[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7957-7960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-3756]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN70-7295a; FRL-7136-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a site-
specific revision to the Minnesota Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Koch Petroleum Group, LP (Koch). 
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted the SIP 
revision request on May 2, 2001. The request is approvable because it 
satisfies the requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act). The rationale 
for the

[[Page 7958]]

approval and other information are provided in this document.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 22, 2002, unless 
EPA receives adverse comment by March 25, 2002. If EPA receives adverse 
comments, 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: Written comments may be mailed to: Carlton Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the documents relevant to this 
action are available for inspection during normal business hours at the 
above address. (Please telephone Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328, 
before visiting the Region 5 office.)

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

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

I. General Information
    1. What action is EPA taking today?
    2. Why is EPA taking this action?
    3. What is the background for this action?
II. Review of State Implementation Plan Revision
    1. Why did the State submit this SIP Revision?
    2. What did Minnesota submit for approval into the SIP?
    3. How does the SIP revision show attainment of the 
SO2 standards?
III. Final Rulemaking Action
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. General Information

1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    In this action, EPA is approving into the Minnesota SO2 
SIP a site-specific revision for Koch, located in the Pine Bend Area of 
Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is approving and 
thereby incorporating Amendment No. 5 to Koch's administrative order 
(order) into the Minnesota SO2 SIP.

2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    EPA is taking this action because the state's submittal for Koch is 
fully approvable. The SIP revision provides for attainment and 
maintenance of the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) and satisfies the applicable SO2 
requirements of the Act. A more detailed explanation of how the state's 
submittal meets these requirements is in EPA's November 9, 2001 
Technical Support Document (TSD).

3. What Is the Background for This Action?

    EPA designated Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131, which 
contains Dakota County, as a primary SO2 nonattainment area 
on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962) based on monitored violations of the 
primary SO2 NAAQS from 1975 through 1977. In response to the 
Part D requirements of the Act, MPCA submitted a final SO2 
plan for AQCR 131 on August 4, 1980. EPA approved the Minnesota Part D 
SO2 SIP for AQCR 131 on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20996). Based 
on monitored violations recorded in 1982, EPA declared the Dakota 
County SO2 SIP inadequate and issued a call for revisions to 
the Minnesota SO2 SIP on December 5, 1984 (49 FR 47488).
    On July 29, 1992 MPCA submitted to EPA a revision to the 
SO2 SIP for the Dakota County/Pine Bend SO2 
nonattainment area demonstrating attainment of the SO2 NAAQS 
in response to the SIP call. The modeling for the SIP attainment 
demonstration showed that Koch was a culpable source for the 1982 
violations and therefore, MPCA issued an order to Koch based on the 
modeling. The state submitted the revised order for Koch to EPA on 
February 25, 1994 and EPA took final action on September 9, 1994 (59 FR 
46553), to approve Minnesota's SO2 SIP revision submittals 
for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 131.
    On September 7, 1994, MPCA submitted to EPA a request to 
redesignate the Pine Bend area of AQCR 131 to attainment. EPA approved 
the state's request in a direct final action published on May 31, 1995 
(60 FR 28339) redesignating the Pine Bend area to attainment of the 
SO2 NAAQS.
    On December 20, 2000, MPCA submitted a SIP revision consisting of 
Amendment No. 4 to Koch's order. Amendment No. 4 requires Koch to 
reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2 
at its #2 crude unit. EPA approved Amendment No. 4 into the 
SO2 SIP on June 12, 2001 (66 FR 31545).

II. Review of State Implementation Plan Revision

1. Why Did the State Submit This SIP Revision?

    The Fall 2001 Turnaround project is the second project initiated by 
Koch to reduce emissions of NOX and SO2 pursuant 
to a December 22, 2000 consent decree in United States v. Koch 
Petroleum Group, L.P., Civil Action No. 00-2756-PAM-SRN. In this 
project Koch will modify the #2 crude unit, 32 unit, and 33 unit at the 
refinery. Koch addressed most of the #2 crude unit project in Amendment 
No. 4 of the order. Amendment No. 5 modifies the #2 crude unit by 
adding low-NOX burners to heater 12H-4, includes the 
addition of low-NOX burners to heaters 32H-4,5,6, 33H-31, 
and changes to the convection sections of heaters 33H-31 and 33H-32. 
Koch will use heaters 33H-31 and 33H-32 for heating process streams 
instead of steam generation. Because of these changes, the design stack 
temperatures for heaters 12H-4, 32H-5,6,7 and 33H-32 will drop below 
the stack temperatures used in the 1992 modeling. The current SIP for 
Koch requires a revision to the plan if it revises stack parameters.

2. What Did Minnesota Submit for Approval Into the SIP?

    The May 2, 2001 revision submitted by MPCA requests that EPA 
approve Amendment No. 5 to Koch's order into the Minnesota 
SO2 SIP. Amendment No. 5 authorizes the installation of low-
NOX burners to heaters 12H-4, 32H-4,5,6, 33H-31, and 33H-32. 
Heaters 33H-31 and 33H-32 will be used for heating process streams 
instead of steam generation. Within 180 days after the installation of 
the low-NOX burners, heater 33H-31 will burn refinery gas 
and will no longer be able to burn fuel oil. The revised order allows 
heater 16H-1 to operate on refinery fuel gas or natural gas with 
allowable SO2 emissions of 5.6 lb/hr on a 3-hour average, 
and 15.3 tons of SO2 per year. The revised order also limits 
heater 11H-6 to SO2 emissions of 9.3 lb/hr on a 3-hour 
average, and 25.2 tons of SO2 per year.

3. How Does the SIP Revision Show Attainment of the SO2 
Standards?

    The MPCA submitted air quality modeling in support of Koch's 
SO2 SIP revision. MPCA's modeling demonstrates that the 
SO2 emissions from the Fall 2001 Turnaround project do not 
threaten attainment of the SO2 NAAQS when factored into the 
1992 attainment demonstration modeling. As discussed below, 
SO2 emissions will decrease.
    Net baseline emissions are the allowable emission rates used in the 
approved 1992 SIP attainment demonstration for the Pine Bend Area. The 
SO2 emissions for the units modified by the current project 
totaled 2443 tons/year in the 1992 SIP. Total SO2 emissions 
associated with the

[[Page 7959]]

current project are 365 tons/year. The difference in SO2 
emissions from the 1992 SIP for the affected sources and the current 
project is a decrease of more than 2,000 tons/year. A more detailed 
discussion is in EPA's November 9, 2001 TSD.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

    EPA is approving the site-specific SIP revision for Koch Petroleum 
Group, LP, located in the Pine Bend area of Rosemount, Dakota County, 
Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is incorporating Amendment No. 5 to Koch's 
Administrative Order into the Minnesota SO2 SIP. The State 
submitted this SIP revision on May 2, 2001 as a result of negotiations 
to a consent decree between EPA, MPCA and Koch, in which Koch proposed 
a series of modifications at the Pine Bend refinery. This project 
consists primarily of the modification of existing process heaters by 
replacing existing burners with low-NOX burners, thereby 
substantially decreasing SO2 emissions at the facility. As 
described above, this project provides for attainment and maintenance 
of the SO2 NAAQS in the Pine Bend area and is therefore 
fully approvable.
    The EPA is 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 
comments are filed. This rule will be effective April 22, 2002, without 
further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comments by March 25, 
2002. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before 
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. We will then address all public comments 
received in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested 
in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not 
receive any comments, this action will be effective April 22, 2002.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing 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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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.). Because 
this rule approves 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).
    This 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). 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 approves 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. This 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.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 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.).
    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 this action under section 801 because 
this is a rule of particular applicability.
    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 April 22, 2002. 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.

    Dated: January 16, 2002.
Gary Gulezian,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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

[[Page 7960]]

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(60) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (60) On May 2, 2001, the State of Minnesota submitted a site-
specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the control of 
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) for Koch Petroleum Group, 
L.P., located in the Pine Bend Area of Rosemount, Dakota County, 
Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is approving into the SO2 SIP 
Amendment No. 5 to the Administrative Order previously approved in 
paragraph (c)(35) and revised in paragraph (c)(57) of this section.
    (i) Incorporation by reference
    (A) An administrative order identified as Amendment Five to 
Findings and Order by Stipulation, for Koch Petroleum Group, L.P., 
dated and effective April 30, 2001, submitted May 2, 2001.

[FR Doc. 02-3756 Filed 2-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P