31462 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

146 In deciding whether to invoke the exception 

by making and publishing a finding that an action 

is based on a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect, the Administrator takes into account a 

number of policy considerations, including his 

judgment balancing the benefit of obtaining the D.C. 

Circuit’s authoritative centralized review versus 

allowing development of the issue in other contexts 

and the best use of agency resources. 

147A finding of nationwide scope or effect is also 

appropriate for actions that cover states in multiple 

judicial circuits. In the report on the 1977 

Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the 

CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator’s 

determination that the ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ 

exception applies would be appropriate for any 

action that has a scope or effect beyond a single 

judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323, 

324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402–03. 

148The EPA may take a consolidated, single final 

action on all of the proposed SIP disapproval 

actions with respect to obligations under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. Should the EPA take a single final action 

on all such disapprovals, this action would be 

nationally applicable, and the EPA would also 

anticipate, in the alternative, making and 

publishing a finding that such final action is based 

on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because this proposed SIP disapproval, 

if finalized, will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations, but will 

simply disapprove certain State 

requirements for inclusion in the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action merely 

proposes to disapprove a SIP 

submission as not meeting the CAA. 

K. CAA Section 307(b)(1) 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs 

judicial review of final actions by the 

EPA. This section provides, in part, that 

petitions for review must be filed in the 

D.C. Circuit: (i) When the agency action 

consists of ‘‘nationally applicable 

regulations promulgated, or final actions 

taken, by the Administrator,’’ or (ii) 

when such action is locally or regionally 

applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on 

a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ For locally or regionally 

applicable final actions, the CAA 

reserves to the EPA complete discretion 

whether to invoke the exception in 

(ii).146

If the EPA takes final action on this 

proposed rulemaking, the Administrator 

intends to exercise the complete 

discretion afforded to him under the 

CAA to make and publish a finding that 

the final action (to the extent a court 

finds the action to be locally or 

regionally applicable) is based on a 

determination of ‘‘nationwide scope or 

effect’’ within the meaning of CAA 

section 307(b)(1). Through this 

rulemaking action (in conjunction with 

a series of related actions on other SIP 

submissions for the same CAA 

obligations), the EPA interprets and 

applies section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) of the 

CAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based 

on a common core of nationwide policy 

judgments and technical analysis 

concerning the interstate transport of 

pollutants throughout the continental 

U.S. In particular, the EPA is applying 

here (and in other proposed actions 

related to the same obligations) the 

same, nationally consistent 4-step 

framework for assessing good neighbor 

obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA relies on a single set of 

updated, 2016-base year photochemical 

grid modeling results of the year 2023 

as the primary basis for its assessment 

of air quality conditions and 

contributions at steps 1 and 2 of that 

framework. Further, the EPA proposes 

to determine and apply a set of 

nationally consistent policy judgments 

to apply the 4-step framework. The EPA 

has selected a nationally uniform 

analytic year (2023) for this analysis and 

is applying a nationally uniform 

approach to nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors and a nationally 

uniform approach to contribution 

threshold analysis.147 For these reasons, 

the Administrator intends, if this 

proposed action is finalized, to exercise 

the complete discretion afforded to him 

under the CAA to make and publish a 

finding that this action is based on one 

or more determinations of nationwide 

scope or effect for purposes of CAA 

section 307(b)(1).148

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone. 

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

Dated: May 15, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11150 Filed 5–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2018–0689; FRL–9654–01– 

R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; 

Approval of Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from Minnesota 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 ozone 

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. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 23, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2018–0689 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arra.sarah@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31463 

1EPA proposed disapproval of Minnesota’s SIP 

revision submitted October 1, 2018 to address 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) on February 22, 2022 (87 

FR 9398). 

2EPA explains and elaborates on these 

ambiguities and its approach to address them in our 

September 13, 2013, Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

(available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ 

urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_

Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_

FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous 

agency actions, including EPA’s prior action on 

Minnesota’s infrastructure SIP to address the 2008 

ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and 2012 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS (80 FR 63436 (October 20, 2015)). 

3See Montana Environmental Information Center 

v. EPA, 902 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2018). 

