# • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North 

### I St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 

### I 651-296-6300 

### I 800-657-3864 

### I 651-282-5332 TIY 

### I www.pca.state.mn.us

June 16,2010

Ms. Susan Hedman Regional Administrator (R-19J) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 WestJackson Boulevard Chicago, lllinois 60604 

### RECEIVED 

# IJUN 21 2010 u.s. EPA REGIUN :> OFFICEOFREGIONALADMINISfRATO?

RE: SecondTen YearMaintenance Plan for the Twin Cities Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area Dear Ms. Hedman: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) hereby submits to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) arevision ofMinnesota's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision concerns the portion ofthe Twin Cities metropolitan area that was previously in non-attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO). Section 175A ofthe Clean Air Actrequires re-designated areas to submit a second maintenance plan to the EPA eight years after the first plan is approved, showing continued attainment ofthe NAAQS. The MPCA is hereby submitting a limited maintenance plan based on EPA guidance. The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Twin Cities will continue to maintain the NAAQS for carbon monoxide. The MPCA requests EPA approval ofthe maintenance plan. Please contact Catherine Neuschler, ofmy staff, at 651-757-2607, ifyou have any questions regarding this submittal. Sincerely, 

# ;.:Eg:**~-'---** Commissioner 

### PE/CN:sth Enclosure

cc: Kathleen D'Agostino, EPA Region 5 (with enclosure) Michael Leslie, EPA Region 5 (with enclosure)

St. Paul 

### I Brainerd 

### I Detroit Lakes 

### I Duluth 

### I Mankato 

### I Marshall 

### I Rochester 

### I Willmar 

### I Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper "An equal opportunity employer"

## Minnesota State Implementation Plan Revision Second Ten Year Maintenance Plan for the Twin Cities Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area I. Background In 1971, EPA published a NAAQS to regulate carbon monoxide (CO); the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency (MPCA) began ambient monitoring for CO in that year. On March 3, 1973, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan areas, which includes Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington counties, as being in nonattainment with the CO standard. The MPCA submitted SIP revisions including transportation control plans to reduce CO emissions.

. Afterthe Clean AirAct Amendments of 1990, on November 6, 1991, EPA designated most of the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area, along with parts ofWright County, as being a moderate nonattainment area for the CO standard. The picture below shows the maintenance area. Figure 1-1. Twin Cities Carbon Monoxide Maintenance AreaThe nonattainment designation was based on a CO level of 11.4 parts permillion (ppm) observed using 1988

- 1989 data. The MPCA implemented several control measures to reduce CO emissions, including an annual vehicle inspection/maintenance plan and an oxygenated gasoline program. In addition, the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program has contributed to a decrease in CO emissions. Since implementation ofthese control measures, ambient CO concentrations have decreased below the level ofthe NAAQS. In March 1998, the MPCA submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Twin Cities CO nonattainment area. EPA approved the redesignation and maintenance plan, and approval was published in the Federal Register on October29, 1999 (64 FR 58347). 

### II. Original Maintenance Plan The maintenance plan submitted with the redesignation request in 1998 projectedthat the Twin Cities area would remain in attainment with the CO standardthroughout the entirety ofthe 20 year maintenance period, to 2018. The table below shows the emissions estimations from the original maintenance plan, which were based on EPA's MOBILE5a model. (Note that emissions estimations are for the entirety of the eight counties where at least some part ofeach county is included in the maintenance area.) Table 2-1. Total 1998 Maintenance Plan Estimated CO Emissions in the Twin Cities Area (tons per day) Source Category 1990 1996 1998 2008 2009 2018 Area 283 303 311 338 340 361 Nonroad Mobile 173 189 195 212 213 221 Point 274 169 229 229 229 229 Onroad Mobile 1976 1114 1032 822 898 1044 Total 2712 1775 1767 1661 1680 1855 The maintenance plan projected a 32 percent decrease in CO emissions from 1990 to 2018.**Modelin~** was conducted for the maintenance plan to estimate ambient CO concentrations for 1996, 1998,2008 and 2018. The following table shows the predicted concentrations at ten selected intersections. Table 2-2. Predicted CO Concentrations (ppm) in the Twin Cities NonattainmentArea Intersection 1996 1998 2008 2018 1 hr 8 hr 1 hr 8 hr 1 hr 8 hr 1 hr 8 hr TH 101atTH 7 13.2 9.5 11.8 8.5 10.7 7.7 11.3 8.2 TH 169 at CSAH 81 12.4 8.9 11.2 8.1 10.0 7.2 10.8 7.8 University/lexington 12.3 8.8 11.1 8.0 9.1 6.5 10.5 7.6 Avenue Snelling at 12.3 8.8 10.9 7.8 9.0 6.5 10.2 7.4 UniversityAve. TH 10 at University 14.1 10.1 12.5 9.0 10.7 7.7 11.4 8.3

2Intersection 1996 1998 2008 2018 TH 100 at CSAH 81 12.1 8.7 10.8 7.8 9.4 6.8 10.1 7.3 TH 252 at 661t1 Ave 11.3 8.2 10.2 7.3 9.2 6.6 10.7 7.7 TH 252 at 851t1 Ave 10.4 7.5 9.3 6.8 8.4 6.1 9.3 6.8 TH 252 at Brookdale 10.8 7.8 9.9 7.2 8.8 6.4 10.0 7.3 Hennepin at Lake 10.4 7.5 9.2 6.6 7.7 5.5 8.7 6.3 This modeling showed that the areawould attain both the one hour standard of35 ppm and the eighthour standard of9 ppm. In 2004, the MPCA completed a revision to the original 1998 maintenance plan. The update used EPA's MOBILE6.2 model to predict emissions and revised the conformity budgets. Winter day (worst case) emissions were calculated for the 1996 

### base year used in the 1998 maintenance plan, and for 2009,2019,2025, and 2030. Table 2-3. Total 2004 Maintenance Plan Estimated CO Emissions in the Twin Cities Area (tons perwinter day) Source category 1996 2009 2019 

### I 2025 

### I 2030 Nonroad Mobile 337 418 Not estimated Stationary Sources 297 127 Onroad Mobile 1872 1311 1081 

### I 1109 

### I 1191 

### ill.Second Maintenance Plan Section 175A ofthe Clean AirAct requires redesignated areas to submit a second maintenance plan to the EPA eightyears afterthe first plan is approved. The second plan must show continued attainment ofthe NAAQS for the ten years following the initial maintenance plan. This SIP revision contains the second maintenance plan for the Twin Cities CO maintenance area in fulfillment ofthat requirement. The MPCA is submitting a limited maintenance plan based on EPA guidance. The limited maintenance plan option is available to**are~** whose 8-hour average CO design value is at or below 7.65 ppm, or 85% ofthe CO NAAQS. Limited maintenance plans are not required to include projections ofemissions overthe period covered by the plan, because the continued applicability ofrequirements such as prevention ofsignificant deterioration and federal motor vehicle controls provide enough assurance that the CO NAAQS will be maintained. In addition, limited maintenance plans do not require the establishment ofemission budgets for conformity purposes, because ambient conditions are so far below the standards that it is not reasonable to expect a level ofgrowth that would result in ambient conditions above the standard. AttaiJUD$int InyeutQlY The maintenance plan is required to contain an emission inventory that identifies a level of emissions in an area that is consistent with the NAAQS. Minnesota completes full emissions inventory every three years. The 2002 and 2005 actual emission inventories are shown in the Table 3-1 below.

3Table 3-1. Actual CO Emissions in the Twin Cities CO Maintenance Area (tons peryear) Source category 2002 2005 Area 292,000 265,000 Nonroad Mobile 214,911 199,698 Point 16,496 6,269 Onroad Mobile 558,882 486,943 Total 1,082,289 957,910 The MPCA collects emission inventory information on an annual basis. In orderto make the data more comparable to the daily estimates provided in the 2004 maintenance plan update, the annual emission inventory number was divided by 365. This is shown in the table below.

Table 3-2. Total Estimated CO Emissions Compared to Actual Emissions in the Twin Cities NonattainmentArea (tons per day) Source category 1996 2002 2005 2009 2019 (Estimated) (Actual) (Actual) (Estimated) (Estimated) Stationary Sources 297 845 743 127 N/A (Point +Area) Nonroad Mobile 337 589 547 418 N/A Onroad Mobile 1872 1531 1334 1311 1081 Total 2506 2965 2624 1856 N/A It should be noted that when emissions were estimated in the 2004 update, a seasonal adjustment factor of0.87 was used to convert annual to wintertime vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and thus winter onroad mobile emissions. Therefore, the estimated emissions in the table above are winter day emissions, while the actual emissions arejust general emissions. Using the seasonal adjustment factor on the onroad mobile emissions causes the 2002 and 2005 actual emissions to drop to 1332 and 1161 tpd, respectively. Although actual stationary source CO emissions are much higherthan estimated, the primary cause ofMinnesota's previous CO nonattainment was mobile emissions, and 2005 actual mobile emissions are relatively consistent with the estimated 2009 emissions in the last maintenance plan revision. Several modeling assumptions were used to develop the vehicle miles traveled and, consequently, onroad mobile emissions in the 2004 maintenance plan revision. Althoughthere are some differences in the underlying assumptions since 2004, they are within the expected error ofthe regional travel demand m0gel and therefore the modeling data from 2004 are still valid. Compared to predictions made in 2004, travel forecasts for 2009 currently result in 8.2% higher VMT and 12.2% higher VMT for 2019. However, given the accuracy ofthe model and the accepted calibration standards, these VMT projections can be considered comparable. The MPCA believes that the 2004 inventory, when coupled with information from 2002 and 2005 actual emissions, is an appropriate attainment inventory. The dominant source ofCO emissions in the Twin Cities area is from on-road motor vehicles. Other contributing sources include nonroad emissions, which include lawn and garden equipment, recreational equipment, and construction equipment, as well as stationary sources such as residential fuel combustion and industrial processes.
4Maintenance Demonstration Maintenance plans must demonstrate that the NAAQS will continue to be met. For limited maintenance plans, the maintenance demonstration is consideredto have been met if8 consecutive quarters ofmonitoring data show that ambient concentrations 

### in the area are at or below 7.65 ppm (85% ofthe NAAQS). The data show thatthe design value for CO 

### in the Twin Cities remains well below the levels that represent 85% ofboth the primary and secondary standards. This data is for two sites thathave been operational for several years and continue to operate today. Note that the data collected for 2009 only goes through July 2009. Additional data, including that from monitors that are no longer operational, is included in Table 3-3. This data further supports the conclusions that carbon monoxide levels in the Twin Cities are well below the NAAQS. Table 3-3. Carbon Monoxide Design Values forthe Twin Cities Area

Year 1st max-l hr 2nd max-l hr 1st max- 8 hr 2nd max-8 hr Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Hennepin County (Site27-053-0954) 1998 9.1 8.7 3.9 3.9 1999 4.8 4.3 3.0 2.9 2000 6.3 5.0 3.0 2.7 2001 5.7 5.6 4.6 2.9 2002 12.3 6.1 3.7 3.1 2003 5.2 4.7 2.3 2.3 2004 3.3 3.2 2.2 1.8 2005 3.4 3.3 2.2 1.8 2006 5.5 4.8 2.5 2.4 2007 3.4 2.5 1.7 1.4 2008 2.0 2.0 0.9 0.8 2009 1.7 1.6 1.0 0.9 LexingtonAvenue, St. Paul, Ramsey County (Site27-123-0050) 1998 9.7 9.7 7.4 7.0 1999 7.7 7.6 5.3 5.2 2000 6.7 6.6 5.2 5.1 2001 11.4 11.1 8.6 5.1 2002 7.2 5.8 3.9 3.9 2003 8.7 6.1 4.4 4.3 2004 6.1 5.3 3.8 3.2 2005 6.5 5.6 4.3 3.0 2006 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.5 2007 3.0 2.3 2.2 1.8 2008 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.4 2009 2.5 2.4 1.8 1.6

5The charts below graphically show the trend in eight-hour and one-hourcarbon monoxide design values at these two monitoring sites.

10.0 19.0 a 

# i 8.0 

## i § 7.0

6.0 u u 

# r 5.0 oC 4.0 

# .. e 3.0 :I j 2.0 

# I 1 1

.0 N 0.0 Figure 3-4. 1998 - 2009 CO 8-hr Design Value Trends**~27-053­** 0954 _27-123- 0050 -Standard -85% of Standard

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* *throughJuly 2009

40.0

135.0 a 

## -B ;30.0 )25.0 

## 8 120.0 

# j

.. 15.0 

# " 

# )'000 1 5.0 N 0.0 Figure 3-5: 1998 - 2009 CO 1-hr Design Value Trends**~27-053-** 0954 _27-123- 0050 -Standard -85% of Standard



### A.

# ~,~ 

# -- -- 7": 

# .....



# - "7' 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* *through July 2009 6Ambient air quality data from all monitoring sites indicate that the NAAQS for CO continues to be met since the areawas redesignated to attainment in 1999. The initial maintenance plan projectedthat the standard would continue to be maintained through 2018, and this update verifies that continued attainment. M9nitoring NetworkIVerification ofContinued Attainment Maintenance plans must contain provisions for continued operation ofa monitoring network. The MPCA currently operates CO monitoring sites at 528 Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis and at St. Paul City Church

