Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Minnesota, 18638-18641 [E9-9368]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18638
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–9361 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0240; FRL–8896–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a site
specific revision to the Minnesota sulfur
dioxide (SO2) State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the Rochester Public
Utility’s Cascade Creek Generating
Facility (Cascade Creek), located in the
city of Rochester, Olmsted County,
Minnesota. On March 5, 2008, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) requested that EPA approve
certain portions of a joint Title I/Title V
document into the Minnesota SO2 SIP
for the Cascade Creek facility. This SIP
revision includes the addition of two
new oil and gas fired turbines and
modification of the starter engine on the
No. 1 turbine. This SIP revision will
show reduced emissions of SO2 from
this facility and the SO2 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) will be maintained in the
area. Because the SO2 emission limits
are being reduced, the air quality of
Olmsted County will be protected.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective June 23, 2009, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by May 26,
2009. If adverse comments are received,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2008–0240, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2551.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney,
Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Apr 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
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–2008–
0240. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
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 https://
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 either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you
telephone Gilberto Alvarez,
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886–
6143 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6143,
alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What Is EPA Approving?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the State
Submission?
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of
This Action?
V. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Is EPA Approving?
EPA is approving into the SO2 SIP for
Minnesota a joint Title I/Title V
document for the Rochester Public
Utility’s Cascade Creek Facility
(Cascade Creek), located in Rochester,
Olmsted County, Minnesota. This SIP
amendment approval will replace the
current Title I SIP conditions under Air
Emission Permit No. 00000610–001.
II. What Is the Background for This
Action?
A. What Prior SIP Actions Are Pertinent
to This Action?
Cascade Creek is an electrical
generation facility consisting of three
combustion turbines and a diesel starter
engine. The facility was identified as a
culpable source in the Rochester area at
the time the area was designated as
nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS. The
facility is now part of the SIP to
maintain attainment of the SO2 NAAQS
in the Rochester area. On February 7,
2008, the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) issued an Air Emission
Permit No. 10900020–003 to Rochester
Public Utilities. The permit is a joint
Title I/Title V document and will
replace Permit No. 00000610–001, the
joint document currently approved into
the SIP. Air Permit Nos. 10900020–001
and 002 were adopted at the state level,
but the joint documents were not
submitted to EPA for approval into the
SIP. These permits authorized the
modification of the existing turbine to
allow for burning of natural gas and
distillate fuel oil and established
facility-wide Federally-enforceable
E:\FR\FM\24APR1.SGM
24APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
emission limits that restrict potential
emissions to less than major source
levels under the Federal Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and New
Source Review programs. These changes
are being addressed through EPA’s
action on joint Title I/Title V document
10900020–003. Because the facility is
located in the Rochester/Olmsted
County SO2 maintenance area, changes
to the facility’s operations must be
submitted to EPA as SIP revisions.
B. What Are the Revisions to the SIP?
The revision involves changes to
Cascade Creek’s current operating
conditions and revisions to the
applicable SO2 SIP conditions currently
listed in the Joint Title I/Title V
document and incorporated into
Minnesota’s SIP. The facility has
accepted fuel sulfur content limits that
reduce SO2 beyond previously
permitted levels. This SIP revision also
includes the addition of two new oil
and gas fired turbines and modification
of the starter engine on the No. 1
turbine.
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
C. Has Public Notice Been Provided?
Minnesota published public notices
for the Cascade Creek Facility on
December 20, 2007. No comments were
received during the comment period
which ended on February 4, 2008. In the
public notices, Minnesota stated it
would hold a public hearing if one were
requested during the comment period.
This follows the alternative public
participation process EPA approved on
June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32274). For limited
types of SIP revisions that the public
has shown little interest in, a public
hearing is not automatically required. If
anyone requests a public hearing during
the comment period, Minnesota will
hold a public hearing. Because no one
requested a public hearing, Minnesota
did not hold a public hearing for this
SIP revision.
D. What Are Title I Conditions and Joint
Title I/Title V Documents?
SIP control measures were contained
in permits issued to culpable sources in
Minnesota until 1990 when EPA
determined that limits in state-issued
permits are not Federally-enforceable
because the permits expire. Minnesota
then issued permanent Administrative
Orders to culpable sources in
nonattainment areas from 1991 to
February of 1996.
Minnesota’s consolidated permitting
regulations, approved into the state SIP
on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), include
the term ‘‘Title I condition’’ which was
written, in part, to satisfy EPA
requirements that SIP control measures
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Apr 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
remain permanent. A ‘‘Title I condition’’
is defined as ‘‘any condition based on
source-specific determination of
ambient impacts imposed for the
purposes of achieving or maintaining
attainment with the national ambient air
quality standard and which was part of
the state implementation plan approved
by EPA or submitted to the EPA
pending approval under section 110 of
the act * * *.’’ The rule also states that
‘‘Title I conditions and the permittee’s
obligation to comply with them, shall
not expire, regardless of the expiration
of the other conditions of the permit.’’
Further, ‘‘any Title I condition shall
remain in effect without regard to
permit expiration or reissuance, and
shall be restated in the reissued permit.’’
Minnesota has initiated using joint
Title I/Title V documents as the
enforceable document for imposing
emission limitations and compliance
requirements in SIPs. The SIP
requirements in joint Title I/Title V
documents submitted by MPCA are
cited as ‘‘Title I conditions,’’ therefore
ensuring that SIP requirements remain
permanent and enforceable. EPA
reviewed the state’s procedure for using
joint Title I/Title V documents to
implement site-specific SIP
requirements and found it to be
acceptable under both Titles I and V of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) (July 3, 1997
letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael
J. Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15,
2006, letter from EPA to MPCA clarifies
procedures to transfer requirements
from Administrative Orders to joint
Title I/Title V documents.
III. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the State
Submission?
Cascade Creek owned units included
in the SO2 SIP for the Rochester area.
The facility has accepted fuel sulfur
content limits that reduced SO2 beyond
previously permitted levels. This SIP
revision also includes the addition of
two new oil and gas fired turbines and
modification of the starter engine on the
No. 1 turbine.
A modeling analysis conducted for
the Cascade Creek Facility SIP revision
showed that incorporating a reduced
fuel oil sulfur limit resulted in less total
SO2 impacts from operation of the
modified three-turbine system, as
opposed to the single-turbine system.
Additionally, modeling shows that the
location of the significant impact area is
much smaller for the modified facility
and does not include any new areas.
Based on these modeled results, MPCA
concluded that the addition of the two
new turbines did not jeopardize NAAQS
attainment.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18639
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects
of This Action?
Due to the decrease in fuel oil sulfur
content, overall emissions of SO2 will
decrease from current SIP conditions.
Thus, the Rochester area in Minnesota
is expected to remain in attainment of
the SO2 NAAQS.
SO2 causes breathing difficulties and
aggravation of existing cardiovascular
disease. It is also a precursor of acid rain
and fine particulate matter formation.
Sulfate particles are a major cause of
visibility impairment in the United
States. Acid rain damages lakes and
streams, impairing aquatic life, and
causes damage to buildings, sculptures,
statues and monuments. SO2 also causes
the loss of chlorophyll leading to
vegetation damage.
V. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is approving site specific
revisions to the Minnesota SO2 SIP for
the Cascade Creek Facility, located in
the city of Rochester, Olmsted County,
Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is only
approving into the SIP those portions of
the joint Title I/Title V document cited
as ‘‘Title I condition: State
Implementation Plan for SO2.’’
We are publishing this action without
prior proposal because we view this as
a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the
state plan if relevant adverse written
comments are filed. This rule will be
effective June 23, 2009 without further
notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by May 26,
2009. If we receive such comments, we
will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA
will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so
at this time. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective
June 23, 2009.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
E:\FR\FM\24APR1.SGM
24APR1
18640
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by June 23, 2009.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: April 9, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
■
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Y—Minnesota
2. In § 52.1220 the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by revising the entry for
‘‘Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade
Creek Combustion’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1220
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS
Name of source
*
*
*
Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade Creek Combustion.
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
*
VerDate Nov<24>2008
*
14:46 Apr 23, 2009
100900020–
003
*
Jkt 217001
State
effective
date
Permit No.
*
*
*
12/28/07 ...................... 4/24/09, [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
*
PO 00000
Frm 00020
EPA approval date
*
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
E:\FR\FM\24APR1.SGM
24APR1
Comments
*
Only conditions cited
as ‘‘Title I condition:
SIP for SO2
NAAQS.’’
*
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. E9–9368 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0683; FRL–8895–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Finding of Attainment for
1-Hour Ozone for the MilwaukeeRacine, WI Area
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a July 28,
2008, request from the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) that EPA find that the
Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin (WI)
nonattainment area has attained the
revoked 1-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective June 23, 2009, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by May 26,
2009. If adverse comments are received,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2008–0683, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2551.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney,
Chief, Criteria Pollutant 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–2008–
0683. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Apr 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
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 https://
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 either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding federal
holidays. We recommend that you
telephone Gilberto Alvarez,
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886–
6143 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6143,
alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18641
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What Is EPA Approving?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Is the Impact of a December 22,
2006, United States Court of Appeals
Decision Regarding EPA’s Phase 1 Ozone
Implementation Rule on This Rule?
IV. Attainment Finding
V. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Is EPA Approving?
EPA is approving a July 28, 2008,
request from WDNR that EPA find that
the Milwaukee-Racine, WI
nonattainment area attained the revoked
1-hour ozone NAAQS.
II. What Is the Background for This
Action?
Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), the MilwaukeeRacine, WI area was designated
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS by operation of law upon
enactment of the 1990 CAA
amendments. Under section 181(a) of
the CAA, each ozone area designated
nonattainment under section 107(d) was
also classified by operation of law as
‘‘marginal,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘serious,’’
‘‘severe-15,’’ ‘‘severe-17’’, or ‘‘extreme,’’
depending on the severity of the area’s
air quality problem and the number of
years needed to reach attainment from
the 1990 CAA amendments. These
nonattainment designations and
classifications were codified in Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 81 (see 56 FR 56994, November 6,
1991).
The ozone design value for an area,
which characterizes the severity of the
air quality problem, is represented by
the highest ozone design value at any of
the individual ozone monitoring sites in
the area. Table 1 in section 181(a) of the
CAA provides the design value ranges
for each nonattainment classification.
Ozone nonattainment areas with design
values between 0.190 parts per million
(ppm) and 0.280 ppm for the three-year
period, 1987–1989, were classified as
severe-17. Because the MilwaukeeRacine, WI area’s 1988 ozone design
value fell between 0.190 and 0.280 ppm,
this area was classified as severe-17
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. Under section 182(c) of the
CAA, states containing areas that were
classified as severe-17 nonattainment
were required to submit State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to provide
for certain emission controls, to show
progress toward attainment, and to
E:\FR\FM\24APR1.SGM
24APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 78 (Friday, April 24, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18638-18641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9368]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0240; FRL-8896-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a site specific revision to the Minnesota
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Rochester Public Utility's Cascade Creek Generating Facility (Cascade
Creek), located in the city of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota. On
March 5, 2008, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requested
that EPA approve certain portions of a joint Title I/Title V document
into the Minnesota SO2 SIP for the Cascade Creek facility.
This SIP revision includes the addition of two new oil and gas fired
turbines and modification of the starter engine on the No. 1 turbine.
This SIP revision will show reduced emissions of SO2 from
this facility and the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) will be maintained in the area. Because the
SO2 emission limits are being reduced, the air quality of
Olmsted County will be protected.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 23, 2009, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by May 26, 2009. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0240, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692-2551.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
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-
2008-0240. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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 https://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 either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez,
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-6143 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6143,
alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What Is EPA Approving?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
V. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Is EPA Approving?
EPA is approving into the SO2 SIP for Minnesota a joint
Title I/Title V document for the Rochester Public Utility's Cascade
Creek Facility (Cascade Creek), located in Rochester, Olmsted County,
Minnesota. This SIP amendment approval will replace the current Title I
SIP conditions under Air Emission Permit No. 00000610-001.
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
A. What Prior SIP Actions Are Pertinent to This Action?
Cascade Creek is an electrical generation facility consisting of
three combustion turbines and a diesel starter engine. The facility was
identified as a culpable source in the Rochester area at the time the
area was designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS. The
facility is now part of the SIP to maintain attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in the Rochester area. On February 7, 2008, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued an Air Emission Permit
No. 10900020-003 to Rochester Public Utilities. The permit is a joint
Title I/Title V document and will replace Permit No. 00000610-001, the
joint document currently approved into the SIP. Air Permit Nos.
10900020-001 and 002 were adopted at the state level, but the joint
documents were not submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP. These
permits authorized the modification of the existing turbine to allow
for burning of natural gas and distillate fuel oil and established
facility-wide Federally-enforceable
[[Page 18639]]
emission limits that restrict potential emissions to less than major
source levels under the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and New Source Review programs. These changes are being addressed
through EPA's action on joint Title I/Title V document 10900020-003.
Because the facility is located in the Rochester/Olmsted County
SO2 maintenance area, changes to the facility's operations
must be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions.
B. What Are the Revisions to the SIP?
The revision involves changes to Cascade Creek's current operating
conditions and revisions to the applicable SO2 SIP
conditions currently listed in the Joint Title I/Title V document and
incorporated into Minnesota's SIP. The facility has accepted fuel
sulfur content limits that reduce SO2 beyond previously
permitted levels. This SIP revision also includes the addition of two
new oil and gas fired turbines and modification of the starter engine
on the No. 1 turbine.
C. Has Public Notice Been Provided?
Minnesota published public notices for the Cascade Creek Facility
on December 20, 2007. No comments were received during the comment
period which ended on February 4, 2008. In the public notices,
Minnesota stated it would hold a public hearing if one were requested
during the comment period. This follows the alternative public
participation process EPA approved on June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32274). For
limited types of SIP revisions that the public has shown little
interest in, a public hearing is not automatically required. If anyone
requests a public hearing during the comment period, Minnesota will
hold a public hearing. Because no one requested a public hearing,
Minnesota did not hold a public hearing for this SIP revision.
D. What Are Title I Conditions and Joint Title I/Title V Documents?
SIP control measures were contained in permits issued to culpable
sources in Minnesota until 1990 when EPA determined that limits in
state-issued permits are not Federally-enforceable because the permits
expire. Minnesota then issued permanent Administrative Orders to
culpable sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
Minnesota's consolidated permitting regulations, approved into the
state SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), include the term ``Title I
condition'' which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements
that SIP control measures remain permanent. A ``Title I condition'' is
defined as ``any condition based on source-specific determination of
ambient impacts imposed for the purposes of achieving or maintaining
attainment with the national ambient air quality standard and which was
part of the state implementation plan approved by EPA or submitted to
the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act * * *.'' The rule
also states that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to
comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any Title I condition
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.''
Minnesota has initiated using joint Title I/Title V documents as
the enforceable document for imposing emission limitations and
compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in joint Title I/
Title V documents submitted by MPCA are cited as ``Title I
conditions,'' therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain permanent
and enforceable. EPA reviewed the state's procedure for using joint
Title I/Title V documents to implement site-specific SIP requirements
and found it to be acceptable under both Titles I and V of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J.
Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15, 2006, letter from EPA to MPCA
clarifies procedures to transfer requirements from Administrative
Orders to joint Title I/Title V documents.
III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?
Cascade Creek owned units included in the SO2 SIP for
the Rochester area. The facility has accepted fuel sulfur content
limits that reduced SO2 beyond previously permitted levels.
This SIP revision also includes the addition of two new oil and gas
fired turbines and modification of the starter engine on the No. 1
turbine.
A modeling analysis conducted for the Cascade Creek Facility SIP
revision showed that incorporating a reduced fuel oil sulfur limit
resulted in less total SO2 impacts from operation of the
modified three-turbine system, as opposed to the single-turbine system.
Additionally, modeling shows that the location of the significant
impact area is much smaller for the modified facility and does not
include any new areas. Based on these modeled results, MPCA concluded
that the addition of the two new turbines did not jeopardize NAAQS
attainment.
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
Due to the decrease in fuel oil sulfur content, overall emissions
of SO2 will decrease from current SIP conditions. Thus, the
Rochester area in Minnesota is expected to remain in attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS.
SO2 causes breathing difficulties and aggravation of
existing cardiovascular disease. It is also a precursor of acid rain
and fine particulate matter formation. Sulfate particles are a major
cause of visibility impairment in the United States. Acid rain damages
lakes and streams, impairing aquatic life, and causes damage to
buildings, sculptures, statues and monuments. SO2 also
causes the loss of chlorophyll leading to vegetation damage.
V. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is approving site specific revisions to the Minnesota
SO2 SIP for the Cascade Creek Facility, located in the city
of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is only
approving into the SIP those portions of the joint Title I/Title V
document cited as ``Title I condition: State Implementation Plan for
SO2.''
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 23, 2009
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by May 26, 2009. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw
this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent
document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be
effective June 23, 2009.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
[[Page 18640]]
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 23, 2009. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: April 9, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Y--Minnesota
0
2. In Sec. 52.1220 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade Creek Combustion''
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of source Permit No. State effective date EPA approval date Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Rochester Public Utilities, 100900020-003 12/28/07......................... 4/24/09, [Insert page number Only conditions cited as ``Title
Cascade Creek Combustion. where the document begins]. I condition: SIP for SO2
NAAQS.''
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18641]]
[FR Doc. E9-9368 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
