
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36743-36750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15555]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0503; FRL-9929-44-Region 5]


Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Minnesota; 
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO[bdi2], 2010 
SO[bdi2], and 2012 PM[bdi2].[bdi5] NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve some elements and disapprove other elements of state 
implementation plan (SIP) submissions from Minnesota regarding the 
infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
for the 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur 
dioxide (SO2), and 2012 fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural 
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate 
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. EPA proposes to 
disapprove certain elements of Minnesota's submissions relating to 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements. Minnesota 
already administers Federally promulgated regulations that address the 
proposed disapprovals described in today's rulemaking. Therefore, the 
state will not be obligated to submit any new or additional regulations 
as a result of a future final disapproval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2014-0503, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 408-2279.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance 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-
2014-0503. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The 
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 email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
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. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
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 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 Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, 
at (312) 353-4489 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, 
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4489, 
svingen.eric@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 should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
V. What action is EPA taking?

[[Page 36744]]

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What state submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses June 12, 2014, submissions from the 
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) intended to address all 
applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
This rulemaking also addresses a February 3, 2015, letter from MPCA 
intended to clarify issues relating to emission limits and other 
control measures (clarification letter).

B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?

    Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to 
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including 
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions 
needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS 
already meet those requirements.
    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, 
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 
PM2.5\1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 
Guidance) and has issued additional guidance documents, the most recent 
on September 13, 2013, entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2)'' (2013 Guidance). The SIP submissions referenced in this 
rulemaking pertain to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) 
and (2), and address the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, oftentimes 
referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Minnesota that address 
the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make SIP 
submissions of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1), which 
states that states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such 
shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the 
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any 
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the 
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The 
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP 
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not 
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new 
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) 
as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term 
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to 
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions 
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such 
as SIP submissions that address the nonattainment planning requirements 
of part D and the PSD requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, and 
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility 
protection requirements of CAA section 169A.
    In this rulemaking, EPA will not take action on three substantive 
areas of section 110(a)(2): (i) Existing provisions related to excess 
emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction 
(``SSM'') at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's 
policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions 
related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's discretion'' that 
purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with 
limited public notice or without requiring further approval by EPA, 
that may be contrary to the CAA; and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD 
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's 
``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as 
amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA 
has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in 
separate rulemakings. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale 
as they relate to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's 
May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements 
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this 
rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245, May 13, 2014).

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?

    EPA's guidance for these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied 
in the 2007 Guidance referenced above. Specifically, attachment A of 
the 2007 Guidance (Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the 
statutory elements that states need to submit in order to satisfy the 
requirements for an infrastructure SIP submission. As discussed above, 
EPA issued additional guidance, the most recent being the 2013 Guidance 
that further clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs that are not 
NAAQS specific.

IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?

    Pursuant to section 110(a), states must provide reasonable notice 
and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP 
submissions. MPCA provided notice of a public comment period on March 
31, 2014, and closed the public comment period on May 2, 2014. One 
comment was received; both the comment and MPCA's response to this 
comment were included in MPCA's submittal to EPA.
    Minnesota provided a detailed synopsis of how various components of 
its SIP meet each of the applicable requirements in section 110(a)(2) 
for the

[[Page 36745]]

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS, as applicable. The following review evaluates 
the state's submissions.

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits 
and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for 
compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long 
interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the 
standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are 
due.\2\ In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating 
the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only 
evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for 
the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964 at 67034, November 12, 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minnesota Statute (Minn. Stat.) 116.07 gives MPCA the authority to 
``adopt, amend, and rescind rules and standards having the force of law 
relating to any purpose . . . for the prevention, abatement, or control 
of air pollution.'' Also from Minn. Stat. 116.07, MPCA has the 
authority to issue ``continue in effect or deny permits . . . for the 
prevention of pollution, for the emission of air contaminants,'' and 
for other purposes.
    The 2013 Guidance states that to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A) 
requirements, ``an air agency's submission should identify existing 
EPA-approved SIP provisions or new SIP provisions that the air agency 
has adopted and submitted for EPA approval that limit emissions of 
pollutants relevant to the subject NAAQS, including precursors of the 
relevant NAAQS pollutant where applicable.'' In its February 3, 2015, 
clarification letter, MPCA identified existing controls and emission 
limits in Minnesota Rules (Minn. R.) that support compliance with and 
attainment of the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These regulations include controls and 
emission limits for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen 
oxides (NOX), which are precursors to ozone. Emissions for 
these pollutants and precursors are primarily limited through part 70 
permits.
    Minn. R. 7009.0020 states that ``[n]o person shall emit any 
pollutant in such an amount or in such a manner as to cause or 
contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standard beyond 
such person's property line . . .'' Minn. R. 7009.0080 sets the state 
ambient air quality standards.
    On January 1, 2015, EPA began implementing the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Minnesota is subject to CSAPR's requirements 
regarding annual NOX and SO2 power plant 
emissions, which are intended to address transport of PM2.5 
to downwind states. EPA and MPCA expect that CSAPR will result in 
reduced NOX and SO2 emissions from Minnesota's 
power plants, which will assist Minnesota's efforts to attain and 
maintain the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Though Minnesota has never had nonattainment areas for ozone, 
NO2, or PM2.5, Minnesota has maintenance areas 
for the 1971 SO2 and 1987 PM10 \3\ NAAQS. 
Therefore, most of Minnesota's pollutant-specific rules relate to 
SO2 and PM10. Because PM2.5 is a 
subcategory of PM10, controls relating to PM10 
can be expected to limit emissions of PM2.5. Similarly, 
controls relating to PM can be expected to limit emissions of 
PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 
diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its clarification letter, MPCA identified enforceable permits 
and administrative orders with SO2 emission limits. In 
previous rulemakings, EPA has approved these permits and orders into 
Minnesota's SIP (see 59 FR 17703, April 14, 1994; 64 FR 5936, February 
8, 1999; 66 FR 14087, March 9, 2001; 67 FR 8727, February 26, 2002; 72 
FR 68508, December 5, 2007; 74 FR 18138, April 21, 2009; 74 FR 18634, 
April 24, 2009; 74 FR 18638, April 24, 2009; 74 FR 63066, December 2, 
2009; 75 FR 45480, August 3, 2010; 75 FR 48864, August 12, 2010; 75 FR 
81471, December 28, 2010; and 78 FR 28501, May 15, 2013). Also, an 
administrative order issued as part of Minnesota's Regional Haze SIP 
includes SO2 limits. Additionally, state rules that have 
been incorporated into Minnesota's SIP (at Minn. R. 7011.0500 to 
7011.0553, 7011.0600 to 7011.0625, 7011.1400 to 7011.1430, 7011.1600 to 
7011.1605, and 7011.2300) contain SO2 emission limits. Also, 
Minn. R. 7011.0900 to 7011.0909 include fuel sulfur content 
restrictions that can limit SO2 emissions. These regulations 
support compliance with and attainment of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS.
    In its clarification letter, MPCA identified enforceable permits 
and administrative orders with PM emission limits. In previous 
rulemakings, EPA has approved these permits and orders into Minnesota's 
SIP (see 59 FR 7218, February 15, 1994; 60 FR 31088, June 13, 1995; 62 
FR 39120, July 22, 1997; 65 FR 42861, July 12, 2000; 69 FR 51371, 
August 19, 2004; 72 FR 51713, September 11, 2007; 74 FR 23632, May 20, 
2009; 74 FR 63066, December 2, 2009; 75 FR 11461, March 11, 2010; and 
75 FR 78602, December 16, 2010). Additionally, state rules that have 
been incorporated into Minnesota's SIP (at Minn. R. 7011.0150, 
7011.0500 to 7011.0553, 7011.0600 to 7011.0625, 7011.0710 to 7011.0735, 
7011.0850 to 7011.0859, 7011.0900 to 7011.0922, 7011.1000 to 7011.1015, 
7011.1100 to 7011.1125, 7011.1300 to 7011.1325, and 7011.1400 to 
7011.1430) contain PM emission limits. These regulations support 
compliance with and attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    VOC emissions are limited by the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants, which are incorporated by reference into 
Minnesota's state rules at Minn R. 7011.7000. Part 70 permits are 
Minnesota's primary method for limiting VOC emissions. NOX 
emissions ae limited by Minn. R. 7011.0500 to 7011.0553 and 7011.1700 
to 7011.1705, as well as an administrative order issued as part of 
Minnesota's Regional Haze SIP. These regulations support compliance 
with and attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Because NO2 is 
a subcategory of NOX, controls relating to NOX 
can be expected to limit emissions of NO2. These regulations 
support compliance with and attainment of the 2010 NO2 
NAAQS.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to incorporate into 
Minnesota's SIP any new provisions in Minnesota's state rules that have 
not been previously approved by EPA. EPA is also not proposing to 
approve or disapprove any existing state provisions or rules related to 
start-up, shutdown or malfunction or director's discretion in the 
context of section 110(a)(2)(A). EPA proposes that Minnesota has met 
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with 
respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for 
establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and 
analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to 
EPA upon request. This review of the annual monitoring plan includes 
EPA's determination that the state: (i) Monitors air quality at 
appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal 
Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors;

