[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58347-58355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28310]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
State of Minnesota's request to redesignate the Minneapolis/St. Paul 
area, which includes Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, 
Washington, and Wright Counties to attainment for carbon monoxide (CO). 
The EPA is also approving the corresponding 175A maintenance plan 
associated with the redesignation request as a revision to the 
Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining and maintaining 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO. The EPA 
proposed to approve this plan on May 13, 1999 (64 FR 25855).

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

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision, public comments and EPA's 
responses are available for inspection at the following address: 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Michael 
Leslie at (312) 353-6680 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    A copy of these SIP revisions are available for inspection at the 
following location: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and 
Information Center (Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20460, (202) 260-7548.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Public Comments
    A. Comments from the Izaak Walton League of America
    B. Comments from Envirotest Corporation
    C. Comments from Environ Corporation
III. EPA Final Action
IV. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Executive Order 12875
    C. Executive Order 13045
    D. Executive Order 13084
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    F. Unfunded Mandates Act
    G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. Background

A. Minneapolis/St. Paul CO Nonattainment Area

    On March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8902), pursuant to section 107 of the Clean 
Air Act (Act), EPA designated the Minneapolis/St. Paul area as 
nonattainment for CO. Under the 1990 amendments to the Act, the EPA is 
authorized to designate nonattainment areas and to classify them 
according to degree of severity. Therefore, on November 16, 1991 (56 FR 
56694), the EPA designated the Minneapolis/St. Paul area moderate CO 
nonattainment.

[[Page 58348]]

B. Redesignation Request

    On March 23, 1998, pursuant to Section 107(d)(3) of the Act, the 
State of Minnesota requested the redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. 
Paul area to attainment with respect to the CO NAAQS. In order to 
qualify for redesignation, an area must first demonstrate that 
monitored air quality levels are within the applicable NAAQS. Since 
attaining the standard in 1995 and 1996, air quality monitors in the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul area continue to show attainment of the CO NAAQS. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 107(d) of the Act, the area is eligible 
for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. In order to ensure 
continued attainment of the CO standard, Minnesota also submitted a 
maintenance plan under section 175A of the Act. Once redesignation is 
approved, the section 175A maintenance plan will become a federally 
enforceable part of the SIP for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

II. Public Comments

    On May 13, 1999, the EPA proposed approval of a revision to the 
Minnesota SIP for attainment and maintenance for the NAAQS for CO (64 
FR 25855) and opened a 30 day comment period on the proposed action. 
During the comment period, the Izaak Walton League of America, 
Envirotest Corporation, and Envirotest Corporation's consultant ENVIRON 
submitted adverse comments on EPA's proposed action. These comments are 
summarized below, along with EPA's response.

A. Comments From the Izaak Walton League of America

    Comment: Discontinuance of the Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) 
Program Leaves the State without a Fully-Approved SIP for the Area.
    In the proposal, EPA stated that the Agency ``will not finalize its 
approval of the redesignation until such time that EPA approves the 
state's I/M SIP for the Minneapolis St. Paul area.'' 64 FR 25855, 25858 
(May 13, 1999). But the Legislature has subsequently discontinued the 
I/M program. Clearly, EPA cannot finalize this proposed redesignation 
without a fully approved SIP in place. 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 7407(d)(3)(E)(ii). Just as clearly, EPA has stated that a fully 
approved SIP sufficient to justify a redesignation to attainment for CO 
must include an EPA-approved vehicle I/M program.
    EPA Response: As discussed in the May 13, 1999 proposal, the SIP 
for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area must be fully approved in order to be 
redesignated to attainment. At the time of proposal, the EPA had 
approved every required element into the SIP, except for the I/M 
program. As noted in EPA's proposed action on the redesignation 
request, final approval of the redesignation request is contingent on 
the approval of the I/M program. EPA proposed full approval of the I/M 
plan on August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42888) and is finalizing its approval 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
    Furthermore, EPA policy contained in a September 4, 1992, 
memorandum from John Calcagni, Director of the Air Quality Management 
Division entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 
Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memo) notes that ``the State will be 
expected to maintain its implemented control strategy despite 
redesignation to attainment, unless such measures are shown to be 
unnecessary for maintenance.'' Additional guidance on this issue is 
contained in a memorandum dated September 17, 1993, from Michael 
Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation entitled, 
``State Implementation Plan Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests 
for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards on or after November 15, 1992'' 
(Shapiro memo). This memo states:

