Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; PSD Infrastructure SIP Requirements, 22913-22918 [2018-10458]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
• 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 Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, 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 the 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, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 8, 2018.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018–10571 Filed 5–16–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0603; FRL–9978–11–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; PSD
Infrastructure SIP Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
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) relating to Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for the
1997 ozone, 1997 fine particulate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 May 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
Comments must be received on
or before June 18, 2018.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2016–0603 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from 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/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
ADDRESSES:
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
40 CFR Part 52
SUMMARY:
(PM2.5), 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008
ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 2012
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
submitted the SIP revision to EPA on
October 4, 2016.
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 guidance is EPA using to evaluate
this SIP submission?
III. What is the result of EPA’s review of this
SIP submission?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22913
I. What is the background of this SIP
submission?
This rulemaking proposes to approve
a SIP submission from MPCA dated
October 4, 2016, which addresses
infrastructure requirements relating to
PSD for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5,
2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The requirement for states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions arises
out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to CAA section 110(a)(1), 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.
CAA 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.
This specific rulemaking is only taking
action on the infrastructure SIP
elements relating to PSD, provided at
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and
110(a)(2)(J).
In previous rulemakings, EPA
addressed Minnesota’s infrastructure
obligations under the various NAAQS.
On July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41075), EPA
approved most elements of Minnesota’s
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 1997
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On
October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65478), EPA
approved most elements of Minnesota’s
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 16, 2014 (79 FR
41439), EPA approved most elements of
Minnesota’s infrastructure SIP submittal
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Finally, on
October 20, 2015 (80 FR 63436), EPA
approved most elements of Minnesota’s
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, because
Minnesota did not have an approved
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
22914
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
PSD program at the time of these
rulemakings, EPA generally
disapproved infrastructure SIP elements
relating to PSD in the rulemakings.1
MPCA’s submission dated October 4,
2016, requested that EPA approve into
its SIP Minnesota Rule 7007.3000,
which incorporates by reference the
Federal PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21. On
July 10, 2017 (82 FR 31741), EPA
proposed to approve this request, and
on September 26, 2017 (82 FR 44734),
EPA finalized approval; the change
became effective on October 26, 2017.
Therefore, Minnesota is now
implementing its own SIP-approved
PSD program.
In this rulemaking, as requested by
Minnesota, EPA is proposing to find
that Minnesota has satisfied all
infrastructure SIP elements relating to
PSD, at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and
110(a)(2)(J), for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
II. What guidance is EPA using to
evaluate this SIP submission?
EPA’s guidance relating to
infrastructure SIP submissions can be
found in a guidance document entitled
‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 2 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007
Guidance).3 Further guidance is
provided in a September 13, 2013,
document entitled ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ (2013
Guidance).4
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. What is the result of EPA’s review
of this SIP submission?
Pursuant to CAA section 110(a), states
must provide reasonable notice and
1 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.
At the time of the infrastructure rulemakings
referenced above, Minnesota had chosen to
implement the Federally promulgated PSD rules at
40 CFR 52.21, and EPA had delegated to Minnesota
the authority to implement these regulations. The
Federally promulgated rules satisfied all
infrastructure requirements relating to PSD.
However, as a delegated program, these
infrastructure elements were not approved into the
Minnesota SIP.
2 PM
2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers,
oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’ particles.
3 https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/
collection/cp2/20071002_harnett_110(a)_sip_
guidance.pdf.
4 https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/
sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_
Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 May 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
opportunity for public hearing for all
infrastructure SIP submissions. MPCA
commenced a public comment period
on June 20, 2016, and closed the public
comment period on July 20, 2016.
Minnesota received three comments,
and provided a response to comments in
its submittal.
Minnesota provided a synopsis of
how its SIP meets each of the applicable
requirements in CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J) for the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as
applicable. The following review
evaluates the state’s submission.
A. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C)
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 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.
The evaluation of the state’s
submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i)
Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD
provisions that explicitly identify
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor
to ozone in the PSD program; (iii)
identification of precursors to PM2.5 and
the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 5
condensables in the PSD program; (iv)
PM2.5 increments in the PSD program;
and, (v) greenhouse gas (GHG)
permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 6
Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP
Measures
States are required to include a
program providing for enforcement of
all SIP measures and the regulation of
construction of new or modified
5 PM
10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers.
6 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 (see 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 (see
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 CAA 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
stationary sources to meet NSR
requirements under PSD and NNSR
programs.
In our previous rulemakings at 76 FR
41075, 77 FR 65478, 79 FR 41439, and
80 FR 634536, EPA determined that
Minnesota has met the enforcement of
SIP measures requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: PSD Provisions That
Explicitly Identify NOX as a Precursor to
Ozone in the PSD Program
EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8Hour 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
requirement was codified at 40 CFR
51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21.
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 CAA 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
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to
the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: 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
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
22915
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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 this rule, EPA
identified precursors to PM2.5 for the
PSD program to be 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 volatile organic
compounds (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).7
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
required to be submitted 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 CAA 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 CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: 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
Class I ......................................................................................................................................................................
Class II .....................................................................................................................................................................
Class III ....................................................................................................................................................................
24-hour max
1
4
8
2
9
18
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
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 CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) regarding PM2.5 increments.
EPA therefore proposes that Minnesota
has met this set of infrastructure SIP
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
7 EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir.), 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 (Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250).
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
relating to PSD, provided at CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and
110(a)(2)(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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 May 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
22916
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Sub-Element 5: GHG Permitting and the
‘‘Tailoring Rule’’
With respect to CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C) and 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 CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied
by demonstrating 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,
134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said
that the 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 the 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 Supreme
Court 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 the EPA’s PSD and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not
the regulations that implement Step 1 of
that rule. Coalition for Responsible
Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09–
1322,10–073,10–1092, and 10–1167
(D.C. Cir., April 10, 2015) (Amended
Judgement). 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 the 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) and 52.21(b)(49)(v), ‘‘to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 May 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 . . . .’’ Id.
In light of the Supreme Court opinion
and subsequent D.C. Circuit judgement,
EPA took steps to revise Federal PSD
rules to be consistent with these court
decisions. On May 7, 2015 (80 FR
26183), EPA issued a final rule that
narrowly amended the permit rescission
provisions in the Federal PSD
regulations, and on August 19, 2015 (80
FR 50199), EPA issued a final rule that
removed several provisions of the PSD
and title V permitting regulations that
were originally promulgated as part of
the 2010 Tailoring Rule and that were
vacated by the D.C. Circuit in its April
10, 2015 judgment.
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. Because
EPA’s May 7, 2015, and August 19,
2015, amendments to 40 CFR 52.21
included updates to bring the Federal
rules into alignment with the Supreme
Court opinion and the D.C. Circuit’s
amended judgement, Minnesota is
currently operating a PSD program that
is 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, continues to
require that PSD permits issued to
‘‘anyway sources’’ contain limitations
on GHG emissions based on the
application of BACT.
For the purposes of infrastructure
SIPs, EPA reiterates that NSR reform
regulations are not within the scope of
these actions. Therefore, we are not
taking action on existing NSR reform
regulations for Minnesota.
Certain requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) overlap with requirements
of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(J). These links will be
discussed in the appropriate areas
below.
B. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
CAA 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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
quality or to protect visibility in another
state.
EPA notes that Minnesota’s
satisfaction of the applicable
infrastructure SIP PSD requirements has
been detailed in the discussion of CAA
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 CAA 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,
establish emissions limits. EPA also
previously approved revisions to
Minnesota’s SIP that incorporate the
PM2.5 increments and 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 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and
2012 PM2.5 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 of the applicable PSD
requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS related to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
C. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires
that each SIP contain adequate
provisions requiring compliance with
the applicable requirements of CAA
sections 126 and 115 (relating to
interstate and international pollution
abatement, respectively).
CAA section 126(a) requires new or
modified sources to notify neighboring
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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
EPA-approved 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).
EPA is proposing that Minnesota has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements
of CAA section 126(a) with respect to
the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Minnesota does not have any
obligations under any other subsection
of CAA section 126, nor does it have
any pending obligations under CAA
section 115. EPA, therefore, is proposing
that Minnesota has met all applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
D. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J)
The evaluation of Minnesota’s
submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) covers: (i)
Consultation with government officials;
(ii) public notification; (iii) PSD; and,
(iv) visibility protection.
section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: PSD
States must meet applicable
requirements of CAA 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 CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C)
and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA notes
that the proposed actions for those CAA
sections are consistent with the
proposed actions for this portion of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J).
Therefore, EPA proposes that
Minnesota has met all of the
infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD
associated with CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Sub-Element 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 CAA sections 169A and 169B).
In the event of the establishment of a
new NAAQS, however, the visibility
and regional haze program requirements
under part C do not change. Therefore,
no new visibility obligation is
‘‘triggered’’ under CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS
becomes effective. In other words, the
visibility protection requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) are not
germane to infrastructure SIPs.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Sub-Element 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.
In our previous rulemakings at 76 FR
41075, 77 FR 65478, 79 FR 41442, and
80 FR 63450, EPA determined that
Minnesota has met the consultation
with government officials requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect
to the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a
submission from Minnesota certifying
that its current SIP is sufficient to meet
the infrastructure SIP requirements
relating to PSD, at CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J), for the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
CAA 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.
In our previous rulemakings at 76 FR
41075, 77 FR 65478, 79 FR 41442, and
80 FR 63450, EPA determined that
Minnesota has met the public
notification requirements of CAA
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 May 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22917
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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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
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,
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
22918
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
requires that the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list
of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United
States. The National Priorities List
(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is
intended primarily to guide the
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining
which sites warrant further
investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to
assess the nature and extent of public
SUMMARY:
Dated: May 4, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018–10458 Filed 5–16–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018–0252, 0253, and
0254; FRL–9978–13–OLEM]
National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
health and environmental risks
associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed
remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add
three sites to the General Superfund
section of the NPL.
Comments regarding any of these
proposed listings must be submitted
(postmarked) on or before July 16, 2018.
DATES:
Identify the appropriate
docket number from the table below.
ADDRESSES:
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE
City/county, state
Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer ..........................................................
PROTECO ................................................................................................
Delfasco Forge .........................................................................................
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Site name
Donnelsville, OH .............................
˜
Penuelas, PR .................................
Grand Prairie, TX ...........................
Submit your comments, identified by
the appropriate docket number, at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The 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. 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). For
additional submission methods, 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.
To send a comment via the United
States Postal Service, use the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Superfund Docket Center,
Mailcode 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 May 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
Use the Docket Center address below
if you are using express mail,
commercial delivery, hand delivery or
courier. Delivery verification signatures
will be available only during regular
business hours: EPA Superfund Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20004.
For additional docket addresses and
further details on their contents, see
section II, ‘‘Public Review/Public
Comment,’’ of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852,
email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site
Assessment and Remedy Decisions
Branch, Assessment and Remediation
Division, Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology
Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline,
phone (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412–
9810 in the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
B. What is the NCP?
C. What is the National Priorities List
(NPL)?
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Docket ID
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018–0252.
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018–0253.
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018–0254.
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of
sites?
G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
H. May the EPA delete portions of sites
from the NPL as they are cleaned up?
I. What is the Construction Completion List
(CCL)?
J. What is the Sitewide Ready for
Anticipated Use measure?
K. What is state/tribal correspondence
concerning NPL listing?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant to
this proposed rule?
B. How do I access the documents?
C. What documents are available for public
review at the EPA Headquarters docket?
