Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide; Particulate Matter, 13230-13235 [2017-04694]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13230
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
State submittal
date/effective
date
*
*
*
2010 1-hour SO2 Maintenance Campbell County portion of
Plan for the Kentucky PorCampbell-Clermont, KY-OH
tion of the CampbellNonattainment Area.
Clermont, KY-OH Area.
*
2/22/2016
Name of non-regulatory SIP
provision
EPA approval date
*
*
*
3/10/2017 ............................... This includes the 172(c)(1)
RACM determination and
the 172(c)(3) base-year
emissions inventory.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PURPOSES
4. In § 81.318, the table entitled
‘‘Kentucky-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
(Primary)’’ is amended under
‘‘Campbell-Clermont Counties, KY-OH:’’
■
3. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
Explanations
by revising the entries for ‘‘Campbell
County (part)’’ to read as follows:
§ 81.318
*
Kentucky.
*
*
*
*
KENTUCKY—2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS
[Primary]
Designation
Designated area
Date
Campbell-Clermont Counties, KY-OH: 1 ..................................................................................................................
Campbell County (part).
That portion of Campbell County which lies south and west of the Ohio River described as follows:
Beginning at geographic coordinates 38.9735 North Latitude, 84.3017 West Longitude (NAD 1983)
on the edge of the Ohio River running southwesterly to KY Highway 1566; thence continuing running southwesterly along KY Highway 1566 to KY Highway 9 (AA Highway); thence running north
westerly along KY Highway 9 (AA Highway) from Hwy 1566 to Interstate 275; thence running
northeasterly along Interstate 275 to Highway 2345 (John’s Hill Road), Hwy 2345 to US–27, US–27
to I–275, I–275 to the Ohio River; thence running southeasterly along the Ohio River from Interstate 275 to geographic coordinates 38.9735 North Latitude, 84.3017 West Longitude (NAD 1983).
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
Attainment.
*
Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified.
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–04781 Filed 3–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0842; FRL–9958–15–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur
Dioxide; Particulate Matter
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to
the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
particulate matter of less than 10
microns (PM10) State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) as submitted on December
11, 2015. The revision will update the
Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County
PM10 maintenance plans to reflect
changes in available controls, operating
SUMMARY:
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
*
3/10/2017
Type
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
practices, and cleaner fuel options that
have resulted in significant reductions
of SO2 and PM10 emissions in the
maintenance areas. EPA will also
approve the removal of existing title I
SO2 SIP conditions for six facilities from
the SO2 SIP, and the state’s evaluation
that such changes ensure continued
attainment of the SO2 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective May 9, 2017, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by April 10,
2017. 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–2015–0842 at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francisco J. Acevedo, Control Strategies
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6061,
acevedo.francisco@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 the background for this action?
A. Rochester SO2 Maintenance Plan
B. Olmsted County PM10 Maintenance Plan
II. What changes have been made as part of
the SIP revision?
III. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s
submittal?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this
action?
A. Rochester SO2 Maintenance Plan
A maintenance area is an area which
at one time failed to meet one or more
NAAQS, but is now in compliance and
has an EPA approved plan for continued
attainment. The City of Rochester was
originally designated nonattainment for
SO2 on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). On
July 14, 1980, the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) submitted its
original SO2 SIP for the City of
Rochester, which EPA approved on
April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20996). The
passage of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments of 1990 mandated
additional requirements for
nonattainment area SIPs, and the MPCA
worked with sources in the Rochester
SO2 nonattainment area to revise and
update permits and develop dispersion
modeling analyses to ensure attainment
of the SO2 NAAQS. In 1998, the MPCA
submitted a SIP revision and
redesignation request for the City of
Rochester seeking a designation of
attainment for the SO2 NAAQS. This
SIP revision included air quality
permits for seven facilities in Rochester:
Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) Silver
Lake Plant (Silver Lake); RPU Cascade
Creek Combustion Turbine (Cascade
Creek); Associated Milk Producers; St.
Mary’s Hospital (St. Mary’s); Olmsted
Waste-to-Energy Facility (Olmsted
WTE); Franklin Heating Station (Mayo);
and IBM. Only the portions of the
permits cited as title I SIP conditions for
SO2 were incorporated into the SIP.1
The SIP also included modeling data
demonstrating that the applicable areas
in the City of Rochester had achieved
and would maintain attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS with the control measures
in the SIP. Ambient air monitoring
results included in the 1998
redesignation request, actually
demonstrated that the area had
maintained the SO2 NAAQS since 1979.
The EPA approved the SO2 attainment
demonstration and maintenance plan
SIP revision and redesignation request
for the City of Rochester on May 8, 2001
(66 FR 14087).
Since the City of Rochester’s
redesignation to attainment, the seven
facilities in the area have all
considerably reduced their emissions of
SO2. The emissions reductions reflect
changes in available controls, operating
practices, and cleaner fuel options. On
December 11, 2015, MPCA submitted to
EPA a revision to the Rochester SO2 SIP
updating the Rochester SO2 plan to
reflect these changed conditions and
reduced SO2 emissions. The SIP
revision specifically updates title I SO2
SIP conditions for the RPU Silver Lake
Plant, reflecting the facility’s recent
13231
decommissioning of its coal-fired
equipment and fuel switch to natural
gas. The incorporation of these revised
title I SO2 SIP conditions alone, ensures
enough SO2 emissions reductions to
offset the removal of the other six
facilities from the SIP, and provide
continued attainment of the SO2
NAAQS. These facilities will continue
to be regulated by the MPCA via its air
quality permitting program.
B. Olmsted County PM10 Maintenance
Plan
The MPCA also seeks to update the
SIP conditions associated with the
Olmsted County maintenance area for
the 1987 PM10 NAAQS. The RPU Silver
Lake Plant is the sole source in the
Olmsted County PM10 maintenance
area, which was redesignated to
attainment July 31, 1995. (60 FR 28339)
The SIP revision and associated permit
action for the RPU Silver Lake Plant will
update title I PM10 SIP conditions,
similar to those for SO2, reflecting the
facility’s fuel switch from coal to natural
gas and will result in significant
decrease in SIP-authorized PM10
emissions from the facility.
II. What changes have been made as
part of the SIP revision?
Since the City of Rochester’s
redesignation to attainment in 2001,
facilities in the SIP have reduced SO2
emissions well beyond the levels of
control envisioned when the
maintenance plan SIP was approved.
The EPA-approved SIP currently
authorizes up to 10,535.4 tons per year
(tpy) of SO2 from all seven facilities.
However, in 2014, the seven sources
together emitted approximately 58.255
tons of SO2. (See Table 1)
TABLE 1—ROCHESTER SIP (ACTUAL) SO2 EMISSIONS 2014
SIP approved
permit No.
Facility name
Associated Milk Producers ...................................................................................................................................
Franklin Heating Station (SIP requirements are in Mayo Medical Clinic Rochester 10900084) .........................
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
IBM ........................................................................................................................................................................
Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility ........................................................................................................................
Rochester Public Utilities—Cascade Creek .........................................................................................................
1 In 1995, EPA approved into the Minnesota SIP
Minnesota’s consolidated permitting regulations.
(60 FR 21447, May 2, 1995). The consolidated
permitting regulations included 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, in part,
as ‘‘any condition based on source specific
determination of ambient impacts imposed for the
purpose of achieving or maintaining attainment
with a national ambient air quality standards and
which was part of a [SIP] approved by the EPA or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
submitted to the EPA pending approval under
section 110 of the act. . . .’’ MINN. R. 7007.1011
(2013). The regulations also state 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.’’
MINN. R. 7007.0450 (2007). Minnesota has initiated
using the joint Title I/Title V document as the
enforceable document for imposing emission
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10900010–001
1148–83–OT–1
[10900019]
10900006–001
10900005–002
10900020–003
2014 SO2
emissions
(tons)
0.07
12.65
0.07
9.91
0.17
limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs.
The SIP requirements in the joint Title I/Title V
document 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 Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to
Michael J. Sandusky, MPCA).
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
13232
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—ROCHESTER SIP (ACTUAL) SO2 EMISSIONS 2014—Continued
SIP approved
permit No.
Facility name
Rochester Public Utilities—Silver Lake ................................................................................................................
St. Mary’s Hospital ................................................................................................................................................
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Total ...............................................................................................................................................................
The change in operations at RPU
Silver Lake has been the most
significant contributor to reduced SO2
emissions in the City of Rochester. RPU
Silver Lake was previously a 100megawatt, coal-fired generating facility.
Changes affecting energy generation
nationwide, including coal prices, EPA
requirements, and reduced energy
demand, resulted in a 2012 decision by
RPU to decommission the Silver Lake
Plant as an energy generating unit. As of
June 1, 2015, RPU Silver Lake is a
steam-producing facility providing a
contracted amount of steam to the Mayo
Clinic campus for cogeneration needs.
The fuel burned for steam production in
the boilers is natural gas. In light of
these emissions and operational
changes, the MPCA analyzed options for
reducing facility-specific SIP
requirements in the City of Rochester
maintenance area. The MPCA
determined that title I SO2 SIP permit
conditions addressing the changed
operations at RPU Silver Lake are
stringent enough to ensure NAAQS
compliance without continued
inclusion of title I SO2 SIP conditions
for other facilities in the City of
Rochester. For this reason, the MPCA is
requesting that EPA approve a revision
to Minnesota’s SO2 SIP for the City of
Rochester, incorporating updated title I
SO2 SIP and certain PM10 SIP conditions
for RPU Silver Lake and removing from
the SIP all title I SO2 SIP conditions
associated with RPU Cascade Creek,
Associated Milk Producers, St. Mary’s,
Olmsted WTE, Mayo, and IBM.
The previous RPU Silver Lake permit
(No. 10900011–004) contained SIP
requirements necessary to ensure
compliance with SO2 and PM10 NAAQS,
and was approved into the SIP at 40
CFR 52.1220 on September 7, 2007. The
most recent Major Amendment (DQ
#5197) incorporates changes in
operation and classification of the
facility. Silver Lake was previously
permitted to operate all four boilers
(EU001–EU004) on coal and/or other
fuels. The boilers were used for
electrical generation and steam service.
The facility ceased coal firing
permanently in 2013. Two of the boilers
(EU001 and EU004) have ceased
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
operation and were officially retired at
the end of 2015. Silver Lake will no
longer produce electricity for sale and
will operate its remaining units on
natural gas only. Due to these changes,
the MPCA seeks to remove all existing
SO2 SIP requirements from the Silver
Lake permit and certain PM10 SIP
requirements pertaining to coal-fired
operations, and add new title I SIP
conditions authorizing only natural gas
as an acceptable fuel at the remaining
boilers. Once approved by EPA, the SIPallowable potential-to-emit (PTE) for
Silver Lake will go from 6,220 tpy to
1.12 tpy of SO2 and from 2,060 tpy to
14.2 tpy of PM10. No construction or
emissions increases are authorized by
the permit action. The RPU Silver Lake
permit (No. 10900011–005) was
finalized and issued on November 25,
2015.
The MPCA also seeks to remove from
the City of Rochester SO2 maintenance
SIP all incorporated title I SO2 SIP
conditions from 40 CFR part 52 subpart
Y (52.1220) associated with the
following facilities: RPU Cascade Creek
(No. 10900020–003), Associated Milk
Producers (No. 10900010–001), St.
Mary’s (No. 10900008–003), Olmsted
WTE (No. 10900005–002), Mayo (No.
1148–83–OT–1 [10900019]), and IBM
(No. 10900006–001).
III. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s
submittal?
Our primary consideration for
determining the approvability of the
Minnesota’s revision to the Rochester
SO2 and Olmsted County PM10
maintenance plans in the SIP is whether
these revisions comply with section
110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) of the
CAA provides that EPA cannot approve
a SIP revision if that revision interferes
with any applicable requirement
regarding attainment and reasonable
further progress or any other
requirement established in the CAA.
The EPA can, however, approve a SIP
revision that removes or modifies
control measures in the SIP once the
state makes a ‘‘noninterference’’
demonstration that such removal or
modification will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS, or any other
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10900011–004
10900008–003
...........................
2014 SO2
emissions
(tons)
0.005
35.38
58.255
CAA requirement. Minnesota has
evaluated the impacts of approving
these revisions.
The current, SIP-limited PTE in the
City of Rochester SO2 maintenance area
is 10,469.7 tpy. Table 2 shows the SIPauthorized PTE for the SIP facilities, as
well as the unrestricted PTEs for the
facilities proposed for removal. RPU
Silver Lake is already operating in the
capacity proposed for SIP approval
(natural gas is currently approved as an
allowable fuel in the SIP, and the
facility is firing its two remaining
boilers with natural gas), and as a result
SO2 emissions have dropped
considerably. Emissions of SO2 from
2013, the last year the RPU Silver Lake
facility burned coal, were 554 tons;
emissions from 2014 were less than 0.01
ton. Upon approval by EPA of the SIP
revision and associated title I SO2 SIP
conditions, the facility’s PTE will drop
from 6,220 tpy SO2 to 1.12 tpy SO2.
A reduction of this magnitude
(6218.88 tpy) more than offsets the
amount of SIP-limited inventory from
all other Rochester SIP facilities, with
the current total SIP-limited PTE from
all other SO2 SIP sources totaling 4315.4
tpy. It is extremely unlikely that any of
the remaining SIP facilities (or any
facility in the City of Rochester) would
ever seek to increase emissions to a
level approaching that of the reduction
resulting from the operational changes
and SIP revision for RPU Silver Lake,
even without title I SIP conditions
included in their permits. Any facility
seeking an increase in SO2 emissions
approaching the level of emissions
reduced by RPU Silver Lake, would
trigger Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements,
presumably including modeling,
ensuring protection of the NAAQS.
Additionally, though an antibacksliding demonstration must only
ensure that the emissions reductions
provided by the SIP revision are
equivalent or greater to the emissions
reductions originally provided by
control being modified, i.e., account for
the ‘‘SIP-creditable’’ emissions
reductions, Table I also shows that even
the facilities’ unrestricted PTE would
not exceed the current SIP-limited
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
emissions inventory. In effect, it is not
possible for the facilities to emit more
SO2 than is currently approved by the
SIP. As noted in Table 1, in 2014 the
seven current SIP sources together
emitted approximately 58 tons of SO2,
13233
with St. Mary’s having the highest
emissions of the seven, at just over 35
tons.
TABLE 2—ROCHESTER SIP POTENTIAL TO EMIT: SIP APPROVED AND UNRESTRICTED
SIP approved
permit No.
Facility name
Current
SIP-approved
SO2 PTE
(tpy)
Unrestricted SO2 PTE
(tpy)
Associated Milk Producers ......................................................................
Franklin Heating Station (SIP requirements are in Mayo Medical Clinic
Rochester 10900084).
IBM ...........................................................................................................
Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility ...........................................................
Rochester Public Utilities—Cascade Creek ............................................
Rochester Public Utilities—Silver Lake ...................................................
10900010–001
1148–83–OT–1
[10900019]
10900006–001
10900005–002
10900020–003
10900011–004
83.4
3,867
1,452
3,947
99.0
102.3
98.0
6,220
St. Mary’s Hospital ...................................................................................
10900008–003
65.7
425.2
137.2
405
1.12 (facility remains in the SIP
with new SIP-approved PTE).
738.8
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Total ..................................................................................................
