[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63066-63069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28681]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1130; FRL-9087-7]


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 Utilities Silver Lake Plant (RPU-SLP), located in 
Rochester, Minnesota. In its October 16, 2007, submittal, the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requested that EPA approve certain 
conditions contained in RPU-SLP's revised Federally enforceable joint 
Title I/Title V document into the Minnesota SO2 SIP. The 
request is approvable because it satisfies the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA). The rationale for the approval and other 
information are provided in this rulemaking action.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective February 1, 2010, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 4, 2010. 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-2007-1130, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected].
    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-
2007-1130. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through 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

[[Page 63067]]

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 Christos Panos, Environmental 
Engineer, at (312) 353-8328 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Environmental 
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. General Information
    1. What Is the Background for This Action?
    2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
    3. What Is a ``Title I Condition?''
II. What Action Is EPA Taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

1. What Is the Background for This Action?

    The Silver Lake Plant is an electric generating station located at 
425 West Silver Lake Drive Northeast, in Rochester, Olmsted County, 
Minnesota, having a total generating capacity of approximately 100 
megawatts. Emission sources at the facility include four pulverized 
coal-fired dry-bottom boilers, a natural-gas-fired steam heating 
boiler, coal handling and storage facilities, fly and bottom ash 
storage and handling facilities, and fugitive emissions from unpaved 
roads. Boilers 1, 2, 3, and 4 were constructed in 1949, 1952, 1962, and 
1969, respectively. The primary fuels for these four boilers are 
bituminous coal and natural gas.
    Emission limits for the four boilers were part of the 1981 
Rochester SO2 SIP approved by EPA. On March 9, 2001 (66 FR 
14087), EPA approved a Title V permit into the SIP entitled ``Minnesota 
Air Emission Permit No. 10900011-001,'' issued to RPU-SLP on July 22, 
1997. This Title V permit included 24-hour average Total Ambient 
Culpability Weighted Emission Factor (TACWEF) equations that limited 
the facility to 2718.6 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) of SO2, to 
provide for attainment and maintenance of the SO2 National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Other SO2 SIP 
requirements were included in the Title V permit for operation of 
Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs), recordkeeping, and reporting 
deviations.
    The Title V permit also contained emission limits and control 
strategies for particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter 
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). These emission 
limits and control strategies were originally contained in an 
administrative order for RPU-SLP previously approved by EPA as part of 
the Rochester PM10 SIP on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31088). EPA 
inadvertently omitted incorporating by reference the PM10 limits when 
the Title V permit replaced the administrative orders in Minnesota's 
SIP on March 9, 2001. These PM10 limits still apply to the facility and 
are included in the joint Title I/Title V document as Title I SIP 
conditions.
    The SIP revision submitted by MPCA on October 16, 2007, consists of 
``Minnesota Air Emission Permit No. 10900011-004,'' issued to RPU-SLP 
on September 7, 2007, which serves as a joint Title I/Title V document. 
The State has requested that EPA approve into the Minnesota 
SO2 SIP only the portions of the permit cited as ``Title I 
Condition: State Implementation Plan for SO2'' and ``Title I 
Condition: State Implementation Plan for PM10.''
    Minnesota held a public hearing regarding the SIP revision and the 
joint Title I/Title V document on August 23, 2007. The MPCA received 
one public comment in support of the Title V permit and SIP revision.

2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    EPA is taking this action because the State's SIP submittal for 
RPU-SLP is fully approvable. The SIP revision results in a substantial 
decrease in SO2 emissions and satisfies the applicable 
SO2 requirements of the CAA.
    Under the 2001 SIP conditions, the four boilers are limited to a 
3.2 lb/mmBtu emission limit for SO2 when operating alone, 
and to sulfur emission limits determined based on TACWEF equations when 
more than one unit is operating on coal at the same time. The 
facility's SIP approved PM10 limits are carried over into the joint 
Title I/Title V document and have not changed in content since they 
were approved by EPA in 1995.
    RPU-SLP initiated changes to the facility to comply with the Clean 
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and to meet their Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) obligations under the Regional Haze Rule. The changes 
also satisfy the terms of a 2006 settlement agreement between the 
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA), MPCA, and RPU-SLP, 
which resulted from MCEA's appeal of a previous permit amendment to 
RPU-SLP, ``Air Emissions Permit No. 10900011-003'' issued in 2004. 
Significant changes that occurred in that permit action included a 
decreased limit on the amount of coal burned per year and lower 
SO2 emission limits. A SIP revision was not required for the 
2004 permit amendment because the SO2 limits in that permit 
satisfied the SO2 limits in the SIP. In order to meet the 
requirements of the settlement, RPU-SLP initiated a project to install 
additional pollution control equipment for SO2, PM, and 
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) on Unit 4. A spray-dryer absorber, designed to 
achieve a 70-85% removal rate, will be installed to control 
SO2 and existing electrostatic precipitators will be 
replaced with fabric filters to control PM. The project will also 
involve building changes, including removal of an office building and 
the attachment of two equipment buildings to the north side boiler 
building. There are no physical changes being made to RPU-SLP Units 1-
3.
    The new SO2 limits incorporated from the joint Title I/
Title V document into the SIP will be 2.3 lb/mmBtu for Units 1-3 for 
any unit when operating alone for all averaging times. New group limits 
of 1.9 lb/mmBtu limit for the 24-hour and 1-hour averaging times and 
2.3 lb/mmBtu limit for the 3-hour averaging time will apply to Units 1-
3 if more than one unit is operating on coal. These new group limits 
are more stringent than the SO2 limits currently in the SIP 
and will replace the TACWEF equations, which will be removed upon 
approval of the SIP revision. An interim SIP limit of 2.1 lb/mmBtu will 
apply to Unit 4 while the pollution control project is installed. This 
limit will be

[[Page 63068]]

replaced by a final SIP limit of 0.6 lb/mmBtu for Unit 4 once the 
pollution control project is operational.
    MPCA is currently preparing an update to the Rochester 
SO2 maintenance plan, as the Rochester area was redesignated 
to attainment of the SO2 NAAQS on March 9, 2001 (66 FR 
14087). Section 175A of the CAA requires States to submit a revised 
maintenance plan eight years after redesignation of any area as an 
attainment area. MPCA has indicated that this maintenance plan update 
will include nearby sources, regional sources, background sources, and 
future growth. Revised air dispersion modeling was conducted for this 
SIP revision using the AERMOD model with Rochester meteorological data 
to ensure continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the area. 
Based on the modeling results, the changes at RPU-SLP described above 
are projected to lower the air quality impacts from the facility, 
compared to emission limits currently allowed under the 2001 SIP. The 
modeling compared RPU-SLP's current operating scenario to the post-
project scenario. EPA therefore finds the SIP revision is fully 
approvable because it results in a substantial decrease in 
SO2 emissions at RPU-SLP from what is allowed under the 2001 
SIP, and subsequent lower SO2 ambient concentrations in the 
Rochester area.

3. What Is a ``Title I Condition?''

    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. The State 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 
Minnesota 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 [NAAQS] and which was part of the [SIP] 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 also 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 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.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving into the Minnesota SO2 SIP for the City 
of Rochester, Olmsted County, certain portions of Minnesota Air 
Emission Permit No. 10900011-004, issued to RPU-SLP on August 23, 2007. 
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'' and ``Title I Condition: State 
Implementation Plan for PM10.'' In addition, EPA is removing from the 
Minnesota SO2 SIP all other references to Title I conditions 
for RPU-SLP that are not relevant to attainment of the NAAQS.
    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 February 1, 
2010 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comments by January 4, 2010. 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 February 1, 2010.

III. 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 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 Act; 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

[[Page 63069]]

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 CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by February 1, 2010. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: November 17, 2009.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
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, Silver Lake Plant'' to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State effective
          Name of source               Permit No.          date         EPA approval date         Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Rochester Public Utilities, Silver     10900011-004           9/7/07  December 2, 2009,     Only conditions
 Lake Plant.                                                           [Insert page number   cited as ``Title I
                                                                       where the document    Condition: SIP for
                                                                       begins].              SO2'' and ``Title I
                                                                                             Condition: SIP for
                                                                                             PM10.''
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-28681 Filed 12-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P