[[Page 36746]]

(ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; 
and, (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any 
planned changes to monitoring sites or the network plan.
    MPCA continues to operate an ambient pollutant monitoring network, 
and compiles and reports air quality data to EPA. EPA approved MPCA's 
2015 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for ozone, NO2, 
SO2, and PM2.5 on October 31, 2014. MPCA also 
provides prior notification to EPA when changes to its monitoring 
network or plan are being considered. EPA proposes that Minnesota has 
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with 
respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures; 
PSD

    This section requires each state to provide a program for 
enforcement of control measures. Section 110(a)(2)(C) also includes 
various requirements relating to PSD.
1. Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement 
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or 
modified stationary sources to meet new source review (NSR) 
requirements under PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) 
programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160 through 169B) addresses PSD, 
while part D of the CAA (sections 171 through 193) addresses NNSR 
requirements.
    Minn. Stat. 116.07 gives MPCA the authority to enforce any 
provisions of the chapter relating to air contamination. These 
provisions include: Entering into orders, schedules of compliance, 
stipulation agreements, requiring owners or operators of emissions 
facilities to install and operate monitoring equipment, and conducting 
investigations. Minn. Stat. 116.072 authorizes MPCA to issue orders and 
assess administrative penalties to correct violations of the agency's 
rules, statutes, and permits, and Minn. Stat. 115.071 outlines the 
remedies that are available to address such violations. Lastly, Minn. 
R. 7009.0030 to 7009.0040 provide for enforcement measures. EPA 
proposes that Minnesota has met the program for enforcement of control 
measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
 2. PSD
    110(a)(2)(C) includes several PSD requirements relevant to the 2008 
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. These are evaluated as four components: 
Identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions in 
the PSD program; identification of precursors to PM2.5 and 
the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 condensables 
in the PSD program; PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; and 
greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule.''
    States may develop and implement their own PSD programs, which are 
evaluated against EPA's requirements for each component. States may 
alternatively decline to develop their own program, but instead 
directly implement Federal PSD rules. Minnesota has chosen to implement 
the Federally promulgated PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21, and EPA has 
delegated to Minnesota the authority to implement these regulations. 
The Federally promulgated rules satisfy all 110(a)(2)(C) requirements 
relating to PSD.
    As described in the 2013 Guidance, when evaluating whether a state 
has met infrastructure SIP obligations, EPA cannot give ``credit'' for 
a Federally delegated program. Because Minnesota's submission did not 
include state rules meeting PSD requirements, EPA therefore must 
propose a disapproval for this section. However, Minnesota has no 
further obligations to EPA because the state administers the Federally 
promulgated PSD regulations. EPA proposes a disapproval of the PSD 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS.

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport; Pollution Abatement

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state 
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with 
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other 
type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures 
required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to 
protect visibility in another state.
1. Interstate Transport--Significant Contribution
    On February 17, 2012, EPA promulgated designations for the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS, stating for the entire country that, ``The EPA is 
designating areas as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' to mean that 
available information does not indicate that the air quality in these 
areas exceeds the 2010 NO2 NAAQS'' (see 77 FR 9532). For 
comparison purposes, EPA examined the design values \4\ based on data 
collected between 2011 and 2013 from NO2 monitors in 
Minnesota and surrounding states. Within Minnesota, the highest design 
value was 44 ppb at a monitor in Dakota County. In surrounding states, 
the highest design value was 49 ppb at a monitor in Milwaukee, WI. 
These design values are both lower than the standard, which is 100 ppb 
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, as discussed in EPA's 
evaluation of 110(a)(2)(A) requirements, Minn. R. 7011 contains 
controls and emission limits for NOX. Furthermore, CSAPR 
requires reductions of NOX emissions in order to reduce 
interstate transport. MPCA works with EPA in implementing the CSAPR 
program. EPA believes that, in conjunction with the continued 
implementation of the state's ability to limit NOX 
emissions, low monitored values of NO2 will continue in and 
around Minnesota. In other words, NO2 emissions from 
Minnesota are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of the 
2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The level of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS is 100 parts per 
billion (ppb) and the form is the 3-year average of the annual 98th 
percentile of the daily 1-hour maximum. For the most recent design 
values, see http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to significant contribution to 
transport for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate these requirements 
in a separate rulemaking. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to significant 
contribution to transport for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
2. Interstate Transport--Interfere With Maintenance
    As described above, EPA has classified all areas of the country as 
``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 
NO2 design values in and around Minnesota are lower than the 
standard, MPCA is able to control NO2 emissions, and CSAPR 
requires reductions in NOX emissions. In other words, 
NO2 emissions from Minnesota are not expected to interfere 
with the maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

[[Page 36747]]

requirements relating to interference with maintenance for the 2008 
ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, 
EPA will evaluate these requirements in a separate rulemaking. EPA 
proposes that Minnesota has met the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
requirements relating to interference with maintenance for the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS.
3. Interstate Transport--Prevention of Significant Deterioration
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions 
prohibiting interference with PSD. EPA acknowledges that Minnesota has 
not adopted or submitted regulations for PSD, which results in a 
proposed disapproval with respect to this set of infrastructure SIP 
requirements. However, Minnesota has no further obligations to EPA 
because the state administers the Federally promulgated PSD regulations 
at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA proposes a disapproval of the PSD requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
4. Interstate Transport--Protect Visibility
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to 
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the 
CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states 
that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing 
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an 
approved SIP addressing regional haze.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements relating to visibility for the 2008 
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate these requirements 
in a separate rulemaking.
5. Interstate and International Pollution Abatement
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate 
provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of 
section 126 and section 115 of the CAA (relating to interstate and 
international pollution abatement, respectively).
    The submissions from Minnesota affirm that the state has no pending 
obligations under section 115.
    Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify 
neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute 
does not specify the method by which the source should provide the 
notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a 
provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A 
lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for 
disapproval of this element.
    EPA acknowledges that Minnesota has not adopted or submitted 
regulations for PSD, which results in a proposed disapproval with 
respect to this set of infrastructure SIP requirements. However, 
Minnesota has no further obligations to EPA because the state 
administers the Federally promulgated PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. 
EPA proposes a disapproval of the PSD requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 
2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

