The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), on October 6, 2025, published its Notice of Adoption of rules it first proposed in November 2024 governing the reporting of air toxics in Minnesota’s seven-county metropolitan area. On that same day, Governor Tim Walz vetoed MPCA’s efforts to repeal emergency affirmative defenses that exist within MPCA’s air quality rules. The new air toxics reporting rules, with some minor modifications, are now in effect and the emergency affirmative defenses remain applicable throughout the state.
Air Toxics Reporting Rule’s Adoption
On November 25, 2024, MPCA published Notice of its Intent to Adopt rules governing the reporting of air toxics in the seven-county metropolitan area surrounding the Twin Cities. Three months later, the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings presided over the virtual hearing on the draft rules. (See Fredrikson’s previous summary of the proposed rules and the subsequent administrative hearing.) Administrative Law Judge Jessica Palmer-Denig, in her April 21, 2025, report, found the proposed rules to be needed and reasonable and recommended their adoption, with some suggested changes.
MPCA published its Notice of Adoption of the modified rules on October 6, 2025, in the State Register. As recommended by ALJ Palmer-Denig, MPCA adopted the rules as proposed but with additions or modifications to proposed rules Minn. R. 7019.3060 and 7019.3110 to address, e.g., facilities calculating and reporting emissions using material balance. The new rules will go into effect five working days after the October 6th Notice of Adoption, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.18, subd. 1.
Veto of Emergency Affirmative Defense Repeal
At the same time it noticed its draft air toxics reporting rules in November 2024, MPCA also noticed its intent to remove “emergency” affirmative defense provisions from its air quality rules. MPCA justified this action on the basis of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) repeal of similar provisions in its Clean Air Act Title V operating permit program rules in 40 CFR parts 70 and 71 and its directive that states with delegated Part 70 programs do the same within their own rules. (See above Fredrikson summaries of the proposed rules and defense repeals.) MPCA initiated these changes despite the existence of unresolved appellate challenges to EPA’s repeal efforts at that time.
On September 5, 2025—after the ALJ’s report approving MPCA’s proposed repeals but before it published notice of their adoption—the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down EPA’s repeal of its emergency defense. SSM Litigation Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Case number 23-1267). The Court of Appeals concluded “EPA’s rescission of the affirmative defense was not reasonably explained and not in accordance with law” and reversed EPA’s rescission of its emergency defense. Because the Court of Appeals did not stay the effects of its decision, the result was the immediate reinstatement of EPA’s emergency affirmative defenses in its Part 70 and 71 rules.
On September 8, 2025, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, which had opposed MPCA’s proposed repeal, sent a letter to MPCA Commissioner Katrina Kessler asking that MPCA halt its repeal efforts, in light of the Court of Appeals’ decision. MPCA, according to its press release, asked Governor Walz to issue a partial, line-item veto for the portion of the proposed rules that repealed the emergency affirmative defense. Governor Walz published the requested veto in the same edition of the State Register that included MPCA’s notice of its adoption of the air toxics reporting rules. As a result of the veto, Minn. R. 7007.0800, subp. 6.F; 7007.1146, subp. 5.A(1); and 7007.1850 will remain in effect.
Upcoming MPCA Rules To Watch For
MPCA’s adoption of these new air toxics reporting rules is just the first of many rulemakings MPCA is statutorily obligated to be undertaking at this time. Manufacturers of products sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Minnesota that have intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are awaiting new rules governing the reporting of those products, in light of an administrative law judge’s rejection of MPCA’s initial proposed rules on that topic. (See Administrative Law Judge Disapproves Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Proposed PFAS Reporting and Fees Regulations) Manufacturers are also waiting to see if this delay forces MPCA to extend the current July 1, 2026, deadline by which manufacturers must begin submitting information on these products to MPCA. (See MPCA Extends PFAS Product Reporting Deadline by Six Months) In addition, MPCA currently is working on draft rules governing air toxics themselves and cumulative impacts from air emissions in environmental justice areas throughout the state and must some day do the same for ambient air odor management.
Fredrikson’s Environmental Law team will also continue to monitor and report on these developments and stands ready to assist the regulated community in responding to the proposed rules and the implementation of their final versions.
Featured Professionals
Professionals
612.492.7047
