Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 36743 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: June 23, 2015. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2015–15754 Filed 6–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

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 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 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? 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36744 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, 

oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’ particles. 

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 PM2.51 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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 36745 

2See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964 at 

67034, November 12, 2008. 

3PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

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. 

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. 

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 EPAapproved Federal Reference Methods or 

Federal Equivalent Method monitors; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36746 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4The 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. 

(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. 

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) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36748 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

5See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/

air-quality-and-pollutants/air-pollutants/

index.html. 

6See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/

about-mpca/legislative-resources/legislativereports/air-quality-in-minnesota-reports-to-thelegislature.html. 

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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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. 

Element 2008 

Ozone 

2010 

NO2

2010 

SO2

2012 

PM2.5

(A)—Emission limits and other control measures ................................................................................... A A A A 

(B)—Ambient air quality monitoring/data system .................................................................................... A A A A 

(C)1—Program for enforcement of control measures ............................................................................. A A A A 

(C)2—PSD ............................................................................................................................................... D D D D 

(D)1—I Prong 1: Interstate transport—significant contribution ................................................................ NA A NA NA 

(D)2—I Prong 2: Interstate transport—interfere with maintenance ......................................................... NA A NA NA 

(D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate transport—prevention of significant deterioration ....................................... D D D D 

(D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate transport—protect visibility .......................................................................... NA NA NA NA 

(D)5—Interstate and international pollution abatement ........................................................................... D D D D 

(E)1—Adequate resources ...................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(E)2—State board requirements .............................................................................................................. NA NA NA NA 

(F)—Stationary source monitoring system .............................................................................................. A A A A 

(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 government officials .......................................................................................... A A A A 

(J)2—Public notification ........................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(J)3—PSD ................................................................................................................................................ D D D D 

(J)4—Visibility protection ......................................................................................................................... * * * * 

(K)—Air quality modeling/data ................................................................................................................. A A A A 

(L)—Permitting fees ................................................................................................................................. A A A A 

(M)—Consultation and participation by affected local entities ................................................................ A A A A 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36750 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0161; FRL–9929–47– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Georgia: 

Changes to Georgia Fuel Rule and 

Other Miscellaneous Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the State of Georgia’s February 5, 2015, 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision, submitted through the Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division (GA 

EPD), to modify the SIP by removing 

Georgia’s Gasoline Marketing Rule and 

Consumer and Commercial Products 

Rule, revising the NOX Emissions from 

Stationary Gas Turbines and Stationary 

Engines Rule, and adding measures to 

offset the emissions increases expected 

from the changes to these rules. This 

modification to the SIP will affect, in 

varying ways, the 45 counties in and 

around the Atlanta, Georgia, 

metropolitan area covered by the 

Georgia Gasoline Marketing Rule 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Georgia 

Fuel Area’’). Additionally, EPA is also 

proposing to approve structural changes 

to the NOX Emissions from Stationary 

Gas Turbines and Stationary Engines 

Rule included in a SIP revision 

submitted by GA EPD on September 26, 

2006. EPA has preliminarily determined 

that the portion of Georgia’s September 

26, 2006 SIP revision addressing 

changes to the NOX Emissions from 

Stationary Gas Turbines and Stationary 

Engines Rule and the February 5, 2015, 

SIP revision meet the applicable 

provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R04–OAR–2015–0161 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0161, 

Air Regulatory Managment Section 

(formerly the Regulatory Development 

Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch (formerly the 

Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s 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–R04–OAR–2015– 

0161. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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 information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Wong of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, in the Air 

Planning and Implementation Branch, 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Wong may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–8726 or via electronic mail at 

wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being proposed? 

II. What is the background of the Atlanta 

area? 

III. What are the Federal RVP requirements? 

IV. What are the Section 110(l) requirements? 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS