18638 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–9361 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0240; FRL–8896–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a site 

specific revision to the Minnesota sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for the Rochester Public 

Utility’s Cascade Creek Generating 

Facility (Cascade Creek), located in the 

city of Rochester, Olmsted County, 

Minnesota. On March 5, 2008, the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

(MPCA) requested that EPA approve 

certain portions of a joint Title I/Title V 

document into the Minnesota SO2 SIP 

for the Cascade Creek facility. This SIP 

revision includes the addition of two 

new oil and gas fired turbines and 

modification of the starter engine on the 

No. 1 turbine. This SIP revision will 

show reduced emissions of SO2 from 

this facility and the SO2 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) will be maintained in the 

area. Because the SO2 emission limits 

are being reduced, the air quality of 

Olmsted County will be protected. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective June 23, 2009, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 26, 

2009. 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–2008–0240, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, 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–2008– 

0240. 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 Gilberto Alvarez, 

Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886– 

6143 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental 

Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6143, 

alvarez.gilberto@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. What Is EPA Approving? 

II. What Is the Background for This Action? 

III. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the State 

Submission? 

IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of 

This Action? 

V. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Is EPA Approving? 

EPA is approving into the SO2 SIP for 

Minnesota a joint Title I/Title V 

document for the Rochester Public 

Utility’s Cascade Creek Facility 

(Cascade Creek), located in Rochester, 

Olmsted County, Minnesota. This SIP 

amendment approval will replace the 

current Title I SIP conditions under Air 

Emission Permit No. 00000610–001. 

II. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

A. What Prior SIP Actions Are Pertinent 

to This Action? 

Cascade Creek is an electrical 

generation facility consisting of three 

combustion turbines and a diesel starter 

engine. The facility was identified as a 

culpable source in the Rochester area at 

the time the area was designated as 

nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS. The 

facility is now part of the SIP to 

maintain attainment of the SO2 NAAQS 

in the Rochester area. On February 7, 

2008, the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency (MPCA) issued an Air Emission 

Permit No. 10900020–003 to Rochester 

Public Utilities. The permit is a joint 

Title I/Title V document and will 

replace Permit No. 00000610–001, the 

joint document currently approved into 

the SIP. Air Permit Nos. 10900020–001 

and 002 were adopted at the state level, 

but the joint documents were not 

submitted to EPA for approval into the 

SIP. These permits authorized the 

modification of the existing turbine to 

allow for burning of natural gas and 

distillate fuel oil and established 

facility-wide Federally-enforceable 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 18639 

emission limits that restrict potential 

emissions to less than major source 

levels under the Federal Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and New 

Source Review programs. These changes 

are being addressed through EPA’s 

action on joint Title I/Title V document 

10900020–003. Because the facility is 

located in the Rochester/Olmsted 

County SO2 maintenance area, changes 

to the facility’s operations must be 

submitted to EPA as SIP revisions. 

B. What Are the Revisions to the SIP? 

The revision involves changes to 

Cascade Creek’s current operating 

conditions and revisions to the 

applicable SO2 SIP conditions currently 

listed in the Joint Title I/Title V 

document and incorporated into 

Minnesota’s SIP. The facility has 

accepted fuel sulfur content limits that 

reduce SO2 beyond previously 

permitted levels. This SIP revision also 

includes the addition of two new oil 

and gas fired turbines and modification 

of the starter engine on the No. 1 

turbine. 

C. Has Public Notice Been Provided? 

Minnesota published public notices 

for the Cascade Creek Facility on 

December 20, 2007. No comments were 

received during the comment period 

which ended on February 4, 2008. In the 

public notices, Minnesota stated it 

would hold a public hearing if one were 

requested during the comment period. 

This follows the alternative public 

participation process EPA approved on 

June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32274). For limited 

types of SIP revisions that the public 

has shown little interest in, a public 

hearing is not automatically required. If 

anyone requests a public hearing during 

the comment period, Minnesota will 

hold a public hearing. Because no one 

requested a public hearing, Minnesota 

did not hold a public hearing for this 

SIP revision. 

D. What Are Title I Conditions and Joint 

Title I/Title V Documents? 

SIP control measures were contained 

in permits issued to culpable sources in 

Minnesota until 1990 when EPA 

determined that limits in state-issued 

permits are not Federally-enforceable 

because the permits expire. Minnesota 

then issued permanent Administrative 

Orders to culpable sources in 

nonattainment areas from 1991 to 

February of 1996. 

Minnesota’s consolidated permitting 

regulations, approved into the state SIP 

on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), include 

the term ‘‘Title I condition’’ which was 

written, in part, to satisfy EPA 

requirements that SIP control measures 

remain permanent. A ‘‘Title I condition’’ 

is defined as ‘‘any condition based on 

source-specific determination of 

ambient impacts imposed for the 

purposes of achieving or maintaining 

attainment with the national ambient air 

quality standard and which was part of 

the state implementation plan approved 

by EPA or submitted to the EPA 

pending approval under section 110 of 

the act * * *.’’ The rule also states that 

‘‘Title I conditions and the permittee’s 

obligation to comply with them, shall 

not expire, regardless of the expiration 

of the other conditions of the permit.’’ 

Further, ‘‘any Title I condition shall 

remain in effect without regard to 

permit expiration or reissuance, and 

shall be restated in the reissued permit.’’ 

Minnesota has initiated using joint 

Title I/Title V documents as the 

enforceable document for imposing 

emission limitations and compliance 

requirements in SIPs. The SIP 

requirements in joint Title I/Title V 

documents submitted by MPCA are 

cited as ‘‘Title I conditions,’’ therefore 

ensuring that SIP requirements remain 

permanent and enforceable. EPA 

reviewed the state’s procedure for using 

joint Title I/Title V documents to 

implement site-specific SIP 

requirements and found it to be 

acceptable under both Titles I and V of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) (July 3, 1997 

letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael 

J. Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15, 

2006, letter from EPA to MPCA clarifies 

procedures to transfer requirements 

from Administrative Orders to joint 

Title I/Title V documents. 

III. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the State 

Submission? 

Cascade Creek owned units included 

in the SO2 SIP for the Rochester area. 

The facility has accepted fuel sulfur 

content limits that reduced SO2 beyond 

previously permitted levels. This SIP 

revision also includes the addition of 

two new oil and gas fired turbines and 

modification of the starter engine on the 

No. 1 turbine. 

A modeling analysis conducted for 

the Cascade Creek Facility SIP revision 

showed that incorporating a reduced 

fuel oil sulfur limit resulted in less total 

SO2 impacts from operation of the 

modified three-turbine system, as 

opposed to the single-turbine system. 

Additionally, modeling shows that the 

location of the significant impact area is 

much smaller for the modified facility 

and does not include any new areas. 

Based on these modeled results, MPCA 

concluded that the addition of the two 

new turbines did not jeopardize NAAQS 

attainment. 

IV. What Are the Environmental Effects 

of This Action? 

Due to the decrease in fuel oil sulfur 

content, overall emissions of SO2 will 

decrease from current SIP conditions. 

Thus, the Rochester area in Minnesota 

is expected to remain in attainment of 

the SO2 NAAQS. 

SO2 causes breathing difficulties and 

aggravation of existing cardiovascular 

disease. It is also a precursor of acid rain 

and fine particulate matter formation. 

Sulfate particles are a major cause of 

visibility impairment in the United 

States. Acid rain damages lakes and 

streams, impairing aquatic life, and 

causes damage to buildings, sculptures, 

statues and monuments. SO2 also causes 

the loss of chlorophyll leading to 

vegetation damage. 

V. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is approving site specific 

revisions to the Minnesota SO2 SIP for 

the Cascade Creek Facility, located in 

the city of Rochester, Olmsted County, 

Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is only 

approving into the SIP those portions of 

the joint Title I/Title V document cited 

as ‘‘Title I condition: State 

Implementation Plan for SO2.’’ 

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 June 23, 2009 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by May 26, 

2009. 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. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period. 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 

June 23, 2009. 

VI. 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, 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
18640 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 CAA; 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 the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 23, 2009. 

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. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: April 9, 2009. 

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. In § 52.1220 the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade 

Creek Combustion’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS

Name of source Permit No. 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

* * * * * * * 

Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade Creek Combustion.100900020– 

003 

12/28/07 ...................... 4/24/09, [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Only conditions cited 

as ‘‘Title I condition: 

SIP for SO2

NAAQS.’’ 

*******


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 18641 

[FR Doc. E9–9368 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0683; FRL–8895–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Finding of Attainment for 

1-Hour Ozone for the MilwaukeeRacine, WI Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a July 28, 

2008, request from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) that EPA find that the 

Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin (WI) 

nonattainment area has attained the 

revoked 1-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective June 23, 2009, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 26, 

2009. 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–2008–0683, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, 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–2008– 

0683. 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 Gilberto Alvarez, 

Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886– 

6143 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental 

Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6143, 

alvarez.gilberto@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. What Is EPA Approving? 

II. What Is the Background for This Action? 

III. What Is the Impact of a December 22, 

2006, United States Court of Appeals 

Decision Regarding EPA’s Phase 1 Ozone 

Implementation Rule on This Rule? 

IV. Attainment Finding 

V. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Is EPA Approving? 

EPA is approving a July 28, 2008, 

request from WDNR that EPA find that 

the Milwaukee-Racine, WI 

nonattainment area attained the revoked 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

II. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), the MilwaukeeRacine, WI area was designated 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS by operation of law upon 

enactment of the 1990 CAA 

amendments. Under section 181(a) of 

the CAA, each ozone area designated 

nonattainment under section 107(d) was 

also classified by operation of law as 

‘‘marginal,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘serious,’’ 

‘‘severe-15,’’ ‘‘severe-17’’, or ‘‘extreme,’’ 

depending on the severity of the area’s 

air quality problem and the number of 

years needed to reach attainment from 

the 1990 CAA amendments. These 

nonattainment designations and 

classifications were codified in Title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Part 81 (see 56 FR 56994, November 6, 

1991). 

The ozone design value for an area, 

which characterizes the severity of the 

air quality problem, is represented by 

the highest ozone design value at any of 

the individual ozone monitoring sites in 

the area. Table 1 in section 181(a) of the 

CAA provides the design value ranges 

for each nonattainment classification. 

Ozone nonattainment areas with design 

values between 0.190 parts per million 

(ppm) and 0.280 ppm for the three-year 

period, 1987–1989, were classified as 

severe-17. Because the MilwaukeeRacine, WI area’s 1988 ozone design 

value fell between 0.190 and 0.280 ppm, 

this area was classified as severe-17 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Under section 182(c) of the 

CAA, states containing areas that were 

classified as severe-17 nonattainment 

were required to submit State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) to provide 

for certain emission controls, to show 

progress toward attainment, and to 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES