[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 13, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55196-55201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23375]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI91-01-7322; FRL-6845-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are approving a site-specific revision to the Wisconsin 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 
Murphy Oil located in Superior, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources (WDNR) submitted this SIP revision on February 26, 
1999 in response to a request for an alternate SO2 emission 
limitation by Murphy Oil. This final approval is based on the proposal 
published on August 16, 1999 at 64 FR 44451. As stated in the proposal, 
there will not be a second comment period on this action. The rationale 
for the approval and other information are provided in this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on October 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision, public comments, and other 
materials relating to this action are available for inspection during 
normal business hours at the following address: United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division 
(AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please 
contact Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328, before visiting the Region 5 
Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Regulation Development 
Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is 
organized as follows:

    A. What action is EPA taking today?
    B. Why was this SIP revision submitted?
    C. What is the background for this rulemaking?
    D. Why can EPA approve this request?
    E. What comments were submitted to EPA?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    We are approving WDNR's February 26, 1999 request for a site-
specific revision to the Wisconsin SO2 SIP. Specifically, we 
are approving: (A) the SO2 emission limits contained in 
Wisconsin Air Pollution Control Operation Permit No. 95-SDD-120-OP, 
issued by the WDNR to Murphy Oil, USA on February 17, 1999; and (B) a 
modeled attainment demonstration assessing the impact of the alternate 
SO2 limits for Murphy Oil, located in Superior (Douglas 
County), Wisconsin. Today's approval is based on the proposal published 
on August 16, 1999 at 64 FR 44451. As stated in the proposal, there 
will not be a second comment period on this action.

B. Why Was This SIP Revision Submitted?

    Murphy Oil owns and operates a petroleum refinery in Superior, 
Wisconsin. The categorical statewide emission limit that we had 
approved on May 21, 1993 for any process heater firing residual fuel 
oil at petroleum refineries is 0.8 pounds of SO2 per million 
British Thermal Units (lbs/MMBTU). Residual fuel oil is defined as an 
industrial fuel oil of grade No. 4, 5 or 6, as determined by the 
American Society for Testing and Materials. Also included in our May 
21, 1993 final approval of Wisconsin's statewide SO2 rules 
was NR 417.07(5), which established the state's procedures for sources 
to obtain alternate emission limitations. However, in both our January 
2, 1992 proposed rulemaking and our May 21, 1993 final action, we noted 
that Wisconsin had to submit all relaxed state limits for approval as 
site-specific SIP revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA). We also stated that any previous SIP limitations would 
remain in effect and enforceable until we approved the proposed relaxed 
limitations into the SO2 SIP.
    Both our alternative emission limit requirements and WDNR's NR 
417.05(5) require, among other things, that before an alternate 
emission limit can be approved, it must be demonstrated that the 
proposed alternate limit will not delay attainment or prevent 
maintenance of the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS). Additionally, the federal requirement limits the demonstration 
to no more than 75 percent of the NAAQS. Murphy Oil has requested an 
alternate emission limit of 3.0 lbs/MMBTU for any combustion unit when 
combusting #6 fuel oil. The WDNR air quality modeling evaluates this 
alternate limit in comparison to the SO2 NAAQS. Additional 
information is available in our June 7, 1999 Technical Support Document 
(TSD).

C. What Is the Background for This Rulemaking?

    On April 26, 1984 we notified the Governor of Wisconsin that the 
Wisconsin SO2 SIP was inadequate to ensure the protection of 
the primary and secondary SO2 NAAQS. The state responded to 
the notice of SIP deficiency with a statewide SO2 emission 
limitations rule (NR 417.07). On January 2, 1992 at 57 FR 25, we 
proposed to approve the majority of Wisconsin's statewide 
SO2 rules. A final approval of the majority of NR 417.07 was 
published on May 21, 1993 at 58 FR 29538. (We took no action on NR 
417.07(2)(e) and NR 417.07(2)(f).)
    As allowed under NR 417.07(5), Murphy Oil initially submitted a 
request for an alternate SO2 emission limit in 1985 and 
proposed the first alternate SO2 emission limitations in 
1986. The WDNR concluded in an August 1988 memorandum that Murphy Oil's 
request for an alternate SO2 emission limit was approvable. 
However, the state did not proceed at that time to propose an operating 
permit incorporating the alternate emission limit or to request public 
input on the proposed alternate emission limit, as required by the 
state rule.
    On February 26, 1999 the state submitted a site-specific SIP 
revision for Murphy Oil and requested that we approve the alternate 
SO2 emission limits for Murphy Oil into the Wisconsin 
SO2 SIP. We concluded in our June 7, 1999 TSD that the 
modeled attainment demonstration using the alternate SO2 
limits was fully approvable. Given this, and because the source had 
followed the procedures of Wisconsin State Rule NR 417.07(5) for 
obtaining alternate emission limits, which we had approved on May 21, 
1993, we proceeded to approve the SIP submittal as a Direct Final 
Federal Register document.
    EPA published a direct final action approving the alternate 
SO2 emission limits for Murphy Oil on August 16,

[[Page 55197]]

1999 at 64 FR 44415, which stated that if we received adverse comments 
by September 15, 1999, we would publish a timely notice of withdrawal 
in the Federal Register. Because we received adverse comments, we 
withdrew the direct final approval of the site-specific revision to the 
Wisconsin SO2 SIP for Murphy Oil on September 29, 1999 at 64 
FR 52438.

D. Why Can EPA Approve This Request?

    We are approving the current SIP submittal because the source has 
followed the procedures of Wisconsin State Rule NR 417.07(5) for 
obtaining alternate emission limits, which we approved on May 21, 1993 
at 58 FR 29538. This SIP revision was submitted by WDNR in response to 
a January 1, 1985 request for an alternate SO2 emission 
limitation by Murphy Oil. Although all the comments submitted in 
response to our August 16, 1999 Direct Final Federal Register notice 
(64 FR 44415) requested that we disapprove the SIP revision, the 
commenters submitted no new information that would warrant a 
disapproval under the requirements of the CAA. As detailed in the June 
7, 1999 TSD, the modeled attainment demonstration using the alternate 
SO2 limit is fully approvable since it is consistent with 
EPA's nationally applicable modeling procedures. Further, the source 
has followed the procedures of Wisconsin State Rule NR 417.07(5) for 
obtaining alternate emission limits, as we approved on May 21, 1993.

E. What Comments Were Submitted to EPA?

    We received 12 timely comment letters opposing our approval of the 
site-specific SIP revision for Murphy Oil. (We also received three 
letters postmarked after the September 15, 1999 close of the comment 
period). Because of the similarity of the comments received, rather 
than responding to the letters individually, the comments were 
summarized and categorized under the issues raised. We evaluated all 
the comments with respect to our proposed approval and prepared a 
``Response to Comments'' document dated April 20, 2000 which summarizes 
the comments received and includes our evaluation and detailed 
response.
    The summarized comments and their responses are divided into the 
following six points that commenters raised as to why we should deny 
the state's request to approve alternate SO2 emission limits 
for Murphy Oil into the SIP: (1) Health effects; (2) Existing Clean Air 
Act violations; (3) Public denied opportunity for meaningful comment; 
(4) Cost calculations should not be considered; (5) Data and modeling 
appear inadequate; and, (6) Approved premature due to legislation.

1. Health Effects

    Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about health hazards 
associated with SO2 emissions and complained about strong 
odors coming from Murphy Oil's facility.
    Response: The EPA has established ``primary'' NAAQS to protect 
public health, and ``secondary'' NAAQS to protect environmental and 
property damage for each of six ``criteria pollutants'' as indicators 
of air quality: Ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, 
SO2, particulate matter and lead. The SIP revision for 
Murphy Oil demonstrates protection of human health and the environment 
through modeling, which shows that the emissions from Murphy Oil will 
not lead to any exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS in the area. 
The CAA would not allow Murphy Oil, or any other facility, to emit any 
pollutant at a level which could cause an exceedance of the NAAQS.
    Comment: SO2 is the principal precursor to acid rain.
    Response: To address the problem of acid rain, more accurately 
known as acid deposition, Congress established the National Acid 
Precipitation Assessment Program in 1980 to study the causes and 
impacts of acid deposition. This research revealed acid deposition's 
broad environmental and health effects and also documented that the 
pollution causing acid deposition can travel hundreds of miles, 
crossing state and national boundaries. The research also identified 
electric power generation as responsible for two-thirds of 
SO2 emissions and one-third of NOX emissions. As 
a result, Congress created the Acid Rain Program under Title IV (Acid 
Deposition Control) of the 1990 CAA Amendments. Areas that will benefit 
from emission reductions of the Acid Rain Program are: surface water, 
visibility, forests, human health, and materials and structures. The 
state's SIP revision, however, is not expected to address the Title IV 
requirements. EPA and the state are addressing the acid rain 
requirements in separate actions.
    Comment: High-sulfur fuel is known to contain mercury.
    Response: Title III of the CAA offers a comprehensive plan for 
achieving significant reductions in emissions of Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (HAPs) from major sources. Mercury and mercury compounds are 
HAPs under the CAA. The EPA established National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for mercury emissions based on risk 
under the pre-1990 CAA. Under the CAA Amendments of 1990 EPA regulates 
HAP emissions by source categories using maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) standards for each ``major source'' in any listed 
source category. Major sources are defined as those sources that 
release 10 tons per year of any HAP, or 25 tons per year in total HAP 
emissions. Murphy Oil is not considered a major source of mercury 
emissions. EPA did not review the Murphy Oil SIP revision for 
compliance with Title III requirements, because separate programs 
implemented under Title III will address the mercury issue.

2. Existing Clean Air Act Violations

    Comment: Although Murphy Oil is in violation of CAA requirements, 
EPA proposes to approve a dramatic relaxation of SO2 
emission limits. Approval must be denied until resolution of any and 
all enforcement actions proposed by EPA and WDNR.
    Response: The state's procedures for sources to obtain alternate 
emission limitations are identified in Wisconsin's statewide 
SO2 rules. When we approved these rules, we noted that all 
relaxed state limits still needed to be submitted to us as site-
specific SIP revisions pursuant to section 110 of the CAA. We also 
stated that all previous SIP limits would remain enforceable until the 
relaxed limits would be approved into the SIP. The steps taken to grant 
approval of the alternate SO2 emission limits are in full 
compliance with the procedures we approved into the state SIP and are 
entirely separable from any enforcement action currently being taken 
against Murphy Oil. Again, as previously stated, the new limits for 
Murphy Oil are in compliance with CAA requirements and will not cause a 
violation of the standards set to protect public health.
    Comment: Current SIP provisions prohibit granting Murphy Oil a 
permit at the proposed alternate limits unless the facility is in 
compliance with all other CAA requirements. Because the Sulfur Recovery 
Unit is in violation of NSPS and PSD requirements, the alternate limits 
are simply unavailable at this time.
    Response: The compliance requirements for sources seeking Title V 
permits are identified in 40 CFR 70.6(c). This SIP revision, however, 
is an action separate from the regulating entity's determination of a 
source's compliance status for the purpose of issuing a Title V permit. 
The permit issued by the state for this SIP revision is not a Title V

[[Page 55198]]

operating permit. Using a state operating permit as the vehicle to 
revise SIP limits is fairly common and is allowable under current SIP 
provisions.

3. Public Denied Opportunity for Meaningful Comment

    Comment: The public was not given the opportunity to provide 
meaningful comments because critical decisions were made long before a 
public notice and comment period was held. The relaxed limits resulted 
from agreements between Murphy Oil and WDNR long before the October 
1998 public hearing and the public was not a party to these 
negotiations. The process that was followed in this case was contrary 
to the CAA's requirement that the public be involved in the SIP 
approval and revision process.
    Response: We reviewed the SIP revision request upon its February 
26, 1999 submittal and on April 20, 1999 determined it to be complete 
based on the completeness requirements contained in Title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51, appendix V. Regarding 
public comment and notice, appendix V states that all SIP submittals 
must show: (a) evidence that public notice was given of the proposed 
change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date 
of publication of such notice; (b) certification that public 
hearings(s) were held in accordance with the information provided in 
the public notice and the state's laws and constitution, if applicable; 
and (c), compilation of public comments and the state's response 
thereto.
    The state published a notice on September 18, 1998 stating that a 
public hearing to receive comments on the air pollution control 
operating permit for Murphy Oil, which included a request for alternate 
SO2 emission limits, was to be held Wednesday, October 21, 
1998, in Superior, WI. The WDNR stated in the hearing notice that they 
had made a preliminary determination that Murphy Oil's request for 
alternate SO2 emission limits met the criteria for approval 
set forth in the Wisconsin Administrative Code. The WDNR further stated 
that this preliminary determination did not constitute approval of the 
permit and that they were soliciting written comments from the public 
to be considered prior to making a final decision regarding this 
proposal.
    The state also submitted as technical support for the Murphy Oil 
SIP revision (1) a certification, dated February 18, 1999, that a 
public hearing was held on October 21, 1998 in Superior, Wisconsin and 
that written comments were received until October 21, 1998; and (2) a 
February 4, 1999 compilation of public comments and the state's 
response, entitled ``Summary of Comments and Responses for Permit #95-
SDD-120-OP'', from Steve Dunn, WDNR, to Lloyd Egan, WDNR.

4. Cost Calculations Should Not Be Considered

    Comment: The cost analysis submitted by Murphy Oil is flawed 
because it fails to realistically calculate Murphy Oil's ability to 
comply with the current emission limits. Further, WDNR's policy is 
arbitrary and unwise. Nowhere in the SIP revision process did WDNR 
question whether Murphy Oil could afford to change its operations to 
come into compliance with the State SO2 limit.
    Response: In order to approve an alternate emission limit, NR 
417.07(5)(e) requires that a source demonstrate that there is a 
``substantial'' difference between the costs required for meeting the 
categorical emission limits and the cost required for the source's 
compliance with the alternate emission limits. Murphy Oil has met this 
requirement of NR 417.07(5), which we had previously approved in the 
SIP, as outlined in the state's submittal. Further, NR 417.07(5) does 
not require that a request for an alternate emission limit show that a 
source can or cannot afford to come into compliance with the 
categorical emission limit.
    Comment: Wisconsin's acceptance of the cost of fuel switching, the 
basis on which the refinery has maintained its need for the use of 
high-sulfur fuel, has no foundation in publicly reviewed policy. During 
1998, an operating period in which the refinery claimed prohibitive 
high costs for fuel switching, the company increased its use of high-
sulfur crude by 25 percent for reasons of financial gain and market 
position.
    Response: As mentioned above, cost is a key component of NR 
417.07(5) and therefore must be considered when evaluating the source's 
request for the alternate emission limits. We have reviewed the 
analysis submitted by the state and have determined that the costs of 
operating at the statewide limits are prohibitive. Murphy Oil has 
requested an alternate emission limit that meets the applicable federal 
and state requirements and we have an obligation to approve requests 
that meet these requirements.

5. Data and Modeling Appear Inadequate

    Comment: There is no reason to believe that EPA could not have used 
real, current data instead of only modeling. Also, data gathered from 
two inspections of the facility in June of 1998 do not appear to have 
entered into either WDNR's modeling or EPA's decision process. These 
federal inspection data should, at a minimum, be studied and compared 
with Wisconsin modeling on which the modification was based.
    Response: The Superior, Douglas County area is currently in 
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. The WDNR last monitored for 
SO2 in the area in the early 1990's and measured no 
exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS at that monitor. The WDNR has 
not proposed to establish an SO2 monitoring station in the 
area because it does not believe it is necessary at this time.
    Further, EPA has established guidance for conducting air quality 
modeling. The guidance, referred to as ``The Guideline on Air Quality 
Models,'' is codified in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. It provides a 
common basis for estimating the air quality concentrations used in 
assessing control strategies and developing emission limits. It is used 
primarily for modeling conducted on criteria pollutants, where 
predicted concentrations are compared with the appropriate NAAQS. The 
data gathered during the two inspections in 1998 focused on emissions 
from only one SO2 emission source at the facility, whereas 
the modeling analysis is more comprehensive and accounts for the total 
emissions from all the SO2 sources at Murphy Oil. The WDNR 
modeling analysis for Murphy Oil followed the recommended approaches as 
outlined in the guidance for establishing emission limits.
    Comment: EPA should require further proof that the modeling as 
submitted by Murphy Oil is accurate. In this case, EPA proposes to 
accept modeling that is based on old and possibly inaccurate data. 
Further, it is unclear where and when background measurements were 
taken.
    Response: WDNR completed an air quality review demonstrating 
modeled attainment of the SO2 NAAQS using the alternate 
emission limit for Murphy Oil on September 3, 1998. The model used in 
this analysis was the Industrial Source Complex Short Term 3 (ISCST3) 
model. The ``Guideline on Air Quality Models'' recommends ISCST3 for 
use in assessing pollutant concentrations from sources with multiple 
emission points. This is a nationally approved model and is used 
routinely to set limits adequate to protect public health. The five 
years (1982-1986) of meteorological data used in the Murphy Oil 
analysis was collected from the National Weather Service office located 
in Duluth,

[[Page 55199]]

Minnesota, and at the nearest upper air station, located in St. Cloud, 
Minnesota.
    In addition to emissions from Murphy Oil, WDNR also included in the 
modeling emissions from three nearby sources, the University of 
Wisconsin-Superior, CLM, and Superior Fiber. The analysis also adds a 
background value to the modeled concentrations to represent the 
contribution of SO2 emissions from nearby sources that were 
not included in the ISCST3 runs. The background concentrations came 
from a regional SO2 monitor located at 2001 E. 11th Street 
in Superior, Wisconsin. The total concentration (i.e., Murphy Oil 
modeled concentration plus nearby source modeled concentration plus 
background concentration) represents a value that can be compared to 
the SO2 NAAQS.
    Modeling results were given for two separate operating options 
incorporating the proposed alternative limit, one with lower 
SO2 emission limits and another with higher SO2 
emission limits. The modeling results for both options, combined with 
background concentrations, show that the NAAQS for SO2 will 
be attained at the 75 percent level required by the SIP.
    Comment: The test of comparing the total quantity of SO2 
emitted by the facility with 75 percent of the NAAQS fails to maintain 
the exceptionally clean air that is otherwise ambient in the region. 
Several commenters felt that they are being penalized for living in a 
cleaner area.
    Response: Both EPA's alternative emission limit requirements and 
WDNR's NR 417.05(5) require, among other things, that before an 
alternate emission limit can be approved, there must be a demonstration 
that the proposed alternate limit will not delay attainment or prevent 
maintenance of the applicable NAAQS. Additionally, the federal 
requirement limits the demonstration to no more than 75 percent of the 
NAAQS. The NAAQS for SO2 consist of a 3-hour level of 1300 
micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3), a 24-hour level 
of 365 g/m3 and an annual arithmetic mean of 80 
g/m3. As mentioned above, the state submitted 
modeling results incorporating the proposed alternative limit for two 
separate operating options. Modeling results from the option with the 
higher SO2 emission limits, combined with background 
concentrations, show a 3-hour concentration of 642.0 g/
m3 (49.4 percent of NAAQS), a 24-hour concentration of 211.4 
g/m3 (57.9 percent of NAAQS) and an annual 
concentration of 24.1 g/m3 (30.1 percent of NAAQS). 
Therefore, the modeling results for both options show that the NAAQS 
for SO2 will be maintained at well below the required 75 
percent level ensuring clean air in the area.

6. Approval Is Premature

    Comment: The proposed revision is currently being challenged at the 
state level. Action by EPA would be premature before the state 
proceedings are final.
    Response: After following proper procedures, the WDNR submitted a 
site-specific SIP revision requesting that we approve alternate 
SO2 emission limits for Murphy Oil into the Wisconsin 
SO2 SIP. The CAA then requires EPA to act on that submittal 
by approving or disapproving the state's request based on its own 
merits within a specific time frame. EPA is merely following the 
requirements of the CAA. Actions proposed at the state level proceed 
independently of any EPA action.
    Comment: EPA stated in its proposed approval that it views this as 
a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. This is 
an unfortunate demonstration about how out-of-touch EPA appears to be 
with the community that will be most affected by this decision.
    Response: We viewed the approval as a noncontroversial revision and 
anticipated no adverse comment for two reasons. First, the modeled 
attainment demonstration using the alternate SO2 limits is 
fully approvable and shows attainment and maintenance of the 
SO2 NAAQS. Second, the source followed the procedures of 
Wisconsin State Rule NR 417.07(5) for obtaining alternate emission 
limits, which we approved into the SIP on May 21, 1993, at 58 FR 29538.

EPA Action

    In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the SO2 emission 
limits in Wisconsin Air Pollution Control Operation Permit No. 95-SDD-
120-OP, issued by the WDNR to Murphy Oil USA on February 17, 1999, and 
the modeled attainment demonstration using the alternate SO2 
limits for Murphy Oil in Superior (Douglas County), Wisconsin. This 
final approval is based on the proposal published on August 16, 1999 at 
64 FR 44451. As stated in the parallel proposal, we will not institute 
a second comment period on this action.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
establishing a precedent for any future implementation plan. Each 
request for revision to the SIP shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 
in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

[[Page 55200]]

    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the 
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA, 
preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA 
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. 
v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 
because this is a rule of particular applicability.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 November 13, 2000. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.


[[Page 55201]]


    Dated: July 20, 2000.
Francis X. Lyons,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(99) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (99) On February 26, 1999, the State of Wisconsin submitted a site-
specific revision to the sulfur dioxide (SO2) SIP for Murphy 
Oil USA located in Superior (Douglas County), Wisconsin. This SIP 
revision was submitted in response to a January 1, 1985, request for an 
alternate SO2 emission limitation by Murphy Oil, in 
accordance with the procedures of Wisconsin State Rule NR 417.07(5) for 
obtaining alternate emission limits, as was approved by EPA in 
paragraph (c)(63) of this section.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Air Pollution Control Operation Permit No. 95-SDD-120-OP, 
issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to 
Murphy Oil USA on February 17, 1999.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Proposed 
Operation Permit for the Operation of Process Heaters and Processes 
Emitting Sulfur Dioxide for Murphy Oil, performed by the WDNR on 
September 18, 1998. This document contains a source description, 
analysis of the alternate emission limitation request, and an air 
quality review, which includes the results of an air quality modeling 
analysis demonstrating modeled attainment of the SO2 NAAQS 
using the alternate emission limit for Murphy Oil.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-23375 Filed 9-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P