
[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 http://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 http://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


