. Correspondingly, EPA is 
also proposing to approve the redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul 
CO Area to attainment. EPA will not finalize this approval until the 
EPA approves the vehicle Inspection/Maintenance program for the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by June 14, 
1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone

[[Page 25856]]

Michael Leslie at (312) 353-6680 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    A copy of these SIP revisions are available for inspection at the 
following location: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and 
Information Center (Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20460, (202) 260-7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Leslie, Regulation 
Development Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Minneapolis/St. Paul CO Nonattainment Area

    On March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8902), pursuant to section 107 of the Act, 
EPA designated the Minneapolis/St. Paul area as nonattainment with 
respect to the CO NAAQS. The 1990 amendments to the Act authorized EPA 
to designate nonattainment areas and to classify them according to 
degree of severity. Therefore, on November 16, 1991 (56 FR 56694), the 
EPA designated the Minneapolis/St. Paul area moderate CO nonattainment 
with a design value of 11.4 parts per million (ppm). The Act defines 
the design value as the second highest ambient CO concentration 
averaged over two years. The Act establishes regulatory requirements 
for CO nonattainment areas based on the area's design value.

B. Redesignation Request

    Under the Act, nonattainment areas can be redesignated to 
attainment if sufficient data are available to satisfy five criteria 
contained in section 107(d)(3) of the Act. These criteria include the 
requirements that the area has attained and can maintain the applicable 
NAAQS standards.
    For the period from 1995 to 1996, the Minneapolis/St. Paul area 
ambient monitoring data shows no violations of the CO NAAQS. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 107(d) of the Act, the area became eligible for 
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. On March 23, 1998, 
pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Act, the State of Minnesota 
requested the redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area to 
attainment with respect to the CO NAAQS. In order to ensure continued 
attainment of the CO standard, Minnesota also submitted a maintenance 
plan as required by section 175A of the Act. If the redesignation is 
approved, the section 175A maintenance plan would become a federally 
enforceable part of the SIP for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. On 
February 23, 1998, the State's 30 day public comment period closed on 
the maintenance plan component of the redesignation request. The State 
included responses to all public comments in the submittal.

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

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act provides five specific requirements 
that an area must meet to be redesignated from nonattainment to 
attainment:
    1. The area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
    2. The area has met all relevant requirements under section 110 and 
part D of the Act;
    3. The area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the 
Act;
    4. The air quality improvement is permanent and enforceable;
    5. The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to 
section 175A of the Act.

III. Review of State Submittal

    The Minnesota redesignation request for the Minneapolis/St. Paul 
area meets the five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E). EPA's 
Technical Support Document, dated May 3, 1999, from Michael Leslie to 
the Docket, entitled ``Technical Review of Minnesota's State 
Implementation Plan Revision for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Nonattainment 
Area Carbon Monoxide Redesignation,'' contains a detailed analysis of 
the Minnesota redesignation request and the Section 175A maintenance 
plan for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. An abbreviated analysis of the 
Minnesota redesignation request is set forth below.

A. Attainment of the CO NAAQS

    The Minnesota request is based on ambient air CO monitoring data 
for calendar year 1995 through calendar year 1996. The data, which has 
been reviewed for technical precision and accuracy, shows no violations 
of the CO NAAQS in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Further, EPA has 
reviewed 1997 and 1998 CO monitoring data which also indicate no 
violations of the CO NAAQS. Because the Minneapolis/St. Paul area has 
quality-assured data which indicate no violations of the standard over 
the two most recent and consecutive calendar year periods, the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul area has met the first statutory criterion for 
redesignation to attainment of the CO NAAQS. The State will continue to 
monitor the area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. (If complete 
quality assured data show violations of the CO NAAQS before the final 
EPA action on this redesignation, the EPA proposes that it disapprove 
the redesignation request.)