The emissions demonstration above
shows that emissions reductions from
RPU Silver Lake are sufficient to ensure
that the original SIP attainment/
maintenance emissions inventory will
not be exceeded by the facilities
proposed for removal even operating at
unrestricted PTE levels. The facilities
proposed for removal from the
Rochester SO2 SIP however, will not
operate at unrestricted PTE levels and
will remain under the purview of the
MPCA air quality permitting program,
and as such, will be regulated at the
state level. The NAAQS are an
applicable requirement for all air
emissions permits in Minnesota, and the
MPCA maintains the authority in Minn.
R. 7007.0500, subp. 1(E) and subp. 2(E),
and 7007.0800, to require
demonstrations of NAAQS compliance
through permit actions.
Further, the facilities proposed for
removal from the SIP have continued to
reduce SO2 emissions through the
availability of cleaner fuels and
efficiency improvements not required
by the SIP. For example, IBM is
constructing newer, more efficient
boilers to replace certain boilers
authorized under the SIP. This change
will reduce their total facility limited
PTE to 5.89 tpy SO2. Additionally, Mayo
has been authorized to use No. 6 fuel oil
as a back-up fuel when natural gas was
not available for three boilers; they now
use No. 2 fuel oil as a backup for these
boilers. The MPCA is currently
processing a permit action to
incorporate these changes, which will
result in a new PTE of less than 127 tpy
of SO2—a significant reduction from
their current SIP-authorized PTE of
3,867 tpy.
The SIP revision will result in an
overall decrease of SIP-authorized
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
...........................
emissions in the City of Rochester
Maintenance area, and the most recent
emission inventory data shows that
actual emissions from the existing SIP
sources are significantly lower than the
SIP-authorized limits. This information,
combined with the most recently
available monitoring data 2 for the City
of Rochester show that the SIP revision
will not jeopardize continued
attainment of the annual, 24-hour, and
3-hour SO2 NAAQS addressed in the
existing maintenance SIP, nor will it
threaten attainment of the 2010 onehour SO2 NAAQS. The SIP revision will
also result in a reduction of PM10
emissions in the existing PM10
maintenance SIP, thereby ensuring
continued maintenance of the PM10
NAAQS.
EPA also examined whether the
changes outlined in the SIP revision
have interfered with attainment of other
air quality standards. The City of
Rochester is designated attainment for
all other standards including ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. EPA has no reason to
believe that Minnesota’s revision to the
Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County
PM10 maintenance plans have caused or
will cause the Rochester area to become
nonattainment for any of these
pollutants. In addition, EPA believes
that the approval of Minnesota’s
revision to the Rochester SO2 and
Olmsted County PM10 maintenance
plans will not interfere with the area’s
2 In 2014, an SO monitor was installed in the
2
City of Rochester (EPA Air Quality System, or AQS
no. 271–095–008). Monitoring data from 2014
captures the operational changes at RPU Silver
Lake, and is generally reflective of the expected
continued operation of the other SIP facilities in the
City of Rochester. The low ambient air
concentrations of SO2 captured by the monitor
indicate that the area is not likely to exceed any of
the existing SO2 NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10,535.4
7,106.32
ability to meet any other CAA
requirement. Based on the above
discussion and the state’s 110(l)
demonstration, EPA believes that the
updates to the Rochester SO2 and
Olmsted County PM10 maintenance
plans will not interfere with attainment
or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in
the Rochester, MN area and would not
interfere with any other applicable
requirement of the CAA, and thus, is
approvable under CAA section 110(l).
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving a revision to the
Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County
PM10 SIPs, as submitted by MPCA on
December 11, 2015. The revision will
consolidate existing permanent and
enforceable SO2 and PM10 SIP
conditions into the RPU Silver Lake
facility’s joint title I/title V SIP
document. In addition, the revision will
simultaneously remove all existing title
I SIP conditions from the remaining six
facilities (RPU Cascade Creek,
Associated Milk Producers, St. Mary’s,
Olmsted WTE, Mayo, and IBM) from the
Rochester SO2 SIP. 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 May 9, 2017 without further
notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by April 10,
2017. If we receive such comments, we
will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
13234
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective
May 9, 2017.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of the Minnesota
Regulations described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the State implementation plan, have
been incorporated by reference by EPA
into that plan, are fully federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and
will be incorporated by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in the
next update to the SIP compilation.3
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally
available through www.regulations.gov,
and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office
(please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more
information).
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,
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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
3 62
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
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, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by May 9, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this
direct final rule are encouraged to file a
comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this
action published in the proposed rules
section of today’s Federal Register,
rather than file an immediate petition
for judicial review of this direct final
rule, so that EPA can withdraw this
direct final rule and address the
comment in the proposed rulemaking.
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, Sulfur oxides, Particulate
matter.
Dated: December 29, 2016.
Robert Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by:
■ i. Removing the entries for
‘‘Associated Milk Producers’’
(10900010–001), ‘‘Franklin Heating
Station’’ (1148–83–OT–1 [10900019]),
‘‘International Business Machine Corp.,
IBM—Rochester’’ (10900006–001),
‘‘Olmsted County, Olmsted Waste-toEnergy Facility’’ (10900005–002),
‘‘Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade
Creek Combustion’’ (10900020–003),
and ‘‘St. Mary’s Hospital’’ (10900008–
003).
■ ii. Revising the entry for ‘‘Rochester
Public Utilities, Silver Lake Plant’’ to
read as follows:
■
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
13235
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
§ 52.1220
*
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
EPA—APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS
Name of source
*
Rochester Public Utilities,
Silver Lake Plant.
*
*
*
State
effective
date
Permit No.
*
10900011–005
*
11/25/15
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0399; FRL–9958–11–
Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Lake
Tahoe; Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Nevada
(‘‘State’’). On April 3, 2012, the State of
Nevada submitted to the EPA a second
10-year limited maintenance plan (LMP)
for the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area
(‘‘Area’’) for the carbon monoxide (CO)
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’). This LMP
addresses maintenance of the CO
NAAQS for a second 10-year period
beyond the original 10-year
maintenance period. On August 26,
2016, the State amended the 2012
submittal with a supplemental SIP
submittal (‘‘2016 supplement’’ or
‘‘supplement’’). The EPA is also
approving the 2011 emissions
inventory, the 2024 projected emissions
inventory and the revised alternative
monitoring strategy included with the
2016 supplement. We are taking these
actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘Act’’).
DATES: This rule is effective on May 9,
2017 without further notice, unless the
EPA receives adverse comments by
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
16:43 Mar 09, 2017
*
3/10/17, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
[FR Doc. 2017–04694 Filed 3–9–17; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EPA approval date
Jkt 241001
*
Comments
*
*
*
Only conditions cited as ‘‘Title I Condition: 40 CFR
Section 50.4, SO2 SIP; Title I Condition: 40 CFR
pt. 52, subp. Y’’ and ‘‘Title I Condition: 40 CFR
Section 50.6, PM10 SIP; Title I Condition: 40
CFR pt. 52, subp. Y’’.
*
April 10, 2017. If we receive such
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that this direct final
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2015–0399 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Kelly, Planning Office (Air-2), Air
Division, Region IX, Environmental
Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105,
(415) 947–4151, kelly.johnj@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Lake Tahoe Nevada Area’s CO Limited
Maintenance Plan
B. Alternative CO Monitoring Strategy
C. Adjacent Maintenance Areas in
California
D. Transportation Conformity
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
II. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s
Submittal
A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data
B. Alternative Monitoring Strategy
C. Attainment Emissions Inventory
D. Maintenance Demonstration
E. Transportation Conformity
F. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Network
G. Verification of Continued Attainment
H. Contingency Plan
III. Public Comment and Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Lake Tahoe Nevada Area’s CO
Limited Maintenance Plan
Under the CAA Amendments of 1990,
the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area was
designated as nonattainment and
classified as a ‘‘not classified’’ CO area.
This was because the Area had been
designated as nonattainment before
November 15, 1990, the date of
enactment, but had not violated the CO
NAAQS in 1988 and 1989, prior to
enactment. See 56 FR 56694 (November
6, 1991). On October 27, 2003, the State
of Nevada submitted a request to the
EPA to redesignate the Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the CO
NAAQS. Along with this request, the
State submitted a CAA section 175A(a)
LMP that demonstrated that the Area
would maintain the CO NAAQS for 10
years following our approval of the
redesignation request. A LMP is an
option whereby an area’s maintenance
demonstration is considered to be
satisfied for ‘‘not classified’’ areas if the
monitoring data show the design value
is at or below 7.65 parts per million
(ppm), or 85 percent of the level of the
8-hour CO NAAQS.1 We approved the
1 See the EPA guidance memorandum, ‘‘Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas,’’ from Joseph Paisie, Group
Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), to Air Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
Continued
10MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13230-13235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04694]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0842; FRL-9958-15-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide; Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
particulate matter of less than 10 microns (PM10) State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) as submitted on December 11, 2015. The
revision will update the Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County
PM10 maintenance plans to reflect changes in available
controls, operating practices, and cleaner fuel options that have
resulted in significant reductions of SO2 and
PM10 emissions in the maintenance areas. EPA will also
approve the removal of existing title I SO2 SIP conditions
for six facilities from the SO2 SIP, and the state's
evaluation that such changes ensure continued attainment of the
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 9, 2017, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by April 10, 2017. 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-2015-0842 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Control
Strategies
[[Page 13231]]
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
886-6061, acevedo.francisco@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 the background for this action?
A. Rochester SO2 Maintenance Plan
B. Olmsted County PM10 Maintenance Plan
II. What changes have been made as part of the SIP revision?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this action?
A. Rochester SO2 Maintenance Plan
A maintenance area is an area which at one time failed to meet one
or more NAAQS, but is now in compliance and has an EPA approved plan
for continued attainment. The City of Rochester was originally
designated nonattainment for SO2 on March 3, 1978 (43 FR
8962). On July 14, 1980, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
submitted its original SO2 SIP for the City of Rochester,
which EPA approved on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20996). The passage of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 mandated additional requirements
for nonattainment area SIPs, and the MPCA worked with sources in the
Rochester SO2 nonattainment area to revise and update
permits and develop dispersion modeling analyses to ensure attainment
of the SO2 NAAQS. In 1998, the MPCA submitted a SIP revision
and redesignation request for the City of Rochester seeking a
designation of attainment for the SO2 NAAQS. This SIP
revision included air quality permits for seven facilities in
Rochester: Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) Silver Lake Plant (Silver
Lake); RPU Cascade Creek Combustion Turbine (Cascade Creek); Associated
Milk Producers; St. Mary's Hospital (St. Mary's); Olmsted Waste-to-
Energy Facility (Olmsted WTE); Franklin Heating Station (Mayo); and
IBM. Only the portions of the permits cited as title I SIP conditions
for SO2 were incorporated into the SIP.\1\ The SIP also
included modeling data demonstrating that the applicable areas in the
City of Rochester had achieved and would maintain attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS with the control measures in the SIP. Ambient air
monitoring results included in the 1998 redesignation request, actually
demonstrated that the area had maintained the SO2 NAAQS
since 1979. The EPA approved the SO2 attainment
demonstration and maintenance plan SIP revision and redesignation
request for the City of Rochester on May 8, 2001 (66 FR 14087).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1995, EPA approved into the Minnesota SIP Minnesota's
consolidated permitting regulations. (60 FR 21447, May 2, 1995). The
consolidated permitting regulations included 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, in part, as ``any condition based on source specific
determination of ambient impacts imposed for the purpose of
achieving or maintaining attainment with a national ambient air
quality standards and which was part of a [SIP] approved by the EPA
or submitted to the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the
act. . . .'' MINN. R. 7007.1011 (2013). The regulations also state
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.'' MINN. R.
7007.0450 (2007). Minnesota has initiated using the joint Title I/
Title V document as the enforceable document for imposing emission
limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP
requirements in the joint Title I/Title V document 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 Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
(July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky,
MPCA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the City of Rochester's redesignation to attainment, the
seven facilities in the area have all considerably reduced their
emissions of SO2. The emissions reductions reflect changes
in available controls, operating practices, and cleaner fuel options.
On December 11, 2015, MPCA submitted to EPA a revision to the Rochester
SO2 SIP updating the Rochester SO2 plan to
reflect these changed conditions and reduced SO2 emissions.
The SIP revision specifically updates title I SO2 SIP
conditions for the RPU Silver Lake Plant, reflecting the facility's
recent decommissioning of its coal-fired equipment and fuel switch to
natural gas. The incorporation of these revised title I SO2
SIP conditions alone, ensures enough SO2 emissions
reductions to offset the removal of the other six facilities from the
SIP, and provide continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.
These facilities will continue to be regulated by the MPCA via its air
quality permitting program.
B. Olmsted County PM10 Maintenance Plan
The MPCA also seeks to update the SIP conditions associated with
the Olmsted County maintenance area for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS.
The RPU Silver Lake Plant is the sole source in the Olmsted County
PM10 maintenance area, which was redesignated to attainment
July 31, 1995. (60 FR 28339) The SIP revision and associated permit
action for the RPU Silver Lake Plant will update title I
PM10 SIP conditions, similar to those for SO2,
reflecting the facility's fuel switch from coal to natural gas and will
result in significant decrease in SIP-authorized PM10
emissions from the facility.
II. What changes have been made as part of the SIP revision?
Since the City of Rochester's redesignation to attainment in 2001,
facilities in the SIP have reduced SO2 emissions well beyond
the levels of control envisioned when the maintenance plan SIP was
approved. The EPA-approved SIP currently authorizes up to 10,535.4 tons
per year (tpy) of SO2 from all seven facilities. However, in
2014, the seven sources together emitted approximately 58.255 tons of
SO2. (See Table 1)
Table 1--Rochester SIP (Actual) SO2 Emissions 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 SO2
Facility name SIP approved permit No. emissions
(tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Milk Producers...... 10900010-001 0.07
Franklin Heating Station (SIP 1148-83-OT-1 [10900019] 12.65
requirements are in Mayo
Medical Clinic Rochester
10900084).
IBM............................ 10900006-001 0.07
Olmsted Waste-to-Energy 10900005-002 9.91
Facility.
Rochester Public Utilities-- 10900020-003 0.17
Cascade Creek.
[[Page 13232]]
Rochester Public Utilities-- 10900011-004 0.005
Silver Lake.
St. Mary's Hospital............ 10900008-003 35.38
---------------
Total...................... ....................... 58.255
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The change in operations at RPU Silver Lake has been the most
significant contributor to reduced SO2 emissions in the City
of Rochester. RPU Silver Lake was previously a 100-megawatt, coal-fired
generating facility. Changes affecting energy generation nationwide,
including coal prices, EPA requirements, and reduced energy demand,
resulted in a 2012 decision by RPU to decommission the Silver Lake
Plant as an energy generating unit. As of June 1, 2015, RPU Silver Lake
is a steam-producing facility providing a contracted amount of steam to
the Mayo Clinic campus for cogeneration needs. The fuel burned for
steam production in the boilers is natural gas. In light of these
emissions and operational changes, the MPCA analyzed options for
reducing facility-specific SIP requirements in the City of Rochester
maintenance area. The MPCA determined that title I SO2 SIP
permit conditions addressing the changed operations at RPU Silver Lake
are stringent enough to ensure NAAQS compliance without continued
inclusion of title I SO2 SIP conditions for other facilities
in the City of Rochester. For this reason, the MPCA is requesting that
EPA approve a revision to Minnesota's SO2 SIP for the City
of Rochester, incorporating updated title I SO2 SIP and
certain PM10 SIP conditions for RPU Silver Lake and removing
from the SIP all title I SO2 SIP conditions associated with
RPU Cascade Creek, Associated Milk Producers, St. Mary's, Olmsted WTE,
Mayo, and IBM.
The previous RPU Silver Lake permit (No. 10900011-004) contained
SIP requirements necessary to ensure compliance with SO2 and
PM10 NAAQS, and was approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1220
on September 7, 2007. The most recent Major Amendment (DQ #5197)
incorporates changes in operation and classification of the facility.
Silver Lake was previously permitted to operate all four boilers
(EU001-EU004) on coal and/or other fuels. The boilers were used for
electrical generation and steam service. The facility ceased coal
firing permanently in 2013. Two of the boilers (EU001 and EU004) have
ceased operation and were officially retired at the end of 2015. Silver
Lake will no longer produce electricity for sale and will operate its
remaining units on natural gas only. Due to these changes, the MPCA
seeks to remove all existing SO2 SIP requirements from the
Silver Lake permit and certain PM10 SIP requirements
pertaining to coal-fired operations, and add new title I SIP conditions
authorizing only natural gas as an acceptable fuel at the remaining
boilers. Once approved by EPA, the SIP-allowable potential-to-emit
(PTE) for Silver Lake will go from 6,220 tpy to 1.12 tpy of
SO2 and from 2,060 tpy to 14.2 tpy of PM10. No
construction or emissions increases are authorized by the permit
action. The RPU Silver Lake permit (No. 10900011-005) was finalized and
issued on November 25, 2015.
The MPCA also seeks to remove from the City of Rochester
SO2 maintenance SIP all incorporated title I SO2
SIP conditions from 40 CFR part 52 subpart Y (52.1220) associated with
the following facilities: RPU Cascade Creek (No. 10900020-003),
Associated Milk Producers (No. 10900010-001), St. Mary's (No. 10900008-
003), Olmsted WTE (No. 10900005-002), Mayo (No. 1148-83-OT-1
[10900019]), and IBM (No. 10900006-001).
III. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
Our primary consideration for determining the approvability of the
Minnesota's revision to the Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County
PM10 maintenance plans in the SIP is whether these revisions
comply with section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) of the CAA
provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if that revision
interferes with any applicable requirement regarding attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other requirement established in the
CAA.
The EPA can, however, approve a SIP revision that removes or
modifies control measures in the SIP once the state makes a
``noninterference'' demonstration that such removal or modification
will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, or any other CAA
requirement. Minnesota has evaluated the impacts of approving these
revisions.
The current, SIP-limited PTE in the City of Rochester
SO2 maintenance area is 10,469.7 tpy. Table 2 shows the SIP-
authorized PTE for the SIP facilities, as well as the unrestricted PTEs
for the facilities proposed for removal. RPU Silver Lake is already
operating in the capacity proposed for SIP approval (natural gas is
currently approved as an allowable fuel in the SIP, and the facility is
firing its two remaining boilers with natural gas), and as a result
SO2 emissions have dropped considerably. Emissions of
SO2 from 2013, the last year the RPU Silver Lake facility
burned coal, were 554 tons; emissions from 2014 were less than 0.01
ton. Upon approval by EPA of the SIP revision and associated title I
SO2 SIP conditions, the facility's PTE will drop from 6,220
tpy SO2 to 1.12 tpy SO2.
A reduction of this magnitude (6218.88 tpy) more than offsets the
amount of SIP-limited inventory from all other Rochester SIP
facilities, with the current total SIP-limited PTE from all other
SO2 SIP sources totaling 4315.4 tpy. It is extremely
unlikely that any of the remaining SIP facilities (or any facility in
the City of Rochester) would ever seek to increase emissions to a level
approaching that of the reduction resulting from the operational
changes and SIP revision for RPU Silver Lake, even without title I SIP
conditions included in their permits. Any facility seeking an increase
in SO2 emissions approaching the level of emissions reduced
by RPU Silver Lake, would trigger Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements, presumably including modeling,
ensuring protection of the NAAQS. Additionally, though an anti-
backsliding demonstration must only ensure that the emissions
reductions provided by the SIP revision are equivalent or greater to
the emissions reductions originally provided by control being modified,
i.e., account for the ``SIP-creditable'' emissions reductions, Table I
also shows that even the facilities' unrestricted PTE would not exceed
the current SIP-limited
[[Page 13233]]
emissions inventory. In effect, it is not possible for the facilities
to emit more SO2 than is currently approved by the SIP. As
noted in Table 1, in 2014 the seven current SIP sources together
emitted approximately 58 tons of SO2, with St. Mary's having
the highest emissions of the seven, at just over 35 tons.
Table 2--Rochester SIP Potential To Emit: SIP Approved and Unrestricted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current SIP-
approved SO2 Unrestricted SO2 PTE
Facility name SIP approved permit No. PTE (tpy) (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Milk Producers............. 10900010-001 83.4 1,452
Franklin Heating Station (SIP 1148-83-OT-1 [10900019] 3,867 3,947
requirements are in Mayo Medical
Clinic Rochester 10900084).
IBM................................... 10900006-001 99.0 425.2
Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility...... 10900005-002 102.3 137.2
Rochester Public Utilities--Cascade 10900020-003 98.0 405
Creek.
Rochester Public Utilities--Silver 10900011-004 6,220 1.12 (facility remains
Lake. in the SIP with new SIP-
approved PTE).
