[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 174 (Thursday, September 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54773-54778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22338]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0556; FRL-9197-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota; Carbon Monoxide (CO) Limited Maintenance Plan for the Twin 
Cities Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on June 16, 2010, to revise the 
Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for carbon monoxide (CO) 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The State has submitted a limited 
maintenance plan for CO showing continued attainment of the CO National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul (Twin 
Cities) area. The one hour CO NAAQS and eight hour CO NAAQS are 35 
parts per million (ppm), and 9 ppm, respectively. This limited 
maintenance plan satisfies section 175A of the CAA, and is in 
accordance with EPA's October 29, 1999, approval of the State's 
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Twin Cities area. 
Additionally, this limited maintenance plan for CO satisfies the 
requirements contained in the October 6, 1995, EPA memorandum entitled 
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 
Areas.''

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 8, 2010, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 12, 2010. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the 
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0556, by one of the following methods:

[[Page 54774]]

    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#05676a77717f60772b6f647c456075642b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c5e534e4846594e12565d457c594c5d125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#294a4148474e0748474d50694c5948074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="791a1118171e5718171d00391c0918571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
    A. Why did the State make this submittal?
    B. Limited Maintenance Plan
    1. What is a limited maintenance plan, and what are the general 
requirements that must be met by a State in order to submit a 
limited maintenance plan?
    2. What additional elements does a State need to include as part 
of a limited maintenance plan?
    C. Did the State hold public hearings for the limited 
maintenance plan?
II. What criteria is EPA using to evaluate this submittal?
III. What is EPA's analysis of this submittal?
    A. Requirements of Section 175A of the CAA
    B. Consistency With the October 6, 1995, Memorandum
    1. Attainment Inventory
    2. Maintenance Demonstration
    3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    4. Contingency Plan
    5. Conformity Determination Under Limited Maintenance Plan
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Why did the State make this submittal?

    On November 6, 1991, EPA designated most of the Twin Cities seven 
county metropolitan area (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, 
Scott, and Washington counties), along with parts of Wright County, as 
being a moderate nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS under section 107 
of the CAA (56 FR 56694).
    On March 23, 1998, MPCA submitted a redesignation request and 
maintenance plan for the Twin Cities nonattainment area. EPA found that 
the redesignation request met all applicable requirements under section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and also found that the maintenance plan met 
the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. MPCA's redesignation 
request and maintenance plan for the Twin Cities area was approved on 
October 29, 1999 (64 FR 58347); comprehensive details about the 
maintenance plan can be found in EPA's proposed approval on May 13, 
1999 (64 FR 25855).
    Section 175A(b) of the CAA mandates that the State shall submit an 
additional revision to the maintenance plan eight years after 
redesignation of any area as an attainment area. Minnesota's limited 
maintenance plan satisfies this requirement, and is also consistent 
with the requirements for limited maintenance plan elements outlined in 
an October 6, 1995, memorandum from the Group Leader of the Integrated 
Policy and Strategies Group, entitled, ``Limited Maintenance Plan 
Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas.'' EPA observes that 
although the Twin Cities area was designated as a moderate 
nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS, redesignation to attainment status 
in conjunction with meeting all requirements of the October 6, 1995, 
memorandum, allows the State to be eligible to submit a limited 
maintenance plan as the update to its original maintenance plan per 
section 175A(b) of the CAA. The State submitted the limited maintenance 
plan to EPA on June 16, 2010.

B. Limited Maintenance Plan

    The definition, general requirements, and additional elements of a 
limited maintenance plan will be explained below.
1. What is a limited maintenance plan, and what are the general 
requirements that must be met by a State in order to submit a limited 
maintenance plan?
    A maintenance plan, as defined in section 175A of the CAA, is a 
revision to the SIP to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS for the 
air pollutant in question in the area concerned for at least 10 years 
after the redesignation. Eight years after the redesignation, States 
should submit an update to the maintenance plan to provide for the 
maintenance of the NAAQS for another 10 years after the initial 10 year 
period has expired. As previously mentioned, Minnesota's

