[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28339-28344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13179]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[MN-36-1-6752a; FRL-5202-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 7, 1994, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) submitted a request for redesignation to attainment for
particulate matter (PM) in the Rochester portion of Olmsted County and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131
Twin Cities and Pine Bend areas (excluding the St. Paul Park area). A
revision to the administrative order for Rochester Public Utilities
(RPU) was also submitted in support of the Olmsted County redesignation
request. The USEPA is approving, through the use of direct final
rulemaking procedures, the redesignation requests and the
administrative order revision for RPU.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This action will be effective July 31, 1995 unless
notice is received by June 30, 1995, that someone wishes to submit
adverse or critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely
notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L.
MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement
Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the redesignation request and USEPA's analysis are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following address: United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-
17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson, Air Enforcement
Branch, Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), United States
Environmental Protection, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-
6713.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of State Submittal
A request for redesignation to attainment for PM for the Rochester
area of Olmsted County and for SO2 for the Twin Cities area
(excluding the St. Paul Park area) was submitted by the MPCA on
September 7, 1994. The submittal was received by USEPA on September 12,
1994. In addition to the redesignation requests, a revision to the
administrative order for RPU was submitted to support the request for
the Rochester area.
The Rochester area was designated as a moderate nonattainment area
for PM upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990
(56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). As required in the CAAA, revisions to
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) were submitted on November 26,
1991, August 31, 1992, and November 13, 1992. These revisions were
approved by USEPA on February 15, 1994 (59 FR 7218).
The AQCR 131 area of Minnesota was designated primary nonattainment
for SO2 on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8692). In response to the
redesignation, the MPCA submitted a SO2 plan in August 1980. The
USEPA published a final rule approving the State's SO2 Part D plan
on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20997). Subsequent monitored violations of the
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) prompted a 1982
notice of SIP inadequacy for the Dakota County area of AQCR 131. Also,
as a result of the promulgation of the Good Engineering stack height
rule in 1985, the MPCA identified modeled attainment problems in other
areas of AQCR 131. The submittal of a revised plan for the area was
further delayed by the passage of the CAAA in 1990. Final SO2 SIP
revisions were submitted to USEPA in [[Page 28340]] three parts. The
plan for the majority of the AQCR 131 area was submitted May 29, 1992,
and approved by USEPA on April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17703). The plan for the
Pine Bend area (including the Koch Refining Company) of Dakota County
was submitted on July 29, 1992, and approved by USEPA on September 9,
1994 (59 FR 46553). The plan for the St. Paul Park area (Ashland
Petroleum Company) of AQCR 131 was submitted on December 22, 1992, and
was approved on January 18, 1995 (60 FR 3544), effective March 20,
1995.
The remainder of this rulemaking will (1) evaluate the PM request
for redesignation including the revised administrative order, (2)
detail a review of the SO2 request for redesignation, and (3)
present the final rulemaking action.
II. Analysis of Submittal
Particulate Matter Request
The State PM redesignation request submittal consisted primarily of
a maintenance plan and air quality monitoring data. An administrative
order was also included in the submittal in support of the maintenance
demonstration. The submittal contained text describing how the
statutory requirements were met. These requirements are detailed in
Title I, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The specific criteria and how
the State complied with the requirements are detailed below.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires a determination of whether the
area has attained the NAAQS. The State used both air quality monitoring
data and a dispersion modeling analysis to show that the area has
attained the 24-hour and annual NAAQS of 150 g/m3 and 50
g/m3, respectively. The modeling demonstration was
included in the proposed SIP revision initially submitted to USEPA on
November 26, 1991, and August 31, 1992. The modeling was performed in
accordance with the USEPA document entitled ``Guideline on Air Quality
Models, (Revised), including Supplement A,'' 1987. The Industrial
Source Complex-Short Term (ISCST) model was used for the analysis. The
modeling utilized urban dispersion coefficient, 5 years of National
Weather Service meteorological data, regulatory default modeling
options, and 100 meter spacing in high predicted impact areas. The
demonstration explicitly modeled impacts from Rochester Public
Utilities, and added in a concentration representative of local
background sources. The analysis showed that, with all control measures
in operation, modeled plus background concentrations of PM did not
violate the NAAQS. A more detailed discussion of the modeling
demonstration can be found in the June 25, 1993, notice of proposed
rulemaking on the Rochester PM SIP revision (58 FR 34297). That
proposed rulemaking concluded that the air dispersion modeling met the
appropriate requirements.
Ambient air monitoring data for the years 1988 through the first
quarter of 1994, was submitted from a PM monitor located at 7th Street
and West Silver Lake Drive. This data has been quality assured and is
available for review in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS), monitor number 271090015. No monitored exceedances of the PM
NAAQS have occurred in Olmsted County since the violation on June 14,
1988, which precipitated the redesignation to nonattainment for the
Rochester area.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) states that USEPA may not promulgate a
redesignation to attainment unless USEPA has fully approved the area
SIP under section 110(k). The PM SIP for the Rochester area of Olmsted
County was approved by USEPA on February 15, 1994. The revised
administrative order for RPU, submitted with the redesignation requests
and discussed more fully in a later section, is being approved in this
direct final rulemaking.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) states that USEPA may not promulgate a
redesignation request to attainment unless USEPA determines that ``the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control
regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions.''
The primary source of PM emissions in the Rochester nonattainment
area is RPU. An administrative order, which does not expire and which
was approved by USEPA on February 15, 1994, imposes emission limits and
operating restrictions upon the Company. The initial order became
effective at the State level in November 1992. The attainment
demonstration submitted with the proposed SIP revision showed that the
NAAQS for PM were not violated with the limits and restrictions in
effect. Ambient air monitoring data shows there have been no
exceedances since June 1988. Additionally, in 1988, RPU emitted 14.0
tons of PM, compared to 1992 annual emissions of 8.9 tons. The
information presented by the State adequately demonstrates that the
improvement in air quality can reasonably be attributed to reductions
in emissions which are permanent and enforceable.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) states that USEPA may not promulgate a
redesignation request to attainment unless USEPA has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section
175A.
Section 175A defines the general framework of a maintenance plan as
a SIP revision and that it must provide for maintenance of the NAAQS in
the area for at least 10 years after redesignation. Section 175A
further states that the plan shall contain such additional measures, as
may be necessary to ensure such maintenance. In addition, the
maintenance plan must contain contingency measures to promptly correct
a violation of the NAAQS.
Maintenance Plan
The primary components of a maintenance plan are (1) the attainment
inventory; (2) the maintenance demonstration; (3) verification of
continued attainment; (4) the monitoring network; and (5) the
contingency plan.
Attainment Inventory
The SIP revision submittal, approved on February 15, 1994, included
a PM emission inventory as part of the modeling demonstration. The
modeling analysis showed that the level of emissions in the area was
sufficient to attain the PM NAAQS.
Maintenance Demonstration
As stated previously, RPU is the primary source of PM in the
nonattainment area. An administrative order, issued to RPU, contains
emission limits and operating restrictions which were shown through the
modeling demonstration to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The
administrative order does not expire, therefore assuring that emissions
from RPU will not increase over the next 10 years. A significant part
of the modeled attainment demonstration is the contribution made from
sources not included in the modeling inventory. The contribution from
these sources is called the background concentration and is added to
the modeled concentration for a total PM concentration. The background
concentrations for the 24-hour and annual values were approximately 24
g/m3 and 12 g/m3, respectively. Vehicle
emissions represent a background source of PM that change over time.
The submittal projected a 14 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) for the period from 1990 to 2005, based on information from
[[Page 28341]] Olmsted County. This percentage increase, when applied
entirely to VMT results in a 24-hour background value of 27 g/
m3, which results in a total area concentration of about 132
g/m3. This is well below the NAAQS of 150 g/
m3. The new annual total area concentration would be about 34
g/m3, also well below the NAAQS. To account for future
industrial growth, the State permitting process requires any PM source
potentially emitting 25 tons a year to demonstrate, through dispersion
modeling, that attainment is met before the source may obtain a permit.
Minor source growth will be checked through ambient air monitoring, but
is unlikely to be significant enough to threaten the NAAQS given the
current level of modeled and monitored concentrations.
Verification of Continued Attainment
Growth in the area will be monitored by use of the following:
tracking new permit applications; tracking requests for permit
amendments; review of annual emission inventories required by all
permitted facilities.
Monitoring Network
The monitor currently in operation in the Rochester nonattainment
area will remain operating to verify the attainment status of the area.
The monitor will continue to operate in accordance with 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 58, and the data will continue to be reported
in AIRS.
Contingency Plan
Section 175(A)(d) of the CAA requires the submission of contingency
provisions to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation
of the PM standard which occurs after the area has been redesignated to
attainment. The administrative order for RPU contains a contingency
plan. A proposed amendment to the order was submitted so that the
contingency plan shall be implemented if a violation of the NAAQS is
determined from monitoring the area after the area has been designated
attainment. Prior to the amendment, the plan would be implemented if
timely attainment failed to occur. Thus, the amendment changes the
triggering criteria but not the substance of the contingency measures
that were approved in the February 15, 1994, final rulemaking. The
contingency plan consists of applying a chemical binding agent to the
coal pile, along with appropriate recordkeeping, and, if the violation
is severe enough, wheel washing of vehicles leaving the coal yard.
