[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48787-48790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18866]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MN72-7297a; FRL-7251-5]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 20, 2002, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
(MPCA) submitted to EPA a redesignation request and maintenance plan 
for the Saint Paul, Ramsey County particulate matter primary 
nonattainment area. In its submittal, the State requested that we 
redesignate Ramsey County to attainment of the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM) and that 
we approve the maintenance plan for the area into the Minnesota PM 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this action EPA is approving the 
state's request, because it meets all of the Clean Air Act (Act) 
requirements for redesignation.
    If EPA receives adverse written comments on this action, we will 
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal 
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

DATES: This ``direct final'' rule is effective September 24, 2002, 
unless EPA receives written adverse or critical comments by August 26, 
2002. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform 
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
(We recommend that you telephone Christos Panos, at (312) 353-8328, 
before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    A copy of this redesignation request is available for inspection at 
the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and Information Center 
(Air Docket 6102), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel 
Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
(202) 260-7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Environmental 
Engineer, 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) 353-8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section is organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking?
B. Why was this SIP revision submitted?
C. Why can we approve this request?
D. What requirements must be met for approval of a redesignation, 
and how did the state meet them?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    We are approving the State of Minnesota's request to redesignate 
the Ramsey County PM nonattainment area to attainment of the PM NAAQS. 
We are also approving the maintenance plan for this area into the 
Minnesota PM SIP.

B. Why Was This SIP Revision Submitted?

    MPCA believes that the Ramsey County PM nonattainment area is 
eligible for redesignation because we have approved the Saint Paul PM 
SIP and monitors in the nonattainment area have not recorded any 
exceedances of the PM NAAQS since May 1995. The redesignation request 
submittal consists primarily of a maintenance plan and air quality 
monitoring data. The submittal contains text describing how the 
statutory requirements were met.

C. Why Can We Approve This Request?

    Consistent with the Act's redesignation requirements of section 
107(d)(3)(E), EPA developed procedures for redesignation of 
nonattainment areas that are in an EPA September 4, 1992 memorandum 
titled, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment.'' This EPA guidance document contains a number of 
requirements that a state must meet before it can request a change in 
designation for a federally designated nonattainment area. That 
memorandum and EPA's June 27, 2002 Technical

[[Page 48788]]

Support Document set forth the rationale in support of the 
redesignation of the Ramsey County PM nonattainment area to an 
attainment status.

D. What Requirements Must Be Met for Approval of a Redesignation 
and How Did the State Meet Them?

1. The State Must Show That the Area Is Attaining the Applicable NAAQS

    There are two components involved in making this demonstration: (1) 
Ambient air quality monitoring representative of the area of highest 
concentration must show no more than one exceedance annually; and (2) 
EPA approved air quality modeling must show that the area in question 
meets the applicable standard. The 24-hour primary PM standard is 150 
micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3), with no more 
than one expected exceedance per year. The annual primary PM standard 
is 50 g/m3 expected annual arithmetic mean. The 
secondary PM standards are identical to the primary standards.
    MPCA submitted ambient air monitoring data for the years 1998-2000 
and the period of January-September 2001, from two PM monitoring sites 
in the nonattainment area located at 1450 Red Rock Road and 1200 Warner 
Road. This data has been quality assured and is available for review in 
the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), monitor numbers 
271230866 and 271230870 respectively. No monitored exceedances of the 
PM NAAQS have occurred in Ramsey County since May 20, 1995.
    MPCA initially submitted the modeling demonstration to EPA in 1991, 
1992, and 1993. MPCA performed the modeling in accordance with the EPA 
document titled ``Guideline on Air Quality Models, (Revised), including 
Supplement A,'' 1987. The Industrial Source Complex--Short Term (ISCST) 
model was used for the analysis. The demonstration explicitly modeled 
maximum allowable emissions for all industrial sources, included an 
estimate of actual emissions for the diffuse area sources such as 
public roadways, and added in a concentration representative of local 
background sources. The analysis showed that, with all control measures 
in operation, modeled concentrations combined with background PM 
concentrations did not violate the NAAQS. A more detailed discussion of 
the modeling demonstration can be found in the June 25, 1993 proposed 
rulemaking on the Saint Paul PM SIP revision (58 FR 34297). We 
concluded on February 15, 1994 (59 FR 7218) that the air dispersion 
modeling met the appropriate requirements of the Act.
    Due to exceedances recorded at the Red Rock Road monitor between 
1992 and 1995, MPCA recognized that the PM SIP submitted in 1992 no 
longer sufficiently characterized the area. The State determined that 
the exceedances were attributable to shifts and increases in local 
source activity (such as traffic newly occurring on unpaved surfaces) 
which had occurred since development of the prior plan, and not to any 
deficiencies in the prior plan. The State worked with EPA and the 
companies involved to address the new violations with sufficient 
additional controls to support an updated modeled attainment 
demonstration. MPCA submitted SIP revisions to EPA on February 9, 1996 
and July 22, 1998, that included additional control measures and 
updated modeling to address these exceedances.
    The revised modeling incorporated all the actual Red Rock Road 
facilities' stack and emissions data. It also updated the modeling of 
other nearby PM sources within 2 to 4 kilometers of the Red Rock Road 
monitor. The modeling analysis demonstrated attainment and maintenance 
of the PM NAAQS in the Red Rock Road area. Additional information can 
be found in our August 13, 1999 approval of the Saint Paul PM SIP (62 
FR 39120).

2. The SIP for the Area Must Be Fully Approved Under Section 110(k) of 
the Act and Must Satisfy All Requirements That Apply to the Area

    MPCA submitted PM SIP revisions in 1991, 1992 and 1993 to fulfill 
the requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the Act. The enforceable 
elements of the State's submittals were administrative orders for nine 
facilities in the Saint Paul area. We approved Minnesota's submittals 
as satisfying the applicable requirements for the Ramsey County PM 
nonattainment area on February 15, 1994 (59 FR 7218). In addition, MPCA 
submitted supplemental SIP revisions for the Red Rock Road portion of 
the nonattainment area in 1996 and 1998. These submittals contained 
additional emission limits and/or control measures for certain 
facilities located along Red Rock Road, and a revised modeled 
attainment demonstration for the Red Rock Road area. Changes to 
emissions that occurred at some of the facilities, including sources in 
the 2-4 kilometer range of the Red Rock Road area, were included in the 
revised modeling demonstration. We approved the Red Rock Road 
supplementary PM SIP on August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44131).

3. EPA Has Determined That the Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions

    Air quality improvement in the Ramsey County PM nonattainment area 
is attributed to PM emission limits and operating restrictions imposed 
on the facilities that contributed to the nonattainment status. These 
limits have been incorporated into the state PM SIP, through the use of 
non-expiring Administrative Orders or through non-expiring Title I 
conditions found in Title V or federally enforceable State permits that 
contain the requirements of an original Administrative Order, and are 
therefore permanent and enforceable. The PM dispersion modeling, 
conducted as part of the Saint Paul PM SIP revisions, predicts that the 
control measures included in the SIP are sufficient to provide for 
attainment and maintenance of the PM NAAQS.

4. The State Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and 
Part D of the Act That Were Applicable Prior to Submittal of the 
Complete Redesignation Request

    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains the general requirements for 
nonattainment plans. Part D contains the general requirements 
applicable to all areas that are designated nonattainment based on a 
violation of the NAAQS. These requirements are satisfied by EPA's 
February 15, 1994 and August 13, 1999 approvals of the nonattainment 
plans that Minnesota submitted for the control of PM emissions in the 
Ramsey County area.
    A Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program will 
replace the requirements of the part D new source review program after 
redesignation of the area. To ensure that the PSD program will become 
fully effective immediately upon redesignation, either EPA must 
delegate the federal PSD program to the state or the state must make 
any needed modifications to its rules to have the approved PSD program 
apply to the affected area upon redesignation. We delegated the PSD 
program to the State of Minnesota on March 26, 1979, and amended the 
delegation on October 15, 1980 and November 3, 1988.

5. EPA Has Fully Approved a Maintenance Plan, Including a Contingency 
Plan, for the Area Under Section 175A of the Act

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states that, for an area to be 
redesignated, EPA must fully approve a maintenance plan that meets the 
requirements of section

[[Page 48789]]

175A. Section 175A(a) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP 
revision that provides for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area for 
at least 10 years after approval of the redesignation. 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. Further, section 175A(b) requires states to submit a SIP revision 
8 years after redesignation that provides for the maintenance of the 
NAAQS in the area for 10 years after the expiration of the first 10-
year period required by section 175A(a). EPA is approving the 
maintenance plan in today's action as discussed below.
    a. Attainment Inventory. The air dispersion modeling included in 
the state's SIP submittals contains the emission inventory of PM 
sources in the Ramsey County nonattainment area.
    b. Maintenance Demonstration and Verification of Continued 
Attainment. The modeling analyses submitted by MPCA demonstrate 
attainment and maintenance of the PM NAAQS. The PM emitting sources 
involved in the Ramsey County PM redesignation are meeting the PM 
maximum allowable emission limits identified in the modeling. 
Protection of the NAAQS is further assured because actual PM emissions 
are generally less than the allowable PM emissions considered in the 
modeling.
    MPCA will monitor growth in the area mainly through administration 
of the MPCA's permitting program, keeping track of new facility permit 
applications and permit amendment requests and ensuring compliance with 
the MPCA's permitting rules. The State permitting process requires any 
PM source potentially emitting 25 tons a year to demonstrate, through 
dispersion modeling, that attainment of the NAAQS is met before the 
source may obtain a permit.
    c. Monitoring Network. Once an area has been redesignated, the 
State must continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring 
network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment 
status of the area. The maintenance plan should contain provisions for 
continued operation of air quality monitors that will provide such 
verification. In its submittal, the State commits to continue to 
operate and maintain the network of PM monitoring stations and to 
report the data in AIRS to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the PM 
NAAQS.
    d. Contingency Plan. Section 175A of the Act requires that the 
maintenance plan include contingency provisions to promptly correct any 
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. 
MPCA included contingency measures for the Ramsey County PM 
nonattainment area in the Administrative Orders contained in its August 
31, 1992, submittal. These measures are eligible to be used as the 
maintenance plan contingency measures, because the State was able to 
attain the PM NAAQS with the limitations and control measures already 
contained in the SIP approved by EPA in 1994 and the additional 
measures approved by EPA into the SIP in 1999.

Final Action

    We have evaluated the state's submittal and have determined that it 
meets the applicable requirements of the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA 
policy. Therefore, we are approving the State of Minnesota's request to 
redesignate the Saint Paul, Ramsey County PM nonattainment area to 
attainment of the PM NAAQS. We are also approving the maintenance plan 
for the Ramsey County area into the Minnesota PM SIP.
    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 September 24, 2002 
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comments by August 26, 2002. If we receive such comments, we will 
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a 
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. We will then 
address all public comments received 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 we do not receive any comments, this action will be 
effective September 24, 2002.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also 
not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations 
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting 
federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing 
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional 
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain 
any unfunded mandate nor does it significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism 
implications because it 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, 
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 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. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires federal agencies to use 
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are 
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior 
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus 
standards, EPA has

[[Page 48790]]

no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such 
standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for 
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a SIP submission 
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply.
    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential 
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. 
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance 
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the 
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued 
under the executive order, and has determined that the rule's 
requirements do not constitute a taking. This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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).
    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 September 24, 2002. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

    Dated: July 12, 2002.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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


    2. Section 52.1230 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1230  Control strategy and rules: Particulates.

* * * * *
    (c) Approval--On June 20, 2002, the State of Minnesota submitted a 
request to redesignate the Saint Paul, Ramsey County particulate matter 
nonattainment area to attainment of the NAAQS for particulate matter 
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 
micrometers (PM). In its submittal, the State also requested that EPA 
approve the maintenance plan for the area into the Minnesota PM SIP. 
The redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the redesignation 
requirements of the Clean Air Act.

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

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

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


    2. Section 81.324 is amended by revising the entire entry for 
Ramsey County under the ``Minneapolis-Saint Paul Area'' in the table 
entitled ``Minnesota--PM-10'' to read as follows:


Sec. 81.324  Minnesota.

                                                Minnesota--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date 1               Type               Date 1               Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Ramsey County...................  September 24, 2002  Attainment
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 02-18866 Filed 7-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P