[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 202 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63436-63451]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25969]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0503; FRL-9935-17-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve some elements and disapprove other elements of state
implementation plan (SIP) submissions from Minnesota regarding the
infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is disapproving
certain elements of Minnesota's submissions relating to Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements. Minnesota already
administers Federally promulgated regulations that address the
disapprovals described in this rulemaking. Therefore, the state is not
obligated to submit any new or additional regulations as a result of
this disapproval. The proposed rulemaking associated with this final
action was published on June 26, 2015, and EPA received one comment
letter during the comment period, which ended on July 27, 2015.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0503. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Eric Svingen,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 these SIP submissions?
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What state submissions does this rulemaking address?

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

B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?

    Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions
needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS
already meet those requirements.
    EPA has highlighted this statutory requirement in multiple guidance
documents. The most recent, entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2),'' was published on September 13, 2013.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

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

substantive areas in separate rulemakings. A detailed history,
interpretation, and rationale as they relate to infrastructure SIP
requirements can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule
entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS''
in the section, ``What is the scope of this rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR
27241 at 27242-27245).

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposed actions with respect
to Minnesota's satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS closed on July 27, 2015. EPA received one comment
letter, which was from the Sierra Club. A synopsis of the comments
contained in this letter and EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Sierra Club states that, on its face, the CAA
``requires ISIPs [infrastructure SIPs] to be adequate to prevent
exceedances of the NAAQS.'' In support, the commenter quotes the
language in section 110(a)(1) that requires states to adopt a plan for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS and the
language in section 110(a)(2)(A) that requires SIPs to include
enforceable emissions limitations as may be necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA and which the commenter claims include the
maintenance plan requirement. Sierra Club notes the CAA definition of
``emission limit'' and reads these provisions together to require
``enforceable emission limits on sources that are sufficient to ensure
maintenance of the NAAQS.''
    Response 1: EPA disagrees that section 110 must be interpreted in
the manner suggested by Sierra Club. Section 110 is only one provision
that is part of the complex structure governing implementation of the
NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be
interpreted in the context of not only that structure, but also of the
historical evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to
section 110 since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific
planning requirements of the CAA, EPA interprets the requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(A) that the plan provide for ``implementation,
maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the infrastructure SIP must
contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or
maintaining the NAAQS and that the state demonstrate that it has the
necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate
state personnel and an enforcement program.
    Our interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general
planning SIPs is consistent with the statute as understood in light of
its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it
did not include provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas
as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include
all areas of the state in ``air quality control regions'' (AQCRs) and
section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for
these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be
able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general
planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into
compliance with the NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time,
section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 110 plan provide for
``attainment'' of the NAAQS and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the
plan must include ``emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for
compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be
necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].''
    In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not
sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time,
Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA
to identify whether areas of the state were violating the NAAQS (i.e.,
were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment)
and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas
not meeting the NAAQS.
    In 1990, many areas still had air quality not meeting the NAAQS and
Congress again amended the CAA and added yet another layer of more
prescriptive planning requirements for each of the NAAQS, with the
primary provisions for ozone in section 182. At that same time,
Congress modified section 110 to remove references to the section 110
SIP providing for attainment, including removing pre-existing section
110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and renumbering subparagraph (B) as
section 110(a)(2)(A).
    Additionally, Congress replaced the clause ``as may be necessary to
insure [sic] attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS]'' with ``as may
be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this
chapter.'' Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved in the more than 40
years since it was originally enacted. While at one time section 110
did provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and
specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS,
under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial
stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific NAAQS. And, more
detailed, later-enacted provisions govern the substantive planning
process, including planning for attainment of the NAAQS.
    With regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA has
interpreted this to mean that, for purposes of section 110, the state
may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue
or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. As EPA
stated in ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' dated September
13, 2013 (Infrastructure SIP Guidance), ``[t]he conceptual purpose of
an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP
contains the necessary structural requirements for the new or revised
NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains the
necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to update
the SIP, or both. Overall, the infrastructure SIP submission process
provides an opportunity . . . to review the basic structural
requirements of the air agency's air quality management program in
light of each new or revised NAAQS.'' Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p.
2.
    Comment 2: Sierra Club cites two excerpts from the legislative
history of the CAA Amendments of 1970 asserting that they support an
interpretation that SIP revisions under CAA section 110 must include
emissions limitations sufficient to show maintenance of the NAAQS in
all areas of Minnesota. Sierra Club also contends that the legislative
history of the CAA supports its interpretation that infrastructure SIPs
under section 110(a)(2) must include enforceable emission limitations,
citing the Senate Committee Report and the subsequent Senate Conference
Report accompanying the 1970 CAA.
    Response 2: The CAA, as enacted in 1970, including its legislative
history, cannot be interpreted in isolation from the later amendments
that refined that structure and deleted relevant language from section
110 concerning demonstrating attainment. In any event, the two excerpts
of legislative history the commenter cites merely provide that states
should include enforceable emission limits in their SIPs; they do not
mention or otherwise address whether states are required to include

maintenance plans for all areas of the state as part of the
infrastructure SIP.
    Comment 3: Sierra Club cites to 40 CFR 51.112(a), which provides
that each plan must ``demonstrate that the measures, rules, and
regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely
attainment and maintenance of the [NAAQS].'' The commenter asserts that
this regulation requires all SIPs to include emissions limits necessary
to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter states that
``[a]lthough these regulations were developed before the Clean Air Act
was amended to separate Infrastructure SIPs from nonattainment SIPs--a
process that began with the 1977 amendments and was completed by the
1990 amendments--the regulations nonetheless apply to ISIPs.'' The
commenter relies on a statement in the preamble to the 1986 action
restructuring and consolidating provisions in part 51, in which EPA
stated that ``[i]t is beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address
the provisions of Part D of the Act. . . .'' 51 FR 40656 (November 7,
1986).
    Response 3: The commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support
its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits
``adequate to prohibit NAAQS violations'' and adequate or sufficient to
ensure the maintenance of the NAAQS is not supported. As an initial
matter, EPA notes and the commenter recognizes this regulatory
provision was initially promulgated and ``restructured and
consolidated'' prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, in which Congress
removed all references to ``attainment'' in section 110(a)(2)(A). In
addition, it is clear on its face that 40 CFR 51.112 applies to plans
specifically designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA interprets these
provisions to apply when states are developing ``control strategy''
SIPs such as the detailed attainment and maintenance plans required
under other provisions of the CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in
1990, such as section 175A and 182.
    The commenter suggests that these provisions must apply to section
110 SIPs because in the preamble to EPA's action ``restructuring and
consolidating'' provisions in part 51, EPA stated that the new
attainment demonstration provisions in the 1977 Amendments to the CAA
were ``beyond the scope'' of the rulemaking. It is important to note,
however, that EPA's action in 1986 was not to establish new substantive
planning requirements, but rather to consolidate and restructure
provisions that had previously been promulgated. EPA noted that it had
already issued guidance addressing the new ``Part D'' attainment
planning obligations. Also, as to maintenance regulations, EPA
expressly stated that it was not making any revisions other than to re-
number those provisions. Id. at 40657.
    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements
interpreting the provisions of new ``part D'' of the CAA, it is clear
that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended
to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated
that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy:
SOX and PM (portion)''), 51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC,
Ox and NO2 (portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration of
attainment: Pb (portion)''), and 51.82 (``Air quality data
(portion)''). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112
contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy
SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.
    Comment 4: The Sierra Club references two prior EPA rulemaking
actions where EPA disapproved or proposed to disapprove SIPs, and
claims that they were actions in which EPA relied on section
110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs. It first
points to a 2006 partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions
to Missouri's existing plan addressing the SO2 NAAQS (71 FR
12623, March 13, 2006). In that action, EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A)
of the CAA as a basis for disapproving a revision to the state plan on
the basis that the State failed to demonstrate the SIP was sufficient
to ensure maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an
emission limit and cited to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that a plan
demonstrates the rules in a SIP are adequate to attain the NAAQS.
Second, Sierra Club cites a 2013 disapproval of a revision to the
SO2 SIP for Indiana, where the revision removed an emission
limit that applied to a specific emissions source at a facility in the
State (78 FR 78721, December 27, 2013). In its proposed disapproval,
EPA relied on 40 CFR 51.112(a) in proposing to reject the revision,
stating that the State had not demonstrated that the emission limit was
``redundant, unnecessary, or that its removal would not result in or
allow an increase in actual SO2 emissions.'' EPA further
stated in that proposed disapproval that the State had not demonstrated
that removal of the limit would not ``affect the validity of the
emission rates used in the existing attainment demonstration.''
    The Sierra Club also asserts that EPA stated in its Infrastructure
SIP Guidance that states could postpone specific requirements for
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), but did not specify the
postponement of any other requirements. The commenter concludes that
emissions limits ensuring attainment of the standard cannot be delayed.
    Response 4: EPA does not agree that the two prior actions
referenced by the Sierra Club establish how EPA reviews infrastructure
SIPs. It is clear from both the final Missouri rulemaking and the
proposed and final Indiana rulemakings that EPA was not reviewing
initial infrastructure SIP submissions under section 110 of the CAA,
but rather revisions that would make an already approved SIP designed
to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent. EPA's partial
approval and partial disapproval of revisions to restrictions on
emissions of sulfur compounds for the Missouri SIP addressed a control
strategy SIP and not an infrastructure SIP. Similarly, the Indiana
action does not provide support for the Sierra Club's position (78 FR
78720, December 27, 2013). The review in that rule was of a completely
different requirement than the section 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. In that case,
the State had an approved SO2 attainment plan and was
seeking to remove from the SIP provisions relied on as part of the
modeled attainment demonstration. EPA proposed that the State had
failed to demonstrate under section 110(l) of the CAA why the SIP
revision would not result in increased SO2 emissions and
thus interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. Nothing in that rulemaking
addresses the necessary content of the initial infrastructure SIP for a
new or revised NAAQS. Rather, it is simply applying the clear statutory
requirement that a state must demonstrate why a revision to an approved
attainment plan will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS.
    EPA also does not agree that any requirements related to emission
limits have been postponed. As stated in a previous response, EPA
interprets the requirements under 110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable
emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS
and that the state demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to
implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an
enforcement program. With regard to the requirement for emission
limitations, EPA has interpreted this to mean, for purposes of section
110, that the state may rely on measures already in place to address
the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may
choose to submit. Emission limits providing for attainment of a new
standard are

triggered by the designation process and have a different schedule in
the CAA than the submittal of infrastructure SIPs.
    As discussed in detail in the proposed rules, EPA finds that the
Minnesota SIPs meet the appropriate and relevant structural
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA that will aid in attaining
and/or maintaining the NAAQS, and that Minnesota has demonstrated that
they have the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS.
    Comment 5: Sierra Club discusses several cases applying to the CAA
which it claims support its contention that courts have been clear that
section 110(a)(2)(A) requires enforceable emissions limits in
infrastructure SIPs to prevent violations of the NAAQS and demonstrate
maintenance throughout the area. Sierra Club first cites to language in
Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), addressing the requirement for
``emission limitations'' and stating that emission limitations ``are
specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are subject, and
which if enforced should result in ambient air which meet the national
standards.'' Sierra Club also cites to Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl.
Resources v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for the proposition
that the CAA directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP where it does
not ensure maintenance of the NAAQS and Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA,
547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of
the CAA of 1970. The commenter contends that the 1990 Amendments do not
alter how courts have interpreted the requirements of section 110,
quoting Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470
(2004) which in turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also
stated that ``SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified''
to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter also quotes several
additional opinions in this vein. Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666
F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (``The Clean Air Act directs states to
develop implementation plans--SIPs--that `assure' attainment and
maintenance of [NAAQS] through enforceable emissions limitations'');
Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (``Each State must
submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the manner in which [NAAQS] will be
achieved and maintained within each air quality control region in the
state''). The commenter also cites Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality v.
Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) for the proposition that EPA may
not approve a SIP revision that does not demonstrate how the rules
would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response 5: None of the cases the commenter cites supports the
commenter's contention that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that
infrastructure SIPs include detailed plans providing for attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do they shed
light on how section 110(a)(2)(A) may reasonably be interpreted. With
the exception of Train, 421 U.S. 60, none of the cases the commenter
cites concerned the interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (or
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 Act). Rather, in the context of a
challenge to an EPA action, revisions to a SIP that were required and
approved as meeting other provisions of the CAA or in the context of an
enforcement action, the court references section 110(a)(2)(A) (or
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the background section of
its decision.
    In Train, a case that was decided almost 40 years ago, the court
was addressing a state revision to an attainment plan submission made
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the sole statutory provision at
that time regulating such submissions. The issue in that case concerned
whether changes to requirements that would occur before attainment was
required were variances that should be addressed pursuant to the
provision governing SIP revisions or were ``postponements'' that must
be addressed under section 110(f) of the CAA of 1970, which contained
prescriptive criteria. The court concluded that EPA reasonably
interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict a state's choice of the mix
of control measures needed to attain the NAAQS and that revisions to
SIPs that would not impact attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment
date were not subject to the limits of section 110(f). Thus, the issue
was not whether a section 110 SIP needs to provide for attainment or
whether emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP; rather the
issue was which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to
revise the emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. To the extent the holding in
the case has any bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) might be
interpreted, it is important to realize that in 1975, when the opinion
was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the predecessor to section
110(a)(2)(A)) expressly referenced the requirement to attain the NAAQS,
a reference that was removed in 1990.
    The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also
decided based on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was
whether EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved plan where the
inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps.
The court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of
EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that
provision. Yet, even if the court had interpreted that provision, EPA
notes that it was modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has
little bearing on the issue here.
    At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 F.2d 123, was the definition of
``emissions limitation'' not whether section 110 requires the state to
demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the
NAAQS as part of their infrastructure SIPs. The language from the
opinion the commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely
describes section 110(a)(2)(A). The commenters do not raise any
concerns about whether the measures relied on by the state in the
infrastructure SIP are ``emissions limitations'' and the decision in
this case has no bearing here.
    In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, the court was
reviewing a Federal implementation plan that EPA promulgated after a
long history of the state failing to submit an adequate state
implementation plan. The court cited generally to sections 107 and
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs should assure
attainment and maintenance of NAAQS through emission limitations but
this language was not part of the court's holding in the case.
    The commenter suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,
540 U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990 CAA Amendments
do not alter how courts interpret section 110. This claim is
inaccurate. Rather, the court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as
noted previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that provision
and the court makes no mention of the changed language. Furthermore,
the commenter also quotes the court's statement that ``SIPs must
include certain measures Congress specified'' but that statement
specifically referenced the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C), which
requires an enforcement program and a program for the regulation of the
modification and construction of new sources. Notably, at issue in that
case was the state's ``new source'' permitting program, not its
infrastructure SIP.
    Two of the cases the commenter cites, Mich. Dept. of Envtl.
Quality, 230 F.3d 181, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret CAA section
110(l), the provision

governing ``revisions'' to plans, and not the initial plan submission
requirement under section 110(a)(2) for a new or revised NAAQS, such as
the infrastructure SIP at issue in this instance. In those cases, the
courts cited to section 110(a)(2)(A) solely for the purpose of
providing a brief background of the CAA.
    Comment 6: Sierra Club asserts that EPA cannot approve Minnesota's
infrastructure submittals for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS because Minnesota has
not incorporated the standards into their SIP. The commenter points out
that the Minnesota Administrative Rules section 7009.0800 does list
previous standards but does not yet include the ones listed above and
is therefore out of compliance with the CAA.
    Response 6: There is not a CAA requirement for states to
incorporate the NAAQS updates into their SIPs. Therefore, EPA disagrees
with the commenter that by not doing so, Minnesota is out of compliance
with the CAA. The states are required to comply with the NAAQS
regardless of whether or not they are in the SIP and Minnesota Statue
116.07 gives MPCA broad authority to implement rules and standards as
needed for the purpose of controlling air pollution.
    Comment 7: Citing section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Sierra Club
contends that EPA may not approve the proposed infrastructure SIP
because it does not include enforceable 1-hour SO2 emission
limits for sources that show NAAQS exceedances through modeling. Sierra
Club asserts the proposed infrastructure SIP fails to include
enforceable 1-hour SO2 emissions limits or other required
measures to ensure attainment and maintenance of the SO2
NAAQS in areas not designated nonattainment as required by section
110(a)(2)(A). Sierra Club asserts that emission limits are especially
important for meeting the 2010 SO2 NAAQS because
SO2 impacts are strongly source-oriented. Sierra Club states
that coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) are large contributors
to SO2 emissions but contends that Minnesota did not
demonstrate that emissions allowed by the proposed infrastructure SIPs
from such large sources of SO2 will ensure compliance with
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Sierra Club claims that the proposed
infrastructure SIP would allow major sources to continue operating with
present emission limits. Sierra Club then refers to air dispersion
modeling it conducted for four coal-fired EGUs in Minnesota including
the Minnesota Power Boswell Coal Plant (``Boswell Plant''), Otter Tail
Hoot Lake Coal Plant (``Hoot Lake Coal Plant''), Xcel Energy Sherburne
County Coal Plant (``Sherco Coal Plant''), and Taconite Harbor Energy
Center (``Taconite Harbor Plant''). Sierra Club asserts that the
results of the air dispersion modeling it conducted employing EPA's
AERMOD program for modeling used the plants' allowable and actual
emissions, and showed that the plants could cause exceedances of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS with either allowable emissions at all four
facilities or actual emissions at the Sherco Plant and Taconite Harbor
Plant.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sierra Club asserts its modeling followed protocols pursuant
to 40 CFR part 50, appendix W, EPA's March 2011 guidance for
implementing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and EPA's December 2013
SO2 NAAQS Designation Technical Assistance Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the modeling, Sierra Club asserts that the Minnesota
SO2 infrastructure SIP submittals authorizes these EGUs to
cause exceedances of the NAAQS with allowable and actual emission
rates, and therefore that the infrastructure SIP fails to include
adequate enforceable emission limitations or other required measures
for sources of SO2 sufficient to ensure attainment and
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As a result, Sierra Club
claims EPA must disapprove Minnesota's proposed SIP revisions. In
addition, Sierra Club asserts that additional emission limits should be
imposed on the plants that ensure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS at all times.
    Response 7: EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA is
reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect
the first step in their planning for attainment and maintenance of a
new or revised NAAQS. These SIP revisions, also known as infrastructure
SIPs, should contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration
that the state has the available tools and authority to develop and
implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. In light of the
structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding
infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure
that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a
NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and
maintenance plans for each individual area of the state. As mentioned
above, with regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA has
interpreted this to mean that states may rely on measures already in
place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures
that the state may choose to submit.
    EPA's interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general
planning SIPs is consistent with the CAA as understood in light of its
history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it did
not include provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas as
attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include
all areas of the state in AQCRs and section 110 set forth the core
substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that time, Congress
anticipated that states would be able to address air pollution quickly
pursuant to the very general planning provisions in section 110 and
could bring all areas into compliance with a new NAAQS within five
years. Moreover, at that time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that
the section 110 plan provide for ``attainment'' of the NAAQS and
section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include ``emission
limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such
limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure
attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].'' In 1977, Congress
recognized that the existing structure was not sufficient and that many
areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time, Congress for the
first time added provisions requiring states and EPA to identify
whether areas of a state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., were
nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) and
established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas not
meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still had air quality not
meeting the NAAQS, and Congress again amended the CAA and added yet
another layer of more prescriptive planning requirements for each of
the NAAQS. At that same time, Congress modified section 110 to remove
references to the section 110 SIP providing for attainment, including
removing pre-existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and
renumbering subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally,
Congress replaced the clause ``as may be necessary to insure attainment
and maintenance [of the NAAQS]'' with ``as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.''
Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved in the more than 40 years since
it was originally enacted. While at one time section 110 of the CAA did
provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and
specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS,
under the structure of the current CAA, section

110 is only the initial stepping-stone in the planning process for a
specific NAAQS. In addition, more detailed, later-enacted provisions
govern the substantive planning process, including planning for
attainment of the NAAQS, depending upon how air quality status is
judged under other provisions of the CAA, such as the designations
process under section 107.
    As stated in response to a previous comment, EPA asserts that
section 110 of the CAA is only one provision that is part of the
complicated structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program
under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be interpreted in the
context of not only that structure, but also of the historical
evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110
since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific planning
requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide for
``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the
infrastructure SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will
aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the state must
demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a
NAAQS, such as an adequate monitoring network and an enforcement
program. As discussed above, EPA has interpreted the requirement for
emission limitations in section 110 to mean that the state may rely on
measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new
control measures that the state may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA
stated in the Infrastructure SIP Guidance which specifically provides
guidance to states in addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, ``[t]he
conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure
that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural
requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that
the SIP already contains the necessary provisions, by making a
substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both.'' Infrastructure
SIP Guidance at p. 2. On April 12, 2012, EPA explained its expectations
regarding the 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs via letters
to each of the states. EPA communicated in the April 2012 letters that
all states were expected to submit SIPs meeting the ``infrastructure''
SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA by June 2013. At
the time, the EPA was undertaking a stakeholder outreach process to
continue to develop possible approaches for determining attainment
status with the SO2 NAAQS and implementing this NAAQS. EPA
was abundantly clear in the April 2012 letters to states that EPA did
not expect states to submit substantive attainment demonstrations or
modeling demonstrations showing attainment for potentially
unclassifiable areas in infrastructure SIPs due in June 2013, as EPA
had previously suggested in its 2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble
based upon information available at the time and in prior draft
implementation guidance in 2011 while EPA was gathering public comment.
The April 2012 letters to states recommended states focus
infrastructure SIPs due in June 2013, such as Minnesota's
SO2 infrastructure SIP, on ``traditional infrastructure
elements'' in section 110(a)(1) and (2) rather than on modeling
demonstrations for future attainment for potentially unclassifiable
areas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In EPA's final SO2 NAAQS preamble (75 FR 35520,
June 22, 2010) and subsequent draft guidance in March and September
2011, EPA had expressed its expectation that many areas would be
initially designated as unclassifiable due to limitations in the
scope of the ambient monitoring network and the short time available
before which states could conduct modeling to support their
designations recommendations due in June 2011. In order to address
concerns about potential violations in these potentially
unclassifiable areas, EPA initially recommended that states submit
substantive attainment demonstration SIPs based on air quality
modeling by June 2013 (under section 110(a)) that show how their
unclassifiable areas would attain and maintain the NAAQS in the
future. Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour SO2
NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion, May 2012 (for discussion
purposes with Stakeholders at meetings in May and June 2012),
available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. However, EPA clearly stated in this 2012 Draft White
Paper its clarified implementation position that it was no longer
recommending such attainment demonstrations for unclassifiable areas
for June 2013 infrastructure SIPs. Id. EPA had stated in the
preamble to the NAAQS and in the prior 2011 draft guidance that EPA
intended to develop and seek public comment on guidance for modeling
and development of SIPs for sections 110 and 191 of the CAA. Section
191 of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs in accordance with
section 172 for areas designated nonattainment with the
SO2 NAAQS. After seeking such comment, EPA has now issued
guidance for the nonattainment area SIPs due pursuant to sections
191 and 172. See Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions, Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors Regions
1-10, April 23, 2014. In September 2013, EPA had previously issued
specific guidance relevant to infrastructure SIP submissions due for
the NAAQS, including the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See
Infrastructure SIP Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA continues to believe that the elements of section
110(a)(2) which address SIP revisions for nonattainment areas including
measures and modeling demonstrating attainment are due by the dates
statutorily prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D of title
I. The CAA directs states to submit these 110(a)(2) elements for
nonattainment areas on a separate schedule from the ``structural
requirements'' of 110(a)(2) which are due within three years of
adoption or revision of a NAAQS. The infrastructure SIP submission
requirement does not move up the date for any required submission of a
part D plan for areas designated nonattainment for the new NAAQS. Thus,
elements relating to demonstrating attainment for areas not attaining
the NAAQS are not necessary for states to include in the infrastructure
SIP submission, and the CAA does not provide explicit requirements for
demonstrating attainment for areas potentially designated as
``unclassifiable'' (or that have not yet been designated) regarding
attainment with a particular NAAQS.
    As stated previously, EPA believes that the proper inquiry at this
juncture is whether Minnesota has met the basic structural SIP
requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon the
infrastructure submittal. Emissions limitations and other control
measures needed to attain the NAAQS in areas designated nonattainment
for that NAAQS are due on a different schedule from the section 110
infrastructure elements. States, like Minnesota, may reference pre-
existing SIP emission limits or other rules contained in part D plans
for previous NAAQS in an infrastructure SIP submission. For example,
Minnesota submitted lists of existing emission reduction measures in
the SIP that control emissions of SO2 as discussed above in
response to a prior comment and discussed in detail in our proposed
rulemakings. Minnesota's SIP revisions reflect several provisions that
have the ability to reduce SO2. Although the Minnesota SIP
relies on measures and programs used to implement previous
SO2 NAAQS, these provisions will provide benefits for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. The identified Minnesota SIP measures help
to reduce overall SO2 and are not limited to reducing
SO2 levels to meet one specific NAAQS.
    Additionally, as discussed in EPA's proposed rule, Minnesota has
the ability to revise its SIPs when necessary (e.g., in the event the
Administrator finds its plans to be substantially inadequate to attain
the NAAQS or otherwise meet all applicable CAA requirements) as
required under element H of section 110(a)(2).
    EPA believes the requirements for emission reduction measures for
an area designated nonattainment to come into attainment with the 2010
primary SO2 NAAQS are in sections 172 and 192 of the CAA,
and, therefore, the appropriate time for implementing requirements for

necessary emission limitations for demonstrating attainment with the
2010 SO2 NAAQS is through the attainment planning process
contemplated by those sections of the CAA. On August 5, 2013, EPA
designated as nonattainment most areas in locations where existing
monitoring data from 2009-2011 indicated violations of the 2010
SO2 standard. EPA did not designate any portions of
Minnesota as nonattainment areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78
FR 47191, August 5, 2013). In separate future actions, EPA will address
the designations for all other areas for which the Agency has yet to
issue designations. See, e.g., 79 FR 27446 (May 13, 2014) (proposing
process and timetables by which state air agencies would characterize
air quality around SO2 sources through ambient monitoring
and/or air quality modeling techniques and submit such data to the EPA
for future attainment status determinations under the 2010
SO2 NAAQS). For the areas designated nonattainment in August
2013, attainment SIPs were due by April 4, 2015, and must contain
demonstrations that the areas will attain as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, pursuant to sections
172, 191 and 192, including a plan for enforceable measures to reach
attainment of the NAAQS. EPA believes it is not appropriate to bypass
the attainment planning process by imposing separate requirements
outside the attainment planning process. Such actions would be
disruptive and premature absent exceptional circumstances and would
interfere with a state's planning process. See In the Matter of EME
Homer City Generation LP and First Energy Generation Corp., Order on
Petitions Numbers III-2012-06, III-2012-07, and III-2013-01 (July 30,
2014) (hereafter, Homer City/Mansfield Order) at 10-19 (finding
Pennsylvania SIP did not require imposition of SO2 emission
limits on sources independent of the part D attainment planning process
contemplated by the CAA). EPA believes that the history of the CAA and
intent of Congress for the CAA as described above demonstrate clearly
that it is within the section 172 and general part D attainment
planning process that Minnesota must include additional SO2
emission limits on sources in order to demonstrate future attainment,
where needed.
    The Sierra Club's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its argument
that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits adequate to
provide for timely attainment and maintenance of the standard is also
not supported. As explained previously in response to the background
comments, EPA notes this regulatory provision clearly on its face
applies to plans specifically designed to attain the NAAQS and not to
infrastructure SIPs which show the states have in place structural
requirements necessary to implement the NAAQS. Therefore, EPA finds 40
CFR 51.112 inapplicable to its analysis of the Minnesota SO2
infrastructure SIP.
    As noted in EPA's preamble for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
determining compliance with the SO2 NAAQS will likely be a
source-driven analysis, and EPA has explored options to ensure that the
SO2 designations process realistically accounts for
anticipated SO2 reductions at sources that we expect will be
achieved by current and pending national and regional rules. See 75 FR
35520 (June 22, 2010). As mentioned previously above, EPA has proposed
a process to address additional areas in states which may not be
attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 79 FR 27446 (May 13, 2014)
(proposing process to gather further information from additional
monitoring or modeling that may be used to inform future attainment
status determinations). In addition, in response to lawsuits in
district courts seeking to compel EPA's remaining designations of
undesignated areas under the NAAQS, EPA has been placed under a court
order to complete the designations process under section 107. However,
because the purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is for more
general planning purposes, EPA does not believe Minnesota was obligated
during this infrastructure SIP planning process to account for
controlled SO2 levels at individual sources. See Homer City/
Mansfield Order at 10-19.
    Minnesota currently has the ability to control emissions of
SO2. MPCA identified enforceable permits and administrative
orders with SO2 emission limits. In previous rulemakings,
EPA has approved these permits and orders into Minnesota's SIP (see 59
FR 17703, April 14, 1994; 59 FR 17703, 64 FR 5936, February 8, 1999; 66
FR 14087, March 9, 2001; 67 FR 8727, February 26, 2002; 72 FR 68508,
December 5, 2007; 74 FR 18138, April 21, 2009; 74 FR 18634, April 24,
2009; 74 FR 18638, April 24, 2009; 74 FR 63066, December 2, 2009; 75 FR
45480, August 3, 2010; 75 FR 48864, August 12, 2010; 75 FR 81471,
December 28, 2010; and 78 FR 28501, May 15, 2013). Also, an
administrative order issued as part of Minnesota's Regional Haze SIP
includes SO2 limits. Additionally, state rules that have
been incorporated into Minnesota's SIP (at Minn. R. 7011.0500 to
7011.0553, 7011.0600 to 7011.0625, 7011.1400 to 7011.1430, 7011.1600 to
7011.1605, and 7011.2300) contain SO2 emission limits. Also,
Minn. R. 7011.0900 to 7011.0909 include fuel sulfur content
restrictions that can limit SO2 emissions. These regulations
support compliance with and attainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
    Regarding the air dispersion modeling conducted by Sierra Club
pursuant to AERMOD for the coal-fired EGUs, EPA is not at this stage
prepared to opine on whether it demonstrates violations of the NAAQS,
and does not find the modeling information relevant at this time for
review of an infrastructure SIP. While EPA has extensively discussed
the use of modeling for attainment demonstration purposes and for
designations and other actions in which areas' air quality status is
determined, EPA has recommended that such modeling was not needed for
the SO2 infrastructure SIPs needed for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. See April 12, 2012, letters to states regarding
SO2 implementation and Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-
Hour SO2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion, May 2012, available
at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. In
contrast, EPA recently discussed modeling for designations in our May
14, 2014, proposal at 79 FR 27446 and for nonattainment planning in the
April 23, 2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area
SIP Submissions.
    In conclusion, EPA disagrees with Sierra Club's statements that EPA
must disapprove Minnesota's infrastructure SIP submission because it
does not establish at this time specific enforceable SO2
emission limits either on coal-fired EGUs or other large SO2
sources in order to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS.
    Comment 8: Sierra Club asserts that modeling is the appropriate
tool for evaluating adequacy of infrastructure SIPs and ensuring
attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The
commenter refers to EPA's historic use of air dispersion modeling for
attainment designations as well as ``SIP revisions.'' The commenter
cites to prior EPA statements that the Agency has used modeling for
designations and attainment demonstrations, including statements in the
2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble, EPA's 2012 Draft White Paper for
Discussion on Implementing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and a 1994
SO2 Guideline Document, as modeling could better address the
source-specific impacts of SO2 emissions and historic
challenges from monitoring SO2

emissions.\3\ The commenter also discusses MPCA's previous use and
support of SO2 modeling, specifically citing a Letter from
the MPCA Commissioner to the EPA and their use of modeling for setting
title V limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The commenter also cites to a 1983 EPA Memorandum on section
107 designations policy regarding use of modeling for designations
and to the 2012 Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. case where EPA had
designated an area in Montana as nonattainment due to modeled
violations of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter discusses statements made by EPA staff discussing use
of modeling and monitoring in setting emission limitations or
determining ambient concentrations resulting from sources, discussing
performance of AERMOD as a model, and discussing that modeling is
capable of predicting whether the NAAQS is attained and whether
individual sources contribute to SO2 NAAQS violations. The
commenter cites to EPA's history of employing air dispersion modeling
for increment compliance verifications in the permitting process for
the PSD program required in part C of the CAA. The commenter claims the
Boswell Plant, Hoot Lake Coal Plant, Sherco Coal Plant, and Taconite
Harbor Plant are examples of sources in elevated terrain where the
AERMOD model functions appropriately in evaluating ambient impacts.
    The commenter asserts EPA's use of air dispersion modeling was
upheld in GenOn REMA, LLC v. EPA, 722 F.3d 513 (3rd Cir. 2013) where an
EGU challenged EPA's use of CAA section 126 to impose SO2
emission limits on a source due to cross-state impacts. The commenter
claims the Third Circuit in GenOn REMA upheld EPA's actions after
examining the record which included EPA's air dispersion modeling of
the one source as well as other data.
    The commenter cites to Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto
Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29,43 (1983) and NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1254
(D.C. Cir. 2009) for the general proposition that it would be arbitrary
and capricious for an agency to ignore an aspect of an issue placed
before it and for the statement that an agency must consider
information presented during notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    Finally, the commenter claims that Minnesota's proposed
SO2 infrastructure SIP lacks emission limitations informed
by air dispersion modeling and therefore fails to ensure Minnesota will
achieve and maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Sierra Club claims
EPA must require adequate, 1-hour SO2 emission limits in the
infrastructure SIP that show no exceedances of NAAQS when modeled.
    Response 8: EPA agrees with the commenter that air dispersion
modeling, such as AERMOD, can be an important tool in the CAA section
107 designations process and in the attainment SIP process pursuant to
sections 172 and 192, including supporting required attainment
demonstrations. EPA agrees that prior EPA statements, EPA guidance, and
case law support the use of air dispersion modeling in the designations
process and attainment demonstration process, as well as in analyses of
whether existing approved SIPs remain adequate to show attainment and
maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. However, EPA disagrees with
the commenter that EPA must disapprove the Minnesota SO2
infrastructure SIP for its alleged failure to include source-specific
SO2 emission limits that show no exceedances of the NAAQS
when modeled.
    As discussed previously above and in the Infrastructure SIP
Guidance, EPA believes the conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP
submission is to ensure that the air agency's SIP contains the
necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS and that
the infrastructure SIP submission process provides an opportunity to
review the basic structural requirements of the air agency's air
quality management program in light of the new or revised NAAQS. See
Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 2. EPA believes the attainment
planning process detailed in part D of the CAA, including attainment
SIPs required by sections 172 and 192 for areas not attaining the
NAAQS, is the appropriate place for the state to evaluate measures
needed to bring nonattainment areas into attainment with a NAAQS and to
impose additional emission limitations such as SO2 emission
limits on specific sources. While EPA had initially suggested in the
final 2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble (75 FR 35520) and subsequent
draft guidance in March and September 2011 that EPA recommended states
submit substantive attainment demonstration SIPs based on air quality
modeling in section 110(a) SIPs due in June 2013 to show how areas
expected to be designated as unclassifiable would attain and maintain
the NAAQS, these initial statements in the preamble and 2011 draft
guidance were based on EPA's initial expectation that most areas would
by June 2012 be initially designated as unclassifiable due to
limitations in the scope of the ambient monitoring network and the
short time available before which states could conduct modeling to
support designations recommendations in 2011. However, after receiving
comments from the states regarding these initial statements and the
timeline for implementing the NAAQS, EPA subsequently stated in the
April 12, 2012 letters to the states and in the May 2012 Implementation
of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for
Discussion that EPA was clarifying its implementation position and that
EPA was no longer recommending such attainment demonstrations supported
by air dispersion modeling for unclassifiable areas (which had not yet
been designated) for June 2013 infrastructure SIPs. EPA reaffirmed this
position that EPA did not expect attainment demonstrations for areas
not designated nonattainment for infrastructure SIPs in its February 6,
2013, memorandum, ``Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation
of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' \4\ As
previously mentioned, EPA had stated in the preamble to the 2010
SO2 NAAQS and in the prior 2011 draft guidance that EPA
intended to develop and seek public comment on guidance for modeling
and development of SIPs for sections 110, 172 and 191-192 of the CAA.
After receiving such further comment, EPA has now issued guidance for
the nonattainment area SIPs due pursuant to sections 191-192 and 172
and proposed a process for further designations for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, which could include use of air dispersion
modeling. See April 23, 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions and 79 FR 27446 (May 13, 2014)
(proposing process and timetables for additional SO2
designations informed through ambient monitoring and/or air quality
modeling). While the EPA guidance for attainment SIPs and the proposed
process for additional designations discusses use of air dispersion
modeling, EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance did not require use of
air dispersion modeling to inform emission limitations for section
110(a)(2)(A) to ensure no exceedances of the NAAQS when sources are
modeled. Therefore, as discussed previously, EPA believes the Minnesota
SO2 infrastructure SIP submittal contains the structural
requirements to address elements in section 110(a)(2) as discussed in
detail in our TSD

supporting our proposed approval and in our Response to a prior
comment. EPA believes infrastructure SIPs are general planning SIPs to
ensure that a state has adequate resources and authority to implement a
NAAQS. Infrastructure SIP submissions are not intended to act or
fulfill the obligations of a detailed attainment and/or maintenance
plan for each individual area of the state that is not attaining the
NAAQS. While infrastructure SIPs must address modeling authorities in
general for section 110(a)(2)(K), EPA believes 110(a)(2)(K) requires
infrastructure SIPs to provide the state's authority for air quality
modeling and for submission of modeling data to EPA, not specific air
dispersion modeling for large stationary sources of pollutants such as
SO2 in a SO2 infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The February 6, 2013 ``Next Steps for Area Designations and
Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standard,'' one of the April 12, 2012 state letters, and the May
2012 Draft White Paper are available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finds Sierra Club's discussion of case law, guidance, and EPA
staff statements regarding advantages of AERMOD as an air dispersion
model to be irrelevant to our analysis here of the Minnesota
infrastructure SIP, as this SIP for section 110(a) is not an attainment
SIP required to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS pursuant to section
172. EPA also finds Sierra Club's comments relating to MPCA's current
use of modeling to be likewise irrelevant. In addition, Sierra Club's
comments relating to EPA's use of AERMOD or modeling in general in
designations pursuant to section 107, are likewise irrelevant as EPA's
present approval of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP is unrelated to the
section 107 designations process. Nor is our action on this
infrastructure SIP related to any new source review (NSR) or PSD permit
program issue. As outlined in the August 23, 2010 clarification memo,
``Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (U.S. EPA,
2010a), AERMOD is the preferred model for single source modeling to
address the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as part of the NSR/PSD permit
programs. Therefore, as attainment SIPs, designations, and NSR/PSD
actions are outside the scope of a required infrastructure SIP for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS for section 110(a), EPA provides no further
response to the commenter's discussion of air dispersion modeling for
these applications. If Sierra Club resubmits its air dispersion
modeling for the Minnesota EGUs or updated modeling information in the
appropriate context, EPA will address the resubmitted modeling or
updated modeling in the appropriate future context when an analysis of
whether Minnesota's emissions limits are adequate to show attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS is warranted. The commenter correctly
noted that the Third Circuit upheld EPA's Section 126 Order imposing
SO2 emissions limitations on an EGU pursuant to CAA section
126. GenOn REMA, LLC v. EPA, 722 F.3d 513. Pursuant to section 126, any
state or political subdivision may petition EPA for a finding that any
major source or group of stationary sources emits or would emit any air
pollutant in violation of the prohibition of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
which relates to significant contributions to nonattainment or
maintenance in another state. The Third Circuit upheld EPA's authority
under section 126 and found EPA's actions neither arbitrary nor
capricious after reviewing EPA's supporting docket which included air
dispersion modeling as well as ambient air monitoring data showing
violations of the NAAQS. The commenter appears to have cited to this
matter to demonstrate again EPA's use of modeling for certain aspects
of the CAA. EPA agrees with the commenter regarding the appropriate
role air dispersion modeling has for designations, attainment SIPs, and
demonstrating significant contributions to interstate transport.
However, EPA's approval of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP is based on
our determination that Minnesota has the required structural
requirements pursuant to section 110(a)(2) in accordance with our
explanation of the intent for infrastructure SIPs as discussed in the
2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance. Therefore, while air dispersion
modeling may be appropriate for consideration in certain circumstances,
EPA does not find air dispersion modeling demonstrating no exceedances
of the NAAQS to be a required element before approval of infrastructure
SIPs for section 110(a) or specifically for 110(a)(2)(A). Thus, EPA
disagrees with the commenter that EPA must require additional emission
limitations in the Minnesota SO2 infrastructure SIP informed
by air dispersion modeling and demonstrating attainment and maintenance
of the 2010 NAAQS. In its comments, Sierra Club relies on Motor Vehicle
Mfrs. Ass'n and NRDC v. EPA to support its comments that EPA must
consider the Sierra Club's modeling data on the Boswell Plant, Hoot
Lake Coal Plant, Sherco Coal Plant, and Taconite Harbor Plant based on
administrative law principles regarding consideration of comments
provided during a rulemaking process. EPA asserts that it has
considered the modeling submitted by the commenter as well as all the
submitted comments of Sierra Club. As discussed in detail in the
Responses above, however, EPA does not believe the infrastructure SIPs
required by section 110(a) are the appropriate place to require
emission limits demonstrating future attainment with a NAAQS. Part D of
the CAA contains numerous requirements for the NAAQS attainment
planning process including requirements for attainment demonstrations
in section 172 supported by appropriate modeling. As also discussed
previously, section 107 supports EPA's use of modeling in the
designations process. In Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir.
2009), the DC Circuit upheld EPA's consideration of data or factors for
designations other than ambient monitoring. EPA does not believe state
infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limitations informed by air
dispersion modeling in order to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A). Thus, EPA has not evaluated the persuasiveness of the
commenter's submitted modeling in finding that it is not relevant to
the approvability of Minnesota's proposed infrastructure SIP for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    Comment 9: Sierra Club asserts that EPA may not approve the
Minnesota proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP because it fails
to include enforceable emission limitations with a 1-hour averaging
time that applies at all times. The commenter cites to CAA section
302(k) which requires emission limits to apply on a continuous basis.
The commenter claims EPA has stated that 1-hour averaging times are
necessary for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS citing to a February 3,
2011, EPA Region 7 letter to the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment regarding need for 1-hour SO2 emission limits in
a PSD permit, an EPA Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) decision
rejecting use of 3-hour averaging time for a SO2 limit in a
PSD permit, and EPA's disapproval of a Missouri SIP which relied on
annual averaging for SO2 emission rates.\5\ Sierra Club also
contends EPA must include monitoring of SO2 emission limits
on a continuous basis using a continuous emission monitor system or
systems (CEMs) and cites to section 110(a)(2)(F) which requires a SIP
to establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and
to require submission of periodic emission reports.

