[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