St. Mary's Hospital................... 10900008-003 65.7 738.8
-----------------------------------------
Total............................. .............................. 10,535.4 7,106.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions demonstration above shows that emissions reductions
from RPU Silver Lake are sufficient to ensure that the original SIP
attainment/maintenance emissions inventory will not be exceeded by the
facilities proposed for removal even operating at unrestricted PTE
levels. The facilities proposed for removal from the Rochester
SO2 SIP however, will not operate at unrestricted PTE levels
and will remain under the purview of the MPCA air quality permitting
program, and as such, will be regulated at the state level. The NAAQS
are an applicable requirement for all air emissions permits in
Minnesota, and the MPCA maintains the authority in Minn. R. 7007.0500,
subp. 1(E) and subp. 2(E), and 7007.0800, to require demonstrations of
NAAQS compliance through permit actions.
Further, the facilities proposed for removal from the SIP have
continued to reduce SO2 emissions through the availability
of cleaner fuels and efficiency improvements not required by the SIP.
For example, IBM is constructing newer, more efficient boilers to
replace certain boilers authorized under the SIP. This change will
reduce their total facility limited PTE to 5.89 tpy SO2.
Additionally, Mayo has been authorized to use No. 6 fuel oil as a back-
up fuel when natural gas was not available for three boilers; they now
use No. 2 fuel oil as a backup for these boilers. The MPCA is currently
processing a permit action to incorporate these changes, which will
result in a new PTE of less than 127 tpy of SO2--a
significant reduction from their current SIP-authorized PTE of 3,867
tpy.
The SIP revision will result in an overall decrease of SIP-
authorized emissions in the City of Rochester Maintenance area, and the
most recent emission inventory data shows that actual emissions from
the existing SIP sources are significantly lower than the SIP-
authorized limits. This information, combined with the most recently
available monitoring data \2\ for the City of Rochester show that the
SIP revision will not jeopardize continued attainment of the annual,
24-hour, and 3-hour SO2 NAAQS addressed in the existing
maintenance SIP, nor will it threaten attainment of the 2010 one-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The SIP revision will also result in a reduction
of PM10 emissions in the existing PM10
maintenance SIP, thereby ensuring continued maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In 2014, an SO2 monitor was installed in the City
of Rochester (EPA Air Quality System, or AQS no. 271-095-008).
Monitoring data from 2014 captures the operational changes at RPU
Silver Lake, and is generally reflective of the expected continued
operation of the other SIP facilities in the City of Rochester. The
low ambient air concentrations of SO2 captured by the
monitor indicate that the area is not likely to exceed any of the
existing SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also examined whether the changes outlined in the SIP revision
have interfered with attainment of other air quality standards. The
City of Rochester is designated attainment for all other standards
including ozone and nitrogen dioxide. EPA has no reason to believe that
Minnesota's revision to the Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County
PM10 maintenance plans have caused or will cause the
Rochester area to become nonattainment for any of these pollutants. In
addition, EPA believes that the approval of Minnesota's revision to the
Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County PM10 maintenance
plans will not interfere with the area's ability to meet any other CAA
requirement. Based on the above discussion and the state's 110(l)
demonstration, EPA believes that the updates to the Rochester
SO2 and Olmsted County PM10 maintenance plans
will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS
in the Rochester, MN area and would not interfere with any other
applicable requirement of the CAA, and thus, is approvable under CAA
section 110(l).
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving a revision to the Rochester SO2 and
Olmsted County PM10 SIPs, as submitted by MPCA on December
11, 2015. The revision will consolidate existing permanent and
enforceable SO2 and PM10 SIP conditions into the
RPU Silver Lake facility's joint title I/title V SIP document. In
addition, the revision will simultaneously remove all existing title I
SIP conditions from the remaining six facilities (RPU Cascade Creek,
Associated Milk Producers, St. Mary's, Olmsted WTE, Mayo, and IBM) from
the Rochester SO2 SIP. 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 May 9, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by April 10, 2017. If we receive such
comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by
publishing a subsequent document that will
[[Page 13234]]
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that
if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section
of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective May 9, 2017.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Minnesota
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\3\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at
the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 9, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Sulfur oxides, Particulate matter.
Dated: December 29, 2016.
Robert Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is 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. In Sec. 52.1220, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by:
0
i. Removing the entries for ``Associated Milk Producers'' (10900010-
001), ``Franklin Heating Station'' (1148-83-OT-1 [10900019]),
``International Business Machine Corp., IBM--Rochester'' (10900006-
001), ``Olmsted County, Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility'' (10900005-
002), ``Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade Creek Combustion''
(10900020-003), and ``St. Mary's Hospital'' (10900008-003).
0
ii. Revising the entry for ``Rochester Public Utilities, Silver Lake
Plant'' to read as follows:
[[Page 13235]]
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA--Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit No. effective date EPA approval date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Rochester Public Utilities, 10900011-005 11/25/15 3/10/17, [Insert Only conditions cited
Silver Lake Plant. Federal Register as ``Title I
citation]. Condition: 40 CFR
Section 50.4, SO2
SIP; Title I
Condition: 40 CFR
pt. 52, subp. Y''
and ``Title I
Condition: 40 CFR
Section 50.6, PM10
SIP; Title I
Condition: 40 CFR
pt. 52, subp. Y''.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-04694 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
