[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 174 (Thursday, September 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54773-54778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22338]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0556; FRL-9197-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Carbon Monoxide (CO) Limited Maintenance Plan for the Twin
Cities Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on June 16, 2010, to revise the
Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for carbon monoxide (CO)
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The State has submitted a limited
maintenance plan for CO showing continued attainment of the CO National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul (Twin
Cities) area. The one hour CO NAAQS and eight hour CO NAAQS are 35
parts per million (ppm), and 9 ppm, respectively. This limited
maintenance plan satisfies section 175A of the CAA, and is in
accordance with EPA's October 29, 1999, approval of the State's
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Twin Cities area.
Additionally, this limited maintenance plan for CO satisfies the
requirements contained in the October 6, 1995, EPA memorandum entitled
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment
Areas.''
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 8, 2010,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 12, 2010. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0556, by one of the following methods:
[[Page 54774]]
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: [email protected].
3. Fax: (312) 692-2054.
4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0556. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Air Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0258, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
A. Why did the State make this submittal?
B. Limited Maintenance Plan
1. What is a limited maintenance plan, and what are the general
requirements that must be met by a State in order to submit a
limited maintenance plan?
2. What additional elements does a State need to include as part
of a limited maintenance plan?
C. Did the State hold public hearings for the limited
maintenance plan?
II. What criteria is EPA using to evaluate this submittal?
III. What is EPA's analysis of this submittal?
A. Requirements of Section 175A of the CAA
B. Consistency With the October 6, 1995, Memorandum
1. Attainment Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
4. Contingency Plan
5. Conformity Determination Under Limited Maintenance Plan
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Why did the State make this submittal?
On November 6, 1991, EPA designated most of the Twin Cities seven
county metropolitan area (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey,
Scott, and Washington counties), along with parts of Wright County, as
being a moderate nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS under section 107
of the CAA (56 FR 56694).
On March 23, 1998, MPCA submitted a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the Twin Cities nonattainment area. EPA found that
the redesignation request met all applicable requirements under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and also found that the maintenance plan met
the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. MPCA's redesignation
request and maintenance plan for the Twin Cities area was approved on
October 29, 1999 (64 FR 58347); comprehensive details about the
maintenance plan can be found in EPA's proposed approval on May 13,
1999 (64 FR 25855).
Section 175A(b) of the CAA mandates that the State shall submit an
additional revision to the maintenance plan eight years after
redesignation of any area as an attainment area. Minnesota's limited
maintenance plan satisfies this requirement, and is also consistent
with the requirements for limited maintenance plan elements outlined in
an October 6, 1995, memorandum from the Group Leader of the Integrated
Policy and Strategies Group, entitled, ``Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas.'' EPA observes that
although the Twin Cities area was designated as a moderate
nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS, redesignation to attainment status
in conjunction with meeting all requirements of the October 6, 1995,
memorandum, allows the State to be eligible to submit a limited
maintenance plan as the update to its original maintenance plan per
section 175A(b) of the CAA. The State submitted the limited maintenance
plan to EPA on June 16, 2010.
B. Limited Maintenance Plan
The definition, general requirements, and additional elements of a
limited maintenance plan will be explained below.
1. What is a limited maintenance plan, and what are the general
requirements that must be met by a State in order to submit a limited
maintenance plan?
A maintenance plan, as defined in section 175A of the CAA, is a
revision to the SIP to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS for the
air pollutant in question in the area concerned for at least 10 years
after the redesignation. Eight years after the redesignation, States
should submit an update to the maintenance plan to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS for another 10 years after the initial 10 year
period has expired. As previously mentioned, Minnesota's
[[Page 54775]]
original maintenance plan was approved on October 29, 1999 (64 FR
58347).
A limited maintenance plan for CO is a maintenance plan that is
available to States who have demonstrated that the design values for CO
in the nonclassifiable nonattainment area are at, or below, 7.65 ppm
(85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS). The area's design value must
not exceed the 7.65 ppm threshold throughout the entire rulemaking
process. The design value for CO is defined as the second highest
reading in the area in a two year period. Should an area have more than
one monitor, the monitor with the second highest value in a two year
period serves as the design monitor. As previously mentioned, EPA has
determined that the limited maintenance plan for CO is available to all
States as part of their update to maintenance plans per section
175A(b), regardless of the original nonattainment classification, or
lack thereof.
