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)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 207 (October 27, 2015)
| Page Range | 65675-65680 | |
| FR Document | 2015-27168 |
[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
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 65675
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION made available online at
action’’ subject to review by the Office AGENCY www.regulations.gov, including any
of Management and Budget under personal information provided, unless
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 40 CFR Part 52 the comment includes information
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, [EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0592; FRL–9936–14– claimed to be Confidential Business
January 21, 2011); Region 5] Information (CBI) or other information
• does not impose an information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
collection burden under the provisions Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Do not submit information that you
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Revision to Visibility Federal consider to be CBI or otherwise
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Implementation Plan protected through www.regulations.gov
• is certified as not having a or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
significant economic impact on a AGENCY: Environmental Protection site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
substantial number of small entities Agency (EPA). which means EPA will not know your
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 ACTION: Proposed rule. identity or contact information unless
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); you provide it in the body of your
• does not contain any unfunded SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
comment. If you send an email
mandate or significantly or uniquely Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the
comment directly to EPA without going
affect small governments, as described Minnesota Federal implementation plan
through www.regulations.gov your email
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (FIP) for visibility, to establish emission
address will be automatically captured
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); limits for Northern States Power and included as part of the comment
• does not have Federalism Company’s (NSP’s) Sherburne County that is placed in the public docket and
implications as specified in Executive Generating Station (Sherco), pursuant to made available on the Internet. If you
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, a settlement agreement. The settlement submit an electronic comment, EPA
1999); agreement, signed by representatives of recommends that you include your
• is not an economically significant EPA, NSP, and three environmental name and other contact information in
regulatory action based on health or groups, was for resolution of a lawsuit the body of your comment and with any
safety risks subject to Executive Order filed by the environmental groups for disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); EPA to address any contribution from cannot read your comment due to
• is not a significant regulatory action Sherco to reasonably attributable technical difficulties and cannot contact
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR visibility impairment (RAVI) that the you for clarification, EPA may not be
28355, May 22, 2001); Department of Interior (DOI) certified able to consider your comment.
• is not subject to requirements of was occurring at Voyageurs and Isle Electronic files should avoid the use of
Section 12(d) of the National Royale National Parks. special characters, any form of
Technology Transfer and Advancement DATES: Comments must be received on encryption, and be free of any defects or
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because or before November 27, 2015. viruses.
it does not involve technical standards; ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Docket: All documents in the docket
and identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– are listed in the www.regulations.gov
• does not provide the EPA with the OAR–2015–0592, by one of the index. Although listed in the index,
discretionary authority to address, as following methods: some information is not publicly
appropriate, disproportionate human 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the available, e.g., CBI or other information
health or environmental effects, using on-line instructions for submitting whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
practicable and legally permissible comments. Certain other material, such as
methods, under Executive Order 12898 2. Email: Aburano.douglas@epa.gov. copyrighted material, will be publicly
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. available only in hard copy. Publicly
In addition, the SIP is not approved 4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, available docket materials are available
to apply on any Indian reservation land Attainment Planning and Maintenance in www.regulations.gov or at the
or in any other area where the EPA or Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency,
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Indian country, the rule does not have Illinois 60604. Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
tribal implications as specified by 5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, Chief, Attainment Planning and Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose Maintenance Section, Air Programs recommend that you telephone John
substantial direct costs on tribal Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Summerhays, Environmental Scientist,
governments or preempt tribal law. Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson at (312) 886–6067 before visiting the
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Region 5 office.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Such deliveries are only accepted
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Environmental protection, Air during the Regional Office normal hours
pollution control, Incorporation by Summerhays, Environmental Scientist,
of operation, and special arrangements
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Attainment Planning and Maintenance
should be made for deliveries of boxed
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
information. The Regional Office official
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
requirements. Environmental Protection Agency,
hours of business are Monday through
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067,
Federal holidays.
Dated: October 15, 2015. Instructions: Direct your comments to summerhays.john@epa.gov.
Dennis J. McLerran, Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
Regional Administrator, Region 10. 0592. EPA’s policy is that all comments supplementary information section is
[FR Doc. 2015–27153 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] received will be included in the public arranged as follows:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P docket without change and may be I. What regulations apply to RAVI?
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM 27OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_65882/page/1.svg)
![65676 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
II. What is the history and content of the review (NSR) requirements at 40 CFR for us to evaluate whether Sherco is the
Sherco settlement agreement? 51.304 and 51.307. 50 FR 28544. See source of the impairment in Voyageurs
III. What action is EPA taking? also 51 FR 5504 (February 13, 1986) and or Isle Royale or to determine the
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 51 FR 22937 (June 24, 1986). These emission levels that would be achieved
I. What regulations apply to RAVI? provisions have been codified at 40 CFR by BART if BART were necessary.
52.26, 52.27 and 52.28. On November
Section 169A of the Clean Air Act II. What is the history and content of the
24, 1987, EPA continued its visibility
provides for a visibility protection Sherco settlement agreement?