[[Page 54775]]

original maintenance plan was approved on October 29, 1999 (64 FR 
58347).
    A limited maintenance plan for CO is a maintenance plan that is 
available to States who have demonstrated that the design values for CO 
in the nonclassifiable nonattainment area are at, or below, 7.65 ppm 
(85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS). The area's design value must 
not exceed the 7.65 ppm threshold throughout the entire rulemaking 
process. The design value for CO is defined as the second highest 
reading in the area in a two year period. Should an area have more than 
one monitor, the monitor with the second highest value in a two year 
period serves as the design monitor. As previously mentioned, EPA has 
determined that the limited maintenance plan for CO is available to all 
States as part of their update to maintenance plans per section 
175A(b), regardless of the original nonattainment classification, or 
lack thereof.
2. What additional elements does a State need to include as part of a 
limited maintenance plan?
    In addition to meeting all applicable requirements of section 175A 
of the CAA, States should also include the following elements in a 
limited maintenance plan for CO: Attainment Inventory, Maintenance 
Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment, 
Contingency Plan, and Conformity Determinations Under Limited 
Maintenance Plans. These elements were outlined in the October 6, 1995, 
EPA memorandum, and will be comprehensively discussed below.

C. Did the State hold public hearings for the limited maintenance plan?

    Public notice was given on May 10, 2010, in the Minnesota State 
Register.

II. What criteria is EPA using to evaluate this submittal?

    In addition to the general requirements in section 175A of the CAA, 
guidance for CO limited maintenance plans is provided in the October 6, 
1995, memorandum, which states that the following five components need 
to be addressed: Attainment Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, 
Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment, Contingency 
Plan, and Conformity Determination Under Limited Maintenance Plan.

III. What is EPA's analysis of this submittal?

A. Requirements of Section 175A of the CAA

    Section 175A contains four subsections pertaining to maintenance 
plans. Section 175A(a) establishes requirements for initial SIP 
redesignation request maintenance plans, as addressed in EPA's October 
29, 1999, approval of the Minnesota plan. Section 175A(b) requires 
States to submit an update to the maintenance plan eight years 
following the original redesignation to attainment, and MPCA has 
satisfied the requirements of this element with its current submittal. 
It also requires that within this update, the State must outline 
methods for maintaining the pertinent NAAQS for ten years after the 
expiration of the ten-year period referred to in subsection (a), i.e., 
Minnesota's maintenance plan update must outline methods for 
maintaining the CO NAAQS through 2019. However, EPA stated in the 
October 6, 1995, memorandum that it is not necessary for States to 
project emissions over this maintenance period. Instead, EPA believes 
that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 7.65 ppm 
(85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS), the applicability of 
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements,\1\ control 
measures already in the SIP, and other Federal measures should provide 
adequate assurance of maintenance throughout the maintenance period. 
Section 175A(c) does not apply to this rulemaking, given that EPA has 
previously redesignated the Twin Cities area to attainment for CO. The 
contingency provisions requirements outlined in section 175A(d) will be 
addressed in detail in section B4, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA has delegated the authority to implement the Federal PSD 
program pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 to Minnesota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With the October 6, 1995, Memorandum

    As discussed above, EPA's interpretation of section 175A of the 
CAA, as it pertains to limited maintenance plans for CO, is contained 
in the October 6, 1995, memorandum. Minnesota has addressed the five 
major elements of that policy, as follows:
1. Attainment Inventory
    The State is required to develop an attainment emissions inventory 
to identify a level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to 
attain the CO NAAQS. In its June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA provided a 
comprehensive CO emissions inventory for nonroad mobile, stationary, 
and onroad mobile sources. This set of estimated emissions was 
identical to that which EPA approved for the Twin Cities area on 
December 9, 2004 (69 FR 71375). The December 9, 2004, approval was not 
a full update to the CO maintenance plan for the Twin Cities area, but 
applied only to the 1996 and 2009 CO emissions inventory and the 2009 
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets; both of these emissions were estimated 
using the MOBILE6 model. EPA observed in the December 9, 2004, approval 
that the updated emissions using the MOBILE6 model were much better 
predictors of CO emissions in the Twin Cities area because there had 
been substantial changes made to the model between MOBILE6 and its 
MOBILE5 predecessor, released in 1993. In its June 16, 2010, submittal, 
MPCA highlighted that the total estimated CO emissions in the Twin 
Cities area has decreased from 2,506 tons per winter day in 1996, to 
1,856 tons per winter day in 2009.\2\ This represents a 26 percent 
decrease in total CO emissions in tons per winter day. The onroad 
mobile emissions for the Twin Cities area, thought to be the major 
source of the original nonattainment designation, decreased from 1,872 
tons per winter day in 1996 to 1,311 tons per winter day in 2009. This 
represents a 30 percent decrease in onroad mobile CO emissions in tons 
per winter day. MPCA also estimated that between 1996 and 2030, there 
would be a 36 percent decrease in onroad mobile CO emissions in tons 
per winter day in the Twin Cities area. Monitoring data from 1998 to 
2009 shows consistent compliance with the eight hour CO NAAQS at levels 
well below the 85 percent threshold of 7.65 ppm; therefore the State 
has satisfied the attainment inventory requirement for limited 
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CO emissions are generally highest during the winter, and 
thus the modeling was performed in such a way that yielded tons per 
winter day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Maintenance Demonstration
    In the October 6, 1995, memorandum, EPA stated that the maintenance 
demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied for 
nonclassifiable areas if the monitoring data show that the area is 
meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas, i.e., 
85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS, or 7.65 ppm. As previously 
mentioned, EPA determined in this same memo that there is no 
requirement to project emissions over the maintenance period. Instead, 
EPA believes that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or