B. Meeting Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part D

    Minnesota is required to have a fully adopted SIP before the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul area can be redesignated to attainment for CO. On 
June 16, 1980 (45 FR 40581), EPA gave final approval to Minnesota's SIP 
for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area as meeting the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2) and part D of the Act. For the purpose of fulfilling 
the Part D requirements for all nonattainment areas in the State, 
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted, and EPA approved 
on May 2, 1995, and April 28, 1994, respectively, the State's operating 
permit program (60 FR 21451) and the New Source Review program (59 FR 
21941). Specific requirements under section 110 and additional sections 
under part D of the Act are discussed below, including those 
requirements arising under the 1990 amendments to the Act.
1. Section 110 Requirements
    The Minneapolis/St. Paul area SIP meets the requirements of section 
110(a)(2) of the Act as amended by the 1990 amendments. As noted above, 
on June 16, 1980 (45 FR 40581) EPA approved Minnesota's SIP for the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul area for meeting, among other things, the 
requirements of section 110. Although the 1990 amendments amended 
certain provisions of section 110 of the Act (57 FR 27936 and 57 FR 
23939, June 23, 1993), the EPA analyzed the SIP and has determined that 
it is consistent with the requirements of amended section 110(a)(2).
2. Part D Requirements
    The Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area must fulfill the 
applicable requirements of part D before it can be redesignated to 
attainment. Under part D, applicable requirements are based upon an 
area's severity classification. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the 
basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas, 
classified as well as nonclassifiable. Subpart 3 of part D sets forth 
additional requirements for CO nonattainment areas classified pursuant 
to table 1 of section 186(a). Because the Minneapolis/St. Paul area has 
a design value of 12.7 ppm CO, it is classified as moderate CO 
nonattainment pursuant to table 1 of section 186(a). Therefore, prior 
to

[[Page 25857]]

redesignation, the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area must meet 
all of the applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D (including 
the requirements set forth at sections 172(c) and 176 of the Act) and 
subpart 3 of part D.
    a. Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 172(c) Provisions. Section 172(c) 
sets forth general requirements applicable to all nonattainment area 
SIPs, including provisions which implement reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) for existing sources, a new source review (NSR) 
program which meets the requirements of section 173, reasonable further 
progress (RFP) toward attainment of the applicable standard, an 
emission inventory of sources of the relevant pollutant, and a 
demonstration of attainment by the applicable attainment date. Under 
172(b), a schedule of plan submissions to fulfill the section 172(c) 
requirements must be submitted to EPA no later than three years after 
an area has been designated as nonattainment.
    Minnesota has satisfied all of the section 172(c) requirements 
necessary for redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Further, 
because the Minneapolis/St. Paul area was subject to the nonattainment 
plan requirements in effect prior to the enactment of the 1990 
Amendments, many of the subpart 1 requirements had been met prior to 
the enactment of the amendments.
    The Minnesota SIP provides for the implementation of RACT for 
existing CO sources, as required by section 172(c)(1). The Minnesota 
SIP meets the requirements for RFP. Further, because the Minneapolis/
St. Paul area has attained the CO NAAQS, no new RFP requirements under 
section 172(c)(2) apply. The Section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory 
requirements were met when EPA approved the 1990 base year inventory on 
September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47807).
    Section 172(c)(4) requires states to demonstrate that emissions 
quantified based upon growth will be consistent with the achievement of 
RFP, and will not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS. 
The proposed maintenance plan demonstrates continued attainment through 
the year 2009. Further, the State will maintain an ambient monitoring 
network to ensure that the NAAQS continue to be met.
    Section 172(c)(5) requires states to implement NSR permitting 
requirements that meet the requirements of section 173 of the Act. 
Minnesota's operating permit program and New Source Review program, 
which EPA approved on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21451) and April 28, 1994 (59 
FR 21941), respectively, meet section 173 requirements.
    Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires contingency plans in the 
event that the nonattainment fails to make RFP or the standard. Here, 
however, the area has met its RFP requirements and has attained the 
standard. Further, Minnesota has provided contingency measures in the 
proposed 175A maintenance plan. Therefore, it is unnecessary to apply 
the requirement for contingency measures for this nonattainment area 
under the de minimis approach.
    b. Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 176 Conformity Provisions. Section 
176(c) of the Act requires States to revise their SIPs to establish 
criteria and procedures to ensure that Federal actions, before they are 
taken, conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable 
State SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to 
transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or 
approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act 
(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal 
actions (``general conformity''). Section 176 of the Act further 
provides that the conformity revisions to be submitted by States must 
be consistent with Federal conformity regulations that the Act required 
the EPA to promulgate. EPA approved Minnesota's general conformity rule 
on April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19674).
    The EPA believes the conformity requirements are not applicable 
requirements for evaluating the redesignation request under section 
107(d). This is based on two related factors. First, redesignated areas 
are required by their section 175A maintenance plans to submit SIP 
revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the Act. Second, 
EPA's Federal conformity rules require conformity analyses for areas 
that lack federally approved State rules. Therefore, areas are subject 
to the conformity requirements when designated to attainment or when 
not subject to federally approved State rules. Therefore, conformity 
requirements are not required for purposes of evaluating a 
redesignation request. Consequently, the CO redesignation request for 
the Minneapolis/St. Paul area may be approved notwithstanding the lack 
of a fully approved conformity SIP.
    Included in the submittal is a commitment by the State to satisfy 
the applicable requirements of the final transportation conformity 
rules. This is acceptable because the transportation conformity rule 
applies to maintenance areas.
    For purposes of transportation conformity, the control measures in 
the maintenance plan establish an emissions budget. The State has 
defined this budget for year 2009 as 993 tons per day of CO for onroad 
mobile sources. This level of emissions provides for continued 
maintenance of the CO standard.
    c. Subpart 3 of Part D Requirements. The Minneapolis/St. Paul area 
is classified as moderate nonattainment (less than 12.7 ppm CO). Hence, 
part D, Subpart 3, section 187(a) requirements apply. Section 187(a) 
requirements that were in effect prior to the submission of the request 
to redesignate the Minneapolis/St. Paul area must be fully approved 
into the SIP prior to redesignating the area to attainment. EPA's 
approval of these provisions are discussed below:
(1) 1990 Base Year Emission Inventory
    On September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47807), EPA approved the 1990 base 
year emission inventory for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.
(2) Oxygenated Fuel Program
    On October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50493), EPA approved the Oxygenated fuel 
program for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.
(3) 1993 Periodic CO Emissions Inventory
    On October 27, 1997 (62 FR 55203), EPA approved the 1993 Periodic 
CO emissions inventory for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.
(4) Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)
    Section 187(a)(4) of the Act requires states with areas designed 
moderate nonattainment for CO to improve existing I/M programs or 
implement new ones. Because the Minneapolis/St. Paul area is classified 
as a moderate CO nonattainment area, Section 187 required the State to 
develop a SIP for I/M that met the basic I/M requirements contained in 
the Act and in the corresponding regulations codified at 40 CFR part 
51, subpart S.
    On November 10, 1992, the State submitted its initial I/M plan to 
the EPA, which it supplemented by submittals made on November 12, 1993, 
and December 15, 1993. On October 13, 1994, the EPA published a 
rulemaking action approving, and conditionally approving, portions of 
Minnesota's I/M plan. A detailed discussion of EPA's rulemaking action 
can be found in the final rule at 59 FR 51860. As part of the 
rulemaking action the EPA identified a number of deficiencies in the 
State's plan and issued a conditional approval,

[[Page 25858]]

requiring Minnesota to submit a revised plan within one year of the 
conditional approval date. Although the State timely responded to the 
deficiencies by submittals dated July 8, 1996, and September 24, 1996, 
the State legislature is currently modifying the existing I/M 
legislation to finalize corrections to the deficiencies. EPA has not 
yet acted on these submittals. EPA will not finalize its approval of 
the redesignation until such time that EPA approves the State's I/M SIP 
for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.
    As described above, the State has presented an adequate 
demonstration that it has met the requirements applicable to the area 
under section 110 and part D.

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

    The third redesignation requirement set forth in section 
107(d)(3)(E) is that the area have a fully approved SIP under section 
110(k) of the Act. Upon EPA's approval of the Minneapolis/St. Paul I/M 
program and of this maintenance plan submittal, the State will have a 
fully approved SIP under section 110(k). As discussed above, these 
approvals will also satisfy the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirement that 
the area meet all requirements under section 110 and part D of the Act.

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

    The fourth redesignation requirement set forth in section 
107(d)(3)(E) requires the State to demonstrate that the actual 
enforceable emission reductions are responsible for the recent 
improvement in air quality. This demonstration may be accomplished 
through an estimate of the percent reduction (from the year that was 
used to determine the design value for designation and classification) 
achieved through Federal measures, such as the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Control Program (FMVCP) or the fuel volatility rules, or through 
control measures that the State has adopted and implemented.
    The State established the emission reductions for the period from 
1990 to 1996 based on the FMVCP and fuels programs, which the State 
determined are responsible for the improvement in air quality. All 
emission projections are based on the 1990 base year emission 
inventory, which EPA approved on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47807).
    Consistent with emission inventory guidance, the 1990 base year 
emission inventory represents 1990 average winter day actual emissions 
for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Arbor area. The State projected the 1990 
base year emissions forward to 1996, in order to determine the emission 
reductions during this time period. The State developed the growth 
factors for the projections.
    Based on available actual emission data from 1995, Minnesota 
estimated the 1996 point source emissions as equivalent to the 1995 
actual emissions. Minnesota estimated future years (1998 and beyond) 
point source emissions by using the maximum potential to emit, which 
included current controls.
    Minnesota developed area source growth factors from the Twin Cities 
Metropolitan Council and the State Planning Office projections of 
employment, housing, and population data. Minnesota applied the growth 
factors to the 1990 base year inventory for the Minneapolis/St. Paul 
area. The State also utilized growth factors for railroad emissions 
developed from the United States Bureau of Public Analysis projections.
    The State used the MOBILE5a model to develop the mobile source 
emission estimates. The significant input parameters for the MOBILE5a 
model are presented in Chapter 3 of the State's TSD. The State employed 
methodologies to develop the on-highway mobile source emissions, which 
included the Federal highway administration (FHWA) highway performance 
monitoring system (HPMS) traffic count for 1990 vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT), supplemental traffic count data meeting HPMS standards for 1990, 
projection of VMT to projection years using a transportation model 
calibrated with HPMS VMT data, and MOBILE5a emission factors and 
estimating emissions with modeled VMT and MOBILE5a. Mobile source 
methodologies are described in detail in Chapter 3 of the State's TSD.
    The following tables present the CO emissions for 1990 and 1996 and 
emission reductions from 1990 to 1996. The State claimed credit for 
emission reductions achieved as a result of implementation of the 
federally enforceable FMVCP, oxygenated fuel, and I/M control measures. 
The emission reductions claimed are conservative since they do not 
account for emission reductions resulting from other control measures 
and programs implemented during this time period.
    As illustrated by the tables and discussed in the State's 
submittal, the total reductions achieved from 1990 to 1996 are 931 tons 
of CO per day.

         Table 1.--CO Emission Inventory Summary for Demonstration of Emission Reductions From 1990-1996
                                                 [Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                            Category                                   1990            1996          1988-1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................................             274             169            -105
Area............................................................             283             303             +20
Non-Road Mobile.................................................             173             189             +16
On-Road Mobile..................................................            1976            1114            -862
    Total.......................................................            2706            1775            -931
    Net Reduction...............................................  ..............  ..............            -931
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State has demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is 
due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions of 931 tons of CO 
per day as a result of implementing the federally enforceable FMVCP, 
Oxygenated Fuel, and Inspection/Maintenance reductions.

E. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A

    The final requirement for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(e) 
is that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to 
section 175A of the Act. Section 175A of the Act sets forth the 
elements for maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation. Such 
plans must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for 
at least 10 years after the EPA approves a redesignation to attainment. 
Eight years after the redesignation, States must submit revised 
maintenance plans which demonstrate attainment for the 10 years 
following the initial 10-year

[[Page 25859]]