4See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

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

67034. 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/docketgs/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Olivia Davidson, Physical Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0266, 

davidson.olivia@epa.gov. The EPA 

Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays and facility 

closures due to COVID–19. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of this SIP 

submission? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing 

to approve most elements of an October 

1, 2018, submission from the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

intended to address all applicable 

infrastructure requirements for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. EPA will take action in 

a separate future rulemaking on the 

portion of the submission pertaining to 

the interstate transport 1 and visibility 

interference requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) with respect to 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Whenever EPA promulgates a new or 

revised NAAQS, section 110(a)(1) 

requires states to make SIP submissions 

to provide for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. This type of SIP submission is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ These submissions 

must meet the various requirements of 

section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to 

ambiguity in some of the language of 

section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to interpret these provisions 

in the specific context of acting on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has 

previously provided comprehensive 

guidance on the application of these 

provisions through our September 13, 

2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance and 

through regional actions on 

infrastructure submissions (EPA’s 2013 

Guidance).2 Unless otherwise noted 

below, we are following that existing 

approach in acting on this submission. 

In addition, in the context of acting on 

such infrastructure submissions, EPA 

evaluates the submitting state’s SIP for 

compliance with statutory and 

regulatory requirements, not for the 

state’s implementation of its SIP.3 EPA 

has other authority to address any issues 

concerning a state’s implementation of 

the rules, regulations, consent orders, 

etc. that comprise its SIP. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of this SIP 

submission? 

Pursuant to section 110(a), states must 

provide reasonable notice and 

opportunity for public hearing for all 

infrastructure SIP submissions. On July 

9, 2018, MPCA opened a 30-day 

comment period and provided the 

opportunity for public hearing. No 

comments were received. 

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 

2015 ozone NAAQS, as applicable. The 

following review evaluates the state’s 

submission. 

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. EPA has long 

interpreted emission limits and control 

measures for attaining the standards as 

being due when nonattainment 

planning requirements are due.4 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, under such conditions as it 

may prescribe for the prevention of 

pollution, for the emission of air 

contaminants,’’ and for other purposes. 

EPA’s 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.’’ EPA’s 2013 Guidance at 18. 

Minn. Stat. chapter 116 gives MPCA the 

authority to develop and implement 

rules, including controls and emission 

limits to maintain new standards. While 

Minnesota does not have any 

nonattainment or maintenance areas for 

2015 ozone NAAQS, MPCA identified 

existing controls and emission limits in 

Minnesota Rules (Minn. R.) that support 

compliance with and attainment of the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. These regulations 

include controls and emission limits for 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are 

precursors to ozone. NOX emissions are 

limited by Minn. R. 7011.0500 to 

7011.0553 as well as 7011.1700 to 

7011.1730. VOC emissions are limited 

by the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, which are 

incorporated by reference into 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31464 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, 

also referred to as ‘‘fine’’ particles. 

6PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

7 In EPA’s April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking 

for infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, we stated that each state’s PSD program 

must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of 

all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (76 FR 

23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in EPA’s 

August 2, 2012 proposed rulemaking for 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 

FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state lacks 

provisions needed to adequately address NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, PM2.5 and 

PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or the 

Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the provisions 

of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD 

permitting program must be considered not to be 

met irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the 

requirement to submit an infrastructure SIP, 

including the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Minnesota’s state rules at Minn. R. 

7011.7000. 

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 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to provide 

for establishing and operating ambient 

air quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air quality data, and, 

upon request, to make these data 

available to EPA. EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

states that submission of annual 

monitoring network plans consistent 

with EPA’s ambient air monitoring 

regulations at 40 CFR 58.10 is one way 

of satisfying requirements to provide 

EPA information regarding air quality 

monitoring activities. EPA’s review of a 

state’s 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; (ii) submits data to EPA’s Air 

Quality System in a timely manner; and 

(iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with 

prior notification of any planned 

changes to monitoring sites or the 

network plan. 

In accordance with 40 CFR part 53 

and 40 CFR part 58, MPCA continues to 

operate an air monitoring network that 

is used to determine compliance with 

the NAAQS. MPCA‘s submittal 

references its 2019 Annual Air 

Monitoring Network Plan, approved by 

EPA on September 18, 2018, which 

included a new appendix D describing 

Minnesota’s Photochemical Assessment 

Monitoring Station Network 

Implementation Plan in order to comply 

with the new 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Additionally, EPA approved MPCA’s 

2020 and 2021 Network Plans on 

August 23, 2019, and September 15, 

2020, respectively. EPA proposes that 

Minnesota has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) 

with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures; Minor 

NSR; PSD 

This section requires SIPs to set forth 

a program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures, and the regulation of 

construction of new and modified 

stationary sources to meet New Source 

Review (NSR) requirements under 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) 

programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 

160–169B) addresses PSD, while part D 

of the CAA (sections 171–193) addresses 

NNSR requirements. EPA’s 2013 

Guidance states that the NNSR 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) are 

generally outside the scope of 

infrastructure SIPs; however, a state 

must provide for regulation of minor 

sources and minor modifications (minor 

NSR). 

1. Program for Enforcement of Emission 

Limitations and Control Measures 

A state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission should identify the statutes, 

regulations, or other provisions in the 

SIP that provide for enforcement of 

emission limits and control measures. 

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 emission limitations and 

control measures requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

2. Minor NSR 

An infrastructure SIP submission 

should identify the existing EPAapproved SIP provisions that govern the 

minor source pre-construction program 

that regulates emissions of the relevant 

NAAQS pollutant. 

EPA first approved Minnesota’s minor 

NSR program on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 

21447). Since then, MPCA and EPA 

have relied on these existing provisions 

to ensure that new and modified sources 

not captured by the major NSR 

permitting programs do not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

ozone and other NAAQS. EPA proposes 

that Minnesota has met the minor NSR 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

3. PSD 

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the PSD 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

covers: (i) PSD provisions that explicitly 

identify NOX as a precursor to ozone in 

the PSD program; (ii) identification of 

precursors to PM2.5 5 and the 

identification of PM2.5 and PM10 6

condensables in the PSD program; (iii) 

PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; 

and (iv) greenhouse gas (GHG) 

permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ in 

the PSD program.7

Some PSD requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(C) overlap with elements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 

110(a)(2)(E), and section 110(a)(2)(J). 

These links are discussed in the 

appropriate areas below. 

a. PSD Provisions That Explicitly 

Identify NOX as a Precursor to Ozone in 

the PSD Program 

EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 29, 2005 

(70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone (see 70 FR 71612 

at 71679, 71699–71704). This 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31465 

8Similar changes were codified in 40 CFR 52.21. 

9EPA notes that in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that 

EPA should have issued the 2008 NSR Rule in 

accordance with the CAA’s requirements for PM10

nonattainment areas (Title I, part D, subpart 4), and 

not the general requirements for nonattainment 

areas under subpart 1. As the subpart 4 provisions 

apply only to nonattainment areas, EPA does not 

consider the portions of the 2008 NSR Rule that 

address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court’s 

opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the 

need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated 

by the 2008 NSR Rule in order to comply with the 

court’s decision. Accordingly, EPA’s approval of 

Minnesota’s infrastructure SIP as to elements (C), 

(D)(i)(II), or (J) with respect to the PSD requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 NSR Rule does not 

conflict with the court’s opinion. 

The court’s decision with respect to the 

nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by 

the 2008 NSR Rule also does not affect EPA’s action 

on the present infrastructure action. EPA interprets 

the CAA to exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements associated 

with a nonattainment NSR program, from 

infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after 

adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these 

elements are typically referred to as nonattainment 

SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be 

due by the dates statutorily prescribed under 

subpart 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far 

as 10 years following designations for some 

elements. 

requirement was codified at 40 CFR 

51.166.8

The Phase 2 Rule required that states 

submit SIP revisions incorporating the 

requirements of the rule, including the 

provisions specific to NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, by June 15, 2007 

(see 70 FR 71612 at 71683). 

On September 26, 2017 (82 FR 44734), 

EPA approved into the Minnesota SIP 

Minn. R. 7007.3000, which incorporates 

by reference ‘‘as amended’’ the Federal 

PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21. These 

Federal PSD rules fully satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

regarding NOX as a precursor to ozone. 

EPA therefore proposes that Minnesota 

has met this set of infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

b. Identification of Precursors to PM2.5

and the Identification of PM2.5 and PM10

Condensables in the PSD Program 

On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA 

issued the Final Rule on the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 

NSR Rule finalized several new 

requirements for SIPs to address sources 

that emit direct PM2.5 and other 

pollutants that contribute to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for NSR permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 NSR 

Rule, EPA identified precursors to PM2.5

for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and NOX (unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

NOX emissions in an area are not a 

significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 

2008 NSR Rule also specifies that VOCs 

are not considered to be precursors to 

PM2.5 in the PSD program unless the 

state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in 

an area are significant contributors to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying 

pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5,

the 2008 NSR Rule also required states 

to revise the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

as it relates to a net emissions increase 

or the potential of a source to emit 

pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct 

PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The deadline for states 

to submit SIP revisions to their PSD 

programs incorporating these changes 

was May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 

28341).9

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5

and PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. This requirement 

is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions 

to states’ PSD programs incorporating 

the inclusion of condensables were due 

to EPA by May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 

28321 at 28341). 

On September 26, 2017 (82 FR 44734), 

EPA approved into the Minnesota SIP 

Minn. R. 7007.3000, which incorporates 

by reference ‘‘as amended’’ the Federal 

PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21. These 

Federal PSD rules fully satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

regarding identification of precursors to 

PM2.5 and the identification of PM2.5

and PM10 condensables. EPA therefore 

proposes that Minnesota has met this set 

of infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

c. PM2.5 Increments in the PSD Program 

On October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64864), 

EPA issued the final rule on the 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 

2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule 

established several components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for PM2.5, including a system of 

‘‘increments’’ which is the mechanism 

used to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant. These increments are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c), and are included in the 

table below. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 INCREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE 2010 NSR RULE IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER

Annual 

arithmetic 

mean 

24-Hour 

max 

Class I ............... 1 2 

Class II .............. 4 9 

Class III ............. 8 18 

The 2010 NSR Rule also established a 

new ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for 

PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new 

trigger date for PM2.5 as October 20, 

2011. These revisions are codified in 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and 

(b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule 

revised the definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ 

to include a level of significance of 0.3 

micrograms per cubic meter, annual 

average, for PM2.5. This change is 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). 

On September 26, 2017 (82 FR 44734), 

EPA approved into the Minnesota SIP 

Minn. R. 7007.3000, which incorporates 

by reference ‘‘as amended’’ the Federal 

PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21. These 

Federal PSD rules fully satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

regarding PM2.5 increments. EPA 

therefore proposes that Minnesota has 

met this set of infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31466 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

d. GHG Permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule’’ in the PSD Program 

With respect to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) as well as section 

110(a)(2)(J), EPA interprets the CAA to 

require each state to make an 

infrastructure SIP submission for a new 

or revised NAAQS that demonstrates 

that the air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program meeting the current 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied 

by demonstrating that the air agency has 

a complete PSD permitting program 

correctly addressing all regulated NSR 

pollutants. Minnesota has shown that it 

currently has a PSD program in place 

that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, 

including GHGs. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

573 U.S. 302 (2014). The Supreme Court 

said that EPA may not treat GHGs as an 

air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also said that EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). 

In accordance with the Court’s 

decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) 

issued an amended judgment vacating 

the regulations that implemented Step 2 

of EPA’s PSD and title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule, but not the 

regulations that implement Step 1 of 

that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule 

covers sources that are required to 

obtain a PSD permit based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 

applied to sources that emitted only 

GHGs above the thresholds triggering 

the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. 

The amended judgment preserves, 

without the need for additional 

rulemaking by EPA, the application of 

the BACT requirement to GHG 

emissions from Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’ 

sources. With respect to Step 2 sources, 

the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment 

vacated the regulations at issue in the 

litigation, including 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to the extent they 

require a stationary source to obtain a 

PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the 

only pollutant (i) that the source emits 

or has the potential to emit above the 

applicable major source thresholds, or 

(ii) for which there is a significant 

emission increase from a modification 

. . . .’’ Coalition for Responsible 

Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Nos. 09–1322, 10– 

073, 10–1092, and 10–1167, Amended 

Judgment (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015). 

EPA is planning to take additional 

steps to revise Federal PSD rules in light 

of the Supreme Court’s opinion and 

subsequent D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Some 

states have begun to revise their existing 

SIP-approved PSD programs in light of 

these court decisions, and some states 

may prefer not to initiate this process 

until they have more information about 

the planned revisions to EPA’s PSD 

regulations. EPA is not expecting states 

to have revised their PSD programs in 

anticipation of EPA’s planned actions to 

revise its PSD program rules in response 

to the court decisions. For purposes of 

infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA is 

only evaluating such submissions to 

assure that the state’s program addresses 

GHGs consistent with both court 

decisions. 

