```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11668-11670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04751]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0592; FRL-9943-15-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Revision to Visibility Federal 
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the 
Minnesota Federal implementation plan (FIP) for visibility, to 
establish emission limits for Northern States Power Company's (NSP's) 
Sherburne County Generating Station (Sherco), pursuant to a settlement 
agreement. The settlement

[[Page 11669]]

agreement, signed by representatives of EPA, NSP, and three 
environmental groups, was for resolution of a lawsuit filed by the 
environmental groups for EPA to address any contribution from Sherco to 
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) that the 
Department of Interior (DOI) certified was occurring at Voyageurs and 
Isle Royale National Parks.

DATE: This final rule is effective on April 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0592. 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 John Summerhays, 
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental 
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067, 
summerhays.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is 
arranged as follows:

I. What events led to a settlement agreement regarding Sherco?
II. What comments did EPA receive on its proposed action?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What events led to a settlement agreement regarding Sherco?

    Section 169A of the Clean Air Act provides for a visibility 
protection program and sets forth as a national goal ``the prevention 
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results 
from manmade air pollution.'' Pursuant to these statutory requirements, 
EPA promulgated regulations entitled ``Visibility Protection'' in 
subpart P of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), 
specifically in 40 CFR 51.300 et seq., which include separate 
requirements addressing RAVI and regional haze. 45 FR 80084 (December 
2, 1980).
    Pursuant to these regulations, the Department of the Interior (DOI) 
sent EPA a letter dated October 21, 2009, certifying the existence of 
RAVI at Voyageurs and Isle Royale National Parks and citing modeling 
results from Minnesota's regional haze plan in support of a view that 
Sherco is a source of RAVI in these areas. After three years passed, a 
group of three environmental groups filed a lawsuit alleging that EPA 
had an obligation to evaluate whether Sherco was a source of this RAVI 
and if so to promulgate requirements to address this RAVI. EPA, the 
environmental groups, and NSP then held settlement discussions leading 
to a settlement agreement that became final on July 24, 2015.
    In the settlement agreement, EPA agreed to propose specific 
emission limits, and propose to conclude that these limits addressed 
the concern identified by DOI, such that no need existed for any review 
of whether Sherco is a RAVI source or whether best available retrofit 
technology (BART) at Sherco is warranted for addressing RAVI. On August 
11, 2015, DOI wrote to EPA regarding the settlement agreement, stating 
that ``the settlement achieves an outcome that addresses our visibility 
concerns at Voyageurs and Isle Royale National Parks.'' EPA published 
its notice of proposed rulemaking on October 27, 2015, at 80 FR 65675. 
The notice provides further details regarding the RAVI regulations, the 
background and history of settlement discussions for Sherco, and the 
limits that EPA proposed.

II. What comments did EPA receive on its proposed action?

    EPA received no comments on its proposed rule, and EPA has received 
no new information that would warrant promulgating a rule differing in 
any way from the proposed rule.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is promulgating the emission limits for Sherco that were 
identified in the settlement agreement signed on May 15, 2015, by 
representatives of EPA, three environmental groups, and NSP. 
Specifically, EPA is promulgating the following limits:

--For stack SV001, serving Units 1 and 2, a limit on SO2 
emissions of 0.050 lbs/MMBtu, as a 30-day rolling average, determined 
as the ratio of pounds of emissions divided by the heat input in MMBtu, 
both summed over 30 successive boiler-operating days, beginning on the 
30-boiler-operating-day period ending September 30, 2015. For purposes 
of this limit, a boiler operating day is defined as a day in which fuel 
is combusted in either Unit 1 or Unit 2 (or both).
--For Unit 3, a limit on SO2 of 0.29 lbs/MMBtu, as a 30-day 
rolling average, also determined as the ratio of pounds of emissions 
divided by the heat input in MMBtu, both summed over 30 successive 
boiler-operating days, beginning on the 30-boiler-operating-day period 
ending May 31, 2017.

    Additionally, in light of DOI's August 11, 2015, letter, EPA is 
concluding that the incorporation of these SO2 emission 
limits into the Minnesota visibility FIP satisfies any outstanding 
obligation EPA has with respect to DOI's 2009 RAVI certification. EPA 
intends to conduct no analysis of the magnitude or origins of 
visibility impairment at Voyageurs or Isle Royale or review of 
potential BART control options at Sherco in response to this 
certification.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA. Because the FIP applies to just one facility, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no 
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. EPA's rule adds additional controls to a 
certain source. The Regional Haze FIP revisions that EPA is 
promulgating here would

[[Page 11670]]

impose Federal control requirements to resolve concerns that one power 
plant in Minnesota is unduly affecting visibility at two national 
parks. The power plant and its owners are not small entities. We have 
therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden 
for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
rule. However, EPA did discuss this action in a July 16, 2015, 
conference call with Michigan and Minnesota tribes, and EPA invited 
further comment from tribes that may be interested in this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. However, to the extent this rule will limit emissions of 
SO2, the rule will have a beneficial effect on children's 
health by reducing air pollution.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed 
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income 
or indigenous populations. We have determined that this rule will not 
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular 
applicability.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 6, 2016. 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, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, visibility protection.

    Dated: February 24, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    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. Section 52.1236 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.1236  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (e)(1) On and after the 30-boiler-operating-day period ending on 
September 30, 2015, the owners and operators of the facility at 13999 
Industrial Boulevard in Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall not 
cause or permit the emission of SO2 from stack SV001 
(serving Units 1 and 2) to exceed 0.050 lbs/MMBTU as a 30-day rolling 
average.
    (2) On and after the 30-boiler-operating-day period ending on May 
31, 2017, the owners and operators of the facility at 13999 Industrial 
Boulevard in Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall not cause or 
permit the emission of SO2 from Unit 3 to exceed 0.29 lbs/
MMBTU as a 30-day rolling average.
    (3) The owners and operators of the facility at 13999 Industrial 
Boulevard in Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall operate 
continuous SO2 emission monitoring systems in compliance 
with 40 CFR 75, and the data from this emission monitoring shall be 
used to determine compliance with the limits in this paragraph (e).
    (4) For each boiler operating day, compliance with the 30-day 
average limitations in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section 
shall be determined by summing total emissions in pounds for the period 
consisting of the day and the preceding 29 successive boiler operating 
days, summing total heat input in MMBTU for the same period, and 
computing the ratio of these sums in lbs/MMBTU. Boiler operating day is 
used to mean a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following 
midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in the steam-
generating unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combusted the 
entire 24-hour period. A boiler operating day with respect to the 
limitation in paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall be a day in which 
fuel is combusted in either Unit 1 or Unit 2. Bias adjustments provided 
for under 40 CFR 75 appendix A shall be applied. Substitute data 
provided for under 40 CFR 75 subpart D shall not be used.

[FR Doc. 2016-04751 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```