•

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 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, lllinois 60604

RECEIVED

IJUN 21 2010

u.s. EPA REGIUN :>

OFFICE OF REGIONAL ADMINISfRATO?

RE: Second Ten Year Maintenance 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) a revision 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 Act requires 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, if you 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 Minnesota Pollution

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. .

After the Clean Air Act 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 Area
The nonattainment designation was based on a CO level of 11.4 parts per million (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 October 29, 1999 (64 FR 58347).

II. Original Maintenance Plan

The maintenance plan submitted with the redesignation request in 1998 projected that the Twin

Cities area would remain in attainment with the CO standard throughout 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 Nonattainment Area

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

University Ave.

TH 10 at University 14.1 10.1 12.5 9.0 10.7 7.7 11.4 8.3

2
Intersection 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 area would attain both the one hour standard of35 ppm and the

eight hour 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 per winter 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 Air Act requires redesignated areas to submit a second maintenance

plan to the EPA eight years after the 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 over the 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 of emission budgets for conformity

purposes, because ambient conditions are so far below the standards that it is not reasonable to

expect a level of growth 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.

3
Table 3-1. Actual CO Emissions in the Twin Cities CO Maintenance Area (tons per year)

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 order to 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

Nonattainment Area (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 winter time 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 are just 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 higher than 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. Although there

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.

4
Maintenance Demonstration

Maintenance plans must demonstrate that the NAAQS will continue to be met. For limited

maintenance plans, the maintenance demonstration is considered to have been met if 8

consecutive quarters ofmonitoring data show that ambient concentrations in the area are at or

below 7.65 ppm (85% ofthe NAAQS).

The data show that the design value for CO in the Twin Cities remains well below the levels that

represent 85% of both the primary and secondary standards. This data is for two sites that have

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 for the 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 (Site 27-053-0954)

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

Lexington Avenue, St. Paul, Ramsey County (Site 27-123-0050)

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

5
The charts below graphically show the trend in eight-hour and one-hour carbon monoxide design

values at these two monitoring sites.

10.0

19.0

a

i 8.0

i

§ 7.0

6.0

u

u

r5.0

oC 4.0

..e3.0

: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*

*through July 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

6
Ambient air quality data from all monitoring sites indicate that the NAAQS for CO continues to

be met since the area was redesignated to attainment in 1999. The initial maintenance plan

projected that 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 or below 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 staffprior to making changes to the existing monitoring network.

The MPCA will continue to meet the 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 permit condition or rule

requirement, which will be no later than 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 or more appropriate contingency measures. A decision on contingency measure

selection will be finalized by the MPCA Commissioner within six months ofa triggering event.

Commitment to Revis; Piau

This submittal satisfies Minnesota's commitment to 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.

7
Conformity Determination Under Limited 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 either rule, 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 other required portions ofthe federal transportation conformity program. Minnesota is in the

process of developing an MOU to formally implement the processes in the handbook, which are

already being used, and to submit the MOU and Handbook to EPA for approval as Minnesota's

transportation conformity SIP.

For areas using the limited maintenance plan option, "an emissions budget may be treated as

essentially not constraining for the length ofthe maintenance period because it is unreasonable to

expect that such an area will 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.

For transportation conformity, federal actions requiring conformity determinations are

considered to satisfy the budget test 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 order to proceed, and federally funded projects

are still subject to "hot spot" analysis requirements. However, no regional modeling analysis

would be required.

IV. Conclusion

Significant progress 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 cut CO emissions despite growth in vehicle miles traveled. The

Twin Cities have maintained the CO NAAQS since the area was 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 of an 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.

8
3. Adoption of a 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.

For all 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

Attachment 4: Completeness Review

9
Attachment 1: Additional Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Data for the Twin Cities

Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Sites in Minnesota

• Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency

N

W-<?-'

s

•• Miles

01246 8

• Carbon Monoxide Sites

10
1998 - 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 *through July

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

II
40.0

I

.!:35.0

j

S30.0

c

]25.0

S

~O.O ..

J.. 15.0

.....110.

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

12
Attachment 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 Sonoma Technology, 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

14
State of Minnesota

State

Register

Proposed, Adopted, & Expedited Rules; Executive Orders; Appointments;

Commissioners' Orders; Revenue Notices; Official Notices;

State Grants & Loans; State Contracts; Non-State Public Bids, Contracts &Grants

Published every Monday (Tuesday when Monday is a holiday)

Monday 10 May 2010

Volume 34, Number 45

Pages 1553 - 1604
Official Notices iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiii

http://www.dli.mn.gov/rulemaking_QCtivity.html.

Agency Contact Penon. Written comments, questions, requests to receive a draft ofthe rules when it has been prepared, and requests

for more information on these possible rulesshould be directed to: Colleen Chirhart at the Department ofLabor and Industry, CCLD, 443

Lafayette Road North, St. Pau~ MN 55155, Phone: (651) 284-5867, Fax: (651) 284-5749. TIY users may call the Department at (651)

297-4198.

Alternative Format. Upon request, this Request for Comments can be made available in an alternative format, such as large print,

Braille, or cassette tape. To make such a request, please contact the agency contact person at the address ortelephone nwnberlisted above.

NOTE: Commentsreceived in response to this notice will not necessarily be included in the formal rulemaking record submitted to the

administrative lawjudge ifand when a proceeding to adoptrules isstarted. The agency isrequired to submit to the judge only those written

comments received in response to the rules afterthey are proposed. Ifyou submitted comments during the development ofthe 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

Minnesota p,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 Clean Air Act (the Act).