- 1088 W. University Avenue (at Lexington Avenue), St. Paul. The MPCA commits to continue monitoring CO in the Twin Cities, at the sites mentioned above, to ensure the CO design values for the areas remain at orbelow 7.65 ppm. Should changes to the monitoring network, such as site changes, become necessary in the future, the MPCA will consult with EPA Region V staffpriorto making changes to the existing monitoring network. The MPCA will continue to meetthe requirements of40 CFR 58. Attachment 1 shows additional monitoring data from various sites from 1998 through 2009, further illustrating that CO concentrations in the Twin Cities CO maintenance area have continued to remain well below the standard since the area was redesignated to attainment. ComingC(ncy Plan Maintenance plans are required to include contingency measures, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation ofthe NAAQS that occurs after redesignation ofthe area.**Th~** MPCA's original maintenance plan identifies several control measures for use as contingency measures to ensure the area maintains the NAAQS. The listed control measures include vehicle inspection and maintenance, transportation control measures for hot spots, and changes to the oxygenated gasoline program. Should CO concentrations in the Twin Cities area reach 85% ofthe standard, the MPCA will work with EPA Region 5 to determine which ofthe originally listed contingency measures would be most appropriate to be implemented in the case ofa NAAQS violation. To promptly correct any violation ofthe NAAQS, the MPCA will use a monitored air quality violation as the triggering event for the contingency measure. The triggering event 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 permitcondition or rule requirement, which will be no laterthan 30 days after an ambient air quality violation is monitored. Ifa violation occurs and the triggering event is confirmed, the MPCA commits to implement one ormore appropriate contingency measures. A decision on contingency measure selection will be finalized by the MPCA Commissionerwithin six months ofa triggering event. Commitmentto Revis; Piau This submittal satisfies Minnesota's commitmentto prepare maintenance plans for the Twin Cities CO maintenance area. No further action is necessary since the area has continued to maintain the standard since reclassification to attainment.

7Conformity Determination UnderLimited Maintenance Plan The transportation conformity rule ofNovember 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188) and the general conformity rule ofNovember 30, 1993 (58 FR 632141) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas operating under maintenance plans. Under eitherrule, one means of demonstrating conformity ofFederal 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 otherrequired portions ofthe federal transportation conformity program. Minnesota is in the process ofdeveloping an MOU to formally implementthe processes in the handbook, which are already being used, and to submit the MOU and Handbookto EPA for approval as Minnesota's transportation conformity SIP. For areas using the limited maintenance plan option, "an emissions budgetmay be treated as essentially not constraining for the length ofthe maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expectthat such an areawill experience so much growth in that period that a violation ofthe CO NAAQS would result." In other words, EPA has concluded that, for these areas, emissions need not be capped for the maintenance period. Fortransportation conformity, federal actions requiring conformity determinations are considered to satisfy the budgettest required by sections 93.118, 93.119, and 93.120 ofthe conformity rule once this limited maintenance plan is approved by EPA. In the Twin Cities area, transportation plans, transportation improvement programs and regionally significant projects still require conformity determinations in orderto proceed, and federally funded projects are still subjectto "hot spot" analysis requirements. However, no regional modeling analysis would be required. IV. Conclusion Significantprogress continues to be made in reducing CO levels in the Twin Cities area. Dramatic reductions in CO levels from improvements in auto emissions controls systems, equipment and cleaner fuels have cutCO emissions despite growth in vehicle miles traveled. The Twin Cities have maintained the CO NAAQS since the areawas redesignated to attainment status and none ofthe CO monitors have violated the NAAQS since 1991. As shown in this maintenance plan update, the level ofCO emissions and resulting ambient concentrations continue to demonstrate attainment ofthe CO NAAQS. The following additional programs will also have a beneficial impact on CO emissions and ambient concentrations: 1. Ongoing implementation ofan oxygenated gasoline program as reflected in the modeling assumptions used the SIP. 2. A regional commitment to continue capital investments to maintain and improve the operational efficiencies ofhighway and transit systems.
83. Adoption ofa regionallong-tenn 2030 Regional Development Framework that supports land use patterns that efficiently connect housing,jobs, retail centers, and transit oriented development along transit corridors. 4. The continued involvement oflocal government units in the regional 3C transportation planning process allows the region to address local congestion, effectively manage available capacities in the transportation system, and promote transit supportive land uses as part ofa coordinated regional growth management strategy. Forall ofthese reasons, the Twin Cities CO maintenance areas will continue to attain the CO standard for the next 10 years. 

### Attachments Attachment 1: Additional Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Data for the Twin Cities Attachment 2: References Attachment 3: Public notice Attachment4: Completeness Review

9

### Attachment 1: Additional Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Data for the Twin Cities



### Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Sites in Minnesota

• Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency N 

# W-<?-'

s •• Miles 01246 8

• Carbon Monoxide Sites

101998- 2009 Eight Hour Design Value Trends

10.0**~27-o03-** 

# - 0600 

# I 9.0 A. _27-037- 

# - Ii 8.0 0020 

## i -&-27-037- 

# .. ! 7.0 0423 

# j**~27-053-** 6.0 0954 

## 8**~27-123-** 

# • 5.0 

# r 0044 4.0 _27-123- C 0050 

# ! 3.0**~27-123-** 

# j 0865 

# • 2.0 -Standard 

# .. 2 

### 1 1.0 -85% of N Standard 0.0 *throughJuly 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* 2009

1998 - 2009 Eight Hour Design Values Lexington Fridley High Hennepin Ave, University Avenue, St. Paul Science Museum,

SChool Flint Hills 420 Flint Hills 423 Arts Center (954) Avenue, St. Paul (861) St. Paul 27-003-0600 27-037-0020 27-037-0423 27-053-0954 27-123-0044 27-123-0050 27-123-0865 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd max max max max max max max max max max max max max max 1998 2.9 2.8 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 3.9 3.9 5.0 3.9 7.4 7.0 4.5 3.6 1999 2.4 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 3.0 2.9 4.2 4.0 5.3 5.2 3.9 3.4 2000 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 3.0 2.7 3.1 2.7 5.2 5.1 2.5 2.4 2001 2.2 1.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.6 2.9 3.8 3.3 8.6 5'.1 3.3 2.9 2002 1.6 1.5 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.3 3.7 3.1 3.2 2.8 3.9 3.9 2.3 2.3 2003 1.8 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.4 2.3 2.3 4.4 4.3 2.0 1.9 2004 1.5 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.3 2.2 1.8 3.8 3.2 2005 3.4 2.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.2 1.8 4.3 3.0 2006 1.5 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.5 2007 2.0 1.9 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.4 2.2 1.8 2008 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.8 2.4 2.4 2009 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.9 1.8 1.6

II40.0 

# I .!:35.0 

# j S30.0 c ]25.0 

# S**~O.O** 

# .. J

.. 15.0 

# .. ... 

# 1

10

.0 

# i 5.0 

## 1 

# ,.. 0.0 1998- 2009 One Hour Design Value Trends



### A

# .~" ..- ..-



# .... 

# ... ..... 

# - -- --. 

# -- 

# -- - - 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009-

1998 - 2009 One Hour Design Values**~27-OO3­** 0600 _27-037- 0020 -&-27-037- 0423**~27-o53­** 0954**~27-123­** 0044 _27-123- 0050**~27-123­** 0865 -Standard -85% of Standard

-through July 2009

Lexington Fridley High Hennepin Ave, University Avenue, St. Paul SCience Museum,

School Flint Hills 420 Flint Hills 423 Arts Center (954) Avenue, St. Paul (861) St. Paul 27-003-0600 27-037-0020 27-037-0423 27-053-0954 27-123-0044 27-123-0050 27-123-0865 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd max max max max max max max max max max max max max max 1998 4.2 3.6 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.1 9.1 8.7 8.7 6.9 9.7 9.7 5.9 5.1 1999 3.3 3.1 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.1 4.8 4.3 5.7 4.8 7.7 7.6 5.1 5.0 2000 3.8 2.8 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.7 6.3 5.0 6.6 5.7 6.7 6.6 3.6 3.5 2001 2.9 2.8 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.7 5.6 6.0 5.3 11.4 11.1 6.1 4.9 2002 2.4 2.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 12.3 6.1 4.2 4.1 7.2 5.8 4.5 3.6 2003 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.7 5.2 4.7 8.7 6.1 2.9 2.9 2004 2.6 2.1 1.1 1.0 1.4 0.8 3.3 3.2 6.1 5.3 2005 3.8 3.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 3.4 3.3 6.5 5.6 2006 3.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 5.5 4.8 3.3 3.3 2007 2.3 2.3 0.6 0.6 2.4 1.4 3.4 2.5 3.0 2.3 2008 1.8 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 2.0 2.0 3.2 3.1 2009 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.7 1.6 2.5 2.4

12Attachment 2: References Bai S., Eisinger D.S., Tamura T.M., & Sullivan D.C. (2004, August 12). Revision ofthe Minneapolis- St. Paul Carbon Monoxide maintenance Plan. Final Report prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by SonomaTechnology, Inc., Petaluma, CA. Filipi M. (2010, February 20). Review ofModeling Assumptions and Results used in the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan Update. Email Communication. Gavin K. (2009, October 20.) MPCA CO Monitoring Data. Kelso D. and Lynn M.F. (1998, March 20). Minnesota Redesignation Request and maintenance Plan SIP Revision for CO in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Seven County Metropolitan Area and Wright C. Program Development Section and Air Quality Analysis, Air Quality Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Paisi 

### J. (1995, October 6). Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Areas. EPA Guidance Document.



### 13

### Attachment 2: Public notice

14State ofMinnesota 

# State Register

Proposed,Adopted, & ExpeditedRules; Executive Orders;Appointments; Commissioners' Orders; Revenue Notices; Official Notices; StateGrants & Loans; StateContracts; Non-StatePublicBids, Contracts &Grants Published every Monday (Tuesday when Monday is a holiday) 

## Monday 10 May 2010 

# Volume 34, Number45 Pages 1553

- 1604

# Official Notices iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiii http://www.dli.mn.gov/rulemaking_QCtivity.html. Agency ContactPenon. Writtencomments, questions, requests to receive adraftoftherules when ithas beenprepared, andrequests formoreinformationonthesepossiblerules shouldbedirectedto: Colleen ChirhartattheDepartmentofLaborandIndustry, CCLD, 443 Lafayette RoadNorth, St.**Pau~** MN55155, Phone: (651) 284-5867, Fax: (651) 284-5749. TIYusers may call the Departmentat(651) 297-4198. Alternative Format. Upon request, this Request for Comments can be made available in an alternative format, such as large print, Braille, orcassettetape. Tomake such arequest, pleasecontactthe agency contactpersonattheaddress ortelephonenwnberlistedabove.

NOTE: Commentsreceived inresponseto this noticewill notnecessarilybeincludedintheformal rulemakingrecord submittedtothe administrativelawjudgeifandwhenaproceedingto adoptrules is started. The agency isrequiredto submittothejudgeonlythosewritten comments received in response to the rules afterthey areproposed. Ifyou submitted comments during the developmentofthe rules and you want to ensure that,the Administrative Law Judge reviews the comments, you should resubmit the comments after the rules are formally proposed. Dated: 4 May 2010 John Parizek, Chair Minnesotap,lwnbing Board


## Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division Public Notice of State Implementation Plan Revision
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Commissioner has determined that a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision must be submitted to meet Minnesota's requirements under the CleanAirAct (theAct). Background. TheAct requires states to prepare and submitto the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA) a SIP, whichisthe state'splantoattain andmaintaintheNationalAmbientAirQuality Standards (NAAQS). Minnesotahas aSIPaddressingthe NAAQS for carbon monoxide in the Twin Cities area. The Twin Cities was previously in nonattainment with the NAAQS for carbon monoxide, primarily dueto emissions from motorvehicletraffic. Minnesotasubmitted aSIPrevision in 1998demonstrating attaimnent andshowingthatattainmentwouldbemaintainedinthe areafortenyears, andwas redesignatedto attainmentinNovember 1999. Under Section 175Aofthe Act, states must submit a second maintenance plan eightyears afterredesignation in orderto demonstrate that the NAAQS will continueto be maintained for an additionalten years. Purpose ofthe SIP Revision. The purpose ofthis SIP revision is to fulfill the requirement under Section 175A for a second maintenance plan anddemonstrate thatthe Twin Cities has and will continueto maintain the NAAQS for carbon monoxide.

The MPCAwill onlyhold apublicinformationmeetingabouttheproposed SIPrevision ifoneis requestedduringthepubliccomment period. Ifsuch a meeting is requested, it will ,be held from 3:30 to 4:30 on Tuesday, June 15,2010 at the MPCA's St. Paul office, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota. To find outifapublicmeetingwill be heldpleasecall CatherineNeuschlerat(651) 757-2607 afterthe close ofthe public commentperiod.

The MPCAwill considerchangingthe contents of theproposed SIPrevisionbasedon commentsreceivedduringthe commentperiod and atthepublicmeeting, ifheld. Followingtheendof thecommentperiod, theCommissionerwill decidewhetherto submittheproposed SIPrevision to the EPAunless, as provided by Minnesota Statutes § 116.02, the Boardmakes this decision. MPCA Contact Penon. The MPCA contact person is Catherine Neuschler. Written comments, requests and petitions should be mailed to: Catherine Neuschler, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Enviromnental Analysis and Outcomes Division, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155-4194, telephone number: (651) 757·2607, Voice ortoll free: 1-800-657·3864; facsimile number: (651) 297-8324; and e-mail: catherine.neuschler@rtate.mn.us. TTYusers may call the MPCA atTIY: (651) 292-5332 or 1-800-657- 3864. Page 1584 MinnesotaStateRegister, Monday 10 May 2010 (Cite 34 SR 1584).......iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

# Official Notices
Availability ofSIP. A copy ofthe proposed SIPrevision is available on the MPCA's Web site at: http://www.pca.state.mn.uslair/sip.html.
A copy ofthe proposed SIP is also available upon requestby contacting Catherine Neuschler at (651) 757-2607, orwill be mailedto any interested person upon the MPCA's receipt of a written request. Additional materials relating to the SIP revision are available for inspection by appointment atthe MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, between the hours of8:00 a.m. and4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. To examinethese materials orformore information please contactCatherine Neuschler. All MPCAoffices may be reachedby calling 1-800-657-3864.

Public CommentPeriod. Yourcomments mustbe in writing and receivedby 4:30p.m. onJune 9, 20IO. Comments may be submitted to the MPCA contactperson at the address, facsimile number, orE-mail address listed above.

Requestto Have MPCACitizens' Board Make Decision. You havetherightto submitapetition to the MPCACommissionerasking that the MPCA Citizens' Boardmake the decision on submitting the proposed SIPrevision to the EPA. Yourpetition mustbe in writing, and mustbe received by the MPCA contactperson listedby 4:30 p.m. on June 9, 2010. Whetherthe petition will be granted ordenied is in the sole discretion ofthe MPCACommissioner. The MPCA Citizens' Board will only make the decision on the proposed SIPrevision ifthe MPCA Commissionergrants yourpetitionorifan MPCA Citizens' Boardmembermakes atimely requestto havethedecisionmade by the MPCA Citizens' Board.
PaulEger, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

## Department of Public Safety (DPS) Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Notice 

### of Informational Meeting July 7,2010

The Minnesota Bureau ofCriminalApprehension will hold a meeting from 9 a.m. to II:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 7,2010to discuss progress on several BCA initiativesregarding criminaljusticeinformation sharinginthe stateofMinnesota. Specificprojectupdates will be provided, includingthe eCitationnumbering scheme, the services on-boardingprocess, and how the upcoming MasterAgreementwill impactvendors. Plus an update on all Core Priority projects. The meeting will takeplace atthe BureauofCriminalApprehensionoffices at 1430MarylandAve. E., St. Paul, MN. In addition, limitedparticipationmay take place viaweb conference. (To make arrangements to participate remotely, please contactJill Oliveira at the information listed below.)

Vendors, particularly those working with local agencies to manage records, as well as agency information technology staffare encouraged to attend this meeting. Please RSVP. Formore information, orto RSVP, contactJill Oliveira, Public Information Officer, at: (651) 793-2726 or e-mail: jill.oliveira@State.mn.us


## Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) Notice of Meeting of the Board ofTrustees May 19, 2010

The Board ofTrustees, MinnesotaTeachers RetirementAssociation will hold a meeting on Wednesday, May 19,2010 at 9:30 am. in Suite 400, 60 Empire Drive, St. Paul, MN to consider matters which may properly come before the Baord. Board members may participate by telephone.

(Cite 34 SR 1585) MinnesotaSlateRegister, Monday 10 May 2010 Page 1585

### Attachment 3: Completeness Review A. Administrative Materials (40 CFRpt. 51, Appendix V, Part 2.1) The EPA's Criteria for Determining the Completeness ofPlan Submittals, published at 40 CFR pt. 51, Appendix V (2001), requires states to provide the basic documents that show that the State has properly followed the administrative requirements called for by the CAA for the adoption ofSIPs. The requirements, and how this SIP revision complies with these requirements, are discussed here: 1) Formal Letter ofSubmittal: "A formal letter ofsubmittal from the Governor orhis designee, requesting EPA approval ofthe plan or revision thereof." Attached to this SIP revision request is a formal letter ofsubmittal from the MPCA Commissioner, Paul Eger, to the Region V Administrator, Susan Hedman. The office ofthe Commissioner ofthe MPCA is statutorily created at Minnesota Statute 

### § 116.03, subd. 1 (a) (2000). The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor, and the duties ofthe position include acting as the state agentto "apply for, receive, and disburse federal funds made available to the state by federal law orrule and regulations promulgated thereunder for any purpose related to the power and duties ofthe MPCA orthe Commissioner. The Commissioner shall comply with any and all requirements ofsuch federal law or such rules and regulations promulgated thereunderto facilitate application for, receipt, and disbursement ofsuch 

### funds." Minn. Stat. 

### § 116.03 subd. 3 (2000). 2) Evidence ofState Adoption ofPlan and Issuance ofOrders in Final Form "Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code orbody ofregulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter 'document') in final form. That evidence shall include the date ofadoption or final issuance as well as the effective date ofthe plan, ifdifferent from the adoption/issuance date." This SIP revision request is based on the MPCA's original SIP submittal containing a redesignation request and maintenance plan, submitted in March 1998 and approved by EPA on October 29, 1999 (64 FR 58347). The MPCA is required to submit an update to the maintenance plan within eightyears ofthe EPA's approval ofthe redesignation request. The MPCA is following EPA guidance for the form and content ofthese submittals. Administrative orders or the adoption ofadditional regulations are not required for this submittal. 3) Legal Authority Documentation: "Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implementthe plan."

15The MPCA's legal authority has been demonstrated in the initial SIP submittal ofMarch 1998, and in maintenance plan updates submitted in November 2003 for the CO maintenance areas in Duluth and St. Cloud. 4) Compliance with State Procedures: "Evidencethatthe state followed all ofthe procedural requirements ofthe State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance ofthe plan." MPCA complied with all relevant state procedures for the SIP revision, including public notice. 5) Public Notice: "Evidence thatpublic notice was given ofthe proposed change consistent with the procedures approved by the EPA, including the date ofthe publication ofthe notice." The public notice for the SIP revision was published in the State Register on May 10,2010, with the public comment period commencing on May 10,2010 and ending on June 9,2010. During the public comment period, a copy ofthe maintenance plan was made available atthe MPCA office located in St. Paul and on the MPCA's website. A copy ofthe public notice is attached. 6) Public Hearing Certification "Certificationthat public hearing(s) were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, ifapplicable." The public notice states: "A public information meeting will only be held ifone is requested during the public comment period. Ifsuch a meeting is requested, it will be held from :30 to 4:30 on Tuesday, June 15,2010, at the MPCA St. Paul Office, 520 Lafayette Road North, Minnesota. To find out ifa public meeting will be held, please call Catherine Neuschler at 651-757-2607, afterthe close ofthe public comment period. The public information meeting will provide information, receive public input, and answer questions about both the proposed permit and SIP revision." No public meeting was requested. 7) Public Comments and State Response:
"Compilation ofthe public comments and State's response thereto." No public comments on the maintenance plan were received.

16

### B. Technical Support: 1) Pollutants Regulated: "Identification ofall regulated pollutants affected by the plan." The regulated pollutant subject to this SIP revision request is carbon monoxide (CO). 2) Source Identification "Identification ofthe locations ofaffected sources including the EPA attainmentlnonattainment designation ofthe locations and the state ofthe Attainment Plan for the affected area(s)." The affected source within the former nonattainment area is primarily motor vehicle traffic. 3) Emissions Quantification: "Quantification ofthe changes in the plan; allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates ofchanges in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification ofthe changes in actual emissions through calculations ofthe differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result ofthe revision." This SIP revision does not change allowable emissions. Emissions are shown in the attainment inventory. 4) NAAQS Protections: "The State's demonstration that the NAAQS, prevention ofsignificant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected ifthe plan is approved and implemented." The current levels ofCO are sufficiently low in the Twin Cities CO maintenance area as to create a**reas~nable** presumption that levels will not be exceeded within the time period ofthis updated maintenance plan. 5) Modeling Information "Modeling information required to supportthe proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,justification ofthe model selections, ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used,justification for use ofoff-site data (where used), modes ofmodels used, assumptions, and other information relevantto the determination ofadequacy ofthe modeling analysis." Modeling information was included in the original SIP submittal of 1998. That modeling went outto 2018, which is nearthe end ofthe time period for this maintenance plan.

. 6) Continuous Emission Reduction

17

### "Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology." This requirement does not apply to this submittal because the source is mobile. 7) 

### Emission Level Assurance "Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/requirements, where necessary, to ensure emissions levels." This requirement does not apply to this submittal because the source is mobile. 8) Compliance/Enforcement "Compliance and enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice." The MPCA will determine compliance by:

• Telephone calls;

• Emails;

• Interim reporting deadline submittals;

• Site visit with MPO 

### staffwho would carry outcontingency measures;

• Attendance at 

### MPO Directors' meeting and at FHWA midyearreviews;

• Participation in the Minnesota Interagency AirQuality & 

### Transportation Planning Committee; and

• Evaluation ofsteps taken to achieve attainment should aviolation occur. 9) 

### Special Economic and Technological Justifications: "Special economic and technologicaljustifications required by any applicable EPA policies, or an explanation ofwhy suchjustifications are not necessary." This requirement does not apply to this submittal. Conclusion 

### The MPCA expects thatthe Twin Cities areawill continue to remain in 

### compliance with the CO NAAQS.

18