2. What additional elements does a State need to include as part of a
limited maintenance plan?
In addition to meeting all applicable requirements of section 175A
of the CAA, States should also include the following elements in a
limited maintenance plan for CO: Attainment Inventory, Maintenance
Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment,
Contingency Plan, and Conformity Determinations Under Limited
Maintenance Plans. These elements were outlined in the October 6, 1995,
EPA memorandum, and will be comprehensively discussed below.
C. Did the State hold public hearings for the limited maintenance plan?
Public notice was given on May 10, 2010, in the Minnesota State
Register.
II. What criteria is EPA using to evaluate this submittal?
In addition to the general requirements in section 175A of the CAA,
guidance for CO limited maintenance plans is provided in the October 6,
1995, memorandum, which states that the following five components need
to be addressed: Attainment Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration,
Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment, Contingency
Plan, and Conformity Determination Under Limited Maintenance Plan.
III. What is EPA's analysis of this submittal?
A. Requirements of Section 175A of the CAA
Section 175A contains four subsections pertaining to maintenance
plans. Section 175A(a) establishes requirements for initial SIP
redesignation request maintenance plans, as addressed in EPA's October
29, 1999, approval of the Minnesota plan. Section 175A(b) requires
States to submit an update to the maintenance plan eight years
following the original redesignation to attainment, and MPCA has
satisfied the requirements of this element with its current submittal.
It also requires that within this update, the State must outline
methods for maintaining the pertinent NAAQS for ten years after the
expiration of the ten-year period referred to in subsection (a), i.e.,
Minnesota's maintenance plan update must outline methods for
maintaining the CO NAAQS through 2019. However, EPA stated in the
October 6, 1995, memorandum that it is not necessary for States to
project emissions over this maintenance period. Instead, EPA believes
that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 7.65 ppm
(85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS), the applicability of
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements,\1\ control
measures already in the SIP, and other Federal measures should provide
adequate assurance of maintenance throughout the maintenance period.
Section 175A(c) does not apply to this rulemaking, given that EPA has
previously redesignated the Twin Cities area to attainment for CO. The
contingency provisions requirements outlined in section 175A(d) will be
addressed in detail in section B4, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA has delegated the authority to implement the Federal PSD
program pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 to Minnesota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consistency With the October 6, 1995, Memorandum
As discussed above, EPA's interpretation of section 175A of the
CAA, as it pertains to limited maintenance plans for CO, is contained
in the October 6, 1995, memorandum. Minnesota has addressed the five
major elements of that policy, as follows:
1. Attainment Inventory
The State is required to develop an attainment emissions inventory
to identify a level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
attain the CO NAAQS. In its June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA provided a
comprehensive CO emissions inventory for nonroad mobile, stationary,
and onroad mobile sources. This set of estimated emissions was
identical to that which EPA approved for the Twin Cities area on
December 9, 2004 (69 FR 71375). The December 9, 2004, approval was not
a full update to the CO maintenance plan for the Twin Cities area, but
applied only to the 1996 and 2009 CO emissions inventory and the 2009
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets; both of these emissions were estimated
using the MOBILE6 model. EPA observed in the December 9, 2004, approval
that the updated emissions using the MOBILE6 model were much better
predictors of CO emissions in the Twin Cities area because there had
been substantial changes made to the model between MOBILE6 and its
MOBILE5 predecessor, released in 1993. In its June 16, 2010, submittal,
MPCA highlighted that the total estimated CO emissions in the Twin
Cities area has decreased from 2,506 tons per winter day in 1996, to
1,856 tons per winter day in 2009.\2\ This represents a 26 percent
decrease in total CO emissions in tons per winter day. The onroad
mobile emissions for the Twin Cities area, thought to be the major
source of the original nonattainment designation, decreased from 1,872
tons per winter day in 1996 to 1,311 tons per winter day in 2009. This
represents a 30 percent decrease in onroad mobile CO emissions in tons
per winter day. MPCA also estimated that between 1996 and 2030, there
would be a 36 percent decrease in onroad mobile CO emissions in tons
per winter day in the Twin Cities area. Monitoring data from 1998 to
2009 shows consistent compliance with the eight hour CO NAAQS at levels
well below the 85 percent threshold of 7.65 ppm; therefore the State
has satisfied the attainment inventory requirement for limited
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CO emissions are generally highest during the winter, and
thus the modeling was performed in such a way that yielded tons per
winter day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Maintenance Demonstration
In the October 6, 1995, memorandum, EPA stated that the maintenance
demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied for
nonclassifiable areas if the monitoring data show that the area is
meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas, i.e.,
85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS, or 7.65 ppm. As previously
mentioned, EPA determined in this same memo that there is no
requirement to project emissions over the maintenance period. Instead,
EPA believes that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or
[[Page 54776]]
below, 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS), the
applicability of PSD requirements, control measures already in the SIP,
and other Federal measures should provide adequate assurance of
maintenance throughout the maintenance period.
In its submittal, MPCA showed, using validated ambient monitoring
data collected between 1998 and July of 2009, that the Twin Cities area
is meeting both the one hour and eight hour CO NAAQS. The design values
for the eight hour CO NAAQS in this area are below the 7.65 ppm
threshold; therefore, the State has satisfied the maintenance
demonstration requirement for limited maintenance plans. In addition,
the design values for the one hour CO NAAQS in the Twin Cities area are
very low when compared to the NAAQS; the highest design value for the
one hour CO NAAQS between 1998 and 2009 was 11.1 ppm, or 31 percent of
the NAAQS. The design values for the Twin Cities area for 2007 to 2009
(in its entirety) are shown below in Table 1. Subsequent Air Quality
Systems (AQS) queries for validated monitoring data for available 2010
data indicates that the one hour and eight hour CO NAAQS are being met
in the Twin Cities area at values well below either NAAQS.
Table 1--CO Design Values and Percentage of NAAQS for the Twin Cities Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Hour CO 8 Hour CO
Year NAAQS design Percent of 1 NAAQS design Percent of 8
value (ppm) Hour CO NAAQS value (ppm) Hour CO NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................................ 2.5 7.1 1.8 20.0
2008............................................ 3.1 8.9 2.4 26.7
2009............................................ 2.5 7.1 2.0 22.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated, the State should continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. This
is particularly important for areas using a limited maintenance plan
because there will be no cap on emissions. In its submittal, MPCA
specifically identifies two monitoring sites located in the Twin Cities
area, which are AQS I.D. 27-053-0954 (528 Hennepin Ave. in Minneapolis)
and AQS I.D. 27-123-0050 (1088 W. University Ave. in St. Paul). MPCA
commits to continue monitoring CO at these two sites to ensure that CO
concentrations remain well below the 7.65 ppm threshold for limited
maintenance plans. Furthermore, MPCA commits to consult with EPA should
changes to the existing monitoring network be needed, and the State's
monitoring plan for 2011 can be found at the following site: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-monitoring-and-reporting/air-emissions-and-monitoring/air-monitoring-network-plan.html. The State
has satisfied the monitoring network and verification of continued
attainment requirements for the limited maintenance plan.
4. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of an area. The October 6,
1995, memorandum further requires that the contingency provisions
identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for
adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by
the State.
In its June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA committed to the same
contingency measures that EPA previously approved on October 29, 1999.
MPCA stated that if CO levels in the Twin Cities area reach 85 percent
of the eight hour CO NAAQS, it would work closely with EPA to determine
which of the originally listed contingency measures would be the most
appropriate to implement in the case of a NAAQS violation.
MPCA also committed to use a monitored air quality violation as the
trigger event for the contingency measure. The triggering date will be
the date that the State certifies to EPA that the air quality data are
quality assured and not found to be due to an exceptional event,
malfunction, or noncompliance with a permit condition or rule
requirement. The triggering date will be no more than 30 days after an
ambient air quality violation is monitored. MPCA attested that it would
implement one or more appropriate contingency measures if a violation
occurs and the triggering event is confirmed. The applicable measure(s)
would be selected by the MPCA commissioner within six months of a
triggering event; the measure(s) would be implemented per the
respective schedules that EPA approved on October 29, 1999. Specific
details about these measures and implementation schedules can be found
in EPA's May 13, 1999 (64 FR 25855) proposed approval. The State has
satisfied the contingency plan requirements pursuant to section 175A(d)
of the CAA as well as those of the October 6, 1995, memorandum.
5. Conformity Determination Under Limited Maintenance Plan
The transportation conformity rule of November 24, 1993, (58 FR
62188) and the general conformity rule of November 30, 1993 (58 FR
63214) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas operating
under maintenance plans. Under either rule, one means of demonstrating
conformity of Federal actions is to indicate that expected emissions
from planned actions are consistent with the emissions budget for the
area.
Minnesota currently uses the ``Transportation Conformity Procedures
for Minnesota: A Handbook for Transportation and Air Quality
Professionals,'' developed by an interagency workgroup, to determine
transportation conformity. This handbook addresses the consultation and
other required portions of the Federal transportation conformity
program. Minnesota is in the process of developing a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to formally implement the processes in the
handbook, which are already being used. Additionally, Minnesota intends
to submit the MOU and handbook to EPA for approval as Minnesota's
transportation conformity SIP.
The October 6, 1995, memorandum also states that emissions budgets
in limited maintenance plan areas may be treated as essentially not
constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is
unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth
in that period that a violation of
[[Page 54777]]
the CO NAAQS would result. In other words, EPA concluded that, for
these areas, emissions need not be capped for the maintenance period.
For transportation conformity, Federal actions requiring conformity
determinations under the transportation conformity rule could be
considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' required in sections 93.118,
93.119, and 93.120 of the rule once the limited maintenance plan is
approved by EPA. In its June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA observed that
for the Twin Cities area, transportation plans, transportation
improvement, and regionally significant projects still require
conformity determinations in order to proceed. Additionally, Federally
funded projects are still subject to ``hot spot'' analysis
requirements. However, no regional modeling analysis would be required.
The State has satisfied the conformity determination under limited
maintenance plan requirements for the limited maintenance plan.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
We are approving this CO limited maintenance plan for the Twin
Cities area. The State of Minnesota has complied with requirements of
section 175A of the CAA, as interpreted by the guidance provided in the
October 6, 1995, memorandum. Minnesota has shown through its submittal
that CO emissions in the Twin Cities area have decreased steadily
between 1996 and 2009. Minnesota has also shown that the monitored
levels of CO in the Twin Cities area have been consistently well below
the requisite level of 7.65 ppm for the eight hour CO NAAQS in order to
qualify for the limited maintenance plan option. Lastly, Minnesota has
shown that all monitored values for the one hour and eight hour CO
NAAQS have been consistently well below the respective NAAQS levels.
These low monitored values of CO are expected through the end of the
maintenance period.
We are 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
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 8,
2010 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by October 12, 2010. 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. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period; therefore, 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 November 8, 2010.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because approval of a CO limited maintenance plan does not impose any
new regulatory requirements on Tribes, impact any existing sources of
air pollution Tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of CO NAAQS in
Tribal lands. However, because there are Tribal lands located in Scott
County, we provided the affected Tribe with the opportunity to consult
with EPA on the CO limited maintenance plan. The affected Tribe raised
no concerns with the final rule.
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 action 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 8, 2010. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
[[Page 54778]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference.
Dated: August 26, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Y--Minnesota
0
2. Section 52.1237 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1237 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.
* * * * *
(e) Approval--On June 16, 2010, Minnesota submitted a carbon
monoxide (CO) limited maintenance plan for the Minneapolis-St. Paul
area under section 175A of the CAA for the continued attainment of the
one hour and eight hour CO NAAQS.
[FR Doc. 2010-22338 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P