EPA is proposing that Minnesota’s SIP 

is sufficient to satisfy CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to GHGs. This 

is because the PSD permitting program 

approved by EPA into the SIP on 

September 26, 2017 (82 FR 44734) 

continues to require that PSD permits 

issued to ‘‘anyway sources’’ contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. 

EPA proposes that Minnesota has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes four distinct components, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that 

must be addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one 

state from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1) and from interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prohibit emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

another state (prong 3) or from 

interfering with measures to protect 

visibility in another state (prong 4). 

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 of any other 

state to prevent significant deterioration 

of air quality, or from interfering with 

measures required of any other state to 

protect visibility. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires each SIP to contain adequate 

provisions requiring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of CAA 

section 126 and section 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement, respectively). 

1. Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements relating to significant 

contribution to nonattainment for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. Instead, EPA will 

evaluate these requirements in a 

separate rulemaking. 

2. Interference With Maintenance 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements relating to interference 

with maintenance for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate 

these requirements in a separate 

rulemaking. 

3. Interference With PSD 

EPA notes that Minnesota’s 

satisfaction of the applicable 

infrastructure SIP PSD requirements has 

been detailed in the discussion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA further notes 

that the proposed actions in that 

discussion related to PSD are consistent 

with the proposed actions related to 

PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

are reiterated below. 

EPA previously approved revisions to 

Minnesota’s SIP to meet certain 

requirements obligated by the Phase 2 

Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. These 

revisions included provisions that 

explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to 

ozone, explicitly identify SO2 and NOX

as precursors to PM2.5, regulate 

condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in 

applicability determinations, and 

regulate condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in 

applicability determinations for 

purposes of establishing emission 

limits. EPA also previously approved 

revisions to Minnesota’s SIP that 

incorporate the PM2.5 increments and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31467 

the associated implementation 

regulations, including the major source 

baseline date, trigger date, and level of 

significance for PM2.5, as required by the 

2010 NSR Rule. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing that Minnesota’s SIP contains 

provisions that adequately address the 

infrastructure requirements for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. 

States also have an obligation to 

ensure that sources located in 

nonattainment areas do not interfere 

with a neighboring state’s PSD program. 

This requirement can be satisfied 

through an NNSR program consistent 

with the CAA that addresses any 

pollutants for which there is a 

designated nonattainment area within 

the state. 

Minnesota’s EPA-approved NNSR 

regulations are contained in Minn. R. 

7007 and are consistent with 40 CFR 

51.165 (60 FR 27411, May 24, 1995). 

Therefore, EPA proposes that Minnesota 

has met all the applicable PSD 

requirements for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. 

4. Interference With Visibility 

Protection 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requirements relating to interference 

with visibility protection for the 2015 

ozone 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 (relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement, 

respectively). 

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. 

Minnesota has provisions in its SIPapproved PSD program in Minn. R. 

7007.3000 requiring new or modified 

sources to notify neighboring states of 

potential negative air quality impacts 

and has referenced this program as 

having adequate provisions to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 126(a). 

Minnesota does not have obligations 

under any other subsection of CAA 

section 126, nor does it have any 

pending obligations under CAA section 

115. Therefore, EPA is proposing that 

Minnesota has met all applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with respect to 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources; State Board Requirements 

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 Resources 

To satisfy the adequate resources 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E), the 

state should provide assurances that its 

air agency has adequate resources, 

personnel, and legal authority to 

implement the relevant NAAQS. 

MPCA’s Environmental Performance 

Partnership Agreement with EPA 

provides 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. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that Minnesota 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. 

2. State Board Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each 

SIP to set forth provisions that comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. Specifically, 

this section 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. 

Minnesota has no board or body 

which approves permits or enforcement 

orders in relation to the CAA. The 

administrative powers and duties of 

MPCA, including issuance of permits 

and enforcement orders, are vested in 

the Commissioner of the MPCA. 

Therefore, Minnesota has no further 

obligations under section 128(a)(1) of 

the CAA. 

Under section 128(a)(2), the head of 

the executive agency with the power to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

must adequately disclose any potential 

conflicts of interest. In Minnesota, this 

power is vested in the Commissioner of 

the MPCA. Under Minn. Stat. 10A, 

matters of disclosure and public interest 

are governed by the Minnesota 

Campaign Finance and Public 

Disclosure Board (MCFPDB). Minn. Stat. 

10A.09 requires that statements of 

economic interest be filed with the 

MCFPDB upon the nomination of the 

Commissioner, and a supplementary 

statement must be submitted every year 

thereafter. Under Minn. Stat. 10A.07, if 

the Commissioner has a financial 

interest relating to a matter before the 

agency, he or she must make this 

interest known in writing. Decisionmaking responsibility on the matter 

must be assigned by the Governor to 

another employee who does not have a 

conflict of interest, or the Commissioner 

must abstain from influence over the 

matter in a manner prescribed by the 

MCFPDB. Minn. R. 7000.0300 further 

prescribes a ‘‘duty of candor’’ for the 

Commissioner. 

On November 2, 2017 (82 FR 50807), 

EPA approved MPCA’s request to 

approve Minn. Stat. 10A.07, Minn. Stat. 

10A.09, and Minn. R. 7000.0300 into 

Minnesota’s SIP, and determined that 

these rules satisfied all requirements 

under section 128 of the CAA. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing that 

Minnesota has satisfied the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for this 

section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

Section 110(a)(2)(F) contains several 

requirements, each of which are 

described below. 

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. 

Minn. Stat. 116.07 gives MPCA the 

authority to require owners or operators 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31468 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

of emission facilities to install and 

operate monitoring equipment, while 

Minn. R. 7007.0800 sets forth the 

minimum monitoring requirements that 

must be included in stationary source 

permits. Minn. R. 7017 contains 

monitoring and testing requirements, 

and Minn. R. 7019 contains emissions 

reporting requirements for applicable 

facilities. EPA proposes that Minnesota 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) 

with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires the SIP 

to provide for authority analogous to 

that in section 303 of the CAA, and 

adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority. EPA’s 2013 

Guidance states that infrastructure SIP 

submissions should specify authority, 

vested 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 2015 ozone 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, to 

the 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 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Planning Requirements of 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. 

EPA has determined that section 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 

will take action on part D attainment 

plans through separate processes. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notification; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submission 

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 in carrying 

out NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

MPCA is an active member of the 

Lake Michigan Air Director’s 

Consortium (LADCO), 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 air quality issues with 

pertinent Tribes. In addition to LADCO, 

MPCA is an active participant in the 

National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies, which has a member total of 

185 air agencies, including 

representatives from all EPA regional 

offices and headquarters, across the 

United States. EPA proposes that 

Minnesota has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 2015 ozone 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. 

MPCA’s website (https://

www.pca.state.mn.us/air) features 

information regarding health impacts of 

air pollution, current air quality and 

forecasting, and non-point, vehicle, and 

traditionally permitted sources. 

Additionally, MPCA developed a free 

mobile application (Minnesota Air) that 

contains forecasting information. 

Minnesota’s procedural rules are 

contained in Minn. R. Ch. 7000, and 

include general guidelines, as well as 

emergency and variance procedures. 

Minn. R. Ch. 7007 lists public notice 

and comment procedures for the 

issuance of air quality permits, which 

provide the public with an opportunity 

to comment and/or request public 

hearing regarding proposed SIP 

revisions. Therefore, EPA proposes that 

Minnesota has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 

2015 ozone 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 above 

in the paragraphs addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C) and section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA notes that 

the proposed actions for those sections 

are consistent with the proposed actions 

for this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Therefore, EPA proposes that 

Minnesota has met all the infrastructure 

SIP requirements for PSD associated 

with section 110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. 

4. Visibility Protection 

States are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA (which 

includes sections 169A and 169B). 

However, EPA has determined that the 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on 

visibility is not triggered by a new 

NAAQS because the visibility 

requirements in part C are not changed 

by a new NAAQS. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

SIPs must provide for performance of 

air quality modeling to predict the 

effects on air quality from emissions of 

any NAAQS pollutant and the 

submission of such data to EPA upon 

request. 

MPCA has the authority under Minn. 

R. Ch. 7007.0500 to require applicable 

major sources to perform modelling to 

show that emissions do not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. 

Such information is mandatory for 

applicants subject to PSD requirements 

(Minn. R. Ch. 7007.3000) and/or NNSR 

requirements (Minn. R. Ch. 7007.4000 

through 7007.4030). MPCA also 

maintains staff that conduct permitrelated (and other) modeling, to support 

facilities and ensure modeling accuracy. 

EPA proposes that Minnesota has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31469 

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 

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 2015 ozone 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. 