 E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Authority and Resources

    This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel, 
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and 
related issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to 
comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128.
1. Adequate Authority and Resources
    Minnesota provided information on the state's authorized spending 
by program, program priorities, and the state budget. MPCA's 
Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement (EnPPA) with EPA 
provides the MPCA's assurances of resources to carry out certain air 
programs. EPA also notes that Minn. Stat. 116.07 provides the legal 
authority under state law to carry out the SIP. EPA proposes that 
Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion 
of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
2. State Board Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions 
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the 
CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any 
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this 
chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the 
public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their 
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under 
this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by 
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with 
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
    In its June 12, 2014, submittal, MPCA included rules from the Civil 
Service Rule at 2-8.3(a)(1) for incorporation into the SIP, pursuant to 
section 128 of the CAA.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section 110(a)(2)(E) 
requirements relating to state board requirements for the 2008 ozone, 
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate these requirements in a separate 
rulemaking.

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System

    States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary 
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also 
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, 
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators 
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state 
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of 
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation 
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or 
standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports 
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    Under Minnesota air quality rules, any NAAQS is an applicable 
requirement for stationary sources. Minnesota's monitoring rules have 
been previously approved by EPA and are contained in Minnesota's SIP at 
Minn. R. 7011. Minn. Stat. 116.07 gives MPCA the authority to require 
owners or operators of emission facilities to install and operate 
monitoring equipment, while Minnesota's SIP at Minn. R. 7007.0800 sets 
forth the minimum monitoring requirements that must be included in 
stationary source permits. Lastly, Minnesota's SIP at Minn. R. 7017 of 
contains monitoring and testing requirements, including rules for 
continuous monitoring. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to 
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Power

    This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is 
analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate 
contingency plans to implement such authority. The 2013 Guidance states 
that infrastructure SIP submissions should specify authority,

[[Page 36748]]

rested in an appropriate official, to restrain any source from causing 
or contributing to emissions which present an imminent and substantial 
endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.
    Minn. Stat. 116.11 provides to MPCA emergency powers, which are 
further discussed in Minn. R. 7000.5000. Specifically, these 
regulations allow the agency to ``direct the immediate discontinuance 
or abatement of the pollution without notice and without a hearing or 
at the request of the agency, the attorney general may bring an action 
in the name of the state in the appropriate district court for a 
temporary restraining order to immediately abate or prevent the 
pollution.'' EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS.

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires states to have the authority to revise their 
SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved 
methods for attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA finding that the SIP is 
substantially inadequate.
    Minn. Stat. 116.07 grants the agency the authority to ``[a]dopt, 
amend, and rescind rules and standards having the force of law relating 
to any purpose . . . for the prevention, abatement, or control of air 
pollution.'' EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS.

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions 
Under Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area 
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of 
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas.
    As outlined in the 2013 guidance, EPA has determined that section 
110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the infrastructure SIP process. 
Section 110(a)(2)(I) is not being addressed and does not need to be 
addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission.

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public 
Notification; PSD; Visibility Protection

    The evaluation of the submissions from Minnesota with respect to 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.
1. Consultation With Government Officials
    States must provide a process for consultation with local 
governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS 
implementation requirements.
    Historically, MPCA actively participated in the Central Regional 
Air Planning Association as well as the Central States Air Resource 
Agencies. Additionally, Minnesota is now an active member of the Lake 
Michigan Air Directors Consortium, which provides technical assessments 
and a forum for discussion regarding air quality issues to member 
states. Minnesota has also demonstrated that it frequently consults and 
discusses issues with pertinent Tribes. Therefore, EPA proposes that 
Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion 
of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
2. Public Notification
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if 
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of 
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
    Minnesota dedicates portions of the MPCA Web site to enhancing 
public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. 
For example, information on these pages includes information about 
specific air pollutants,\5\ as well as the biennial reports that MPCA 
prepares for the state legislature.\6\ EPA proposes that Minnesota has 
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 
110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-quality-and-pollutants/air-pollutants/index.html.
    \6\ See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/legislative-resources/legislative-reports/air-quality-in-minnesota-reports-to-the-legislature.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. PSD
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 
related to PSD. Minnesota's PSD program in the context of 
infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs 
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA acknowledges 
that Minnesota has not adopted or submitted regulations for PSD, which 
results in a proposed disapproval with respect to this set of 
infrastructure SIP requirements. However, Minnesota has no further 
obligations to EPA because the state administers the Federally 
promulgated PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA proposes a disapproval 
of the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
4. Visibility Protection
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program 
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 
169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, the visibility 
and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. 
Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' 
under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
    EPA has determined that the visibility requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(J) are not applicable to the infrastructure SIP process. The 
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not being addressed 
and do not need to be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP 
submission.

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data

    SIPs must provide for performing air quality modeling for 
predicting effects on air quality of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant 
and submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    MPCA reviews the potential impact of major and some minor new 
sources. Under Minn. R. 7007.0500, MPCA may require applicable major 
sources in Minnesota to perform modeling to show that emissions do not 
cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. Furthermore, MPCA 
maintains the capability to perform its own modeling. Because Minnesota 
administers the Federally promulgated PSD regulations, pre-construction 
permitting modeling is conducted in compliance with EPA's regulations. 
EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees

    This section requires SIPs to mandate each major stationary source 
to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, 
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
    MPCA implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA 
approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62967). Minn. R. 7002.0005 through

[[Page 36749]]

7002.0085 contain the provisions, requirements, and structures 
associated with the costs for reviewing, approving, implementing, and 
enforcing various types of permits. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met 
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) with 
respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local 
Entities

    States must consult with and allow participation from local 
political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    Minnesota regularly consults with local political subdivisions 
affected by the SIP, where applicable. EPA observes that Minn. Stat. 
116.05 authorizes cooperation and agreement between MPCA and other 
State and local governments. Additionally, the Minnesota Administrative 
Procedures Act (Minn. Stat. 14) provides general notice and comment 
procedures that are followed during SIP development. Lastly, MPCA 
regularly issues public notices on proposed actions. EPA proposes that 
Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve most elements of submissions from 
Minnesota certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the 
required infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. We are also proposing to disapprove some 
elements of the state's submission as they relate to its PSD program. 
As described above, Minnesota already administers Federally promulgated 
PSD regulations through delegation, and therefore no practical effect 
is associated with today's proposed disapproval or future final 
disapproval of those elements.
    EPA's proposed actions for the state's satisfaction of 
infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) and 
NAAQS, are contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 2008                             2012
           Element              Ozone     2010 NO2   2010 SO2    PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and             A          A          A          A
 other control measures.....
(B)--Ambient air quality             A          A          A          A
 monitoring/data system.....
(C)1--Program for                    A          A          A          A
 enforcement of control
 measures...................
(C)2--PSD...................         D          D          D          D
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate         NA          A         NA         NA
 transport--significant
 contribution...............
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate         NA          A         NA         NA
 transport--interfere with
 maintenance................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate         D          D          D          D
 transport--prevention of
 significant deterioration..
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate        NA         NA         NA         NA
 transport--protect
 visibility.................
(D)5--Interstate and                 D          D          D          D
 international pollution
 abatement..................
(E)1--Adequate resources....         A          A          A          A
(E)2--State board                   NA         NA         NA         NA
 requirements...............
(F)--Stationary source               A          A          A          A
 monitoring system..........
(G)--Emergency power........         A          A          A          A
(H)--Future SIP revisions...         A          A          A          A
(I)--Nonattainment planning          *          *          *          *
 requirements of part D.....
(J)1--Consultation with              A          A          A          A
 government officials.......
(J)2--Public notification...         A          A          A          A
(J)3--PSD...................         D          D          D          D
(J)4--Visibility protection.         *          *          *          *
(K)--Air quality modeling/           A          A          A          A
 data.......................
(L)--Permitting fees........         A          A          A          A
(M)--Consultation and                A          A          A          A
 participation by affected
 local entities.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
 A = Approve.
 D = Disapprove.
 NA = No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
 * = Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.

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, 
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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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

[[Page 36750]]

practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 11, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-15555 Filed 6-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


