[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14087-14092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5850]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MN61-01-7286a; MN62-01-7287a; FRL-6901-1]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for Olmsted County, Minnesota, for 
the control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in the city of 
Rochester. EPA is also approving a request to redesignate the Rochester 
nonattainment area to attainment of the SO2 National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In conjunction with these actions, EPA 
is also approving the maintenance plan for the city of Rochester, 
Olmsted County nonattainment area, which was submitted to ensure that 
attainment of the NAAQS will be maintained. The SIP revision, 
redesignation request and maintenance plan were submitted by the 
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on November 4, 1998, and are 
approvable because they satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(Act). The rationale for the approval and other information are 
provided in this notice.

DATES: This action is effective on May 8, 2001 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by April 9, 2001. If 
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to: Carlton Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the documents relevant to this 
action are available for inspection during normal business hours at the 
above address. (Please telephone Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328, 
before visiting the Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Regulation Development 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Air and Radiation Division, 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information section is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    1. What action is EPA taking today?
    2. Why is EPA taking this action?
II. Background on Minnesota Submittal
    1. What is the background for this action?
    2. What information did Minnesota submit, and what were its 
requests?
    3. What is a ``Title I Condition?''
III. State Implementation Plan Approval
    1. What requirements do SO2 nonattainment areas have 
to meet?
    2. How does the state's SIP revision meet the requirements of 
the Act?
IV. Redesignation Evaluation
    1. What are the criteria used to review redesignation requests?
    2. How are these criteria satisfied for the city of Rochester?
V. Maintenance Plan
    What are the maintenance plan requirements?
VI. Final Rulemaking Action
VII. Administrative Requirements

I. General Information

1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    In this action, EPA is approving into the Minnesota SO2 
SIP for the city of Rochester, Olmsted County, certain portions of the 
five permits and two permit amendments that MPCA submitted to EPA as a 
SIP revision. Specifically, EPA is only approving into the SIP those 
portions of the permits cited as ``Title I condition: State 
Implementation Plan for SO2.'' EPA is also approving the 
SO2 redesignation request submitted by the State of 
Minnesota for Olmsted County to redesignate the Rochester 
SO2 nonattainment area to attainment of the SO2 
NAAQS. Finally, EPA is approving the maintenance plan submitted for 
this area.

2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    EPA is taking this action because the state's submittal for the 
Rochester SO2 nonattainment area is fully approvable. The 
SIP revision provides for attainment and maintenance of the 
SO2 NAAQS and satisfies the requirements of part D of the 
Act applicable to SO2 nonattainment areas. Further, EPA is 
approving the maintenance plan and redesignating the Rochester 
SO2 nonattainment area to attainment because the state has 
met the redesignation and maintenance plan requirements of the Act. A 
more detailed explanation of how the state's submittal meets these 
requirements is contained in EPA's July 28, 2000 Technical Support 
Document (TSD).

II. Background on Minnesota Submittal

1. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On March 3, 1978, at 43 FR 8962, EPA designated the city of 
Rochester as a primary SO2 nonattainment area based on 
monitored violations of the primary SO2 NAAQS in the area 
between 1975 and 1977. EPA approved an SO2 SIP revision for 
the city of Rochester on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20996), consisting of an 
SO2 control plan and emission limitations contained in 
operating permits for Rochester Public Utilities--Silver Lake Plant, 
Rochester Public Utilities--Broadway Plant, Rochester State Hospital, 
and Associated Milk Producers.
    On July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892), EPA promulgated a Good Engineering 
Practice stack height rule that resulted in a July 31, 1986 revision 
and a subsequent July 31, 1989 modification to the Rochester 
SO2 SIP. In these submittals the MPCA requested EPA approval 
of new permit conditions for the facilities previously included in the 
SO2 SIP and redesignation of the city of Rochester to 
attainment for SO2. Approval of the Part D plan for Olmsted 
County was delayed pending the passage of the 1990 Amendments to the 
Act. EPA determined, however, that the 1989 submittal did not supply 
sufficient information to allow EPA to consider redesignating the 
Rochester SO2 area to attainment.
    The state informed EPA in a letter dated February 24, 1992, that it 
was in the process of revising several SIP submittals and redesignation 
requests and was therefore withdrawing them from EPA review. This 
included the SO2 SIP and redesignation requests for 
Rochester submitted in 1986 and 1989.

2. What Information Did Minnesota Submit, and What Were Its Requests?

    The SIP revision submitted by MPCA on November 4, 1998, consists of 
five permits and two permit amendments issued to the following 
facilities: Rochester Public Utilities--Silver Lake Plant, Rochester 
Public Utilities--Cascade Creek Combustion Turbine, Associated Milk 
Producers, St. Mary's Hospital, Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility, 
Franklin Heating Station, and IBM. The Rochester Public Utilities--
Broadway Plant, and the three boilers at the Rochester State Hospital 
that were part of the 1981 SIP, no longer exist.

[[Page 14088]]

    The state has requested that EPA approve the following:
    (1) the removal from the Rochester SO2 SIP of all 
emission limits and other conditions approved in the 1981 SIP related 
to the Rochester Public Utilities Broadway Plant, since this facility 
no longer exists;
    (2) the removal from the Rochester SO2 SIP of all 
emission limits and other conditions approved in the 1981 SIP related 
to the Rochester State Hospital, since the boilers that were part of 
the approved SIP no longer exist; and,
    (3) the inclusion into the Rochester SO2 SIP only the 
portions of the permits cited as ``Title I condition: State 
Implementation Plan for SO2.''

3. What Is a ``Title I Condition?''

    SIP control measures were contained in permits issued to culpable 
sources in Minnesota until 1990 when EPA determined that limits in 
state-issued permits are not federally enforceable because the permits 
expire. The state then issued permanent Administrative Orders to 
culpable sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
    Minnesota's Title V permitting rule, approved into the state SIP on 
May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), includes the term ``Title I condition'' 
which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements that SIP 
control measures remain permanent. A ``Title I condition'' is defined 
as ``any condition based on source-specific determination of ambient 
impacts imposed for the purposes of achieving or maintaining attainment 
with the national ambient air quality standard and which was part of 
the state implementation plan approved by EPA or submitted to the EPA 
pending approval under section 110 of the act * * * '' The rule also 
states that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to 
comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the 
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any title I condition 
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or 
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.''
    Minnesota has since resumed using permits as the enforceable 
document for imposing emission limitations and compliance requirements 
in SIPs. The SIP requirements in the permits submitted by MPCA are 
cited as ``Title I condition: State Implementation Plan for 
SO2,'' therefore assuring that the SIP requirements will 
remain permanent and enforceable. In addition, EPA has found the 
state's procedure for using permits to implement site-specific SIP 
requirements to be acceptable. The MPCA has committed to using this 
procedure if the Title I SIP conditions in the permits included in the 
Rochester SO2 SIP submittal need to be revised in the 
future.

III. State Implementation Plan Approval

1. What Requirements Do SO2 Nonattainment Areas Have To 
Meet?

    The part D SIP requirements for SO2 nonattainment areas 
are contained in section 172(c) of the Act, and pertain to: Reasonably 
Available Control Measures; Reasonable Further Progress; Inventory; 
Identification and Quantification; Permits for New and Modified Major 
Stationary Sources; Other Measures; Compliance with section 110(a)(2); 
Equivalent Techniques; and, Contingency Measures.

2. How Does the State's SIP Revision Meet the Requirements of the Act?

    With this submission, Minnesota will have a fully approvable 
SO2 SIP. As described below, Minnesota's submitted revision 
to its SO2 SIP for the Rochester nonattainment area, fully 
complies with the part D requirements, as set forth in section 172(c) 
of the Act.
    A. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM). The plan complies 
with the requirements to implement RACM by providing for immediate 
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS through the emission limits and 
operating restrictions imposed on the culpable sources by their 
permits.
    B. Reasonable Further Progress. Reasonable further progress is 
achieved due to the immediate effect of the emission limits required by 
the plan.
    C. Inventory. An inventory of the SO2 emissions in the 
Rochester nonattainment area was provided by the state and has been 
found to be acceptable.
    D. Identification and Quantification. This information is 
unnecessary because the area has not been identified as a zone for 
which economic development should be targeted.
    E. Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary Sources. Any new 
or modified sources constructed in the area must comply with a state 
submitted and federally approved New Source Review program. Minnesota's 
Offset Rule (Minn. R. 7007.4000-4030) contains the state's federally 
approved program. (See 59 FR 21939).
    F. Other Measures. The plan provides for immediate attainment of 
the SO2 NAAQS through the emission limitations, operating 
requirements, and compliance schedules that are set forth within the 
permits.
    G. Compliance with section 110(a)(2). This submission complies with 
section 110(a)(2). All of the applicable provisions of section 
110(a)(2) are already required by the statutory provisions discussed in 
this plan, or they have already been met by Minnesota's original 1971 
SIP submission to the EPA.
    H. Equivalent Techniques. The modeling for this SIP submittal was 
conducted using EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised).'' No 
equivalent techniques were used for modeling, emission inventory, or 
planning procedures.
    I. Contingency Measures. Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines 
contingency measures as measures in a SIP which are to be implemented 
if an area fails to make RFP or fails to attain the NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date and shall consist of other control measures 
that are not included in the control strategy. However, the General 
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 
1990, (57 FR 13498), states that SO2 measures present 
special considerations because they are based upon what is necessary to 
attain the NAAQS. Because SO2 control measures are well 
established and understood, they are far less prone to uncertainty. It 
would be unlikely for an area to implement the necessary emissions 
control yet fail to attain the SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, for 
SO2 programs, contingency measures mean that the state 
agency has the ability to identify sources of violations of the 
SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for 
compliance and enforcement. The MPCA has the necessary enforcement and 
compliance programs, as well as the means to identify violators, thus 
satisfying the contingency measures requirement.

IV. Redesignation Evaluation

1. What Are the Criteria Used To Review Redesignation Requests?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act establishes the requirements to be 
met before an area may be redesignated from nonattainment to 
attainment. Approvable redesignation requests must meet the following 
conditions: the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; the area has a 
fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the Act; the air quality 
improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions; the maintenance plan for the area has met all the 
requirements of section 175A of the Act; and, the state has met all the 
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the 
Act.

[[Page 14089]]

2. How Are These Criteria Satisfied for the City of Rochester?

    A. Demonstrated Attainment of the NAAQS. Minnesota's submittal 
includes ambient air monitoring data showing that there have been no 
exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS in the city of Rochester since 
1979.
    Dispersion modeling is commonly used to demonstrate attainment of 
the SO2 NAAQS. The state's modeling analysis was initially 
submitted in 1986 and last updated in 1998. The modeling demonstrates 
that, under all the operating scenarios allowed for in the SIP, the 
SO2 emission limits for the culpable sources in the 
Rochester area are adequate to show attainment and maintenance of the 
SO2 standards. A more detailed discussion of the modeling 
evaluation is included in appendix A of the TSD.
    B. Fully Approved SIP. The SIP for the area must be fully approved 
under section 110(k) of the Act and must satisfy all requirements that 
apply. The SIP revision included as part of the state's submittal meets 
the part D requirements of the Act, as discussed in other sections of 
this rulemaking. Therefore, both the SIP revision and the redesignation 
request for Olmsted County comply with the section 110(k) requirements 
of the Act.
    C. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions. The city of 
Rochester was designated nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS 
based on violations that occurred between 1975 and 1977. Air quality 
improvement in the Rochester SO2 nonattainment area is 
attributed to SO2 emission limits and operating restrictions 
imposed on the facilities that contribute to the nonattainment status 
in Rochester. These limits are permanent and enforceable by means of 
non-expiring Title I conditions set forth in the state permits. 
Emissions from these sources were modeled with all the control measures 
in place. The data submitted by the state shows modeled attainment of 
the SO2 NAAQS in the city of Rochester.
    D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan. EPA has concluded that the 
SO2 emissions limitations contained in the plan submitted by 
the state will assure maintenance of the SO2 standards. EPA 
is approving the maintenance plan in today's action as discussed below.
    E. Part D and Other Section 110 Requirements. Section 
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the Act states that the Administrator may not 
redesignate an area to attainment unless the area has met the 
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D. The requirements 
under section 110 and part D are met with the approval of the SIP 
revision submitted simultaneously with this redesignation request.

