```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31031-31033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13127]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9928-46-OGC]

Proposed Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public 
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act (the 
``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
settlement agreement to address a lawsuit filed by National Parks 
Conservation Association, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, 
Friends of the Boundary Waters, Voyageurs National Park Association, 
Fresh Energy, and the Sierra Club (collectively, ``Plaintiffs'') and 
Intervenor Defendant Northern States Power Company Minnesota, d/b/a 
Xcel Energy in the United States District Court for the District of 
Minnesota: National Parks Conservation Association, et al. v. EPA, Civ. 
No. 12-3043 (D. Minn.). On December 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a 
complaint alleging that the Administrator of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') had failed to perform a

[[Page 31032]]

mandatory duty to respond to a 2009 letter by the Department of the 
Interior (``DOI'') certifying that visibility impairment in Minnesota's 
Voyageurs National Park and Michigan's Isle Royale National Park is 
reasonably attributable to emissions from Xcel Energy's coal-fired 
Sherburne County Generating Station (``Sherco'') in Minnesota. The 
proposed settlement agreement addresses Plaintiffs' claims and 
establishes a deadline for EPA to take final action to revise the 
Minnesota Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (``RAVI'') 
Federal Implementation Plan (``FIP'').

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be 
received by July 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2015-0347, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); 
by email to oei.docket@epa.gov; by mail to EPA Docket Center, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be 
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters 
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address 
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew C. Marks, Air and Radiation 
Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone: (202) 564-3276; fax number (202) 564-5603; email address: 
marks.matthew@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    On October 21, 2009, DOI provided a letter to EPA in which DOI 
stated ``that there exists reasonably attributable impairment of 
visibility at Voyageurs and Isle Royale due to emissions from the 
Sherco facility.'' On December 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their 
complaint in this litigation alleging that, since receiving DOI's 
letter, the Administrator had failed to perform a mandatory duty 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)(iii) and (iv) to promulgate a federal 
RAVI best available retrofit technology (``BART'') determination for 
Sherco. In response to the lawsuit, EPA filed an answer on February 1, 
2013, denying that the Administrator has a mandatory duty to promulgate 
RAVI BART for Sherco because EPA has not determined that visibility 
impairment at one or more Class I areas is reasonably attributable to 
emissions from Sherco. On March 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended 
Complaint, alleging that the Administrator had failed to perform a 
mandatory duty ``to identify and analyze for BART each existing 
stationary facility which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal 
area where the impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area is 
reasonably attributable to that existing stationary facility.''
    The proposed settlement agreement would resolve the lawsuit filed 
by Plaintiffs by establishing that EPA will propose to revise the 
Minnesota RAVI FIP to include specific sulfur dioxide 
(``SO2'') emission limitations for Sherco Units 1, 2, and 3, 
and take final action on the proposal within seven months of the 
effective date of the settlement agreement. The proposed settlement 
agreement also provides that nothing in the agreement shall be 
construed to limit or modify any discretion afforded EPA by the Act or 
by general principles of administrative law in taking those actions. 
See the proposed settlement agreement and attachment for specific 
details.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication 
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the 
proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as 
parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the 
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed 
settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations 
that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, 
or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the 
Department of Justice determines that consent to this settlement 
agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be 
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement 
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0347) contains a copy of the proposed settlement 
agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing 
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA 
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or 
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the 
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public 
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in 
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, 
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available 
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless 
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI 
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not 
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public 
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including 
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed 
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all 
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access 
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket 
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. 
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified 
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period 
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late 
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other 
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD 
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information

[[Page 31033]]

on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact 
information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made 
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA 
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The 
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail 
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an 
email comment directly to the Docket without going through 
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-13127 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```