Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Minnesota

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: March 9, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 47)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14087-14092]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09mr01-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MN61-01-7286a; MN62-01-7287a; FRL-6901-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for Olmsted County, Minnesota, for
the control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in the city of
Rochester. EPA is also approving a request to redesignate the Rochester
nonattainment area to attainment of the SO2 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In conjunction with these actions, EPA
is also approving the maintenance plan for the city of Rochester,
Olmsted County nonattainment area, which was submitted to ensure that
attainment of the NAAQS will be maintained. The SIP revision,
redesignation request and maintenance plan were submitted by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on November 4, 1998, and are
approvable because they satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(Act). The rationale for the approval and other information are
provided in this notice.

DATES: This action is effective on May 8, 2001 without further notice,
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by April 9, 2001. 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: Written comments may be mailed to: Carlton Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the documents relevant to this
action are available for inspection during normal business hours at the
above address. (Please telephone Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328,
before visiting the Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Regulation Development
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Air and Radiation Division,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information section is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
1. What action is EPA taking today?
2. Why is EPA taking this action?
II. Background on Minnesota Submittal
1. What is the background for this action?
2. What information did Minnesota submit, and what were its
requests?
3. What is a ``Title I Condition?''
III. State Implementation Plan Approval
1. What requirements do SO2 nonattainment areas have
to meet?
2. How does the state's SIP revision meet the requirements of
the Act?
IV. Redesignation Evaluation
1. What are the criteria used to review redesignation requests?
2. How are these criteria satisfied for the city of Rochester?
V. Maintenance Plan
What are the maintenance plan requirements?
VI. Final Rulemaking Action
VII. Administrative Requirements

I. General Information

1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, EPA is approving into the Minnesota SO2
SIP for the city of Rochester, Olmsted County, certain portions of the
five permits and two permit amendments that MPCA submitted to EPA as a
SIP revision. Specifically, EPA is only approving into the SIP those
portions of the permits cited as ``Title I condition: State
Implementation Plan for SO2.'' EPA is also approving the
SO2 redesignation request submitted by the State of
Minnesota for Olmsted County to redesignate the Rochester
SO2 nonattainment area to attainment of the SO2
NAAQS. Finally, EPA is approving the maintenance plan submitted for
this area.

2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

EPA is taking this action because the state's submittal for the
Rochester SO2 nonattainment area is fully approvable. The
SIP revision provides for attainment and maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS and satisfies the requirements of part D of the
Act applicable to SO2 nonattainment areas. Further, EPA is
approving the maintenance plan and redesignating the Rochester
SO2 nonattainment area to attainment because the state has
met the redesignation and maintenance plan requirements of the Act. A
more detailed explanation of how the state's submittal meets these
requirements is contained in EPA's July 28, 2000 Technical Support
Document (TSD).

II. Background on Minnesota Submittal

1. What Is the Background for This Action?

On March 3, 1978, at 43 FR 8962, EPA designated the city of
Rochester as a primary SO2 nonattainment area based on
monitored violations of the primary SO2 NAAQS in the area
between 1975 and 1977. EPA approved an SO2 SIP revision for
the city of Rochester on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20996), consisting of an
SO2 control plan and emission limitations contained in
operating permits for Rochester Public Utilities--Silver Lake Plant,
Rochester Public Utilities--Broadway Plant, Rochester State Hospital,
and Associated Milk Producers.
On July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892), EPA promulgated a Good Engineering
Practice stack height rule that resulted in a July 31, 1986 revision
and a subsequent July 31, 1989 modification to the Rochester
SO2 SIP. In these submittals the MPCA requested EPA approval
of new permit conditions for the facilities previously included in the
SO2 SIP and redesignation of the city of Rochester to
attainment for SO2. Approval of the Part D plan for Olmsted
County was delayed pending the passage of the 1990 Amendments to the
Act. EPA determined, however, that the 1989 submittal did not supply
sufficient information to allow EPA to consider redesignating the
Rochester SO2 area to attainment.
The state informed EPA in a letter dated February 24, 1992, that it
was in the process of revising several SIP submittals and redesignation
requests and was therefore withdrawing them from EPA review. This
included the SO2 SIP and redesignation requests for
Rochester submitted in 1986 and 1989.

2. What Information Did Minnesota Submit, and What Were Its Requests?

The SIP revision submitted by MPCA on November 4, 1998, consists of
five permits and two permit amendments issued to the following
facilities: Rochester Public Utilities--Silver Lake Plant, Rochester
Public Utilities--Cascade Creek Combustion Turbine, Associated Milk
Producers, St. Mary's Hospital, Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility,
Franklin Heating Station, and IBM. The Rochester Public Utilities--
Broadway Plant, and the three boilers at the Rochester State Hospital
that were part of the 1981 SIP, no longer exist.

[[Page 14088]]

The state has requested that EPA approve the following:
(1) the removal from the Rochester SO2 SIP of all
emission limits and other conditions approved in the 1981 SIP related
to the Rochester Public Utilities Broadway Plant, since this facility
no longer exists;
(2) the removal from the Rochester SO2 SIP of all
emission limits and other conditions approved in the 1981 SIP related
to the Rochester State Hospital, since the boilers that were part of
the approved SIP no longer exist; and,
(3) the inclusion into the Rochester SO2 SIP only the
portions of the permits cited as ``Title I condition: State
Implementation Plan for SO2.''

3. What Is a ``Title I Condition?''

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. The state then issued permanent Administrative Orders to
culpable sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
Minnesota's Title V permitting rule, approved into the state SIP on
May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), includes 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 since resumed using permits as the enforceable
document for imposing emission limitations and compliance requirements
in SIPs. The SIP requirements in the permits submitted by MPCA are
cited as ``Title I condition: State Implementation Plan for
SO2,'' therefore assuring that the SIP requirements will
remain permanent and enforceable. In addition, EPA has found the
state's procedure for using permits to implement site-specific SIP
requirements to be acceptable. The MPCA has committed to using this
procedure if the Title I SIP conditions in the permits included in the
Rochester SO2 SIP submittal need to be revised in the
future.

III. State Implementation Plan Approval

1. What Requirements Do SO2 Nonattainment Areas Have To
Meet?

The part D SIP requirements for SO2 nonattainment areas
are contained in section 172(c) of the Act, and pertain to: Reasonably
Available Control Measures; Reasonable Further Progress; Inventory;
Identification and Quantification; Permits for New and Modified Major
Stationary Sources; Other Measures; Compliance with section 110(a)(2);
Equivalent Techniques; and, Contingency Measures.

2. How Does the State's SIP Revision Meet the Requirements of the Act?

With this submission, Minnesota will have a fully approvable
SO2 SIP. As described below, Minnesota's submitted revision
to its SO2 SIP for the Rochester nonattainment area, fully
complies with the part D requirements, as set forth in section 172(c)
of the Act.
A. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM). The plan complies
with the requirements to implement RACM by providing for immediate
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS through the emission limits and
operating restrictions imposed on the culpable sources by their
permits.
B. Reasonable Further Progress. Reasonable further progress is
achieved due to the immediate effect of the emission limits required by
the plan.
C. Inventory. An inventory of the SO2 emissions in the
Rochester nonattainment area was provided by the state and has been
found to be acceptable.
D. Identification and Quantification. This information is
unnecessary because the area has not been identified as a zone for
which economic development should be targeted.
E. Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary Sources. Any new
or modified sources constructed in the area must comply with a state
submitted and federally approved New Source Review program. Minnesota's
Offset Rule (Minn. R. 7007.4000-4030) contains the state's federally
approved program. (See 59 FR 21939).
F. Other Measures. The plan provides for immediate attainment of
the SO2 NAAQS through the emission limitations, operating
requirements, and compliance schedules that are set forth within the
permits.
G. Compliance with section 110(a)(2). This submission complies with
section 110(a)(2). All of the applicable provisions of section
110(a)(2) are already required by the statutory provisions discussed in
this plan, or they have already been met by Minnesota's original 1971
SIP submission to the EPA.
H. Equivalent Techniques. The modeling for this SIP submittal was
conducted using EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised).'' No
equivalent techniques were used for modeling, emission inventory, or
planning procedures.
I. Contingency Measures. Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines
contingency measures as measures in a SIP which are to be implemented
if an area fails to make RFP or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date and shall consist of other control measures
that are not included in the control strategy. However, the General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of
1990, (57 FR 13498), states that SO2 measures present
special considerations because they are based upon what is necessary to
attain the NAAQS. Because SO2 control measures are well
established and understood, they are far less prone to uncertainty. It
would be unlikely for an area to implement the necessary emissions
control yet fail to attain the SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, for
SO2 programs, contingency measures mean that the state
agency has the ability to identify sources of violations of the
SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for
compliance and enforcement. The MPCA has the necessary enforcement and
compliance programs, as well as the means to identify violators, thus
satisfying the contingency measures requirement.

IV. Redesignation Evaluation

1. What Are the Criteria Used To Review Redesignation Requests?

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act establishes the requirements to be
met before an area may be redesignated from nonattainment to
attainment. Approvable redesignation requests must meet the following
conditions: the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; the area has a
fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the Act; the air quality
improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions; the maintenance plan for the area has met all the
requirements of section 175A of the Act; and, the state has met all the
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the
Act.

[[Page 14089]]

2. How Are These Criteria Satisfied for the City of Rochester?

A. Demonstrated Attainment of the NAAQS. Minnesota's submittal
includes ambient air monitoring data showing that there have been no
exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS in the city of Rochester since
1979.
Dispersion modeling is commonly used to demonstrate attainment of
the SO2 NAAQS. The state's modeling analysis was initially
submitted in 1986 and last updated in 1998. The modeling demonstrates
that, under all the operating scenarios allowed for in the SIP, the
SO2 emission limits for the culpable sources in the
Rochester area are adequate to show attainment and maintenance of the
SO2 standards. A more detailed discussion of the modeling
evaluation is included in appendix A of the TSD.
B. Fully Approved SIP. The SIP for the area must be fully approved
under section 110(k) of the Act and must satisfy all requirements that
apply. The SIP revision included as part of the state's submittal meets
the part D requirements of the Act, as discussed in other sections of
this rulemaking. Therefore, both the SIP revision and the redesignation
request for Olmsted County comply with the section 110(k) requirements
of the Act.
C. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions. The city of
Rochester was designated nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS
based on violations that occurred between 1975 and 1977. Air quality
improvement in the Rochester SO2 nonattainment area is
attributed to SO2 emission limits and operating restrictions
imposed on the facilities that contribute to the nonattainment status
in Rochester. These limits are permanent and enforceable by means of
non-expiring Title I conditions set forth in the state permits.
Emissions from these sources were modeled with all the control measures
in place. The data submitted by the state shows modeled attainment of
the SO2 NAAQS in the city of Rochester.
D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan. EPA has concluded that the
SO2 emissions limitations contained in the plan submitted by
the state will assure maintenance of the SO2 standards. EPA
is approving the maintenance plan in today's action as discussed below.
E. Part D and Other Section 110 Requirements. Section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the Act states that the Administrator may not
redesignate an area to attainment unless the area has met the
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D. The requirements
under section 110 and part D are met with the approval of the SIP
revision submitted simultaneously with this redesignation request.

V. Maintenance Plan

What Are the Maintenance Plan Requirements?

Section 175A of the Act requires states to submit a SIP revision
which provides for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area for at
least 10 years after approval of the redesignation. Consistent with the
Act's requirements, EPA developed procedures for redesignation of
nonattainment areas that are contained in a September 4, 1992,
memorandum from John Calcagni, EPA, titled, ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.'' This EPA guidance
document contains a number of maintenance plan provisions that a state
should consider before it can request a change in designation for a
federally designated nonattainment area. The basic components needed to
ensure proper maintenance of the NAAQS are: attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, verification of continued attainment,
ambient air monitoring network, and a contingency plan.
A. Attainment Inventory. The air dispersion modeling included in
the state's submittal contains the emission inventory of SO2
sources for the city of Rochester.
B. Maintenance Demonstration and Verification of Continued
Attainment. Operating permits were issued to seven culpable sources in
the city of Rochester. Results from the modeling were used for
establishing the SO2 emissions limits in the permits.
Conditions cited as ``Title I condition'' in the permits do not expire
and automatically become part of any reissued permit, therefore
providing for maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS for at least 10
years.
The air dispersion modeling shows there is approximately a 1 or 2
percent growth margin of the ambient standards. Growth in the area will
be monitored by MPCA by keeping track of new permit applications,
keeping track of requests for permit amendments, and observing the
annual emission inventories that all facilities with permits must
submit to the MPCA. Future SO2 emissions are not likely to
exceed the ambient standards because of Minnesota's permitting program
and the state's requirements for dispersion modeling. Further, MPCA
staff believe incentives to reduce emissions such as Minnesota's Clean
Fuels Project and the state's ``registration permit'' rule, will
provide for continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the
city of Rochester.
C. Monitoring Network. In a letter dated March 17, 1998, EPA
clarified Region 5's position regarding the need for continued
SO2 monitoring in the Rochester area. In that letter EPA
stated that if Minnesota can show attainment of the NAAQS through EPA
approved air dispersion modeling, has an approvable SIP revision
showing that the control strategies have been implemented, and shows
that it can continue to attain the standard for a period of 10 years
following the redesignation, then an SO2 monitoring network
does not need to be maintained. Because the MPCA has met the
requirements as outlined in that letter, a monitoring network does not
need to be maintained in the city of Rochester.
D. Contingency Plan. Section 175A of the CAA requires that the
maintenance plan include contingency provisions to correct any
violation of the NAAQS after redesignation of the area. Section 175A of
the Act also requires that a maintenance plan include contingency
provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. These contingency
measures are distinguished from those generally required for
nonattainment areas under section 172(c)(9). As mentioned before,
however, the General Preamble to the 1990 Amendments to the Act (57 FR
13498) states that SO2 provisions require special
considerations. A primary reason is that SO2 control methods
are well established and understood, resulting in less uncertainty in
the modeled attainment demonstrations. It is considered unlikely that
an area would fail to attain the standards after it has demonstrated,
through modeling, that attainment is reached after the limits and
restrictions are fully implemented and enforced.
Therefore, contingency measures for SO2 need only
consist of a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of
the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for
compliance and enforcement. The MPCA has the necessary enforcement and
compliance programs, as well as means by which to identify violators.

VI. Final Rulemaking Action

EPA is approving the SIP revision for the control of SO2
emissions in the city of Rochester, located in Olmsted County,
Minnesota, as requested by the state on November 4, 1998. EPA is also
approving a request to redesignate the Rochester nonattainment area to

[[Page 14090]]

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. In conjunction with these
actions, EPA is also approving the maintenance plan for the Olmsted
County nonattainment area, which was submitted to ensure that
attainment of the NAAQS will be maintained. The SIP revision,
redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the applicable
requirements of the Act.
The EPA is 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
comments are filed. This rule will be effective May 8, 2001 without
further notice unless relevant adverse comments are received by April
9, 2001. If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
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 no such
comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be
effective May 8, 2001.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation
plan. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order
13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget,
in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

[[Page 14091]]

its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v.
U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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 rule 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). This rule will be effective May 8, 2001 unless EPA receives
adverse written comments by April 9, 2001.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 May 8, 2001. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovermental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: October 27, 2000.
Gary Gulezian,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Title 40, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(56) to read
as follows:

Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(56) On November 4, 1998, the State of Minnesota submitted a SIP
revision for Olmsted County, Minnesota, for the control of emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the city of Rochester. The state
also submitted on that date a request to redesignate the Rochester
nonattainment area to attainment of the SO2 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. The state's maintenance plan is complete and the
submittals meet the SO2 nonattainment area SIP and
redesignation requirements of the Clean Air Act.
(i) Incorporation by reference
(A) Air Emission Permit No. 10900011-001, issued by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to City of Rochester--Rochester Public
Utilities--Lake Plant on July 22, 1997, Title I conditions only.
(B) Air Emission Permit No. 00000610-001, issued by the MPCA to
City of Rochester--Rochester Public Utilities--Cascade Creek Combustion
on January 10, 1997, Title I conditions only.
(C) Air Emission Permit No. 10900010-001, issued by the MPCA to
Associated Milk Producers, Inc. on May 5, 1997, Title I conditions
only.
(D) Air Emission Permit No. 10900008-007 (989-91-OT-2, AMENDMENT
No. 4), issued by the MPCA to St. Mary's Hospital on February 28, 1997,
Title I conditions only.
(E) Air Emission Permit No. 10900005-001, issued by the MPCA to
Olmsted County--Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility on June 5, 1997, Title
I conditions only.
(F) Amendment No. 2 to Air Emission Permit No. 1183-83-OT-1
[10900019], issued by the MPCA to Franklin Heating Station on June 19,
1998, Title I conditions only.
(G) Air Emission Permit No. 10900006-001, issued by the MPCA to
International Business Machine Corporation--IBM--Rochester on June 3,
1998, Title I conditions only.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q

2. Section 81.324 is amended by revising the entry for Olmsted
County in the table entitled ``Minnesota--SO2'' to read as
follows:

Sec. 81.324 Minnesota.

* * * * *

[[Page 14092]]

Minnesota--SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better than
Designated area Does not meet Does not meet Cannot be national
primary standards secondary standards Classified standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
Olmsted County................... ................... ................... ................... X

* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-5850 Filed 3-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Minnesota

Related Material

Local Navigation