Background. The Act requires states to prepare and submit to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) a SIP,

which isthe state's plan to attain and maintain the NationalAmbientAir Quality Standards(NAAQS). Minnesota has a SIPaddressing the

NAAQS for carbon monoxide in the Twin Cities area. The Twin Cities was previously in nonattainment with the NAAQS for carbon

monoxide, primarily due to emissions from motor vehicle traffic. Minnesota submitted a SIP revision in 1998 demonstrating attaimnent

and showing that attainment would be maintained in the area for ten years, and was redesignated to attainment in November 1999. Under

Section 175A ofthe Act, states must submit a second maintenance plan eight years after redesignation in order to demonstrate that the

NAAQS will continue to be maintained for an additional ten years.

Purpose of the SIP Revision. The purpose of this SIP revision is to fulfill the requirement under Section 175A for a second

maintenance plan and demonstrate that the Twin Cities has and will continue to maintain the NAAQS for carbon monoxide.

The MPCA will only hold a public information meeting about the proposed SIP revision ifone is requested during the public comment

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 out ifa public meeting will be held please call Catherine Neuschler at (651) 757-2607

after the close ofthe public comment period.

The MPCA will consider changing the contents ofthe proposed SIP revision based on commentsreceived during the comment period

and atthe publicmeeting, ifheld. Following the end ofthe comment period, the Commissioner will decide whetherto submitthe proposed

SIP revision to the EPA unless, as provided by Minnesota Statutes § 116.02, the Board makes 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 or toll free: 1-800-657·3864; facsimile number:

(651) 297-8324; and e-mail: catherine.neuschler@rtate.mn.us. TTY users may call the MPCA at TIY: (651) 292-5332 or 1-800-657-

3864.

Page 1584 Minnesota State Register, Monday 10 May 2010 (Cite 34 SR 1584)
.......iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Official Notices

Availability of SIP. A copy ofthe proposed SIP revision 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 request by contacting Catherine Neuschler at (651) 757-2607, or will be mailed to 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 at the MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, between the hours of8:00 a.m. and 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday. To examine these materials or for more information please contact Catherine Neuschler. All MPCAoffices

may be reached by calling 1-800-657-3864.

Public Comment Period. Your comments must be in writing and received by 4:30 p.m. on June 9, 20 IO. Comments may be submitted

to the MPCA contact person at the address, facsimile number, or E-mail address listed above.

Request to Have MPCA Citizens' Board Make Decision. You have the right to submit a petition to the MPCA Commissioner asking

that the MPCA Citizens' Board make the decision on submitting the proposed SIP revision to the EPA. Your petition must be in writing,

and must be received by the MPCA contact person listed by 4:30 p.m. on June 9, 2010. Whether the petition will be granted or denied is

in the sole discretion ofthe MPCA Commissioner. The MPCA Citizens' Board will only make the decision on the proposed SIP revision

ifthe MPCA Commissioner grants your petition or ifan MPCA Citizens' Board membermakes a timely request to have the decision made

by the MPCA Citizens' Board.

Paul Eger, Commissioner

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Department of Public Safety (DPS)

Bureau of Criminal Apprehension

Notice of Informational Meeting July 7,2010

The Minnesota Bureau ofCriminal Apprehension will hold a meeting from 9 a.m. to II:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 7,2010 to discuss

progress on several BCA initiatives regarding criminal justice information sharing in the state ofMinnesota. Specific project updates will

be provided, including the eCitation numbering scheme, the services on-boarding process, and how the upcoming MasterAgreement will

impact vendors. Plus an update on all Core Priority projects. The meeting will take place at the Bureau ofCriminal Apprehension offices

at 1430 MarylandAve. E., St. Paul, MN. In addition, limited participation may take place via web conference. (To make arrangements to

participate remotely, please contact Jill 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. For more 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, Minnesota Teachers Retirement Association 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) Minnesota Slate Register, Monday 10 May 2010 Page 1585
Attachment 3: Completeness Review

A. Administrative Materials (40 CFR pt. 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 or his 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 agent to "apply for, receive, and disburse federal funds made available to the

state by federal law or rule and regulations promulgated thereunder for any purpose related to the

power and duties ofthe MPCA or the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall comply with any

and all requirements ofsuch federal law or such rules and regulations promulgated thereunder to

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 or body 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 eight years 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 of additional 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

implement the plan."

15
The 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:

"Evidence that the 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 that public 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 at the MPCA

office located in St. Paul and on the MPCA's website. A copy ofthe public notice is attached.

6) Public Hearing Certification

"Certification that 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,

after the 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 of affected 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 support the 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 relevant to the determination ofadequacy ofthe

modeling analysis."

Modeling information was included in the original SIP submittal of 1998. That modeling went

out to 2018, which is near the 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 out contingency measures;

• Attendance at MPO Directors' meeting and at FHWA midyear reviews;

• Participation in the Minnesota Interagency Air Quality & Transportation Planning

Committee; and

• Evaluation ofsteps taken to achieve attainment should a violation occur.

9) Special Economic and Technological Justifications:

"Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies, or

an explanation ofwhy such justifications are not necessary."

This requirement does not apply to this submittal.

Conclusion

The MPCA expects that the Twin Cities area will continue to remain in compliance with the CO

NAAQS.

18