Minn. Stat. 116.05 authorizes 

cooperation and agreement between 

MPCA and other State and local 

governments, with whom Minnesota 

regularly consults. The Minnesota 

Administrative Procedures Act provides 

general notice and comment procedures 

that govern rulemaking for all state 

agencies, which MPCA follows during 

SIP development. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Minnesota has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve most 

elements of a submission from MPCA 

certifying that its current SIP is 

sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA’s proposed actions for the 

State’s satisfaction of infrastructure SIP 

requirements pursuant to section 

110(a)(2) and NAAQS are contained in 

the table below. 

Element 2015 Ozone 

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

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

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

(C)2—Minor NSR ................................................................................................................................................................................. A 

(C)3—PSD ........................................................................................................................................................................................... A 

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

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

(D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate transport—interference with PSD ........................................................................................................... A 

(D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate transport—interference with visibility protection ..................................................................................... NA 

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

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

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

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

(G)—Emergency powers ..................................................................................................................................................................... A 

(H)—Future SIP revisions .................................................................................................................................................................... A 

(I)—Nonattainment planning requirements of part D .......................................................................................................................... * 

(J)1—Consultation with government officials ...................................................................................................................................... A 

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

(J)3—PSD ............................................................................................................................................................................................ A 

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

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

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

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

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A ........ Approve. 

NA ..... No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

D ....... Disapprove. 

* ......... Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. 

IV. 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 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31470 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 16, 2022. 

Debra Shore, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10819 Filed 5–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2022–0315; EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663; FRL–9806–01–R8] 

Air Plan Disapproval; Utah; Interstate 

Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to disapprove the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

from Utah regarding interstate transport 

for the 2015 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

The ‘‘good neighbor’’ or ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ provision requires that each 

state’s SIP contain adequate provisions 

to prohibit emissions from within the 

state from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

states. This requirement is part of the 

broader set of ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

requirements, which 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. If the 

EPA finalizes this disapproval, the EPA 

will continue to be subject to an 

obligation to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

the relevant interstate transport 

requirements, which was triggered by a 

finding of failure to submit issued in 

December of 2019. Disapproval does not 

start a mandatory CAA sanctions clock. 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

must be received on or before July 25, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified as Docket No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2022–0315, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. The EPA Docket Office 

can be contacted at (202) 566–1744, and 

is located at EPA Docket Center Reading 

Room, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. For further 

information on EPA Docket Center 

services and the current hours of 

operation at the EPA Docket Center, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air and Radiation 

Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8ARD–IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado, 80202–1129, 

telephone number: (303) 312–7104, 

email address: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public participation: Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–R08–OAR–2022–0315, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from the docket. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit to EPA’s docket 

at https://www.regulations.gov any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). 

There are two dockets supporting this 

action, EPA–R08–OAR–2022–0315 and 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663. Docket No. 

EPA–R08–OAR–2022–0315 contains 

information specific to Utah, including 

the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663 

contains additional modeling files, 

emissions inventory files, technical 

support documents, and other relevant 

supporting documentation regarding 

interstate transport of emissions for the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS which are 

being used to support this action. All 

comments regarding information in 

either of these dockets are to be made 

in Docket No. EPA–R08–OAR–2022– 

0315. For additional submission 

methods, please contact Adam Clark, 

telephone number: (303) 312–7104, 

email address: clark.adam@epa.gov. For 

the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The index for Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663, is available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available due to 

docket file size restrictions or content 

(e.g., CBI). 

The EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), local area health 

departments, and our Federal partners 

so that we can respond rapidly as 

conditions change regarding COVID–19. 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ 

‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Description of Statutory Background 

B. Description of the EPA’s 4-Step 

Interstate Transport Regulatory Process 

C. Background on the EPA’s Ozone 

Transport Modeling Information 

D. The EPA’s Approach To Evaluating 

Interstate Transport SIPs for the 2015 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS 

II. Utah SIP Submission Addressing Interstate 

Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Evaluation of Information Provided by 

Utah Regarding Step 1 and Step 2 

B. Evaluation of Information Provided 

Regarding Step 3 

C. Evaluation of Information Provided 

Regarding Step 4 

D. Conclusion 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Description of Statutory Background 

On October 1, 2015, the EPA 

promulgated a revision to the ozone 

NAAQS (2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS), 

lowering the level of both the primary 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1