D. What documents are available for public
review at the EPA regional dockets?
E. How do I submit my comments?
F. What happens to my comments?
G. What should I consider when preparing
my comments?
H. May I submit comments after the public
comment period is over?
I. May I view public comments submitted
by others?
J. May I submit comments regarding sites
not currently proposed to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed additions to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22913-22918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10458]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0603; FRL-9978-11-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; PSD Infrastructure SIP Requirements
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) relating to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 fine particulate
(PM2.5), 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone,
2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) submitted the SIP revision to EPA on October 4, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 18, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0603 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from 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/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
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,
[email protected].
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 guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?
III. What is the result of EPA's review of this SIP submission?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
This rulemaking proposes to approve a SIP submission from MPCA
dated October 4, 2016, which addresses infrastructure requirements
relating to PSD for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The requirement for states to make infrastructure SIP submissions
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1),
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. CAA 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. This
specific rulemaking is only taking action on the infrastructure SIP
elements relating to PSD, provided at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J).
In previous rulemakings, EPA addressed Minnesota's infrastructure
obligations under the various NAAQS. On July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41075),
EPA approved most elements of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP submittal
for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 29, 2012
(77 FR 65478), EPA approved most elements of Minnesota's infrastructure
SIP submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 16, 2014 (79
FR 41439), EPA approved most elements of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP
submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Finally, on October 20, 2015 (80 FR
63436), EPA approved most elements of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP
submittal for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2,
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, because Minnesota did not
have an approved
[[Page 22914]]
PSD program at the time of these rulemakings, EPA generally disapproved
infrastructure SIP elements relating to PSD in the rulemakings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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. At the time of the
infrastructure rulemakings referenced above, Minnesota had chosen to
implement the Federally promulgated PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21, and
EPA had delegated to Minnesota the authority to implement these
regulations. The Federally promulgated rules satisfied all
infrastructure requirements relating to PSD. However, as a delegated
program, these infrastructure elements were not approved into the
Minnesota SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPCA's submission dated October 4, 2016, requested that EPA approve
into its SIP Minnesota Rule 7007.3000, which incorporates by reference
the Federal PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21. On July 10, 2017 (82 FR 31741),
EPA proposed to approve this request, and on September 26, 2017 (82 FR
44734), EPA finalized approval; the change became effective on October
26, 2017. Therefore, Minnesota is now implementing its own SIP-approved
PSD program.
In this rulemaking, as requested by Minnesota, EPA is proposing to
find that Minnesota has satisfied all infrastructure SIP elements
relating to PSD, at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J), for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?
EPA's guidance relating to infrastructure SIP submissions can be
found in a guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 \2\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
Guidance).\3\ Further guidance is provided in a September 13, 2013,
document entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' (2013
Guidance).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, oftentimes
referred to as ``fine'' particles.
\3\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20071002_harnett_110(a)_sip_guidance.pdf.
\4\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is the result of EPA's review of this SIP submission?
Pursuant to CAA section 110(a), states must provide reasonable
notice and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP
submissions. MPCA commenced a public comment period on June 20, 2016,
and closed the public comment period on July 20, 2016. Minnesota
received three comments, and provided a response to comments in its
submittal.
Minnesota provided a synopsis of how its SIP meets each of the
applicable requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, as applicable. The following review evaluates
the state's submission.
A. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C)
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 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.
The evaluation of the state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i)
Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD provisions that explicitly
identify oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor to ozone in
the PSD program; (iii) identification of precursors to PM2.5
and the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 \5\
condensables in the PSD program; (iv) PM2.5 increments in
the PSD program; and, (v) greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and the
``Tailoring Rule.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers.
\6\ 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 (see 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 (see 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 CAA 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 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 NSR requirements under PSD and NNSR
programs.
In our previous rulemakings at 76 FR 41075, 77 FR 65478, 79 FR
41439, and 80 FR 634536, EPA determined that Minnesota has met the
enforcement of SIP measures requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
with respect to the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: 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 requirement was codified at 40 CFR
51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21.
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 CAA 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 CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: 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
[[Page 22915]]
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 this
rule, EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for the PSD program
to be 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 volatile organic compounds (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).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), 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 (Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250).
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 relating to PSD, provided at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 required
to be submitted 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 CAA 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 CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
respect to the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: 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 24-hour max
mean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
regarding PM2.5 increments. EPA therefore proposes that
Minnesota has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
[[Page 22916]]
Sub-Element 5: GHG Permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule''
With respect to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 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 CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating 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, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the 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 the 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 Supreme Court 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 the EPA's PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that
rule. Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09-
1322,10-073,10-1092, and 10-1167 (D.C. Cir., April 10, 2015) (Amended
Judgement). 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 the 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) and 52.21(b)(49)(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 . . . .'' Id.
In light of the Supreme Court opinion and subsequent D.C. Circuit
judgement, EPA took steps to revise Federal PSD rules to be consistent
with these court decisions. On May 7, 2015 (80 FR 26183), EPA issued a
final rule that narrowly amended the permit rescission provisions in
the Federal PSD regulations, and on August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50199), EPA
issued a final rule that removed several provisions of the PSD and
title V permitting regulations that were originally promulgated as part
of the 2010 Tailoring Rule and that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit in
its April 10, 2015 judgment.
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. Because EPA's May 7,
2015, and August 19, 2015, amendments to 40 CFR 52.21 included updates
to bring the Federal rules into alignment with the Supreme Court
opinion and the D.C. Circuit's amended judgement, Minnesota is
currently operating a PSD program that is 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, continues to require that PSD
permits issued to ``anyway sources'' contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of BACT.
For the purposes of infrastructure SIPs, EPA reiterates that NSR
reform regulations are not within the scope of these actions.
Therefore, we are not taking action on existing NSR reform regulations
for Minnesota.
Certain requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) overlap with
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J).
These links will be discussed in the appropriate areas below.
B. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
CAA 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.
EPA notes that Minnesota's satisfaction of the applicable
infrastructure SIP PSD requirements has been detailed in the discussion
of CAA 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 CAA 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, establish emissions limits. EPA also
previously approved revisions to Minnesota's SIP that incorporate the
PM2.5 increments and 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 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 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 of the
applicable PSD requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5,
2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS related to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
C. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP contain
adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable
requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement, respectively).
CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify
neighboring
[[Page 22917]]
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 EPA-approved 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). EPA is proposing that Minnesota has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 126(a) with
respect to the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Minnesota does not
have any obligations under any other subsection of CAA section 126, nor
does it have any pending obligations under CAA section 115. EPA,
therefore, is proposing that Minnesota has met all applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
D. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J)
The evaluation of Minnesota's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) covers: (i)
Consultation with government officials; (ii) public notification; (iii)
PSD; and, (iv) visibility protection.
Sub-Element 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.
In our previous rulemakings at 76 FR 41075, 77 FR 65478, 79 FR
41442, and 80 FR 63450, EPA determined that Minnesota has met the
consultation with government officials requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5,
2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
CAA 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.
In our previous rulemakings at 76 FR 41075, 77 FR 65478, 79 FR
41442, and 80 FR 63450, EPA determined that Minnesota has met the
public notification requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) with
respect to the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: PSD
States must meet applicable requirements of CAA 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 CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA
notes that the proposed actions for those CAA sections are consistent
with the proposed actions for this portion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J).
Therefore, EPA proposes that Minnesota has met all of the
infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD associated with CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 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 CAA sections 169A
and 169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however,
the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do
not change. Therefore, no new visibility obligation is ``triggered''
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. In
other words, the visibility protection requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a submission from Minnesota certifying
that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements relating to PSD, at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J), for the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
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);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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 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,
[[Page 22918]]
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 4, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-10458 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