These measures become enforceable without further legislative or
rulemaking action by either the State or USEPA and are to be
implemented immediately upon a violation of the PM NAAQS.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that USEPA may not promulgate a
redesignation request to attainment unless the State has met all the
requirements applicable to the nonattainment area under section 110 and
part D. The State initially submitted revisions to its SIP for the
Rochester nonattainment area on November 26, 1991. The submittal was
reviewed against the requirements of the CAA, including section 110,
section 189, and section 172. A final approval rulemaking, dated
February 15, 1994, concluded that the submittal met the applicable
requirements.
Sulfur Dioxide Request
The request for redesignation to attainment for the Twin Cities and
Pine Bend area of AQCR 131 included technical support information such
as ambient air monitoring data and air dispersion modeling summaries.
The request package referenced the attainment demonstration which
supported the recently approved SIP revision submittals for the Twin
Cities and Pine Bend areas. The request also describes how it meets the
requirements of Section 107, Title I, of the CAA. The specific
requirements, although listed above, are summarized again in this
section along with details of how the State complies with those
requirements.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) states that the Administrator may not
promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment unless
the Administrator determines that the area has attained the NAAQS. On
May 29, 1992, and July 29, 1992, the MPCA submitted SIP revisions for
the Twin Cities and Pine Bend areas of AQCR 131. The SIP revision
submittals demonstrated attainment with the SO2 NAAQS through the
use of air dispersion modeling. These modeling demonstrations were
found to meet the applicable requirements (59 FR 17703 and 59 FR
46553). In addition to the modeled attainment demonstration, ambient
air monitoring data from the area network was included which showed no
violations. The most recent exceedances occurred in 1987.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) states that an area may not be
redesignated to attainment unless it has a fully approved SIP under
section 110(k). The SIP for the Twin Cities area was approved by USEPA
on April 14, 1994. The SIP revision for the Pine Bend area was approved
by USEPA on September 9, 1994. The combination of these two area SIPs
comprises the region requested to be redesignated to attainment.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) states that an area may not be
redesignated to attainment unless it is determined that the improvement
in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions resulting from the implementation of applicable SIP limits
and operating restrictions. The AQCR 131 Twin cities area was
originally designated nonattainment based on monitored violations of
the NAAQS which occurred in the late seventies. Many factors could have
contributed to the improvement in air quality since that time (e.g.,
better technology, lower sulfur fuels, reduction in number of sources).
However, it can reasonably be determined that the enforceable emission
limits, fuel quality specifications, and operating restrictions that
have been imposed on the significant sources in the Twin Cities area
have contributed greatly to, and are the primary reason for, the
continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the area. The State
submitted data showing the percent reductions in emissions for the
facilities which were issued administrative orders as part of the SIP
revision. Those facilities are Federal Hoffman, Incorporated, GAF
Building Materials Corporation, Minneapolis Energy Center,
Incorporated, Northern States Power Company-Riverside, United Defense,
L.P., Koch Refining Company and Sulfur Acid Unit Plant, Continental
Nitrogen and Resources Company, and Northern States Power Company-Inver
Hills. The reductions are primarily the result of tighter emission
limits imposed by the administrative orders.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) states that the Administrator may not
promulgate a redesignation to attainment unless the area has a fully
approved maintenance plan. The maintenance plan must meet the
requirements of section 175(A) as mentioned previously. The primary
requirement is for the SIP to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for
at least 10 years after the redesignation.
Maintenance Plan
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.
Attainment Inventory
The air dispersion modeling included in the May 29, 1992, and July
29, 1992, SIP submittals contained an emission inventory of the
significant SO2 sources [[Page 28342]] in the Twin Cities and Pine
Bend areas. The inventory was used in the computer dispersion modeling
analyses to demonstrate attainment. The modeling demonstrations met the
appropriate requirements.
Maintenance Demonstration and Verification
The critical component of a maintenance demonstration is the
ability to project attainment for a period of at least 10 years
following the redesignation. The MPCA relied on the dispersion
modeling, submitted with the earlier SIP revisions, to demonstrate that
the limits and operating restrictions contained in the administrative
orders were adequate to reach attainment. The administrative orders are
Federally enforceable and do not expire. Future growth in the area will
be monitored on a regular basis through the State's permitting process.
The permitting threshold for SO2 is 50 tons a year. Emission
inventories must be submitted to the State on an annual basis. This
will allow for monitoring of inventory changes and growth in the area.
There are several reasons to expect that future actual and
estimated emissions of SO2 will not increase in the Twin Cities
and Pine Bend areas; production and use of lower sulfur diesel fuel,
reducing SO2 emissions to avoid the permitting process, and the
conservative nature of the air dispersion modeling demonstration.
Ambient Air Monitoring
The SO2 ambient air monitoring network, currently in place in
the Twin Cities and Pine Bend areas, will remain in operation in order
to continue verification of attainment status and the data will
continue to be reported in AIRS.
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. However, in the proposed General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, (57 FR
13498), it states that SO2 provisions require special
considerations. A primary reason is that SO2 control methods are
well established and understood. This results 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 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 followup for compliance and enforcement. The MPCA has the
necessary enforcement and compliance programs, as well as means by
which to identify violators.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) 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. It was determined
in the final rulemaking approval of the Twin Cities and Pine Bend area
plans that the requirements under section 110 and Part D were met.
III. Rulemaking Action
The USEPA has evaluated the approvability of a request for
redesignation to attainment for PM for Rochester, MN, (including an
amendment to the administrative order for Rochester Public Utilities-
Silver Lake Plant), and for SO2 for the Twin Cities area and the
Pine Bend area of AQCR 131. The submittal is being approved based on
the determination that it meets the applicable requirements of Title I
of the CAA. The USEPA is also using this publication to correct
codification information for the Dakota County, MN lead SIP revision
and redesignation approved on October 18, 1994 (59 FR 52431).
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document
in this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical
comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on
July 31, 1995, unless USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by
June 30, 1995.
If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the approval
discussed above, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its effective
date, and publish a subsequent Federal Register notice which withdraws
this final action. All public comments received will then be addressed
in a subsequent rulemaking notice.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. If no such comments are received, USEPA hereby advises the
public that this action will be effective on July 31, 1995.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
CAA forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPS on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.CT. 1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(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 July 31, 1995. 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).) [[Page 28343]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate
matter.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control.
Note--Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Minnesota was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: April 19, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, parts 52
and 81, are 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 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(42) to read
as follows.
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(42) On September 7, 1994, the State of Minnesota submitted a
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for particulate matter
for the Rochester area of Olmsted County, Minnesota.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Amendment Two to the administrative order for the Silver Lake
Plant of Rochester Public Utilities, located in Rochester, Minnesota,
dated and effective August 31, 1994, submitted September 7, 1994.
3. Section 52.1229 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 52.1229
Maintenance of national standards.
(a) USEPA has approved the following maintenance plans:
(1) The maintenance plan for lead for Dakota County, submitted June
22, 1993.
(2) The maintenance plan for particulate matter for Rochester,
submitted September 7, 1994.
(3) The maintenance plan for sulfur dioxide for the Twin Cities
area except for the Ashland Refinery area, submitted September 7, 1994.
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. In Sec. 81.324, the table ``Minnesota SO2'' is amended by
revising the entry for ``AQCR 131'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.324 Minnesota.
* * * * *
Minnesota--SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not
Does not meet Cannot be Better than
Designated area meet primary secondary classified national
standards standards standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQCR 131:
Anoka County X
Carver
County..... X
Dakota
County..... X
Hennepin
County..... X
Ramsey
County..... X
Scott County
(part) The
area
bounded on
the north
by
Interstate
494; on the
west by
Highway 52;
on the
south by a
line from
the
intersectio
n of
Highway 52
and 56 east
to the
County
Line; on
the east by
the County
line....... X
Rest of
Scott
County..... X
Washington
County
(part) The
area
bounded on
the west by
the County
line; on
the south
by a line
extending
from the
County line
east to
100th
Street; on
the east by
Jamaica
Avenue; on
the north
by Military
Road and
Interstate
494........ X
Rest of
Washington
County..... X
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 81.324 the table ``Minnesota PM10'' is amended by
revising the entry for ``Olmstead County'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.324 Minnesota.
* * * * *
Minnesota--PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Olmsted County.......... July 31, 1995........... Attainment......
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 81.324 the table ``Minnesota Lead'' is revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 81.324 Minnesota
* * * * *
[[Page 28344]]
Minnesota--Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota County............................... 12/19/94 Attainment......
Rest of State not designated................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-13179 Filed 5-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