[[Page 54776]]

below, 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the eight hour CO NAAQS), the 
applicability of PSD requirements, control measures already in the SIP, 
and other Federal measures should provide adequate assurance of 
maintenance throughout the maintenance period.
    In its submittal, MPCA showed, using validated ambient monitoring 
data collected between 1998 and July of 2009, that the Twin Cities area 
is meeting both the one hour and eight hour CO NAAQS. The design values 
for the eight hour CO NAAQS in this area are below the 7.65 ppm 
threshold; therefore, the State has satisfied the maintenance 
demonstration requirement for limited maintenance plans. In addition, 
the design values for the one hour CO NAAQS in the Twin Cities area are 
very low when compared to the NAAQS; the highest design value for the 
one hour CO NAAQS between 1998 and 2009 was 11.1 ppm, or 31 percent of 
the NAAQS. The design values for the Twin Cities area for 2007 to 2009 
(in its entirety) are shown below in Table 1. Subsequent Air Quality 
Systems (AQS) queries for validated monitoring data for available 2010 
data indicates that the one hour and eight hour CO NAAQS are being met 
in the Twin Cities area at values well below either NAAQS.

                   Table 1--CO Design Values and Percentage of NAAQS for the Twin Cities Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1 Hour CO                       8 Hour CO
                      Year                         NAAQS design    Percent of 1    NAAQS design    Percent of 8
                                                    value (ppm)    Hour CO NAAQS    value (ppm)    Hour CO NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................................             2.5             7.1             1.8            20.0
2008............................................             3.1             8.9             2.4            26.7
2009............................................             2.5             7.1             2.0            22.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    Once an area has been redesignated, the State should continue to 
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance 
with 40 CFR Part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. This 
is particularly important for areas using a limited maintenance plan 
because there will be no cap on emissions. In its submittal, MPCA 
specifically identifies two monitoring sites located in the Twin Cities 
area, which are AQS I.D. 27-053-0954 (528 Hennepin Ave. in Minneapolis) 
and AQS I.D. 27-123-0050 (1088 W. University Ave. in St. Paul). MPCA 
commits to continue monitoring CO at these two sites to ensure that CO 
concentrations remain well below the 7.65 ppm threshold for limited 
maintenance plans. Furthermore, MPCA commits to consult with EPA should 
changes to the existing monitoring network be needed, and the State's 
monitoring plan for 2011 can be found at the following site: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-monitoring-and-reporting/air-emissions-and-monitoring/air-monitoring-network-plan.html. The State 
has satisfied the monitoring network and verification of continued 
attainment requirements for the limited maintenance plan.
4. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include 
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation 
of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of an area. The October 6, 
1995, memorandum further requires that the contingency provisions 
identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for 
adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by 
the State.
    In its June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA committed to the same 
contingency measures that EPA previously approved on October 29, 1999. 
MPCA stated that if CO levels in the Twin Cities area reach 85 percent 
of the eight hour CO NAAQS, it would work closely with EPA to determine 
which of the originally listed contingency measures would be the most 
appropriate to implement in the case of a NAAQS violation.
    MPCA also committed to use a monitored air quality violation as the 
trigger event for the contingency measure. The triggering date will be 
the date that the State certifies to EPA that the air quality data are 
quality assured and not found to be due to an exceptional event, 
malfunction, or noncompliance with a permit condition or rule 
requirement. The triggering date will be no more than 30 days after an 
ambient air quality violation is monitored. MPCA attested that it would 
implement one or more appropriate contingency measures if a violation 
occurs and the triggering event is confirmed. The applicable measure(s) 
would be selected by the MPCA commissioner within six months of a 
triggering event; the measure(s) would be implemented per the 
respective schedules that EPA approved on October 29, 1999. Specific 
details about these measures and implementation schedules can be found 
in EPA's May 13, 1999 (64 FR 25855) proposed approval. The State has 
satisfied the contingency plan requirements pursuant to section 175A(d) 
of the CAA as well as those of the October 6, 1995, memorandum.
5. Conformity Determination Under Limited Maintenance Plan
    The transportation conformity rule of November 24, 1993, (58 FR 
62188) and the general conformity rule of November 30, 1993 (58 FR 
63214) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas operating 
under maintenance plans. Under either rule, one means of demonstrating 
conformity of Federal actions is to indicate that expected emissions 
from planned actions are consistent with the emissions budget for the 
area.
    Minnesota currently uses the ``Transportation Conformity Procedures 
for Minnesota: A Handbook for Transportation and Air Quality 
Professionals,'' developed by an interagency workgroup, to determine 
transportation conformity. This handbook addresses the consultation and 
other required portions of the Federal transportation conformity 
program. Minnesota is in the process of developing a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) to formally implement the processes in the 
handbook, which are already being used. Additionally, Minnesota intends 
to submit the MOU and handbook to EPA for approval as Minnesota's 
transportation conformity SIP.
    The October 6, 1995, memorandum also states that emissions budgets 
in limited maintenance plan areas may be treated as essentially not 
constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is 
unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth 
in that period that a violation of

[[Page 54777]]

the CO NAAQS would result. In other words, EPA concluded that, for 
these areas, emissions need not be capped for the maintenance period.
    For transportation conformity, Federal actions requiring conformity 
determinations under the transportation conformity rule could be 
considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' required in sections 93.118, 
93.119, and 93.120 of the rule once the limited maintenance plan is 
approved by EPA. In its June 16, 2010, submittal, MPCA observed that 
for the Twin Cities area, transportation plans, transportation 
improvement, and regionally significant projects still require 
conformity determinations in order to proceed. Additionally, Federally 
funded projects are still subject to ``hot spot'' analysis 
requirements. However, no regional modeling analysis would be required. 
The State has satisfied the conformity determination under limited 
maintenance plan requirements for the limited maintenance plan.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    We are approving this CO limited maintenance plan for the Twin 
Cities area. The State of Minnesota has complied with requirements of 
section 175A of the CAA, as interpreted by the guidance provided in the 
October 6, 1995, memorandum. Minnesota has shown through its submittal 
that CO emissions in the Twin Cities area have decreased steadily 
between 1996 and 2009. Minnesota has also shown that the monitored 
levels of CO in the Twin Cities area have been consistently well below 
the requisite level of 7.65 ppm for the eight hour CO NAAQS in order to 
qualify for the limited maintenance plan option. Lastly, Minnesota has 
shown that all monitored values for the one hour and eight hour CO 
NAAQS have been consistently well below the respective NAAQS levels. 
These low monitored values of CO are expected through the end of the 
maintenance period.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse 
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 8, 
2010 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comments by October 12, 2010. If we receive such comments, we will 
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a 
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public 
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period; therefore, any parties interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this 
action will be effective November 8, 2010.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State 
law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because approval of a CO limited maintenance plan does not impose any 
new regulatory requirements on Tribes, impact any existing sources of 
air pollution Tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of CO NAAQS in 
Tribal lands. However, because there are Tribal lands located in Scott 
County, we provided the affected Tribe with the opportunity to consult 
with EPA on the CO limited maintenance plan. The affected Tribe raised 
no concerns with the final rule.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by November 8, 2010. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are 
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of 
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules 
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate 
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can 
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed 
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

[[Page 54778]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: August 26, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
2. Section 52.1237 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1237  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (e) Approval--On June 16, 2010, Minnesota submitted a carbon 
monoxide (CO) limited maintenance plan for the Minneapolis-St. Paul 
area under section 175A of the CAA for the continued attainment of the 
one hour and eight hour CO NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2010-22338 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>