11668 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Reserve or Individual Ready Reserve 

member) or any cost-share for covered 

services. 

* * * * * 

(20) Preventive services. Traditional 

prophylaxis including scaling deposits 

from teeth, polishing teeth, and topical 

application of fluoride to teeth, as well 

as other dental services authorized in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Diagnostic and preventive services. 

Benefits may be extended for those 

dental services described as oral 

examination, diagnostic, and preventive 

services when performed directly by 

dentists and dental hygienists as 

authorized under paragraph (f) of this 

section. These include the following 

categories of service: 

* * * * * 

(B) * * * 

(5) Sealants. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(5) Participating provider. An 

authorized provider may elect to 

participate as a network provider in the 

dental plan contractor’s network and 

any such election will apply to all TDP 

beneficiaries. The authorized provider 

may not participate on a claim-by-claim 

basis. The participating provide must 

agree to accept, within one (1) day of a 

request for appointment, beneficiaries in 

need of emergency palliative treatment. 

Payment to the participating provider is 

based on the methodology specified in 

paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section. The 

fee or charge determinations are binding 

upon the provider in accordance with 

the dental plan contractor’s procedures 

for participation in the network. 

Payment is made directly to the 

participating provider, and the 

participating provider may only charge 

the beneficiary the applicable percent 

cost-share of the dental plan contractor’s 

allowable charge for those benefit 

categories as specified in paragraph (e) 

of this section, in addition to the full 

charges for any services not authorized 

as benefits. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Nonparticipating providers (or the 

Beneficiaries or active duty, Selected 

Reserve or Individual Ready Reserve 

members for unassigned claims) shall be 

reimbursed at the lesser of the 

provider’s actual charge: Or the network 

maximum allowable charge for similar 

services for that same locality (region) or 

state, whichever is lower, subject to the 

exception listed in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of 

this section, less any cost-share amount 

due for authorized services. The 

network maximum allowable charge is 

the maximum negotiated fee between 

the dental contractor and any TDP 

participating provider for similar 

services covered by the dental plan in 

that same locality (region) or state. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 2, 2016. 

Morgan E. Park, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04983 Filed 3–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2016–0150] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the PATH Bridge 

across the Hackensack River, mile 3.0, at 

Jersey City, New Jersey. This deviation 

is necessary to allow the bridge owner 

to replace rails and ties at the bridge. 

This deviation allows the bridge to 

remain closed on Saturdays through 

Mondays for twenty-six consecutive 

weekends. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

12:01 a.m. on March 19, 2016 to 12:01 

a.m. on September 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG–2016–0150] is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Joe M. Arca, 

Project Officer, First Coast Guard 

District, telephone (212) 514–4336, 

email joe.m.arca@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PATH 

railroad bridge across the Hackensack 

River, mile 3.0, at Jersey City, New 

Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the 

closed position of 40 feet at mean high 

water and 45 feet at mean low water. 

The existing bridge operating 

regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.723. 

The waterway is transited by seasonal 

recreational vessels and commercial 

vessels of various sizes. 

The bridge owner, Port Authority 

Trans-Hudson (PATH), requested a 

temporary deviation from the normal 

operating schedule to facilitate 

replacement of the rails and ties at the 

bridge. 

Under this temporary deviation, the 

PATH railroad bridge may remain in the 

closed position for twenty-six 

weekends, between 12:01 a.m. on 

Saturdays through 12:01 a.m. on 

Mondays from March 19, 2016 through 

September 12, 2016. 

Vessels able to pass under the bridge 

in the closed position may do so at 

anytime. The bridge will not be able to 

open for emergencies and there is no 

immediate alternate route for vessels to 

pass. 

The Coast Guard will inform the users 

of the waterways through our Local 

Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the 

change in operating schedule for the 

bridge so that vessel operations can 

arrange their transits to minimize any 

impact caused by the temporary 

deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: March 2, 2016. 

C.J. Bisignano, 

Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04994 Filed 3–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0592; FRL–9943–15– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; 

Revision to Visibility Federal 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is revising the Minnesota 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) for 

visibility, to establish emission limits 

for Northern States Power Company’s 

(NSP’s) Sherburne County Generating 

Station (Sherco), pursuant to a 

settlement agreement. The settlement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 11669 

agreement, signed by representatives of 

EPA, NSP, and three environmental 

groups, was for resolution of a lawsuit 

filed by the environmental groups for 

EPA to address any contribution from 

Sherco to reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (RAVI) that the 

Department of Interior (DOI) certified 

was occurring at Voyageurs and Isle 

Royale National Parks. 

DATE: This final rule is effective on 

April 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0592. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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 John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

at (312) 886–6067 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067, 

summerhays.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. What events led to a settlement agreement 

regarding Sherco? 

II. What comments did EPA receive on its 

proposed action? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What events led to a settlement 

agreement regarding Sherco? 

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act 

provides for a visibility protection 

program and sets forth as a national goal 

‘‘the prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ Pursuant 

to these statutory requirements, EPA 

promulgated regulations entitled 

‘‘Visibility Protection’’ in subpart P of 

title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (40 CFR), specifically in 40 

CFR 51.300 et seq., which include 

separate requirements addressing RAVI 

and regional haze. 45 FR 80084 

(December 2, 1980). 

Pursuant to these regulations, the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) sent 

EPA a letter dated October 21, 2009, 

certifying the existence of RAVI at 

Voyageurs and Isle Royale National 

Parks and citing modeling results from 

Minnesota’s regional haze plan in 

support of a view that Sherco is a source 

of RAVI in these areas. After three years 

passed, a group of three environmental 

groups filed a lawsuit alleging that EPA 

had an obligation to evaluate whether 

Sherco was a source of this RAVI and 

if so to promulgate requirements to 

address this RAVI. EPA, the 

environmental groups, and NSP then 

held settlement discussions leading to a 

settlement agreement that became final 

on July 24, 2015. 

In the settlement agreement, EPA 

agreed to propose specific emission 

limits, and propose to conclude that 

these limits addressed the concern 

identified by DOI, such that no need 

existed for any review of whether 

Sherco is a RAVI source or whether best 

available retrofit technology (BART) at 

Sherco is warranted for addressing 

RAVI. On August 11, 2015, DOI wrote 

to EPA regarding the settlement 

agreement, stating that ‘‘the settlement 

achieves an outcome that addresses our 

visibility concerns at Voyageurs and Isle 

Royale National Parks.’’ EPA published 

its notice of proposed rulemaking on 

October 27, 2015, at 80 FR 65675. The 

notice provides further details regarding 

the RAVI regulations, the background 

and history of settlement discussions for 

Sherco, and the limits that EPA 

proposed. 

II. What comments did EPA receive on 

its proposed action? 

EPA received no comments on its 

proposed rule, and EPA has received no 

new information that would warrant 

promulgating a rule differing in any way 

from the proposed rule. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is promulgating the emission 

limits for Sherco that were identified in 

the settlement agreement signed on May 

15, 2015, by representatives of EPA, 

three environmental groups, and NSP. 

Specifically, EPA is promulgating the 

following limits: 

—For stack SV001, serving Units 1 and 

2, a limit on SO2 emissions of 0.050 

lbs/MMBtu, as a 30-day rolling 

average, determined as the ratio of 

pounds of emissions divided by the 

heat input in MMBtu, both summed 

over 30 successive boiler-operating 

days, beginning on the 30-boileroperating-day period ending 

September 30, 2015. For purposes of 

this limit, a boiler operating day is 

defined as a day in which fuel is 

combusted in either Unit 1 or Unit 2 

(or both). 

—For Unit 3, a limit on SO2 of 0.29 lbs/ 

MMBtu, as a 30-day rolling average, 

also determined as the ratio of pounds 

of emissions divided by the heat input 

in MMBtu, both summed over 30 

successive boiler-operating days, 

beginning on the 30-boiler-operatingday period ending May 31, 2017. 

Additionally, in light of DOI’s August 

11, 2015, letter, EPA is concluding that 

the incorporation of these SO2 emission 

limits into the Minnesota visibility FIP 

satisfies any outstanding obligation EPA 

has with respect to DOI’s 2009 RAVI 

certification. EPA intends to conduct no 

analysis of the magnitude or origins of 

visibility impairment at Voyageurs or 

Isle Royale or review of potential BART 

control options at Sherco in response to 

this certification. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. Because the FIP applies to just one 

facility, the Paperwork Reduction Act 

does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. EPA’s rule 

adds additional controls to a certain 

source. The Regional Haze FIP revisions 

that EPA is promulgating here would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

11670 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

impose Federal control requirements to 

resolve concerns that one power plant 

in Minnesota is unduly affecting 

visibility at two national parks. The 

power plant and its owners are not 

small entities. We have therefore 

concluded that this action will have no 

net regulatory burden for all directly 

regulated small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. However, EPA did 

discuss this action in a July 16, 2015, 

conference call with Michigan and 

Minnesota tribes, and EPA invited 

further comment from tribes that may be 

interested in this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. However, to the extent this 

rule will limit emissions of SO2, the rule 

will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. We have determined that 

this rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This rule is exempt from the CRA 

because it is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

L. Judicial Review 

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 May 6, 2016. 

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, 

Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, visibility 

protection. 

Dated: February 24, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

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. Section 52.1236 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1236 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(e)(1) On and after the 30-boileroperating-day period ending on 

September 30, 2015, the owners and 

operators of the facility at 13999 

Industrial Boulevard in Becker, 

Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall not 

cause or permit the emission of SO2

from stack SV001 (serving Units 1 and 

2) to exceed 0.050 lbs/MMBTU as a 30- 

day rolling average. 

(2) On and after the 30-boileroperating-day period ending on May 31, 

2017, the owners and operators of the 

facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in 

Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, 

shall not cause or permit the emission 

of SO2 from Unit 3 to exceed 0.29 lbs/ 

MMBTU as a 30-day rolling average. 

(3) The owners and operators of the 

facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in 

Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, 

shall operate continuous SO2 emission 

monitoring systems in compliance with 

40 CFR 75, and the data from this 

emission monitoring shall be used to 

determine compliance with the limits in 

this paragraph (e). 

(4) For each boiler operating day, 

compliance with the 30-day average 

limitations in paragraphs (e)(1) and 

(e)(2) of this section shall be determined 

by summing total emissions in pounds 

for the period consisting of the day and 

the preceding 29 successive boiler 

operating days, summing total heat 

input in MMBTU for the same period, 

and computing the ratio of these sums 

in lbs/MMBTU. Boiler operating day is 

used to mean a 24-hour period between 

12 midnight and the following midnight 

during which any fuel is combusted at 

any time in the steam-generating unit. It 

is not necessary for fuel to be combusted 

the entire 24-hour period. A boiler 

operating day with respect to the 

limitation in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section shall be a day in which fuel is 

combusted in either Unit 1 or Unit 2. 

Bias adjustments provided for under 40 

CFR 75 appendix A shall be applied. 

Substitute data provided for under 40 

CFR 75 subpart D shall not be used. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04751 Filed 3–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES