Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 65675 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 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 

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 

• does not provide the 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 the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: October 15, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–27153 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0592; FRL–9936–14– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; 

Revision to Visibility Federal 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise 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 

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. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0592, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015– 

0592. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

in www.regulations.gov or 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 regulations apply to RAVI? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65676 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1 In accordance with the mandate of section 

169A(a)(2), 40 CFR part 81 subpart D (40 CFR 

81.400 to 81.437) specifies the mandatory Class I 

Federal areas where visibility is an important value 

and the visibility is impaired by manmade air 

pollution. 

2This proposal was consistent with a proposed 

finding by EPA that the Transport Rule provided 

better visibility protection than source-specific 

BART on electric generating units, and consistent 

with an associated proposed rule allowing states to 

rely on the Transport Rule in lieu of source-specific 

BART for these sources. This exemption applies 

only to NOX and SO2, but Minnesota found that no 

control was necessary to satisfy BART for other 

pollutants. 

II. What is the history and content of the 

Sherco settlement agreement? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What regulations apply to RAVI? 

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.’’ 1

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). The term ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment’’ is defined in 40 

CFR 51.301 to mean ‘‘visibility 

impairment that is caused by the 

emission of air pollutants from one, or 

a small number of sources.’’ These 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.302(c)(1) 

provide that ‘‘[t]he affected Federal 

Land Manager may certify to the State, 

at any time, that there exists reasonably 

attributable impairment of visibility in 

any mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

The visibility regulations also provide 

for periodic review, and revision as 

appropriate, of the long-term strategy for 

making reasonable progress toward the 

visibility goals, including review and 

revision as appropriate within three 

years of receipt of certification of RAVI 

from a Federal land manager (FLM). 40 

CFR 51.306(c). The 36 affected states 

were required to submit revisions to 

their SIPs to comply with these 

requirements by September 2, 1981. 40 

CFR 51.302(a)(1) (1981). See 45 FR 

80084, 80091. 

Most states did not meet the 

September 2, 1981 deadline for 

submitting a SIP revision to address 

visibility protection. A number of 

environmental groups sued EPA, 

alleging that the Agency had failed to 

perform a nondiscretionary duty under 

section 110(c) of the Clean Air Act to 

promulgate visibility FIPs. To settle the 

lawsuit, EPA agreed to promulgate 

visibility FIPs according to a specified 

schedule. On July 12, 1985, EPA 

promulgated a FIP for the visibility 

monitoring strategy and new source 

review (NSR) requirements at 40 CFR 

51.304 and 51.307. 50 FR 28544. See 

also 51 FR 5504 (February 13, 1986) and 

51 FR 22937 (June 24, 1986). These 

provisions have been codified at 40 CFR 

52.26, 52.27 and 52.28. On November 

24, 1987, EPA continued its visibility 

FIP rulemaking by promulgating its plan 

for meeting the general visibility plan 

requirements and long-term strategies of 

40 CFR 51.302 and 51.306. 52 FR 45132. 

The long-term strategy provisions have 

been codified at 40 CFR 52.29; the 

provisions specifically pertaining to 

Minnesota are at 40 CFR 52.1236. 

In the proposed rulemaking for the 

general visibility plan and long-term 

strategy requirements, EPA addressed 

certifications of existing visibility 

impairment submitted by the FLMs. 52 

FR 7802 (March 12, 1987). EPA found 

that the information provided by the 

FLMs was not adequate to enable the 

Agency to determine whether the 

impairment was traceable to a single 

source or small number of sources and 

therefore addressable under the 

visibility regulations. For this reason, 

EPA determined that the 

implementation plans did not need to 

require best available retrofit technology 

(BART) or other control measures at that 

time. EPA also acknowledged, however, 

that the FLMs may certify the existence 

of visibility impairment at any time and 

that the FLMs therefore might provide 

additional information in the future on 

impairment that would allow EPA to 

attribute it to a specific source. EPA 

stated that in such cases, the 

information regarding impairment and 

the need for BART or other control 

measures would be reviewed and 

assessed as part of the periodic review 

of the long-term visibility strategy. 52 

FR 7802, 7808. EPA affirmed these 

determinations in its final rulemaking. 

52 FR 45136 (November 24, 1987). 

Based on this history, unless and until 

Minnesota submits a plan that EPA 

approves as satisfying the RAVI-related 

visibility planning requirements, the 

current plan for addressing RAVI is a 

Federal plan, and EPA has the authority 

and obligation to review the RAVI plan 

for Minnesota periodically and to make 

any necessary revisions. The adoption 

of the emission limits being proposed 

here is an element of fulfilling that 

responsibility. 

As will be discussed below, the 

settlement agreement regarding Sherco 

provides for the adoption of specified 

emission limits that address DOI’s 

concerns that led to a RAVI certification 

at Voyageurs and Isle Royale National 

Parks. Because these emission limits 

will address the concerns DOI raised in 

its RAVI certification, there is no need 

for us to evaluate whether Sherco is the 

source of the impairment in Voyageurs 

or Isle Royale or to determine the 

emission levels that would be achieved 

by BART if BART were necessary. 

II. What is the history and content of the 

Sherco settlement agreement? 

On October 21, 2009, DOI certified to 

EPA that RAVI was occurring at the 

Voyageurs and Isle Royale National 

Parks, in Northern Minnesota and 

Northern Michigan, respectively. DOI 

cited numerous results from an analysis 

described in Minnesota’s regional haze 

submittal, which in DOI’s view 

demonstrated that Sherco was the 

source of this RAVI. 

Separately, Minnesota submitted its 

regional haze plan on December 30, 

2009, and submitted a proposed 

supplemental submission on January 5, 

2012. In this plan as supplemented, 

Minnesota proposed no emission limits 

for Sherco (or for other electric 

generating units (EGUs) in Minnesota), 

relying instead on Federal trading 

program rules known as the Transport 

Rule to satisfy pertinent requirements 

for BART.2 EPA proposed to approve 

this element of Minnesota’s plan on 

January 25, 2012, at 77 FR 3681, but 

stated that this proposal did not address 

whether Minnesota had satisfied the 

requirements that applied as a result of 

DOI’s certification of RAVI. 

Minnesota submitted a final 

supplemental regional haze submittal 

on May 8, 2012. In this submittal, 

Minnesota submitted source-specific 

limits on sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions from 

Sherco, which it found to represent 

BART. These limits applied to the stack 

serving Units 1 and 2, limiting SO2

emissions to 0.12 pounds per million 

British Thermal Units (lbs/MMBtu) and 

limiting NOX emissions to 0.15 lbs/

MMBtu. EPA approved these limits as 

‘‘an enhancement that make the 

Minnesota’s submission more stringent 

than it would be if it simply relied on 

[the Transport Rule] to address’’ BART 

requirements for EGUs, thereby 

concluding that these limits in 

combination with the Transport Rule 

satisfied pertinent BART requirements 

for EGUs in the state. 77 FR 34801, 

34803 (June 12, 2012). EPA took no 

action during that rulemaking as to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 65677 

3Because Units 1 and 2 vent through a shared 

stack, the proposed emission limit applies to the 

combined emissions of these two units. 

4The provisions of 40 CFR part 75 specify the 

requirements for operation and data reporting for 

continuous emission monitoring for facilities such 

as Sherco that are subject to the Acid Rain Program. 

Under 40 CFR part 75, such facilities must conduct 

periodic tests to determine whether the 

measurements underlying the reported emission 

values are biased; if the results fail to meet the 

criteria in 40 CFR part75 appendix A 7.6.4, 

reflecting sufficient underestimation to warrant 

adjustment, the measured results are multiplied 

times a bias adjustment factor computed in 40 CFR 

part 75 appendix A 7.6.5. For hours when the 

facility is operating but the emission monitor is not 

generating valid data, the settlement agreement 

specifies that data obtained by the ‘‘Missing Data 

Substitution Procedures’’ required for Acid Rain 

Program purposes in 40 CFR part 75 subpart D shall 

not be used. 

whether Minnesota’s plan satisfied 

requirements triggered by DOI’s 

certification of RAVI. 

On December 5, 2012, with 

subsequent amendments on March 25, 

2015, the National Parks Conservation 

Association, Sierra Club, and the 

Minnesota Center for Environmental 

Advocacy filed a lawsuit in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Minnesota seeking to compel action by 

EPA to address DOI’s RAVI certification. 

On July 24, 2014, pursuant to action by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 

Circuit, NSP gained standing as an 

intervenor in this case. These parties 

engaged in settlement discussions with 

EPA, leading to a draft settlement 

agreement that the parties signed on 

May 15, 2015. EPA published a notice 

soliciting comments on this settlement 

agreement on June 1, 2015, at 80 FR 

31031. EPA received two sets of 

generally supportive comments, and on 

July 24, 2015, the Department of Justice 

notified the Eighth Circuit that the 

settlement agreement was final. 

The terms of this settlement 

agreement require EPA to propose new 

SO2 emission limits for Units 1 and 23

and for Unit 3 at Sherco. Specifically, 

the settlement agreement requires EPA 

to propose an emission limit for Units 

1 and 2 of 0.050 lbs/MMBtu, expressed 

as a rolling 30-day average. EPA 

anticipates that NSP will be able to meet 

this limit through the use of low sulfur 

coal and the facility’s existing flue gas 

desulfurization equipment. The 

settlement agreement requires EPA to 

propose an emission limit for Unit 3 of 

0.29 lbs/MMBtu, also expressed as a 

rolling 30-day average. EPA anticipates 

that Northern States Power will be able 

to meet this limit with the facility’s 

existing flue gas desulfurization 

equipment and increased use of 

desulfurizing reagent. 

The settlement agreement further 

states that compliance with these 

emission limits must be determined on 

the basis of data obtained by a 

continuous emission monitor operated 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 75. 

Compliance with the limits, expressed 

as limits on 30-day average emissions, 

must be determined by dividing the sum 

of the SO2 emissions over each period 

of 30 successive boiler-operating days 

by the total heat input over that same 

period. The settlement agreement 

provides that the data used to determine 

compliance shall reflect any bias 

adjustments provided for in appendix A 

to 40 CFR part 75, but shall not use 

substituted data provided for in 40 CFR 

part 75 subpart D.4

Finally, Paragraph 5 of the settlement 

agreement states that ‘‘Sherco Units 1 

and 2 will achieve [its SO2 emission 

limit] starting October 1, 2015, . . . and 

. . . Sherco Unit 3 will achieve [its SO2

emission limit] starting June 1, 2017.’’ 

(Emphasis added). Paragraph 5 

continues, ‘‘EPA agrees to propose such 

emission limitations . . . with a 

compliance date for Units 1 and 2 of 

October 1, 2015, and a compliance date 

for Unit 3 of June 1, 2017.’’ Attachment 

A to the settlement agreement states, for 

Units 1 and 2, ‘‘[i]nitial compliance 

with [the] limit shall be demonstrated 

no later than October 1, 2015,’’ and, for 

Unit 3, ‘‘[i]nitial compliance with [the] 

limit shall be demonstrated no later 

than June 1, 2017.’’ 

Accordingly, under the proposed rule, 

the first compliance demonstration for 

Units 1 and 2 would be computed on 

October 1, 2015, using data from the 

immediately preceding 30 boileroperating days. Similarly, the first 

compliance demonstration for Unit 3 

would use data from the 30 boileroperating days immediately preceding 

June 1, 2017. For example, under this 

proposed rule, if the boilers operate 

every day, the first 30-day period for 

which compliance at Units 1 and 2 is 

required is the period from September 1 

to September 30, 2015, and the first 30- 

day period for which compliance at 

Unit 3 is required is May 2 to May 31, 

2017. 

EPA recognizes that the compliance 

deadline for Units 1 and 2 predates the 

prospective final rulemaking. Because 

NSP is a party to the settlement 

agreement, however, the company has 

had adequate notice that an initial 

demonstration of compliance with the 

limits for Units 1 and 2 would be 

required on October 1, 2015, 

notwithstanding provisions in the 

settlement agreement that would allow 

EPA to sign a final rulemaking as late as 

February 2016. 

On August 11, 2015, DOI wrote to 

EPA regarding the settlement agreement. 

DOI recounted that its prior letter, dated 

October 21, 2009, had ‘‘identified 

visibility impairment at Voyageurs and 

Isle Royale National Parks likely 

attributable to [Sherco],’’ but noted that 

‘‘a number of events have led or will 

lead to significant improvements in 

visibility at these Parks,’’ including the 

continued ‘‘trend of reducing sulfur 

dioxide emissions at Sherco’’ resulting 

from the settlement agreement. DOI 

concluded that ‘‘[a]lthough the 

settlement reaches a different result 

than the recommendation made in our 

[letter certifying RAVI], once 

implemented, the settlement achieves 

an outcome that addresses our visibility 

concerns at Voyageurs and Isle Royale 

National Parks.’’ 

In light of this August 11, 2015 letter, 

EPA is proposing to find 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. Specifically, EPA believes 

that the emission limits obviate the need 

for an analysis of the magnitude or 

origins of visibility impairment at 

Voyageurs or Isle Royale or potential 

BART control options at Sherco. While 

DOI’s 2009 certification expressed 

particular concern with Sherco’s NOX

emissions, modeling in Minnesota’s 

regional haze plan (particularly in the 

Sherco BART analysis) suggests that 

SO2 emissions have comparable 

visibility impacts to NOX at these parks. 

As a result, EPA anticipates that the 

visibility improvement that will result 

from the proposed SO2 emission limits, 

when considered in conjunction with 

the SO2 and NOX reductions already 

achieved by the Minnesota regional 

haze SIP, will be comparable to any 

improvement that might have resulted 

from additional NOX limits. To be clear, 

EPA is not proposing to find that the 

RAVI DOI certified in 2009 at Voyageurs 

or Isle Royale was attributable to 

emissions from Sherco, that Sherco is 

currently a source of RAVI, or that 

BART controls are necessary at Sherco. 

EPA is instead proposing to find that 

such determinations are no longer 

necessary in light of the significant 

emission reductions that will occur at 

Sherco as a result of the settlement 

agreement, which addresses the 

concerns DOI originally expressed in 

2009. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

In accordance with the settlement 

agreement signed on May 15, 2015, by 

representatives of EPA, three 

environmental groups, and NSP, EPA is 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65678 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

proposing to incorporate the emission 

limits identified in the agreement into 

the Minnesota visibility FIP. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing 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-boileroperating-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-operatingday period ending May 31, 2017. 

Additionally, in light of DOI’s August 

11, 2015 letter, EPA is proposing to find 

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 proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As 

discussed in detail in section IV.C 

below, the proposed FIP applies to only 

one source. It is therefore not a rule of 

general applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 

‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as 

a requirement for ‘‘answers to . . . 

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons. . . .’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 

Because the proposed FIP applies to just 

one facility, the Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this proposed 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. EPA’s 

proposal adds additional controls to a 

certain source. The Regional Haze FIP 

revisions that EPA is proposing here 

would 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. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted for 

inflation) in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 of UMRA do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 

EPA to adopt an alternative other than 

the least costly, most cost-effective, or 

least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures that exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of 

$100 million by State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

one year. In addition, this proposed rule 

does not contain a significant Federal 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 65679 

intergovernmental mandate as described 

by section 203 of UMRA, nor does it 

contain any regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

Federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has Federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely extends an existing FIP by 

promulgating emission limits for one 

source in accordance with a settlement 

agreement. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. In the 

spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule 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 invites 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 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. EPA 

interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the E.O. has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to E.O. 13045 because it is neither 

economically significant nor pertinent 

to an environmental health or safety risk 

that might have a disproportionate effect 

on children. However, to the extent this 

proposed 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 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this 

proposed rule, if finalized, 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. 

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: October 9, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.1236 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1236 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(e)(1) On and after the 30-boileroperating-day period ending on 

September 30, 2015, the owners and 

operators of the facility at 13999 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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-boileroperating-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 part 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 part 75 appendix A shall be 

applied. Substitute data provided for 

under 40 CFR part 75 subpart D shall 

not be used. 

[FR Doc. 2015–27168 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0259; FRL–9936–16- 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon: 

Interstate Transport of Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting air emissions that will have 

certain adverse air quality effects in 

other states. On June 28, 2010, the State 

of Oregon made a submittal to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to address these requirements. The EPA 

is proposing to approve the submittal as 

meeting the requirement that each SIP 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) in any other state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 27, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0259, by any of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT— 

150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, AWT–150. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015– 

0259. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information the disclosure of which 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. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. State Submittal 

III. EPA Evaluation 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised 

the levels of the primary and secondary 

8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436). The CAA requires states to 

submit, within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, SIPs meeting the applicable 

‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2). One of these 

applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to 

contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to 

prohibit certain adverse air quality 

effects on neighboring states due to 

interstate transport of pollution. There 

are four sub-elements within CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS