

[Federal Register: April 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 67)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 17461-17463]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ap07-28]                         


[[Page 17461]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0772; FRL-8296-2]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Minnesota State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2). 
Specifically, the revisions involve Flint Hills Resources, L.P. (Flint 
Hills) of Dakota County, Minnesota. In these revisions, Flint Hills is 
expanding operations at its petroleum refinery. To account for the 
increased SO2 emissions from the expansion, Flint Hills is 
closing its sulfuric acid plant. An analysis of the revisions shows 
that the area air quality will be protected. Minnesota has also 
included additional monitoring requirements in the revisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0772, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments.
     E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
     Fax: (312)886-5824.
     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.
     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-
2006-0772. 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. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    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 legal holidays. We 
recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 
886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, 
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, rau.matthew@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 Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Is EPA Proposing?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?
V. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
VI. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. What Is EPA Proposing?

    EPA is proposing approval of revisions to SO2 emission 
limits at the Flint Hills facility. Minnesota submitted its Findings 
and Order Amendment Eight on July 24, 2006. Flint Hills is expanding 
operations at its petroleum refinery. This expansion includes adding a 
new heater, emissions unit 25H-4. Modifications to two heaters, 25H-1 
and 25H-3, are also allowed. Potential SO2 emissions from 
the new heater and the two modified heaters are restricted by the 878 
tons per year facility-wide limit on fuel gas combustion units.
    Minnesota is also requiring Flint Hills to install a continuous 
monitor on either the fuel gas from the 45 mix drum or the heater 
firing that fuel gas. The monitor will measure reduced sulfur in the 
fuel gas or SO2 emissions exhausting from the heater.

[[Page 17462]]

III. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Flint Hills operates a petroleum refinery in the Minneapolis-Saint 
Paul metropolitan area. Flint Hills is expanding its crude oil 
processing operations. The expansion will increase the crude oil unit's 
gasoline production capacity from 100,000 to 150,000 barrels per day. 
Minnesota amended its Findings and Order to allow the revisions 
necessary for the expansion. This is the eighth amendment to the Flint 
Hills Findings and Order.
    Minnesota held a public hearing regarding Findings and Order 
Amendment Eight on May 25, 2006. No comments on the Flint Hills 
revisions were received at the public meeting or during the 30-day 
public comment period.

IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?

    Minnesota included air dispersion modeling results in its 
submission. The modeling analysis includes all Flint Hills 
SO2 emissions sources, including the additional and modified 
sources. Other significant SO2 sources in the area were also 
included. The modeling analysis examined the impact of the revisions on 
the SO2 air quality standards. The primary SO2 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has both an annual and 
24-hour averaging period. The secondary NAAQS has a 3-hour averaging 
period.
    Flint Hills used the ISCST3 dispersion model in the regulatory 
mode. Five years of surface meteorological data from the Minneapolis-
Saint Paul International Airport and upper air data from Saint Cloud 
were used. Building downwash effects from the new and existing 
structures were accounted for in the modeling. The analysis found that 
the predicted annual SO2 concentration is 38.5 [mu]g/m\3\ 
compared to the standard of 80 [mu]g/m\3\. The modeled 24-hour level of 
266.8 [mu]g/m\3\ is under the 365 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS. Similarly, the 
predicted 3-hour average is 726.2 [mu]g/m\3\ which is under the 
secondary standard of 1300 [mu]g/m\3\.

V. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?

    Sulfur dioxide 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 America. Acid rain damages lakes and 
streams impairing aquatic life and causes damage to buildings, 
sculptures, statues, and monuments. Sulfur dioxide also causes the loss 
of chloroform leading to vegetation damage.
    The expansion of the Flint Hills facility includes an additional 
source and revised limits on several sources that results in higher 
SO2 emissions. The projected increase in SO2 
emissions from this project is 315 tons per year. However, overall 
SO2 emissions from Flint Hills have been reduced. When 
considering all sources at the facility there is no increase in 
SO2 emissions, in fact there is a projected decrease of 99.6 
tons per year. Therefore, the ``net emissions increase'' is below the 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) significant threshold for 
SO2 of 40 tons per year. This project is not subject to PSD 
requirements.
    The effects of the expansion were analyzed. Both the projected 
SO2 emissions from the Flint Hills facility and the 
reductions from other area facilities were considered. That analysis 
showed that the maximum predicted ambient SO2 concentrations 
are below the primary and secondary NAAQS. This indicates that public 
health and welfare in Dakota County, Minnesota should be protected. The 
additional monitoring requirements placed on the heater combusting the 
fuel gas from the 45 mix drum will also help protect the air quality.

VI. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to SO2 emissions 
regulations for Flint Hills Resources, L.P. of Dakota County, 
Minnesota. The revisions authorize adding a new heater, modifying two 
heaters, and additional monitoring.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is 
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements 
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty 
beyond that required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this 
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

[[Page 17463]]

Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use 
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are 
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a 
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus 
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for 
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of 
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the 
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA 
do not apply.

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: March 19, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7-6619 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