FIP rulemaking by promulgating its plan
program and sets forth as a national goal On October 21, 2009, DOI certified to
for meeting the general visibility plan
‘‘the prevention of any future, and the EPA that RAVI was occurring at the
requirements and long-term strategies of
remedying of any existing, impairment Voyageurs and Isle Royale National
40 CFR 51.302 and 51.306. 52 FR 45132.
of visibility in mandatory Class I Parks, in Northern Minnesota and
The long-term strategy provisions have
Federal areas which impairment results Northern Michigan, respectively. DOI
been codified at 40 CFR 52.29; the
from manmade air pollution.’’ 1 cited numerous results from an analysis
provisions specifically pertaining to
Pursuant to these statutory Minnesota are at 40 CFR 52.1236. described in Minnesota’s regional haze
requirements, EPA promulgated In the proposed rulemaking for the submittal, which in DOI’s view
regulations entitled ‘‘Visibility general visibility plan and long-term demonstrated that Sherco was the
Protection’’ in subpart P of Title 40 of strategy requirements, EPA addressed source of this RAVI.
the Code of Federal Regulations (40 certifications of existing visibility Separately, Minnesota submitted its
CFR), specifically in 40 CFR 51.300 et impairment submitted by the FLMs. 52 regional haze plan on December 30,
seq., which include separate FR 7802 (March 12, 1987). EPA found 2009, and submitted a proposed
requirements addressing RAVI and that the information provided by the supplemental submission on January 5,
regional haze. 45 FR 80084 (December 2, FLMs was not adequate to enable the 2012. In this plan as supplemented,
1980). The term ‘‘reasonably attributable Agency to determine whether the Minnesota proposed no emission limits
visibility impairment’’ is defined in 40 impairment was traceable to a single for Sherco (or for other electric
CFR 51.301 to mean ‘‘visibility source or small number of sources and generating units (EGUs) in Minnesota),
impairment that is caused by the therefore addressable under the relying instead on Federal trading
emission of air pollutants from one, or visibility regulations. For this reason, program rules known as the Transport
a small number of sources.’’ These EPA determined that the Rule to satisfy pertinent requirements
regulations at 40 CFR 51.302(c)(1) implementation plans did not need to for BART.2 EPA proposed to approve
provide that ‘‘[t]he affected Federal require best available retrofit technology this element of Minnesota’s plan on
Land Manager may certify to the State, (BART) or other control measures at that January 25, 2012, at 77 FR 3681, but
at any time, that there exists reasonably time. EPA also acknowledged, however, stated that this proposal did not address
attributable impairment of visibility in that the FLMs may certify the existence whether Minnesota had satisfied the
any mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ of visibility impairment at any time and requirements that applied as a result of
The visibility regulations also provide that the FLMs therefore might provide DOI’s certification of RAVI.
for periodic review, and revision as additional information in the future on Minnesota submitted a final
appropriate, of the long-term strategy for impairment that would allow EPA to supplemental regional haze submittal
making reasonable progress toward the attribute it to a specific source. EPA on May 8, 2012. In this submittal,
visibility goals, including review and stated that in such cases, the Minnesota submitted source-specific
revision as appropriate within three information regarding impairment and limits on sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
years of receipt of certification of RAVI the need for BART or other control nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions from
from a Federal land manager (FLM). 40 measures would be reviewed and Sherco, which it found to represent
CFR 51.306(c). The 36 affected states assessed as part of the periodic review BART. These limits applied to the stack
were required to submit revisions to of the long-term visibility strategy. 52 serving Units 1 and 2, limiting SO2
their SIPs to comply with these FR 7802, 7808. EPA affirmed these emissions to 0.12 pounds per million
requirements by September 2, 1981. 40 determinations in its final rulemaking. British Thermal Units (lbs/MMBtu) and
CFR 51.302(a)(1) (1981). See 45 FR 52 FR 45136 (November 24, 1987). limiting NOX emissions to 0.15 lbs/
80084, 80091. Based on this history, unless and until MMBtu. EPA approved these limits as
Most states did not meet the Minnesota submits a plan that EPA ‘‘an enhancement that make the
September 2, 1981 deadline for approves as satisfying the RAVI-related Minnesota’s submission more stringent
submitting a SIP revision to address visibility planning requirements, the than it would be if it simply relied on
visibility protection. A number of current plan for addressing RAVI is a [the Transport Rule] to address’’ BART
environmental groups sued EPA, Federal plan, and EPA has the authority requirements for EGUs, thereby
alleging that the Agency had failed to and obligation to review the RAVI plan concluding that these limits in
perform a nondiscretionary duty under for Minnesota periodically and to make combination with the Transport Rule
section 110(c) of the Clean Air Act to any necessary revisions. The adoption satisfied pertinent BART requirements
promulgate visibility FIPs. To settle the of the emission limits being proposed for EGUs in the state. 77 FR 34801,
lawsuit, EPA agreed to promulgate here is an element of fulfilling that 34803 (June 12, 2012). EPA took no
visibility FIPs according to a specified responsibility. action during that rulemaking as to
schedule. On July 12, 1985, EPA As will be discussed below, the
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2 This proposal was consistent with a proposed
promulgated a FIP for the visibility settlement agreement regarding Sherco
finding by EPA that the Transport Rule provided
monitoring strategy and new source provides for the adoption of specified better visibility protection than source-specific
emission limits that address DOI’s BART on electric generating units, and consistent
1 In accordance with the mandate of section concerns that led to a RAVI certification with an associated proposed rule allowing states to
169A(a)(2), 40 CFR part 81 subpart D (40 CFR at Voyageurs and Isle Royale National rely on the Transport Rule in lieu of source-specific
81.400 to 81.437) specifies the mandatory Class I BART for these sources. This exemption applies
Federal areas where visibility is an important value
Parks. Because these emission limits only to NOX and SO2, but Minnesota found that no
and the visibility is impaired by manmade air will address the concerns DOI raised in control was necessary to satisfy BART for other
pollution. its RAVI certification, there is no need pollutants.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM 27OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_65882/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 65677
whether Minnesota’s plan satisfied substituted data provided for in 40 CFR On August 11, 2015, DOI wrote to
requirements triggered by DOI’s part 75 subpart D.4 EPA regarding the settlement agreement.
certification of RAVI. Finally, Paragraph 5 of the settlement DOI recounted that its prior letter, dated
On December 5, 2012, with agreement states that ‘‘Sherco Units 1 October 21, 2009, had ‘‘identified
subsequent amendments on March 25, and 2 will achieve [its SO2 emission visibility impairment at Voyageurs and
2015, the National Parks Conservation limit] starting October 1, 2015, . . . and Isle Royale National Parks likely
Association, Sierra Club, and the . . . Sherco Unit 3 will achieve [its SO2 attributable to [Sherco],’’ but noted that
Minnesota Center for Environmental emission limit] starting June 1, 2017.’’ ‘‘a number of events have led or will
Advocacy filed a lawsuit in the U.S. (Emphasis added). Paragraph 5 lead to significant improvements in
District Court for the District of continues, ‘‘EPA agrees to propose such visibility at these Parks,’’ including the
Minnesota seeking to compel action by emission limitations . . . with a continued ‘‘trend of reducing sulfur
EPA to address DOI’s RAVI certification. compliance date for Units 1 and 2 of dioxide emissions at Sherco’’ resulting
On July 24, 2014, pursuant to action by October 1, 2015, and a compliance date from the settlement agreement. DOI
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth for Unit 3 of June 1, 2017.’’ Attachment concluded that ‘‘[a]lthough the
Circuit, NSP gained standing as an A to the settlement agreement states, for settlement reaches a different result
intervenor in this case. These parties Units 1 and 2, ‘‘[i]nitial compliance than the recommendation made in our
engaged in settlement discussions with with [the] limit shall be demonstrated [letter certifying RAVI], once
EPA, leading to a draft settlement no later than October 1, 2015,’’ and, for implemented, the settlement achieves
agreement that the parties signed on Unit 3, ‘‘[i]nitial compliance with [the] an outcome that addresses our visibility
May 15, 2015. EPA published a notice limit shall be demonstrated no later concerns at Voyageurs and Isle Royale
soliciting comments on this settlement than June 1, 2017.’’ National Parks.’’
agreement on June 1, 2015, at 80 FR Accordingly, under the proposed rule, In light of this August 11, 2015 letter,
31031. EPA received two sets of the first compliance demonstration for EPA is proposing to find that the
generally supportive comments, and on Units 1 and 2 would be computed on incorporation of these SO2 emission
July 24, 2015, the Department of Justice October 1, 2015, using data from the limits into the Minnesota visibility FIP
notified the Eighth Circuit that the immediately preceding 30 boiler- satisfies any outstanding obligation EPA
settlement agreement was final. operating days. Similarly, the first has with respect to DOI’s 2009 RAVI
The terms of this settlement compliance demonstration for Unit 3 certification. Specifically, EPA believes
agreement require EPA to propose new would use data from the 30 boiler- that the emission limits obviate the need
SO2 emission limits for Units 1 and 23 operating days immediately preceding for an analysis of the magnitude or
and for Unit 3 at Sherco. Specifically, June 1, 2017. For example, under this origins of visibility impairment at
the settlement agreement requires EPA proposed rule, if the boilers operate Voyageurs or Isle Royale or potential
to propose an emission limit for Units every day, the first 30-day period for BART control options at Sherco. While
1 and 2 of 0.050 lbs/MMBtu, expressed which compliance at Units 1 and 2 is DOI’s 2009 certification expressed
as a rolling 30-day average. EPA required is the period from September 1 particular concern with Sherco’s NOX
anticipates that NSP will be able to meet to September 30, 2015, and the first 30- emissions, modeling in Minnesota’s
this limit through the use of low sulfur day period for which compliance at regional haze plan (particularly in the
coal and the facility’s existing flue gas Unit 3 is required is May 2 to May 31, Sherco BART analysis) suggests that
desulfurization equipment. The 2017. SO2 emissions have comparable
settlement agreement requires EPA to EPA recognizes that the compliance visibility impacts to NOX at these parks.
propose an emission limit for Unit 3 of deadline for Units 1 and 2 predates the As a result, EPA anticipates that the
0.29 lbs/MMBtu, also expressed as a prospective final rulemaking. Because visibility improvement that will result
rolling 30-day average. EPA anticipates NSP is a party to the settlement from the proposed SO2 emission limits,
that Northern States Power will be able agreement, however, the company has when considered in conjunction with
to meet this limit with the facility’s had adequate notice that an initial the SO2 and NOX reductions already
existing flue gas desulfurization demonstration of compliance with the achieved by the Minnesota regional
equipment and increased use of limits for Units 1 and 2 would be haze SIP, will be comparable to any
desulfurizing reagent. required on October 1, 2015, improvement that might have resulted
The settlement agreement further notwithstanding provisions in the from additional NOX limits. To be clear,
states that compliance with these settlement agreement that would allow EPA is not proposing to find that the
emission limits must be determined on EPA to sign a final rulemaking as late as RAVI DOI certified in 2009 at Voyageurs
the basis of data obtained by a February 2016. or Isle Royale was attributable to
continuous emission monitor operated emissions from Sherco, that Sherco is
in accordance with 40 CFR part 75. 4 The provisions of 40 CFR part 75 specify the currently a source of RAVI, or that
Compliance with the limits, expressed requirements for operation and data reporting for BART controls are necessary at Sherco.
as limits on 30-day average emissions, continuous emission monitoring for facilities such EPA is instead proposing to find that
as Sherco that are subject to the Acid Rain Program. such determinations are no longer
must be determined by dividing the sum Under 40 CFR part 75, such facilities must conduct
of the SO2 emissions over each period periodic tests to determine whether the
necessary in light of the significant
of 30 successive boiler-operating days measurements underlying the reported emission emission reductions that will occur at
by the total heat input over that same values are biased; if the results fail to meet the Sherco as a result of the settlement
criteria in 40 CFR part75 appendix A 7.6.4, agreement, which addresses the
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
period. The settlement agreement reflecting sufficient underestimation to warrant
provides that the data used to determine adjustment, the measured results are multiplied
concerns DOI originally expressed in
compliance shall reflect any bias times a bias adjustment factor computed in 40 CFR 2009.
adjustments provided for in appendix A part 75 appendix A 7.6.5. For hours when the
facility is operating but the emission monitor is not III. What action is EPA taking?