period. To address potential future NAAQS violations, maintenance plans 
must contain contingency measures, with schedules to assure prompt 
correction of any air quality problems. Section 175A(d) requires that 
the contingency provisions include a requirement that States implement 
all control measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation.
    In this action, EPA is proposing approval of the State of 
Minnesota's 175A maintenance plan for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. 
EPA finds that Minnesota's submittal meets the requirements of section 
175A, provided that the State continues to implement all the control 
measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation as an attainment 
area. If, after notice and comment, EPA determines that it should give 
final approval to the maintenance plan, the Minneapolis/St. Paul 
nonattainment area will have a fully approved maintenance plan in 
accordance with section 175A. The following is a discussion of the 
basis for proposing approval of Minnesota's 175A maintenance plan.
1. Emissions Inventory--Attainment Inventory
    The State has developed an attainment emission inventory for 1996 
that identifies 1775 tons of CO per day as the level of emissions in 
the area sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS.
    All inventories in the maintenance plan were derived from the 1990 
base year emission inventory. The methodologies used in developing 
these inventories are discussed in section (3) of EPA's TSD and in 
further detail in sections 4.0 and 6.0 of the State's TSD. EPA approved 
the 1990 base year emission inventory on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 
47806). The State has adequately developed an attainment emissions 
inventory for 1996 that identifies the levels of emissions as 1775 tons 
of CO per days the level of emissions in the area sufficient to attain 
the NAAQS.
2. Demonstration of Maintenance--Projected Inventories
    To demonstrate continued attainment the State projected CO 
emissions through the maintenance period to the year 2009 and for 
interim years 1998 and 2008. These emissions are presented in Table 2 
of the submittal and summarized below in Table 2. These projected 
emission inventories demonstrate that the CO emissions will remain 
below the attainment year, 1996, emission levels. The emissions 
projections through the year 2009 show an emissions reduction of 1026 
tons of CO per day by 2009. These emission reductions are primarily the 
result of continued implementation of the federally enforceable FMVCP.
    The methodologies used in developing the projection inventories are 
the same as those employed for the other inventories contained in the 
submittal and are discussed in EPA's TSD and in further detail in 
sections 4.0 and 6.0 of the State's TSD.

                                       Table 2.--CO Maintenance Emission Inventory Projection Summary through 2009
                                                                     [Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Net change
                        Category                               1990            1996            1998            2008            2009          1993-2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................             274             169             229             229             229             -45
Area....................................................             283             303             311             338             340              57
Non-Road Mobile.........................................             173             189             195             212             213              40
On-Road Mobile..........................................            1976            1114            1032             882             898           -1078
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................            2706            1775            1767            1661            1680           -1026
Net Reduction...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           -1026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State has adequately demonstrated continued attainment of the 
CO NAAQS through the projection of CO emissions through the 10 year 
maintenance period to 2009 and for the interim years 1998 and 2008. 
These projections indicate that CO emissions throughout the maintenance 
period will remain well below the 1996 attainment inventory.
    The performed microscale CO modeling to predict maximum CO 
concentrations for ten ``hot-spot'' intersections. The State used the 
procedures outlined in EPA's guidance entitled, ``Guideline for 
Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections,'' to select the 
appropriate intersections for the modeling analysis. The intersections 
in Table 3 were selected based traffic volumes and Level of Service 
(LOS), which are indicators of potential hot-spots.

         Table 3.--Intersections Used for Microscale CO Modeling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Intersection                          Area type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T.H. 169 at CSAH 81......................  Developing.
T.H. 101 at T.H. 7.......................  Developing.
T.H. 100 at CSAH 81......................  Developing.
T.H. 10 at University....................  Developing.
T.H. 252 at 85th Ave.....................  Developing.
T.H. 252 at 66th Ave.....................  Developing/Developing.
T.H. 252 at Brookdale Dr.................  Developing.
University at Lexington Ave..............  St. Paul.
Snelling at University...................  St. Paul.
Hennepin Ave. at Lake St.................  Minneapolis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information on the approach volumes, intersection signal timing, 
intersection geometries, meteorological condition are necessary to 
perform the analysis. The State obtained this traffic data from the 
Minnesota Department of Transportation, the city of Minneapolis, the 
city of St. Paul, various consultants. Growth factors for the 
intersections future year volumes were developed by the Metropolitan 
Council, the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Minneapolis/St. 
Paul area.
    Two scenario's were modeled as part of the analysis. First, CO 
concentrations were modeled with the current I/M program and oxygenated 
fuel program in place. Second, CO concentrations were modeled with only 
oxygenated fuel program in place, assuming that the I/M program is 
discontinued in 1998.
    The State used EPA approved models CAL3QHC and CAL3QHCR to generate 
CO concentrations for the microscale analysis. The MOBILE5a model was 
used to generate idle and free flow emission factors for the analysis. 
The submittal provides detailed information on the I/M program (with 
the associated anti-tampering program), parameters for the oxygenated 
fuel program, ambient temperature, and Reid Vapor Pressure. MOBILE 
model defaults were used for the vehicle population mix and vehicle 
mileage accumulation. Results of the modeling analysis are shown in 
Tables 4 and 5.

[[Page 25860]]



                Table 4.--CO Concentrations for year 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Current I/M Program
                                         -------------------------------
              Intersection                    1 hour          8 hour
                                           concentration   concentration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T.H. 169 at CSAH 81.....................            11.8             8.5
T.H. 101 at T.H. 7......................            11.2             8.1
T.H. 100 at CSAH 81.....................            11.1             8.0
T.H. 10 at University...................            10.9             7.8
T.H. 252 at 85th Ave....................            12.5             9.0
T.H. 252 at 66th Ave....................            10.8             7.8
T.H. 252 at Brookdale Dr................            10.2             7.3
University at Lexington Ave.............             9.3             6.8
Snelling at University..................             9.9             7.2
Hennepin Ave. at Lake St................             9.2             6.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table 5.--CO Concentrations for year 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Current I/M Program         Without current I/M program
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                  Intersection                        1 hour          8 hour          1 hour          8 hour
                                                   concentration   concentration   concentration   concentration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T.H. 169 at CSAH 81.............................             9.7             7.0            10.7             7.7
T.H. 101 at T.H. 7..............................             9.0             6.5            10.0             7.2
T.H. 100 at CSAH 81.............................             8.2             5.9             9.1             6.5
T.H. 10 at University...........................             8.1             5.8             9.0             6.5
T.H. 252 at 85th Ave............................             9.9             7.1            10.7             7.7
T.H. 252 at 66th Ave............................             8.4             6.0             9.4             6.8
T.H. 252 at Brookdale Dr........................             8.5             6.1             9.2             6.6
University at Lexington Ave.....................             7.7             5.6             8.4             6.1
Snelling at University..........................             8.0             5.8             8.8             6.4
Hennepin Ave. at Lake St........................             6.9             5.0             8.7             5.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These modeled values are below the NAAQS for both the 1 hour (35 ppm) 
and the 8 hour (9 ppm) standard through the maintenance period.
3. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Section 175A requires States to set up a process to assess the 
area's continued maintenance of the applicable NAAQS. This process must 
include operation of the area's monitoring network, tracking of 
emissions through modeling or emissions inventories, and setting up 
triggers for implementing the contingency plan. The following is a 
discussion of Minnesota's fulfillment of these requirements.
    a. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network. In its submittal and 
TSD, the State commits to continue to operate and maintain the network 
of ambient CO monitoring stations in accordance with provisions of 40 
CFR part 58, in order to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the CO 
NAAQS.
    b. Tracking of Attainment. The State's submittal presents a 
tracking plan for the maintenance period which consists of two 
components: continued CO monitoring and inventory or modeling updates. 
The State will continue to monitor CO levels throughout the area to 
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the CO NAAQS. The State also 
commits to conduct periodic inventories for the redesignated area every 
three years using the most recent emission factors, models and 
methodologies. The inventories will begin in 2002, with reviews 
conducted every 3 years. The State will submit to EPA a review of the 
assumptions and data used for the development of the attainment 
inventory in 2002. The periodic inventory will consist of reviewing the 
assumptions of the maintenance demonstration such as VMT, population, 
and employment.
    The modeling demonstrations will be reevaluated every three years. 
The State will determine the validity of the modeling assumptions and 
the input data as part of this analysis.
    c. Triggers. The contingency plan contains one trigger, a monitored 
air quality violation of the CO NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR 50.8. The 
trigger date will be the date that the State certifies to the U.S. EPA 
that the air quality data are quality assured, which will be no later 
than 30 days after an ambient air quality violation is monitored. The 
justification for providing only one trigger is that section 175A(d) 
explicitly stipulates that a contingency measure must ensure prompt 
correction of any violation of the NAAQS once the area is redesignated.
4. Contingency Plan
    The level of CO emissions in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area will 
largely determine its ability to stay in compliance with the CO NAAQS 
in the future. Despite best efforts to demonstrate continued compliance 
with the NAAQS, the ambient air pollutant concentrations may exceed or 
violate the NAAQS. Therefore, as required by section 175A of the Act, 
Minnesota has provided contingency measures with a schedule for 
implementation in the event of a future CO air quality problem. 
Contingency measures contained in the plan include basic I/M, 
Transportation Control Measures (TCM), and expansion of the Oxygenated 
fuels program. Once the triggering event, a violation of the CO NAAQS, 
is confirmed, the State will implement one or more appropriate 
contingency measures. Minnesota will select the contingency measures 
within 6 months of a triggering event. The EPA understands, on the 
basis of the State's submission, that the adoption and implementation 
schedules specified in the Act and any corresponding regulations will 
be used. Therefore, the following schedules are applicable for the 
contingency measures specified in the contingency plan. Section 175A of 
the Act requires that a maintenance plan