Sierra Club contends infrastructure SIPs must require such
SO2 CEMs to monitor SO2 sources regardless of
whether sources have control technology installed to ensure limits are
protective of the NAAQS. Thus, Sierra Club contends EPA must require
enforceable emission limits, applicable at all times, with 1-hour
averaging periods, monitored continuously by large sources of
SO2 emissions and must disapprove Minnesota's infrastructure
SIP which fails to require emission limits with adequate averaging
times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Sierra Club cited to In re: Mississippi Lime Co., PSDAPLPEAL
11-01, 2011 WL 3557194, at * 26-27 (EPA Aug. 9, 2011) and 71 FR
12623, 12624 (March 13, 2006) (EPA disapproval of a control strategy
SO2 SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 9: EPA disagrees that EPA must disapprove the proposed
Minnesota infrastructure SIP because the SIP does not contain
enforceable SO2 emission limitations with 1-hour averaging
periods that apply at all times and with required CEMs. These issues
are not appropriate for resolution at this stage. As explained in
detail in previous Responses, the purpose of the infrastructure SIP is
to ensure that a state has the structural capability to attain and
maintain the NAAQS and thus additional SO2 emission
limitations to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS are not
required for such infrastructure SIPs.\6\ Likewise, EPA need not
address for the purpose of approving Minnesota's infrastructure SIP
whether CEMs or some other appropriate monitoring of SO2
emissions is necessary to demonstrate compliance with emission limits
to show attainment of the 2010 NAAQS as EPA believes such
SO2 emission limits and an attainment demonstration when
applicable are not a prerequisite to our approval of Minnesota's
infrastructure SIP.\7\ Therefore, because EPA finds Minnesota's
SO2 infrastructure SIP approvable without the additional
SO2 emission limitations showing attainment of the NAAQS,
EPA finds the issues of appropriate averaging periods and monitoring
requirements for such future limitations not relevant at this time for
our approval of the infrastructure SIP. Sierra Club has cited to prior
EPA discussion on emission limitations required in PSD permits (from an
EHB decision and EPA's letter to Kansas' permitting authority) pursuant
to part C of the CAA which is not relevant nor applicable to section
110 infrastructure SIPs. In addition, as discussed previously, the EPA
disapproval of the 2006 Missouri SIP was a disapproval relating to a
control strategy SIP required pursuant to part D attainment planning
and is likewise not relevant to our analysis of infrastructure SIP
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a discussion on emission averaging times for emissions
limitations for SO2 attainment SIPs, see the April 23,
2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. EPA
explained that it is possible, in specific cases, for states to
develop control strategies that account for variability in 1-hour
emissions rates through emission limits with averaging times that
are longer than 1-hour, using averaging times as long as 30-days,
but still provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as
long as the limits are of at least comparable stringency to a 1-hour
limit at the critical emission value. EPA has not yet evaluated any
specific submission of such a limit, and so is not at this time
prepared to take final action to implement this concept. If and when
a state submits an attainment demonstration that relies upon a limit
with such a longer averaging time, EPA will evaluate it then.
    \7\ EPA believes the appropriate time for application of
monitoring requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance by
specific sources is when such 1-hour emission limits are set for
specific sources whether in permits issued by a state pursuant to
the SIP or in attainment SIPs submitted in the part D planning
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 10: Sierra Club states that enforceable emission limits in
SIPs or permits are necessary to avoid nonattainment designations in
areas where modeling or monitoring shows SO2 levels exceed
the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and cites to a February 6, 2013 EPA
document, ``Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the
Sulfur Dioxide Nation Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' which Sierra Club
contends discussed how states could avoid future nonattainment
designations. The commenter asserts EPA must disapprove the Minnesota
infrastructure SIP to ensure large sources of SO2 do not
cause exceedances of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS which would avoid
nonattainment designations.
    Response 10: EPA appreciates the commenter's concern with assisting
Minnesota in avoiding nonattainment designations with the 2010
SO2 NAAQS and with assisting coal-fired EGUs in achieving
regulatory certainty as EGUs make informed decisions on how to comply
with CAA requirements. However, Congress designed the CAA such that
states have the primary responsibility for assuring air quality within
their geographic area by submitting SIPs which will specify how the
state will achieve and maintain the NAAQS within the state. Pursuant to
section 107(d), the states make initial recommendations of designations
for areas within each state and EPA then promulgates the designations
after considering the state's submission and other information. EPA
promulgated initial designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
August 2013. EPA proposed on May 14, 2014 an additional process for
further designations of additional areas in each state for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. 79 FR 27446. EPA has also entered a settlement to
resolve deadline suits regarding the remaining designations that will
impose deadlines for three more rounds of designations. Under these
schemes, Minnesota would have the initial opportunity to propose
additional areas for designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
While EPA appreciates Sierra Club's comments, further designations will
occur pursuant to the section 107(d) process, and in accordance with
any applicable future court orders addressing the designations deadline
suits and, if promulgated, future EPA rules addressing additional
monitoring or modeling to be conducted by states. Minnesota may on its
own accord decide to impose additional SO2 emission
limitations to avoid future designations to nonattainment. However,
such considerations are not required of Minnesota to consider at the
infrastructure SIP stage of NAAQS implementation, as this action
relates to our approval of Minnesota's SO2 infrastructure
SIP submittal pursuant to section 110(a) of the CAA, and Sierra Club's
comments regarding designations under section 107 are neither relevant
nor germane to EPA's approval of Minnesota's SO2
infrastructure SIP. See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al. v. EPA, 108
F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995))
(discussing that states have primary responsibility for determining an
emission reductions program for its areas subject to EPA approval
dependent upon whether the SIP as a whole meets applicable requirements
of the CAA). Thus, EPA does not believe it is appropriate or necessary
to condition approval of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP upon inclusion
of a particular emission reduction program as long as the SIP otherwise
meets the requirements of the CAA. EPA disagrees that we must
disapprove the infrastructure SIP for not including enforceable
emissions limitations to prevent future nonattainment designations.
    Comment 11: Sierra Club contends that EPA cannot approve the
section 110(a)(2)(A) portion of Minnesota's 2008 ozone infrastructure
SIP revision because an infrastructure SIP should include enforceable
emission limits to prevent NAAQS violations in areas not designated
nonattainment. The commenter alleges that Minnesota is threatened by
high concentrations of ozone, and on the edge of exceeding the ozone
NAAQS.
    Response 11: We disagree with the commenter that infrastructure
SIPs must include detailed attainment and maintenance plans for all
areas of the state and must be disapproved if air quality data that
became available late

in the process or after the SIP was due and submitted changes the
status of areas within the state. We believe that section 110(a)(2)(A)
is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect
the first step in their planning for attaining and maintaining a new or
revised NAAQS and that they contain enforceable control measures and a
demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to
develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
    The suggestion that the infrastructure SIP must include measures
addressing violations of the standard that did not occur until shortly
before or even after the SIP was due and submitted cannot be supported.
The CAA provides states with three years to develop infrastructure SIPs
and states cannot reasonably be expected to address the annual change
in an area's design value for each year over that period. Moreover, the
CAA recognizes and has provisions to address changes in air quality
over time, such as an area slipping from attainment to nonattainment or
changing from nonattainment to attainment. These include provisions
providing for redesignation in section 107(d) and provisions in section
110(k)(5) allowing EPA to call on the state to revise its SIP, as
appropriate.
    We do not believe that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires detailed
planning SIPs demonstrating either attainment or maintenance for
specific geographic areas of the state. The infrastructure SIP is
triggered by promulgation of the NAAQS, not designation. Moreover,
infrastructure SIPs are due three years following promulgation of the
NAAQS and designations are not due until two years (or in some cases
three years) following promulgation of the NAAQS. Thus, during a
significant portion of the period that the state has available for
developing the infrastructure SIP, it does not know what the
designation will be for individual areas of the state.\8\ In light of
the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding
infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure
that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a
NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and
maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ While it is true that there may be some monitors within a
state with values so high as to make a nonattainment designation of
the county with that monitor almost a certainty, the geographic
boundaries of the nonattainment area associated with that monitor
would not be known until EPA issues final designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all of the above reasons, we disagree with the commenter that
EPA must disapprove an infrastructure SIP revision if there are or may
be future monitored violations of the standard in the state and the
section 110(a)(2)(A) revision does not have detailed plans for
demonstrating how the state will bring that area into attainment.
Rather, EPA believes that the proper inquiry at this juncture is
whether the state has met the basic structural SIP requirements
appropriate when EPA is acting upon the submittal.
    Comment 12: Sierra Club suggests that the state adopt specific
controls that they contend are cost-effective for reducing nitrogen
oxides (NOX), a precursor to ozone.
    Response 12: Minnesota currently has the ability to control
emissions of NOX. NOX emissions are limited by
Minn. R. 7011.0500 to 7011.0553 and 7011.1700 to 7011.1705, as well as
an administrative order issued as part of Minnesota's Regional Haze
SIP. Minnesota relies on measures and programs used to implement
previous ozone NAAQS. Because there is no substantive difference
between the previous ozone NAAQS and the more recent ozone NAAQS, other
than the level of the standard, the provisions relied on by Minnesota
will provide benefits for the new NAAQS; in other words, the measures
reduce overall ground-level ozone and its precursors and are not
limited to reducing ozone levels to meet one specific NAAQS. Further,
in approving Minnesota's infrastructure SIP revision, EPA is affirming
that Minnesota has sufficient authority to take the types of actions
required by the CAA in order to bring any potential nonattainment areas
back into attainment. The commenter has not provided any information to
demonstrate that emissions will be affected by the infrastructure SIP
submission.
    Comment 13: The commenter alleges that EPA cannot approve the
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS unless Minnesota
includes adequately stringent emission limits that address the 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS. The commenter points to a news article
summarizing research by Clark, Millet, and Marshall showing patterns in
environmental justice for NO2 concentrations in Minnesota
and elsewhere.
    Response 13: As stated in a previous response, EPA interprets the
requirements under 110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable emission limits
that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the
state demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and
enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement
program. With regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA
has interpreted this to mean, for purposes of section 110, that the
state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at
issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit.
Emission limits providing for attainment of a new standard are
triggered by the designation process and have a different schedule in
the CAA than the submittal of infrastructure SIPs.
    Minnesota currently has the ability to control emissions of
NO2. NOX emissions are limited by Minn. R.
7011.0500 to 7011.0553 and 7011.1700 to 7011.1705, as well as an
administrative order issued as part of Minnesota's Regional Haze SIP.
Because NO2 is a subcategory of NOX, controls
relating to NOX can be expected to limit emissions of
NO2. These regulations support compliance with and
attainment of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. While EPA employs multiple
mechanisms for strengthening environmental justice communities, EPA
believes it is inappropriate to address this issue through section
110(a)(2) of the CAA or the infrastructure SIP submittal process. The
commenter does not attempt to demonstrate how environmental justice
might be lawfully considered as part of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP
under CAA section 110(a)(2).
    Comment 14: The commenter points to a 2013 MPCA report showing
PM2.5 monitoring data, and also points out sources of
PM2.5 emissions including the Sherco Plant, Taconite Harbor
Plant, and Silica mining industry, and alleges that Minnesota is close
to exceeding the NAAQS. The commenter concludes that EPA cannot approve
the infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS unless
Minnesota includes enforceable emission limitations.
    Response 14: As stated in a previous response, EPA interprets the
requirements under 110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable emission limits
that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the
state demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and
enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement
program. With regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA
has interpreted this to mean, for purposes of section 110, that the
state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at
issue or any new control

