[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18638-18641]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-9]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. http://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
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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 http://
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 http://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