[[Page 25861]]

contain a contingency plan that will promptly correct a violation of 
the CO NAAQS that occurs after the area is redesignated to attainment.
    a. Inspection and Maintenance. The State will implement a basic I/M 
program in the seven county Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area to 
meet 40 CFR 51.352 basic I/M requirements. The enabling legislation was 
adopted in June 1, 1996 and authorizes the State to use these I/M 
upgrades as a contingency measure in areas redesignated to attainment. 
I/M will be implemented within two years of the selection of this 
contingency measure. This time is necessary to develop the Request for 
Proposal, solicit and assess bids, select a contractor, negotiate a 
contract, and start up the program. The schedule for adoption and 
implementation of basic I/M as a contingency measure, will be 
consistent with that provided for in the Act and the I/M regulation.
    b. Transportation Control Measures. The State will require the 
implementation of the appropriate transportation control Measures 
(TCMs) to correct local CO hot spot problems. The type of TCMs will be 
selected by best engineering practice to address the problem. TCMs will 
be implemented within one year of the selection of this contingency 
measure. This time would be necessary to coordinate with local and/or 
state governments to assure that these entities complete any 
appropriate processes such as form policy, change local ordinances, 
etc.
    c. Oxygenated Fuel Program. The State of Minnesota is currently 
implementing an oxygenated fuel programs for CO control. The State will 
propose amending existing legislation to change the oxygen content of 
fuel from the current level of 2.7 percent to 3.5 percent in the 
control area. Implementation of this measure would occur within one 
year of selection. This time line is necessary to amend existing 
legislation.
    The EPA finds that the three contingency measures provided in the 
State submittal meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the Act 
since they would promptly correct any violation of the CO NAAQS.
5. Commitment To Submit Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    The State has committed to submit a new maintenance plan within 
eight years of the redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area as 
required by section 175(A)(b). This subsequent maintenance plan must 
constitute a SIP revision and provide for the maintenance of the CO 
NAAQS for a period of 10 years after the expiration of the initial 10 
year maintenance period.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO maintenance 
plan as a SIP revision meeting the requirements of section 175A. In 
addition, the EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request 
for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, subject to final approval of the 
maintenance plan, because the State has demonstrated compliance with 
the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation pending full 
approval of the SIP element listed above. (In the alternative, if 
ambient air quality violations occur before EPA takes final action on 
the proposed redesignation or if the EPA does not fully approve any of 
the SIP revisions listed above, the EPA proposes to disapprove this 
redesignation request.) EPA will not finalize the approval of the 
maintenance plan and redesignation request until the Minneapolis/St. 
Paul I/M program is approved by EPA.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    CO SIPs are designed to satisfy the requirements of part D of the 
Act and to provide for attainment and maintenance of the CO NAAQS. This 
proposed redesignation should not be interpreted as authorizing the 
State to delete, alter, or rescind any of the CO emission limitations 
and restrictions contained in the approved CO SIP. Changes to CO SIP 
regulations rendering them less stringent than those contained in the 
EPA approved plan cannot be made unless a revised plan for attainment 
and maintenance is submitted to and approved by EPA. Unauthorized 
relaxations, deletions, and changes could result in both a finding of 
nonimplementation (section 173(b) of the Act) and in a SIP deficiency 
call made pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elective officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' This rule does not create a 
mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose 
any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on these communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' This rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian 
tribal governments. Accordingly, the

[[Page 25862]]

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

D. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This direct final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because plan approvals 
under section 111(d) do not create any new requirements but simply 
approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, 
because the Federal approval does not create any new requirements, I 
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of 
the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act (Act) 
preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of a State action. The Act forbids EPA 
to base its actions on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 
427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs 
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 
approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Carbon monoxide.

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

    Dated: May 5, 1999.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 99-12161 Filed 5-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U