    As a general policy, a State may not relax the adopted and 
implemented SIP upon the area's redesignation to attainment. States 
should continue to implement existing control strategies in order to 
maintain the standard. However, section 175A recognizes that States 
may be able to move SIP measures to the contingency plan upon 
redesignation if the State can adequately demonstrate that such 
action will not interfere with maintenance of the standard. The type 
of demonstration necessary is dependent upon the pollutant for which 
the area has been redesignated to attainment.
    In order to make such a demonstration for an area redesignated 
to attainment for CO, EPA believes that the State could submit a 
revised control strategy demonstration showing that the measure is 
not necessary to maintain the standard.

    In its redesignation request, Minnesota shows through an emissions 
analysis, as well as through microscale modeling, that the area can 
maintain the CO NAAQS without the implementation of the I/M program. 
This analysis is described in more detail in EPA's proposed approval of 
the State's I/M SIP published on August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42888). The EPA 
has reviewed the State's emissions inventory and modeling analyses and 
finds that they meet applicable guidance and requirements. Therefore, 
the State has made the necessary demonstration that the I/M program is 
not necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS. In accordance with this policy, 
the State must include the program as a contingency measure in the 
maintenance plan for the redesignated area, which it has done.
    Today's approval of Minnesota's I/M SIP applies to the program 
while it remains in effect, while recognizing the potential 
redesignation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area to attainment. This 
action also approves the State's plan to discontinue the program after 
the area is redesignated to attainment and move it to the contingency 
measures portion of the maintenance plan for the area in accordance 
with the policy noted above and the requirements of the Act. The State 
has made the necessary corrections to its I/M plan, and has also made 
the appropriate demonstrations that the program is not necessary for 
attainment. Therefore, the I/M plan has been fully approved, fulfilling 
the requirement that the area have a fully approved SIP in order to be 
redesignated to attainment.
    Comment: Minnesota has not demonstrated that the improvements to CO 
are due to permanent and enforceable emissions decreases.
    EPA also must determine that the improvement in air quality is due 
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions before an area can 
be redesignated. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(iii). The State has based its 
request on statements that this element has been met through the 
implementation of federally enforceable FMVCP, oxygenated fuel and 
vehicle I/M reductions. But as noted above, the vehicle I/M program 
will no longer be implemented.
    EPA response: Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that, for the EPA 
to approve a redesignation, it must determine that the improvement in 
air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in 
emissions. The Calcagni memo clarifies this requirement by stating that 
``attainment resulting from temporary reductions in emission rates 
(e.g., reduced production or shutdown due to temporary adverse economic 
conditions) or unusually favorable meteorology would not qualify as an 
air quality improvement due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions.'' As discussed in the May 13, 1999 Federal Register notice, 
the Minneapolis/St. Paul area has reasonably demonstrated that 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions are responsible for the 
recent improvement in air quality. This demonstration was accomplished 
through an estimate of the reductions

[[Page 58349]]

(from a nonattainment year, 1990 to an attainment year, 1996) of CO 
achieved primarily through implementation of the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Control Program (FMVCP), oxygenated gasoline and the I/M program, in 
line with the Calcagni memo. However, since the I/M program may be 
discontinued upon redesignation, the EPA has analyzed the State's 
emissions data to ensure that the area can meet the permanent and 
enforceable test without counting the I/M program. This analysis 
indicates that the permanent and enforceable reductions from FMVCP and 
the oxygenated gasoline programs are large enough to meet the permanent 
and enforceable test without reductions from I/M. The State, therefore, 
adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
    The commentor notes that the I/M program will be discontinued in 
future years. A future year analysis is necessary as part of an 
approvable maintenance plan under sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175(A) 
of the Act. In general, maintenance plans are designed to show that an 
area will continue to remain in attainment of the applicable NAAQS for 
a period of at least ten years beyond approval of a redesignation 
request. As noted in the Calcagni memo, States must make a maintenance 
demonstration, either through an emissions analysis, or through 
computer modeling, that future year emissions levels will not cause a 
violation of the NAAQS. This demonstration should include an analysis 
of future growth in industry and population, increases in the number of 
vehicle miles traveled, and other changes that would affect air quality 
levels in the area, such as the discontinuation of a required control 
program. The State of Minnesota has made this demonstration through 
both the emissions analysis and modeling methods in accordance with 
EPA's emissions inventory and modeling guidance. The State's Technical 
Support Document (TSD) for the redesignation request contains an 
analysis of emissions levels with and without the I/M program, and has 
shown that the CO standard can be maintained without I/M in the future. 
A more detailed discussion of the I/M demonstration is contained in 
EPA's proposed approval of the I/M SIP, published on August 6, 1999 (64 
FR 42888).
    Comment: Minnesota does not have an approvable maintenance plan for 
the area.
    Minnesota also must submit, and EPA must approve, a maintenance 
plan for the area. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(iv). EPA has stated that an 
approvable maintenance plan for the area must include the state's 
continuance of ``all the control measures contained in the SIP prior to 
redesignation,'' and contingency measures in the event of a future CO 
problem. 64 FR 25855, 25859 (May 13, 1999). Among those contingency 
measures is a basic vehicle I/M program. Id. at 25860-61. But EPA seems 
unaware that the Minnesota Legislature has invalidated such programs.
    EPA response: As noted in the Calcagni memo ``the State will be 
expected to maintain its implemented control strategy despite 
redesignation to attainment, unless such measures are shown to be 
unnecessary for maintenance.'' Additional guidance on moving 
implemented programs to the contingency plan portion of the maintenance 
plan is contained in the Shapiro memo. As noted above, this memo allows 
for an area to discontinue a required measure and move it to the 
contingency plan if the State is able to make the appropriate 
demonstrations. Minnesota has submitted a modeling-based revised 
control strategy demonstration showing that the area can maintain the 
CO NAAQS without the implementation of the I/M program. This analysis 
is described in more detail in EPA's proposed approval of the State's 
I/M SIP published on August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42888). The EPA has reviewed 
the State's emissions inventory and modeling analyses and finds that 
they meet applicable guidance and requirements. Therefore, the State 
has made the necessary demonstration that the I/M program is not 
necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS in accordance with the Shapiro memo. 
As required, the State has included the program as a contingency 
measure in the maintenance plan for the redesignated area. The 
commentor is incorrect in stating that the ``Minnesota Legislature has 
invalidated such programs,'' since the I/M program continues to operate 
and is clearly identified as a contingency measure in the State's 
maintenance plan.
    Comment: The redesignation request, coupled with the vehicle I/M 
discontinuance, means that all requirements of section 110 of the Act 
are not met.
    In order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the state 
must show that it has met ``all requirements applicable to the area 
under Section 110 of this title and part D of this subchapter.'' 42 
U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(v). We read this as requiring the state to 
demonstrate and the Agency to consider and determine whether plans for 
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of all NAAQS, promulgated 
or revised, would continue in the event of the redesignation. This 
proposal, however, accompanied as it will be by the discontinuance of 
the vehicle I/M program, will undoubtedly result in increased oxides of 
nitrogen (NOX) emissions (as well as increased CO). 
NOX are precursors, along with volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs), of ozone smog. Automobiles and other vehicles emit 
NOX and VOCs, as well as CO. When the vehicle I/M program is 
discontinued, we believe that automobiles will pollute in an unchecked 
fashion in Minnesota, causing increases in NOX and VOC 
emissions. Increased NOX emissions, however, and the 
resulting implications for the area's and state's ability to meet the 
1-hour and 8-hour NAAQS for ozone have not been assessed as part of 
this redesignation. We believe that the statute requires EPA to make 
such an analysis where it is aware that there is a risk that any air 
quality problem may ensue. Indeed the Agency has noted that contingency 
plans must be in place ``to assure prompt correction of any air quality 
problems.'' 64 FR 25855, 25859 (May 13, 1999). However the proposed 
redesignation does not include analysis of the potential effects on the 
area's ozone status to be expected from the CO redesignation and 
subsequent lifting of the vehicle I/M program. We believe this makes 
the redesignation request unapprovable.
    EPA response: As noted above, the State's I/M SIP is approved 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. As a result, the area has met 
all requirements of section 110 and Part D of the Act. At present, the 
I/M program remains in operation and the State has made the required 
demonstrations to discontinue the program after redesignation to 
attainment for CO.
    Under the sections 107 and 175A of the Act, the State is only 
required to address the pollutant for which the area was violating and 
demonstrate that there will not be subsequent violations of the 
applicable NAAQS following redesignation. The State has performed 
modeling that shows continued attainment of the CO standard, and 
projected CO emissions through the maintenance period which show 
decreases from the attainment level. Notwithstanding the commentor's 
interpretation of EPA's proposed action, which stated that 
``maintenance plans must contain contingency measures, with schedules 
to assure prompt correction of any air quality problems' (64 FR 25859), 
section 175A(d) of the Act specifies that ``each plan revision 
submitted under this section shall

[[Page 58350]]

contain such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems 
necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation 
of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area.'' Clearly, this language indicates that contingency 
plans need only include measures for the pollutant for which the area 
is being redesignated.
    Section 110(l) of the Act notes that ``the Administrator shall not 
approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 
progress, or any other applicable requirement of this Act.'' While the 
I/M program was put into place for purposes of CO, the issue of whether 
the discontinuation of the I/M program will interfere with the area's 
ability to meet other applicable NAAQS must be addressed. As noted 
above,
I/M programs do have additional air quality benefits in that they 
reduce emissions of VOC and NOx, both precursors of ground 
level ozone.
    Historically, however, the Minneapolis/St. Paul area has never 
experienced a ground level ozone nonattainment problem. The EPA has 
reviewed monitoring data for the one-hour ozone levels recorded since 
1980, showing attainment of the one-hour NAAQS. In fact, monitors in 
the area have not shown a single exceedance of the one-hour ozone NAAQS 
since 1990. The one-hour ozone NAAQS that was established in 1979 
allows three exceedances of the standard at any monitor over a three 
year period before an area is considered to violate the standard. In no 
year since 1980 have more than two exceedances occurred, including 
1988, a year known for its high ozone levels around the country. In 
1980, by far the worst year on record in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, 
three monitors in the area recorded only five exceedances of the one-
hour ozone standard. Even then, the three year values at these monitors 
did not show a violation of the NAAQS. Since the last exceedance in 
1990, ozone levels measured in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area have 
continued to drop off and remain well below the health based one-hour 
ozone standard. The current ozone design value, the measure that EPA 
uses to assess the nonattainment status of an area, in Minneapolis/St. 
Paul is 24 percent below the one-hour ozone NAAQS with a value of .091 
ppm compared to the .120 ppm standard.
    In 1997, the EPA established a new, more stringent eight-hour ozone 
standard based on more recent health effects information. Since that 
time, EPA has been developing guidance and regulations to establish 
compliance strategies for the new standard. As part of this effort, the 
EPA will be establishing new nonattainment areas for the eight-hour 
standard in July 2000. In preparation for this activity, the EPA has 
analyzed eight-hour ozone data for areas around the country to see 
which areas have monitored levels over the new standard. The analysis 
that was done for Minnesota concludes that since 1993, the first year 
that eight-hour ozone information is available, current eight-hour 
concentrations are well below the health-based NAAQS. Unlike the one-
hour standard which is exceedance based, allowing three exceedances 
over a three year period, the eight-hour standard looks at the average 
of the fourth highest level over a three year period. Since 1993, no 
monitor in the area has recorded a fourth high over the eight-hour 
standard at any time. In order to be considered in violation of the 
NAAQS, the average of the fourth high over a three year period would 
need to be over the standard. EPA's analysis shows that monitors in the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul area are well below these levels, and does not 
expect the area to experience a nonattainment problem in the future.
    Much of the improvement in ozone levels nationwide has been 
attributed to the reduction in emissions from the automobile. The EPA 
continues to establish more stringent motor vehicle emissions standards 
at the national level and emissions from the automobile continue to 
drop dramatically. This, along with other control programs, has brought 
many areas into attainment with the one-hour ozone NAAQS without 
implementation of I/M programs. The ozone levels recorded in 
Minneapolis/St. Paul are well below levels seen in areas that have been 
successfully redesignated. Since the area has never experienced an 
exceedance of the one-hour ozone standard, continues to show low eight-
hour ozone values, and automobile emissions continue to decline 
overall, the EPA has no reason to believe that any marginal increase in 
VOC and NOX emissions resulting from the shutdown of the I/M 
program will interfere with the area's ability to meet either the one-
hour or the eight-hour ozone NAAQS standard.

B. Comments from Envirotest Corporation

    Comment: We are concerned with the disposition of a series of CO 
violations that took place in September 1998. According to the EPA 
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) web page (http://
www.epa.pov/airs/nonattn.html) Minneapolis had experienced violations 
of the NAAQS for CO. We learned that EPA allowed MPCA to erase these 
violations. It is our understanding that the MPCA was successful in 
getting these violations erased from the database because the problem 
was explained to be an equipment malfunction, yet that same piece of 
equipment is still in place and there were no repairs made to it! This 
seems odd to us. It appears that the monitoring system is used as a 
measure of air quality until such time as the air quality levels are 
exceeded.
    EPA response: The EPA retrieved the air quality data for the 1997 
and 1998 CO season from AIRS. The data illustrates that all the 
monitors in the area continue to demonstrate attainment of the CO 
NAAQS.
    On September 26-28, 1998, a downtown Minneapolis, MN CO monitor 
(27-053-0954), located at 528 Hennepin Avenue, measured three periods 
of high concentrations. In a February 26, 1999 letter, the MPCA 
requested EPA concurrence on the removal of the September 26-28, 1998 
CO monitoring data from AIRS for this site. MPCA prepared a report on 
an investigation into the validity of this data. This report concluded 
that this data is the result of equipment malfunction, most likely due 
to thunderstorm activity in the area.
    The MPCA monitoring network was granted approval in November of 
1998. On December 29 and 30, 1998, EPA-Region 5 Air Monitoring Section 
staff performed a Technical Systems Audit (TSA) on the Minnesota 
monitoring network. The TSA concluded that there are no deficiencies in 
the monitoring network. The Air Monitoring Section further documented 
information on the CO episode in a memorandum entitled ``Minnesota 
Carbon Monoxide Episode,'' dated February 26, 1999. The MPCA 
investigation coupled with the TSA and additional information was used 
to make a decision on the validity of the abnormally high CO monitoring 
data. On March 2, 1999, USEPA concurred on the MPCA request to withdraw 
the erroneous data from AIRS. The likely malfunction identified in the 
State's report is uncommon but has been seen in other areas. 
Malfunctions of this type do not typically require replacement of the 
monitor, and the EPA believes that the State has acted appropriately to 
ensure that this monitoring site records accurate data. The EPA has 
reviewed the monitoring quality assurance procedures present in the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul area and finds that they meet the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.110(k).

[[Page 58351]]

C. Comments From ENVIRON Corporation

i. Impact of Discontinuing I/M Program on Ambient CO Concentrations
    Comment: VMT growth factors used to estimate future year mobile 
source CO emissions appear to exhibit anomalous behavior within 
individual areas, with rates of growth varying widely from one five 
year period to the next and from one area to the next. For example, VMT 
growth rates for the St. Paul Central Business district alternate 
between positive and negative for each successive time interval and 
these rates bear no apparent relationship to the rates for any other 
area (most of which exhibit there own fluctuating and highly unusual 
growth rates). Emission projections based on such anomalous growth 
rates are highly suspect.
    EPA response: The Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Planning 
Organization for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, provides the VMT growth 
factors used to estimate future VMT. These growth rates are consistent 
with the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan for the area. On November 
25, 1997, the EPA made a determination that this plan was adequate for 
transportation planning purposes. This information represents the best 
available forecast of on-road travel, and has been developed in 
accordance with EPA and Department of Transportation guidance. The EPA 
believes that these estimates are appropriate for use in the State's 
maintenance projections.
    Comment: CO dispersion modeling methods used by the MPCA to 
estimate future year CO concentrations are not consistent with EPA 
guidelines. The deviation from guideline procedures affected the model 
results in at least two ways:
    1. A Gaussian dispersion model (CAL3QHC) was used to estimate peak 
concentrations around ten major intersections in the nonattainment 
area. This model only estimates the contribution of the specific 
intersection being modeled to the total CO concentration; the urban 
background concentration must be added to the model predictions. 
Current state-of-the-art procedures rely on an urban-wide grid model 
such as the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) for estimating this urban 
background concentration under current and future emission conditions. 
These models are able to account for the fact that the appropriate 
``background'' concentration may vary from one intersection to the next 
based on the distribution of surrounding sources and prevailing 
meteorological conditions. This is the EPA guideline procedure for 
preparation of CO State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and would therefore 
be the most appropriate procedure for use in a CO redesignation 
request. Despite this, the TSD did not include a UAM analysis and 
instead used a very limited amount of ambient data from a single 
monitoring site to estimate the background concentration for each 
intersection. No justification is given in the TSD for not following 
the SIP guideline procedure. Projected background levels given in the 
TSD were based on the anomalous regional VMT growth projections noted 
above. As the individual region-type growth factors are suspect (see 
above), the future-year background concentrations are equally suspect. 
For example, this projection procedure predicts that, by 2018, the 
highest background concentrations (by a significant margin) will be in 
the rural areas and the lowest will be in the Minneapolis and St. Paul 
CBDs. This makes no sense. Furthermore, according to the SAI report, no 
allowance was made for the expected growth in non-road mobile and 
stationary sources. This is significant as the area and non-road mobile 
emissions are projected to increase by 2018 as shown in Table 3-1 of 
the TSD and the fraction of total emissions contributed by these 
sources is also projected to increase as shown in Figure 3-1 of the 
TSD.
    2. Dispersion modeling was based on a single year of meteorological 
data. This represents a significant departure from the EPA guidelines 
which require the use of at least five years of meteorological data so 
as to maximize the opportunity to simulate the worst-case conditions 
that can lead to CO exceedances. Additional years of meteorological 
data are readily available for the study area from EPA and from the 
National Climatic Data Center and should be used. It should also be 
noted that the TSD relies on meteorological data collected at the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport which is located a 
considerable distance from most of the modeled intersections. These 
data may therefore not be representative of actual conditions at the 
intersections.
    EPA response: The Calcagni memo states that areas may assess 
areawide maintenance through emissions projections, demonstrating that 
emissions do not increase from the attainment year, or through areawide 
modeling such as UAM. The State utilized the emissions projection 
method and an intersection ``hot-spot'' analysis to show that emissions 
levels will be below the attainment level, and the CO concentrations at 
the selected intersections. The Calcagni memo notes that hot-spot 
modeling is EPA's preferred approach for CO demonstrations. The CAL3QHC 
model is EPA's approved model for performing CO hot-spot analysis. The 
EPA believes that the States analysis is appropriate and meets 
redesignation and modeling criteria.
    The State's TSD describes the meteorological inputs used in the 
first screen microscale analysis. The State assumed worst case 
meteorological conditions for wind speed, wind direction, stability 
class, and mixing height as defined by the EPA's ``Guideline for 
Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersection.'' The State 
developed temperature inputs for the modeling using methodology which 
is consistent with EPA's ``Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from 
Roadway Intersections'' and ``procedure for Emission Inventory 
Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources.'' As a result, the EPA believes 
that the State has developed the appropriate inputs for the modeling 
analysis.
    Comment: Intersections selected for the TSD modeling analysis 
resulted in the selection of seven intersections (in addition to the 
three ``required'' intersections where monitoring data are available) 
with some unusual characteristics one would not normally associate with 
transportation facilities that produce peak CO concentrations. The 
seven selected intersections were all located well away from the 
congested Minneapolis and St. Paul urban centers, had free flow speeds 
of 45 to 55 mph on at least one artery, and had free-flow right turn 
lanes in every case. These seven intersections represent primarily busy 
highways intersecting with relatively low volume secondary roads so 
that the bulk of the traffic volume is accounted for by the high speed 
links. Based on additional information provided by the MPCA about the 
intersection ranking procedure, it appears that the selection process 
gave too much weight to the average daily traffic volume (ADT) of 
intersections without taking into consideration the number of traffic 
lanes present or the degree to which cross traffic interferes with the 
free flow of vehicles. This resulted in high volume, high capacity 
suburban intersections being favored over lower volume (but more 
congested) urban intersections. The level of service ranking procedure 
was apparently insufficient to overcome this bias. This is evident from 
the fact that the three modeled intersections with a known history of 
NAAQS exceedances (e.g., University at

[[Page 58352]]

Lexington Ave., Snelling at University, and Hennepin Ave. at Lake St.) 
received the three lowest ranks in the selection procedure. 
Furthermore, two of these intersections receive mid-level ranks when 
sorted by maximum CAL3QHC predicted concentrations instead of the 
bottom rankings suggested by the intersection selection procedure.
    EPA response: The State selected intersections for modeling based 
on traffic and congestion. The State initially identified 30 
intersections in the nonattainment area as potential candidates for 
modeling. These 30 intersections were ranked by level of congestion, 
and ultimately reduced to ten, the top seven ranked and the three 
historic CO NAAQS violating intersections, for the modeling analysis. 
As a result, the EPA believes that the State's selection of 
intersections to model for hot-spot analysis is appropriate and 
represents a good mix of high congestion intersections and 
intersections where high levels of CO have been monitored.
    The method utilized by the State is consistent with EPA guidelines 
which require areas to model the top three intersections based on 
traffic volume and congestion level. None of the intersections selected 
for modeling by the State exceeded the CO NAAQS in the modeling and, 
therefore, adequately demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
ii. Impact of Discontinuing I/M Program on O3, PM and 
Regional Haze
    Comment: When evaluating the impact of discontinuing the current I/
M program in Minneapolis/St. Paul as is proposed in Minnesota's 
maintenance plan, it must be recognized that such an action, by itself, 
can be expected to result not only in higher CO emissions than would 
otherwise occur but also higher emissions of reactive organic gases 
(commonly referred to as VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
that are an important precursor of ground-level ozone, particulate 
matter, and regional haze. Thus, irrespective of the program's 
continuing role in maintaining attainment of the ambient CO standard, 
discontinuation of the program can be expected to have an adverse 
impact on ozone levels and PM levels in the Twin Cities as well as 
regional haze in nearby Class I areas. This issue is particularly 
critical in light of EPA's recent promulgation of a revised NAAQS for 
8-hour ozone which is significantly more stringent than the previous 1-
hour standard, a new PM2.5 NAAQS, and a Regional Haze regulation.
    EPA response: As discussed above, Section 110(l) of the Act notes 
that ``the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the 
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable 
requirement of this Act.'' This includes an area's ability to meet the 
NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5, as well as the requirements of EPA's 
Regional Haze regulation. A detailed discussion on why EPA believes 
that discontinuation of the I/M program will not interfere with 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS has already been discussed in today's 
action.
    In the past, the PM10 problems that have been experienced in the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul area have been due to emissions from large 
factories or groups of factories or other stationary sources, or from 
road dust that is blown in the air from wind or heavy duty vehicle 
traffic. The area has never experienced a PM10 nonattainment problem 
caused by motor vehicle emissions. As a result, the EPA has no reason 
to believe that the discontinuation of the I/M program and the 
potential increase in NOX or VOC emissions would interfere 
with the area's ability to meet the PM10 NAAQS.
    For fine particles, or PM2.5, the EPA is currently working with 
States to establish monitoring networks to assess the magnitude of the 
problem. Without accurate monitoring data, it is impossible to identify 
where PM2.5 problems exist, assess the cause of these problems, or 
develop control strategies to correct the problem and bring areas to 
attainment. At present, there is not enough information to indicate 
whether there is a PM2.5 problem in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area or 
not, much less enough information to indicate whether motor vehicle 
emissions cause or contribute to the problem. As a result, the EPA has 
no reason to believe that disconinuation of the I/M program will 
contribute to the area's ability to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    For regional haze, the EPA has developed regulations to address the 
impairment of visibility in Federal Class I areas. Like PM2.5, the 
first part of this process is focused on monitoring where visibility is 
impaired, and then assessing the causes of the problem. At present, a 
nationwide monitoring network is being established and information on 
the contributors to regional haze problems is not yet available. 
Studies that have been performed to date indicate that in the Midwest, 
sulfate emissions are the major contributor to haze problems, and that 
the problem is regional in nature. As a result, EPA expects that 
control strategies for regional haze in the Midwest will focus on 
region wide industrial source controls, rather than local controls on 
the automobile. At present, therefore, the EPA has no reason to believe 
that discontinuation of the I/M program will contribute to the area's 
ability to meet the regional haze regulations.

III. EPA Final Action

    The EPA approves the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO maintenance plan as a 
SIP revision meeting the requirements of section 175A. In addition, the 
EPA is approving the redesignation request for the Minneapolis/St. Paul 
area because the State has demonstrated compliance with the 
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    CO SIPs are designed to satisfy the requirements of part D of the 
Act and to provide for attainment and maintenance of the CO NAAQS. This 
proposed redesignation should not be interpreted as authorizing the 
State to delete, alter, or rescind any of the CO emission limitations 
and restrictions contained in the approved CO SIP. Changes to CO SIP 
regulations rendering them less stringent than those contained in the 
EPA approved plan cannot be made unless a revised plan for attainment 
and maintenance is submitted to and approved by EPA. Unauthorized 
relaxations, deletions, and changes could result in both a finding of 
nonimplementation [section 173(b) of the Act] and in a SIP deficiency 
call made pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the

[[Page 58353]]

Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's 
prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and 
tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation.
    In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective 
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of 
state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely 
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant 
unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, 
local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable 
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) 
of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
    On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order 
on federalism, Executive Order 13132 [64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)] 
which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current 
Executive Order 12612 [52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)] on federalism 
still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 12612. 
The rule affects only one State, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

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

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation.
    In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective 
process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely 
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create 
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates Act

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

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

[[Page 58354]]

agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new 
regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary 
consensus standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing 
programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 28, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National Parks, 
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: October 21, 1999.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart Y--Minnesota

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


Sec. 52.1237  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * * *
    (c) Approval--On March 23, 1998, the Minnesota Pollution Control 
Agency submitted a request to redesignate the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO 
nonattainment area (consisting of portions of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, 
Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, Washington, and Wright) to attainment for CO. 
As part of the redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance 
plan as required by 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. 
Elements of the section 175A maintenance plan include a base year (1996 
attainment year) emission inventory for CO, a demonstration of 
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS with projected emission inventories to 
the year 2009, a plan to verify continued attainment, a contingency 
plan, and an obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan 
revision in 8 years as required by the Clean Air Act. If the area 
records a violation of the CO NAAQS (which must be confirmed by the 
State), Minnesota will implement one or more appropriate contingency 
measure(s) which are contained in the contingency plan. The menu of 
contingency measures includes oxygenated fuel, transportation control 
measures, or a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The 
redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the redesignation 
requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the Act as amended in 
1990, respectively.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. In Sec. 81.324 the table for ``Minnesota-CO'' is amended by 
revising the entry for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area for carbon 
monoxide to read as follows:


Sec. 81.324  Minnesota

* * * * *

                                                  Minnesota-CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Designation                       Classification
            Designated Areas             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Date \1\                   Type            Date \1\     Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minneapolis-Saint Paul Area:
  Anoka.................................  November 29, 1999......  Attainment.............
County..................................  ......do...............  Attainment.............
Carver County (part)
    Carver, Chanhassen, Chaska, Hamburg,  ......do...............  Attainment.............
     Norwood, Victoria, Waconia,
     Watertown, Young America, Chaska
     Township, Laketown Township,
     Waconia Township, Watertown
     Township, Young America Township.
Dakota County (part)
    Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan,      ......do...............  Attainment.............
     Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove
     Heights, Lakeville, Lilydale,
     Mendota, Mendota Heights,
     Rosemount, South St. Paul, Sunfish
     Lake, West St. Paul.
  Hennepin..............................  ......do...............  Attainment.............
County..................................  ......do...............  Attainment.............
  Ramsey
County
Scott County (part)                       ......do...............  Attainment.............
    Belle Plaine, Elko, New Market, New   ......do...............  Attainment.............
     Prague, Prior Lake, Savage,
     Shakopee, Credit River Township,
     Jackson Township, Louisville
     Township, New Market Township,
     Spring Lake Township.

[[Page 58355]]

 
Washington County (part)
    All cities and townships except
     Denmark Township
Wright County (part)
    Albertville, Annandale, Buffalo,
     Clearwater, Cokato, Delano,
     Hanover, Monticello, Montrose,
     Rockford, St. Michael, South Haven,
     Waverly, Dayton (Wright Co. part),
     Buffalo Township, Chatham Township,
     Clearwater Township, Cokato
     Township, Corrinna Township,
     Frankfort Township, Maple Lake
     Township, Franklin Township,
     Marysville Township, Monticello
     Township, Ostego Township, Rockford
     Township, Silver Creek Township,
     Southside Township
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                               *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 99-28310 Filed 10-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P