[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 108 (Thursday, June 5, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33631-33633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-13570]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN81-7306a; FRL-7493-9]


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 Flint Hills Resources, L.P. 
(formerly known as Koch Petroleum Group, L.P.). The Minnesota Pollution 
Control Agency (MPCA) submitted the SIP revision request on March 13, 
2003. The request is approvable because it satisfies the requirements 
of the Clean Air Act (Act). The rationale for the approval and other 
information are provided in this notice.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 4, 2003, unless 
EPA receives adverse comment by July 7, 2003. 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.)

[[Page 33632]]


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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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 Flint Hills Resources L.P. (FHR), 
located in the Pine Bend Area of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. 
Specifically, EPA is approving and thereby incorporating Amendment No. 
6 to FHR'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 FHR 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 March 20, 2003 Technical 
Support Document (TSD).

3. What Is the Background for this Action?

    EPA redesignated the Pine Bend area from a primary SO2 
nonattainment area to attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in a 
direct final notice published on May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28339).
    On December 20, 2000, MPCA submitted a SIP revision consisting of 
Amendment No. 4 to FHR's order. EPA approved Amendment No. 4 into the 
SO2 SIP on June 12, 2001 (66 FR 31545). On May 2, 2001, MPCA 
submitted a SIP revision consisting of Amendment No. 5 to FHR's order. 
EPA approved Amendment No. 5 into the SO2 SIP on February 
21, 2002 (67 FR 7957). Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 5 were 
required to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 
SO2 at FHR.
    Koch Petroleum Group, L.P. changed its corporate name to Flint 
Hills Resources, L.P. on January 1, 2002.

II. Review of State Implementation Plan Revision

1. Why Did the State Submit this SIP Revision?

    This is the third revision to the order initiated by FHR 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. The revised order contains changes 
needed to reduce emissions as required by the consent decree, changes 
supporting the production of lower-sulfur fuels, and changes affecting 
the refinery that have occurred since the Order was first issued.

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

    The March 13, 2003 revision submitted by MPCA requests that EPA 
approve Amendment No. 6 to FHR's order into the Minnesota 
SO2 SIP. Amendment No. 6 will allow FHR to modify its 
refinery in order to meet the requirements established in the consent 
decree and to make other changes, such as allowing FHR to make lower 
sulfur gasoline (Tier 2 gasoline) and lower-sulfur diesel fuels. The 
revised order also reflects other changes previously made at the 
refinery, such as the removal or addition of equipment, the elimination 
of fuel oil combustion, limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel used 
at the refinery, and reducing the number of locations for decoking.

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

    The MPCA submitted air quality modeling in support of FHR's 
SO2 SIP revision. The modeled attainment demonstration 
included all significant SO2 emission sources at FHR and 
included emissions from several nearby facilities. A background 
concentration was also added to the modeled values for comparison to 
the NAAQS. The modeling demonstrates attainment and maintenance of the 
SO2 NAAQS in the Pine Bend area. A more detailed discussion 
is in EPA's March 20, 2003 TSD.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

    EPA is approving the site-specific SIP revision for Flint Hills 
Resources, L.P., located in the Pine Bend area of Rosemount, Dakota 
County, Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is incorporating Amendment No. 6 
to FHR's Administrative Order into the Minnesota SO2 SIP. 
The State submitted this SIP revision on March 13, 2003 as a result of 
negotiations to a consent decree between EPA, MPCA and FHR, in which 
FHR proposed a series of modifications at the Pine Bend refinery. The 
revised Order contains changes needed to reduce emissions as required 
by the Consent Decree, changes supporting the production of lower-
sulfur fuels, and changes affecting the refinery that have occurred 
since the Order was first issued. 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 August 4, 2003 without 
further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comments by July 7, 
2003. 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 August 4, 2003.
    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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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

[[Page 33633]]

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 (Public Law 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. section 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. 
section 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 August 4, 2003. 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.

    Dated: April 17, 2003.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
Title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.1220 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(c)(57) and (c)(60) and adding paragraph (c)(62) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (57) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (60) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (62) On March 13, 2003, the State of Minnesota submitted a site-
specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the control of 
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) for Flint Hills Resources, 
L.P., located in the Pine Bend Area of Rosemount, Dakota County, 
Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is approving into the SO2 SIP 
Amendment No. 6 to the Administrative Order previously approved in 
paragraph (c)(35) and revised in paragraphs (c)(57) and (c)(60) of this 
section.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) An administrative order identified as Amendment Six to Findings 
and Order by Stipulation, for Flint Hills Resources, L.P., dated and 
effective March 11, 2003, submitted March 13, 2003.
[FR Doc. 03-13570 Filed 6-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P