to 40 CFR part 75, but shall not use generating valid data, the settlement agreement In accordance with the settlement
specifies that data obtained by the ‘‘Missing Data
3 Because Units 1 and 2 vent through a shared Substitution Procedures’’ required for Acid Rain
agreement signed on May 15, 2015, by
stack, the proposed emission limit applies to the Program purposes in 40 CFR part 75 subpart D shall representatives of EPA, three
combined emissions of these two units. not be used. environmental groups, and NSP, EPA is
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM 27OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_65882/page/3.svg)
![65680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Industrial Boulevard in Becker, SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) included as part of the comment that is
Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall not requires each State Implementation Plan placed in the public docket and made
cause or permit the emission of SO2 (SIP) to contain adequate provisions available on the Internet. If you submit
from stack SV001 (serving Units 1 and prohibiting air emissions that will have an electronic comment, the EPA
2) to exceed 0.050 lbs/MMBTU as a 30- certain adverse air quality effects in recommends that you include your
day rolling average. other states. On June 28, 2010, the State name and other contact information in
(2) On and after the 30-boiler- of Oregon made a submittal to the the body of your comment and with any
operating-day period ending on May 31, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA
2017, the owners and operators of the to address these requirements. The EPA cannot read your comment due to
facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in is proposing to approve the submittal as technical difficulties and cannot contact
Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, meeting the requirement that each SIP you for clarification, the EPA may not
shall not cause or permit the emission contain adequate provisions to prohibit be able to consider your comment.
of SO2 from Unit 3 to exceed 0.29 lbs/ emissions that will contribute Electronic files should avoid the use of
MMBTU as a 30-day rolling average. significantly to nonattainment or special characters, any form of
(3) The owners and operators of the interfere with maintenance of the 2008 encryption, and be free of any defects or
facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in ozone National Ambient Air Quality viruses.
Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, Standard (NAAQS) in any other state. Docket: All documents in the docket
shall operate continuous SO2 emission DATES: Written comments must be are listed in the http://
monitoring systems in compliance with received on or before November 27, www.regulations.gov index. Although
40 CFR part 75, and the data from this 2015. listed in the index, some information is
emission monitoring shall be used to not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
determine compliance with the limits in information the disclosure of which is
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– restricted by statute. Certain other
this paragraph (e).
OAR–2015–0259, by any of the material, such as copyrighted material,
(4) For each boiler operating day,
following methods: is not placed on the Internet and will be
compliance with the 30-day average • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow
limitations in paragraphs (e)(1) and publicly available only in hard copy.
the on-line instructions for submitting Publicly available docket materials are
(e)(2) of this section shall be determined comments.
by summing total emissions in pounds available either electronically in http://
• Email: R10-Public_Comments@
for the period consisting of the day and www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
epa.gov.
the preceding 29 successive boiler • Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, during normal business hours at the
operating days, summing total heat Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT— Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA
input in MMBTU for the same period, 150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
and computing the ratio of these sums Seattle, WA 98101. WA 98101.
in lbs/MMBTU. Boiler operating day is • Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
used to mean a 24-hour period between 10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357,
12 midnight and the following midnight Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA,
during which any fuel is combusted at Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, Region 10 address.
any time in the steam-generating unit. It Waste and Toxics, AWT–150. Such SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
is not necessary for fuel to be combusted deliveries are only accepted during Throughout this document wherever
the entire 24-hour period. A boiler normal hours of operation, and special ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
operating day with respect to the arrangements should be made for intended to refer to the EPA.
limitation in paragraph (e)(1) of this deliveries of boxed information. Information is organized as follows:
section shall be a day in which fuel is Instructions: Direct your comments to Table of Contents
combusted in either Unit 1 or Unit 2. Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–
Bias adjustments provided for under 40 0259. The EPA’s policy is that all I. Background
CFR part 75 appendix A shall be II. State Submittal
comments received will be included in III. EPA Evaluation
applied. Substitute data provided for the public docket without change and IV. Proposed Action
under 40 CFR part 75 subpart D shall may be made available online at V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
not be used. http://www.regulations.gov, including
[FR Doc. 2015–27168 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] any personal information provided, I. Background
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P unless the comment includes On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised
information claimed to be Confidential the levels of the primary and secondary
Business Information (CBI) or other 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION information whose disclosure is per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR
AGENCY restricted by statute. Do not submit 16436). The CAA requires states to
information that you consider to be CBI submit, within three years after
40 CFR Part 52 or otherwise protected through http:// promulgation of a new or revised
www.regulations.gov or email. The standard, SIPs meeting the applicable
[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0259; FRL–9936–16- http://www.regulations.gov Web site is ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections
Region 10] an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
means the EPA will not know your applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
Approval and Promulgation of identity or contact information unless section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to
Implementation Plans; Oregon: you provide it in the body of your contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to
Interstate Transport of Ozone comment. If you send an email prohibit certain adverse air quality
AGENCY: Environmental Protection comment directly to the EPA without effects on neighboring states due to
Agency. going through http:// interstate transport of pollution. There
www.regulations.gov your email address are four sub-elements within CAA
ACTION: Proposed rule.
will be automatically captured and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM 27OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_65882/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 15:36:48
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 15:36:48
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2015. | |
| 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] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 65675 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Sulfur Dioxide; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Visibility Protection |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR