80 FR 65675 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Revision to Visibility Federal Implementation Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 207 (October 27, 2015)

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.

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65675-65680]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27168]


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

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: [email protected].
    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, 
[email protected].

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

I. What regulations apply to RAVI?

[[Page 65676]]

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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 65677]]

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 2\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because Units 1 and 2 vent through a shared stack, the 
proposed emission limit applies to the combined emissions of these 
two units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 boiler-operating days. 
Similarly, the first compliance demonstration for Unit 3 would use data 
from the 30 boiler-operating 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

[[Page 65678]]

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-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 
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-for-profit 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 cost-
effective, 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

[[Page 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

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

[[Page 65680]]

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 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