V. Maintenance Plan

What Are the Maintenance Plan Requirements?

    Section 175A of the Act requires states to submit a SIP revision 
which provides for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area for at 
least 10 years after approval of the redesignation. Consistent with the 
Act's requirements, EPA developed procedures for redesignation of 
nonattainment areas that are contained in a September 4, 1992, 
memorandum from John Calcagni, EPA, titled, ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.'' This EPA guidance 
document contains a number of maintenance plan provisions that a state 
should consider before it can request a change in designation for a 
federally designated nonattainment area. The basic components needed to 
ensure proper maintenance of the NAAQS are: attainment inventory, 
maintenance demonstration, verification of continued attainment, 
ambient air monitoring network, and a contingency plan.
    A. Attainment Inventory. The air dispersion modeling included in 
the state's submittal contains the emission inventory of SO2 
sources for the city of Rochester.
    B. Maintenance Demonstration and Verification of Continued 
Attainment. Operating permits were issued to seven culpable sources in 
the city of Rochester. Results from the modeling were used for 
establishing the SO2 emissions limits in the permits. 
Conditions cited as ``Title I condition'' in the permits do not expire 
and automatically become part of any reissued permit, therefore 
providing for maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS for at least 10 
years.
    The air dispersion modeling shows there is approximately a 1 or 2 
percent growth margin of the ambient standards. Growth in the area will 
be monitored by MPCA by keeping track of new permit applications, 
keeping track of requests for permit amendments, and observing the 
annual emission inventories that all facilities with permits must 
submit to the MPCA. Future SO2 emissions are not likely to 
exceed the ambient standards because of Minnesota's permitting program 
and the state's requirements for dispersion modeling. Further, MPCA 
staff believe incentives to reduce emissions such as Minnesota's Clean 
Fuels Project and the state's ``registration permit'' rule, will 
provide for continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the 
city of Rochester.
    C. Monitoring Network. In a letter dated March 17, 1998, EPA 
clarified Region 5's position regarding the need for continued 
SO2 monitoring in the Rochester area. In that letter EPA 
stated that if Minnesota can show attainment of the NAAQS through EPA 
approved air dispersion modeling, has an approvable SIP revision 
showing that the control strategies have been implemented, and shows 
that it can continue to attain the standard for a period of 10 years 
following the redesignation, then an SO2 monitoring network 
does not need to be maintained. Because the MPCA has met the 
requirements as outlined in that letter, a monitoring network does not 
need to be maintained in the city of Rochester.
    D. Contingency Plan. Section 175A of the CAA requires that the 
maintenance plan include contingency provisions to correct any 
violation of the NAAQS after redesignation of the area. Section 175A of 
the Act also requires that a maintenance plan include contingency 
provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the 
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. These contingency 
measures are distinguished from those generally required for 
nonattainment areas under section 172(c)(9). As mentioned before, 
however, the General Preamble to the 1990 Amendments to the Act (57 FR 
13498) states that SO2 provisions require special 
considerations. A primary reason is that SO2 control methods 
are well established and understood, resulting in less uncertainty in 
the modeled attainment demonstrations. It is considered unlikely that 
an area would fail to attain the standards after it has demonstrated, 
through modeling, that attainment is reached after the limits and 
restrictions are fully implemented and enforced.
    Therefore, contingency measures for SO2 need only 
consist of a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of 
the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for 
compliance and enforcement. The MPCA has the necessary enforcement and 
compliance programs, as well as means by which to identify violators.

VI. Final Rulemaking Action

    EPA is approving the SIP revision for the control of SO2 
emissions in the city of Rochester, located in Olmsted County, 
Minnesota, as requested by the state on November 4, 1998. EPA is also 
approving a request to redesignate the Rochester nonattainment area to

[[Page 14090]]

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. In conjunction with these 
actions, EPA is also approving the maintenance plan for the Olmsted 
County nonattainment area, which was submitted to ensure that 
attainment of the NAAQS will be maintained. The SIP revision, 
redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the applicable 
requirements of the Act.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse 
comments are filed. This rule will be effective May 8, 2001 without 
further notice unless relevant adverse comments are received by April 
9, 2001. If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested 
in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such 
comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be 
effective May 8, 2001.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation 
plan. 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.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. 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 
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
13084 requires EPA to 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, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials 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. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 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 13132, because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

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 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

[[Page 14091]]

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

    Under sections 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 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the 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 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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective May 8, 2001 unless EPA receives 
adverse written comments by April 9, 2001.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 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 May 8, 2001. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovermental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

    Dated: October 27, 2000.
Gary Gulezian,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Title 40, Chapter I, 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. 7401-7671q.


    2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(56) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (56) On November 4, 1998, the State of Minnesota submitted a SIP 
revision for Olmsted County, Minnesota, for the control of emissions of 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the city of Rochester. The state 
also submitted on that date a request to redesignate the Rochester 
nonattainment area to attainment of the SO2 National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards. The state's maintenance plan is complete and the 
submittals meet the SO2 nonattainment area SIP and 
redesignation requirements of the Clean Air Act.
    (i) Incorporation by reference
    (A) Air Emission Permit No. 10900011-001, issued by the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to City of Rochester--Rochester Public 
Utilities--Lake Plant on July 22, 1997, Title I conditions only.
    (B) Air Emission Permit No. 00000610-001, issued by the MPCA to 
City of Rochester--Rochester Public Utilities--Cascade Creek Combustion 
on January 10, 1997, Title I conditions only.
    (C) Air Emission Permit No. 10900010-001, issued by the MPCA to 
Associated Milk Producers, Inc. on May 5, 1997, Title I conditions 
only.
    (D) Air Emission Permit No. 10900008-007 (989-91-OT-2, AMENDMENT 
No. 4), issued by the MPCA to St. Mary's Hospital on February 28, 1997, 
Title I conditions only.
    (E) Air Emission Permit No. 10900005-001, issued by the MPCA to 
Olmsted County--Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility on June 5, 1997, Title 
I conditions only.
    (F) Amendment No. 2 to Air Emission Permit No. 1183-83-OT-1 
[10900019], issued by the MPCA to Franklin Heating Station on June 19, 
1998, Title I conditions only.
    (G) Air Emission Permit No. 10900006-001, issued by the MPCA to 
International Business Machine Corporation--IBM--Rochester on June 3, 
1998, Title I conditions only.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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


    2. Section 81.324 is amended by revising the entry for Olmsted 
County in the table entitled ``Minnesota--SO2'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 81.324  Minnesota.

* * * * *

[[Page 14092]]



                                                 Minnesota--SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Better than
         Designated area              Does not meet        Does not meet          Cannot be          national
                                    primary standards   secondary standards       Classified         standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Olmsted County...................  ...................  ...................  ...................              X
 
                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-5850 Filed 3-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P