measures that the state may choose to submit. Emission limits providing
for attainment of a new standard are triggered by the designation
process and have a different schedule in the CAA than the submittal of
infrastructure SIPs.
    Minnesota currently has the ability to control emissions of
PM2.5. MPCA identified enforceable permits and
administrative orders with SO2 emission limits. In previous
rulemakings, EPA has approved these permits and orders into Minnesota's
SIP (see 59 FR 7218, February 15, 1994; 60 FR 31088, June 13, 1995; 62
FR 39120, July 22, 1997; 65 FR 42861, July 12, 2000; 69 FR 51371,
August 19, 2004; 72 FR 51713, September 11, 2007; 74 FR 23632, May 20,
2009; 74 FR 63066, December 2, 2009; 75 FR 11461, March 11, 2010; and
75 FR 78602, December 16, 2010). Additionally, state rules that have
been incorporated into Minnesota's SIP (at Minn. R. 7011.0150,
7011.0500 to 7011.0553, 7011.0600 to 7011.0625, 7011.0710 to 7011.0735,
7011.0850 to 7011.0859, 7011.0900 to 7011.0922, 7011.1000 to 7011.1015,
7011.1100 to 7011.1125, 7011.1300 to 7011.1325, and 7011.1400 to
7011.1430) contain PM emission limits. These regulations support
compliance with and attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment 15: Throughout its letter, Sierra Club alleges that
Minnesota's infrastructure SIP must include provisions for monitoring
of emissions of the various NAAQS.
    Response 15: As discussed previously, EPA need not address for the
purpose of approving Minnesota's infrastructure SIPs whether monitoring
of emissions is necessary to demonstrate compliance with emission
limits to show attainment of any NAAQS as EPA believes such emission
limits and an attainment demonstration when applicable are not a
prerequisite to our approval of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP.
Therefore, because EPA finds Minnesota's infrastructure SIPs approvable
without the additional emission limitations showing attainment of the
NAAQS, EPA finds the issues of monitoring requirements not relevant at
this time for our approval of the infrastructure SIP.
    Comment 16: Sierra Club alleges that Minnesota's infrastructure
SIPs contain no emission limits for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The commenter states that it provided modeling and other evidence
showing that any limits currently in place are insufficient, and that
Minnesota is taking little to no action to address any NAAQS
exceedances. Sierra Club alleges that standards contained within the
infrastructure SIPs were created for earlier NAAQS, and must be revised
to reflect the new standards.
    Sierra Club asserts that Minnesota's infrastructure SIP must not
allow for ambient air incremental increases, variances, exceptions, or
exclusions with regard to limits placed on sources of pollutants. The
commenter asserts that Minnesota's rules allow exceptions from
enforcement, and points to Minn. Stat. 116.07, Minn. R. 7000.7000, and
Minn. R. 7007.1850 as examples of methods by which MPCA may grant
variances or undermine emission limits.
    Additionally, the commentator alleges that Minnesota excludes major
sources of emissions from its major permitting program, allowing these
sources to emit pollution under fewer restrictions.
    Response 16: As stated in a previous response, EPA interprets the
requirements under 110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable emission limits
that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the
state demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and
enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement
program. With regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA
has interpreted this to mean, for purposes of section 110, that the
state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at
issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit.
Emission limits providing for attainment of a new standard are
triggered by the designation process and have a different schedule in
the CAA than the submittal of infrastructure SIPs.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter's claim that Minnesota's
infrastructure SIP fails to meet any requirements regarding variances.
As an initial matter, Minn. Stat. 116.07 and Minn. R. 7000.7000 are not
regulations that have been approved into the SIP. Minn. R. 7007.1850
grants the source the right to prove a circumstance beyond its control,
but does not limit Minnesota's enforcement authority. Thus, any
variance granted by the state pursuant to this provision would not
modify the requirements of the SIP. Furthermore, for a variance from
the state to be approved into the SIP, a demonstration must be made
under CAA section 110(l) showing that the revision does not interfere
with any requirements of the CAA including attainment or maintenance of
a NAAQS. We disagree that the existence of this provision as solely a
matter of state law means that the state does not have adequate
authority to carry out the implementation plan.
    Finally, we find that there is nothing in the record to support the
commenter's assertion that Minnesota excludes major sources of
emissions from the major permitting requirements required under title I
of the CAA, which is the focus of this action. This action is governed
by section 110(a)(2), which falls under title I of the CAA and governs
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. As noted
above, Minnesota implements the Federal major source PSD program
through delegated authority from EPA. Since Minnesota already
administers Federally promulgated PSD regulations through delegation,
it applies the Federal promulgated regulations in 40 CFR 52.21--not the
regulations cited in the comment, or any exclusions they may contain--
in determining the major sources subject to title I permitting
requirements. We also note that the regulations cited in the comment
apply to part 70 operating permits issued under title V of the CAA and
certain state permits (see MAR section 7007.0200 and section 7007.0250,
respectively). Thus, any evaluation of these regulations must be done
pursuant to CAA section 502 and 40 CFR part 70 and state law,
respectively, and are not subject to our review under section
110(a)(2).
    Comment 17: The commenter alleges that the proposed infrastructure
SIP does not address sources significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in other
states as required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, and states
EPA must therefore disapprove the infrastructure SIP. Sierra Club
states that the CAA requires infrastructure SIPs to address cross-state
air pollution within three years of the NAAQS promulgation. The
commenter references the recent Supreme Court decision, EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. et al., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014), which
supports the states' mandatory duty to address cross-state pollution
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Sierra Club additionally alleges that Minnesota cannot rely on the
absence of nonattainment areas within the state, when determining
whether Minnesota is contributing to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states. The commenter also alleges
that Minnesota cannot rely on a Federal implementation plan (FIP) for
PSD and an approved NSR permitting program when determining that
Minnesota is not contributing to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the

NAAQS in downwind states. Sierra Club additionally alleges that PSD and
NSR programs address only new sources, and also apply only in
nonattainment areas. The commenter notes that Minnesota has no
nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, 2010
NO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Response 17: EPA disagrees with Sierra Club's statement that EPA
must disapprove the submitted infrastructure SIPs due to Minnesota's
failure to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In EPA's NPR proposing
to approve Minnesota's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2010
SO2, 2010 NO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
EPA clearly stated that it was not taking any final action with respect
to the good neighbor provision in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which
addresses emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state for the 2008
ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Minnesota
did not make a SIP submission to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, and thus there is no such submission upon which
EPA could take action under section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA cannot act
under section 110(k) to disapprove a SIP submission that has not been
submitted to EPA. EPA also disagrees with the commenter that EPA cannot
approve an infrastructure SIP submission without the good neighbor
provision. EPA additionally believes there is no basis for the
contention that EPA has triggered its obligation to issue a FIP
addressing the good neighbor obligation under section 110(c), as EPA
has neither found that Minnesota failed to timely submit a required
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission as to the 2008 ozone, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS or made such a
submission that was incomplete, nor has EPA disapproved a SIP
submission addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008
ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA acknowledges the commenter's concern for the interstate
transport of air pollutants and agrees in general with the commenter
that sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the CAA generally require states
to submit, within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, a plan which addresses cross-state air pollution under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, EPA disagrees with the commenter's
argument that EPA cannot approve an infrastructure SIP submission
without the good neighbor provision. Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA
authorizes EPA to approve a plan in full, disapprove it in full, or
approve it in part and disapprove it in part, depending on the extent
to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to
approve state SIP revisions in separable parts was included in the 1990
Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve individual
measures in a plan submission without either approving or disapproving
the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N.
3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832
F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)). EPA interprets its authority under section
110(k)(3) of the CAA, as affording EPA the discretion to approve or
conditionally approve individual elements of Minnesota's infrastructure
SIP submission for the various NAAQS, separate and apart from any
action with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA with respect to each NAAQS. EPA views discrete
infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the other infrastructure elements
and interprets section 110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on individual
severable measures in a plan submission. In short, EPA believes that
even if Minnesota had made a SIP submission for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2,
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which to date it has not, EPA would
still have discretion under section 110(k) of the CAA to act upon the
various individual elements of the state's infrastructure SIP
submission, separately or together, as appropriate.
    The commenter raises no compelling legal or environmental rationale
for an alternate interpretation. Nothing in the Supreme Court's April
2014 decision in EME Homer City alters our interpretation that we may
act on individual severable measures, including the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in a SIP submission. See EPA v. EME Homer
City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (affirming a state's obligation
to submit a SIP revision addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
independent of EPA's action finding significant contribution or
interference with maintenance). In sum, the concerns raised by the
commenter do not establish that it is inappropriate or unreasonable for
EPA to approve the portions of Minnesota's June 12, 2014,
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    Furthermore, as discussed above, EPA has no obligation to issue a
FIP pursuant to 110(c)(1) to address Minnesota's obligations under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA first either finds Minnesota
failed to make the required submission addressing the element or the
State has made such a submission but it is incomplete, or EPA
disapproves a SIP submittal addressing that element. Until either
occurs, EPA does not have the authority to issue a FIP pursuant to
section 110(c) with respect to the good neighbor provision. Therefore,
EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that it must issue a FIP
for Minnesota to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at this time.
    Sierra Club claims that Minnesota may not rely on the absence of
nonattainment areas within the state, a FIP for PSD, or an approved
nonattainment NSR permitting program when determining that Minnesota is
not contributing to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of
the NAAQS in downwind states. In fact, EPA is not taking action on
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at this time for the 2008 ozone, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and therefore these
comments are not relevant to this rulemaking. EPA is indeed addressing
the transport provisions of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS, but here EPA is making this determination in part
because no state has a nonattainment area for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS, and it is impossible for any state to contribute to
nonattainment when no nonattainment areas actually exist. Sierra Club's
comments are not relevant for a NAAQS with no nonattainment areas in
any state.
    Comment 18: The commenter contends that Minnesota does not have the
adequate personnel, funding, and authority, required by section
110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA, to properly implement the SIP, shown by
overdue permits and improper reissuing of expired permits. The
commenter contends that permits for the Taconite Harbor Plant and
Boswell Plant have expired, and this may allow these plants to ``exceed
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.''
    Response 18: EPA disagrees that the issue raised by the commenter
implies that MPCA does not meet the criteria of section 110(a)(2)(E).
Although title V programs are not a component of the SIP, EPA fully
approved Minnesota's title V program on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62967).
Minnesota has funding for its program through title V fees, and has the
authority to implement the programs though a number of state rules to
implement 40 CFR part 70, and dedicated staff for implementation of
their title V program.

    Comment 19: Sierra Club alleges that section 110(a)(2)(J) of the
CAA requires states to provide for public notification of exceedances
of the NAAQS. Sierra Club further asserts that section 110(a)(2)(J)
requires states to satisfy section 127 of the CAA, which mandates that
each SIP must contain provisions for notifying the public of instances
or areas of primary NAAQS exceedances, and additionally advise the
public of associated health hazards. Sierra Club further alleges that
Minnesota's SIP cites provisions that in fact do not require public
notification procedures. Sierra Club notes that Minnesota's
infrastructure SIP states that a portion of the MPCA Web site is
dedicated to enhancing public awareness of measures that can be taken
to prevent exceedances for the NAAQS.
    Response 19: Sierra Club correctly notes that 110(a)(2)(J) of the
CAA requires states to satisfy the requirements of section 127 of the
CAA. Section 127 requires a state's infrastructure SIP to contain
measures allowing the state to notify the public upon the exceedance of
a NAAQS, to advise the public of the health hazards, and to enhance
public awareness. The CAA, which was last amended in 1990, further
states that ``[s]uch measures may include the posting of warning signs
on interstate highway access points to metropolitan areas or
television, radio, or press notices or information.'' Here in the year
2015, Minnesota has a Web site. This Web site contains much more
information than, for example, a warning sign on a highway. MPCA's Web
site allows Minnesotans to learn about air quality issues, view a
current air quality index, review reports to the legislature, and
access air quality alerts for ozone. As Sierra Club noted, MPCA
submitted a link to this Web site as part of its infrastructure SIP.
The Web site does contain sections dedicated to enhancing public
awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances for the
NAAQS. EPA believes Minnesota has fully satisfied its public
notification requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA.
    Comment 20: Sierra Club asserts that EPA must disapprove
Minnesota's infrastructure SIP because it does not address the
visibility protection provisions of section 110(a)(2)(J).
    Response 20: The visibility requirements in part C of the CAA that
are referenced in section 110(a)(2)(J) are not affected by the
establishment or revision of a NAAQS. As a result, there are no
``applicable'' visibility protection obligations associated with the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Because there are no applicable
requirements, states are not required to address section 110(a)(2)(J)
in their infrastructure SIP.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve most elements of submissions
from Minnesota certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet
the required infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2)
for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. We are also disapproving some elements of the
state's submission as they relate to its PSD program. As described
above, Minnesota already administers Federally promulgated PSD
regulations through delegation, and therefore no practical effect is
associated with this disapproval of those elements.
    The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was
published on June 26, 2015 (75 FR 36743), and EPA received one comment
during the comment period, which ended on July 27, 2015. For the
reasons discussed in the proposed rulemaking and in the above response
to the public comment, EPA is therefore taking final action to approve
most elements and disapprove certain elements, as proposed, of
Minnesota's submissions. EPA's actions for the state's satisfaction of
infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) and
NAAQS, are contained in the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Element                        2008 Ozone       2010 NO2        2010 SO2       2012 PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other control measures.              A               A               A               A
(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.              A               A               A               A
(C)1--Program for enforcement of control                      A               A               A               A
 measures.......................................
(C)2--PSD.......................................              D               D               D               D
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate transport--                      NA               A              NA              NA
 significant contribution.......................
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate transport--interfere             NA               A              NA              NA
 with maintenance...............................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate transport--                      D               D               D               D
 prevention of significant deterioration........
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate transport--protect              NA              NA              NA              NA
 visibility.....................................
(D)5--Interstate and international pollution                  D               D               D               D
 abatement......................................
(E)1--Adequate resources........................              A               A               A               A
(E)2--State board requirements..................             NA              NA              NA              NA
(F)--Stationary source monitoring system........              A               A               A               A
(G)--Emergency power............................              A               A               A               A
(H)--Future SIP revisions.......................              A               A               A               A
(I)--Nonattainment planning requirements of part              *               *               *               *
 D..............................................
(J)1--Consultation with government officials....              A               A               A               A
(J)2--Public notification.......................              A               A               A               A
(J)3--PSD.......................................              D               D               D               D
(J)4--Visibility protection.....................              *               *               *               *
(K)--Air quality modeling/data..................              A               A               A               A
(L)--Permitting fees............................              A               A               A               A
(M)--Consultation and participation by affected               A               A               A               A
 local entities.................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................  Approve.
D.................................  Disapprove.
NA................................  No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
*.................................  Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 21, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 23, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entries at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,'' ``Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) NAAQS,'' ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS,'' and
``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State  submittal
  Name of nonregulatory  SIP    Applicable  geographic    date/effective     EPA approved          Comments
           provision            or  nonattainment area         date              date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)               Statewide.............  6/12/2014          10/20/2015,       This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                             (submittal date).  [insert Federal   addresses the
 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.                                                  Register          following CAA
                                                                            citation].        elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M). We are not
                                                                                taking action on
                                                                                (D)(i)(I), the
                                                                                visibility portion
                                                                                of (D)(i)(II), or
                                                                                the state board
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (E)(ii). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action.
                                                                                EPA is
                                                                                disapproving the
                                                                                elements related
                                                                                to the prevention
                                                                                of significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                specifically as
                                                                                they pertain to
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), and (J);
                                                                                however, Minnesota
                                                                                continues to
                                                                                implement the
                                                                                Federally
                                                                                promulgated rules
                                                                                for this purpose.

Section 110(a)(2)               Statewide.............  6/12/2014          10/20/2015,       This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                             (submittal date).  [insert Federal   addresses the
 for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide                                              Register          following CAA
 (NO2) NAAQS.                                                               citation].        elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M). We are not
                                                                                taking action on
                                                                                the visibility
                                                                                portion of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II) or the
                                                                                state board
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (E)(ii). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action.
                                                                                EPA is
                                                                                disapproving the
                                                                                elements related
                                                                                to the prevention
                                                                                of significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                specifically as
                                                                                they pertain to
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), and (J);
                                                                                however, Minnesota
                                                                                continues to
                                                                                implement the
                                                                                Federally
                                                                                promulgated rules
                                                                                for this purpose.
Section 110(a)(2)               Statewide.............  6/12/2014          10/20/2015,       This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                             (submittal date).  [insert Federal   addresses the
 for the 2010 sulfur dioxide                                                Register          following CAA
 (SO2) NAAQS.                                                               citation].        elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M). We are not
                                                                                taking action on
                                                                                (D)(i)(I), the
                                                                                visibility portion
                                                                                of (D)(i)(II), or
                                                                                the state board
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (E)(ii). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action.
                                                                                EPA is
                                                                                disapproving the
                                                                                elements related
                                                                                to the prevention
                                                                                of significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                specifically as
                                                                                they pertain to
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), and (J);
                                                                                however, Minnesota
                                                                                continues to
                                                                                implement the
                                                                                Federally
                                                                                promulgated rules
                                                                                for this purpose.
Section 110(a)(2)               Statewide.............  6/12/2014          10/20/2015,       This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                             (submittal date).  [insert Federal   addresses the
 for the 2012 fine particulate                                              Register          following CAA
 matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.                                                      citation].        elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M). We are not
                                                                                taking action on
                                                                                (D)(i)(I), the
                                                                                visibility portion
                                                                                of (D)(i)(II), or
                                                                                the state board