Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54773 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that Order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves establishing a safety zone 

around a fireworks display and is 

expected to have no impact on the water 

or environment. This zone is designed 

to protect mariners and spectators from 

the hazards associated with aerial 

fireworks displays. An environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are available in 

the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subject 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0755 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0755 Safety Zone; Thunder on 

the Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Buckroe Beach 

Park, Hampton, VA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters of the 

Chesapeake Bay within the area 

bounded by a 210-foot radius circle 

centered on position 37°02′23′′ N/ 

076°17′22′′ W (NAD 1983). 

(b) Definition. Captain of the Port 

Representative means any U.S. Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, 

Virginia to act on his or her behalf. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or 

designated representative. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

immediate vicinity of this safety zone 

shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on shore or on board a vessel that is 

displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on shore or on board a vessel that is 

displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign. 

(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton 

Roads can be reached through the 

Command Duty Officer at Sector 

Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia 

at telephone number (757) 638–6641. 

(4) The Coast Guard Representatives 

enforcing the safety zone can be 

contacted on VHF–FM marine band 

radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and 

channel 16 (156.8 Mhz). 

(d) Enforcement Period. This 

regulation will be enforced from 9:15 

p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 17, 2010. 

Dated: August 10, 2010. 

M.S. Ogle, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22418 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
54774 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov. 

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, 

chang.andy@epa.gov. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54775 

1EPA has delegated the authority to implement 

the Federal PSD program pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 

to Minnesota. 

2CO emissions are generally highest during the 

winter, and thus the modeling was performed in 

such a way that yielded tons per winter day. 

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 tenyear 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. 

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. 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
54776 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Year 

1 Hour CO 

NAAQS 

design 

value (ppm) 

Percent of 

1 Hour CO 

NAAQS 

8 Hour CO 

NAAQS 

design 

value (ppm) 

Percent of 

8 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/airmonitoring-and-reporting/air-emissionsand-monitoring/air-monitoring-networkplan.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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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).) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
54778 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart Y—Minnesota 

■ 2. Section 52.1237 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0113; FRL–9197–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Louisiana; Baton Rouge 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area; Determination of 

Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA has determined that 

the Baton Rouge (BR) moderate 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area has attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This determination is based 

upon complete, quality assured, 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

that show the area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the 2006–2008 and 2007– 

2009 monitoring periods. Preliminary 

data available for 2010 is consistent 

with continued attainment. 

Under the provisions of EPA’s 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule, as a 

consequence of this determination the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, a reasonable 

further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements 

related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, are suspended for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2010–0113. 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., Confidential 

Business Information (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 Air Planning Section (6PDL), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. 

Contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a fee of 15 cents per page for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7367, fax (214) 

665–7263, e-mail address 

rennie.sandra@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. This 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the effect of this action? 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

We are determining that the BR 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area is 

currently attaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). This determination 

is based upon complete, qualityassured, certified ambient air 

monitoring data that show the area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2006–2008 

and 2007–2009 monitoring periods, and 

that preliminary data available for 2010 

is consistent with continued attainment 

of the NAAQS. 

As a consequence of this 

determination, under the provisions of 

EPA’s ozone implementation rule (see 

40 CFR section 51.918), the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, a reasonable 

further progress plan (RFP), applicable 

contingency measures, and other 

planning State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) requirements related to attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, are 

suspended for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

The rationale for our action is 

explained in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPR) published on June 

25, 2010 (75 FR 36316) and in today’s 

rulemaking. We received one comment 

in support of the proposal. 

II. What is the effect of this action? 

Under the provisions of EPA’s ozone 

implementation rule, 40 CFR 51.918, the 

requirements for the State of Louisiana 

to submit an attainment demonstration, 

a RFP plan, contingency measures 

under sections 172(c)(9), and any other 

planning SIPS related to attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are 

suspended for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

standard. 

If EPA subsequently determines, after 

notice-and-comment rulemaking in the 

Federal Register, that the BR area has 

violated the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

the basis for the suspension of the 

requirements would no longer exist, and 

EPA would take action to withdraw the 

determination and direct the area to 

address the suspended requirements. 

This final action does not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(3), because we do not yet 

have an approved maintenance plan for 

the area as required under section 175A 

of the CAA, nor a determination that the 

area has met the other requirements for 

redesignation. The classification and 

designation status of the area remain 

moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS until such time as 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES