[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 8, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31891-31893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12771]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN79-3; FRL-7670-5]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a site-specific revision to the Minnesota 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 
Xcel Energy (formerly known as Northern States Power Company) Inver 
Hills Generating Plant located in the city of Inver Grove Heights, 
Dakota County, Minnesota. By its submittal dated August 9, 2002, the 
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requested that EPA approve 
Xcel's federally enforceable Title V operating permit into the 
Minnesota SO2 SIP and remove the Xcel Administrative Order 
from the state SO2 SIP. The state is also requesting in this 
submittal, that EPA rescind the Administrative Order for Ashbach 
Construction Company (Ashbach) from the Ramsey County particulate 
matter (PM) SIP. EPA proposed approval of this SIP revision and 
published a direct final approval on September 2, 2003. EPA received 
adverse comments on the proposed rulemaking, and therefore withdrew the 
direct final rulemaking on October 27, 2003.

DATES: This rule is effective July 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. MN-79. All documents in the docket are listed in the index. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, i.e., CBI or other information where disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are 
available in hard copy at the following address: United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. The Docket Facility 
is open during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Christos Panos at (312) 
353-8328, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Environmental 
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Mailcode AR-18J, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Telephone: (312) 353-
8328. E-mail address: [email protected].

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

I. Does This Action Apply to Me?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Public Comments Were Received and What Is EPA's Response?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

General Information

I. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    No, it applies to a single source, Xcel Energy's Inver Hills 
Generating Plant located in the city of Inver Grove Heights, Dakota 
County, Minnesota.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    In this action, EPA is approving into the Minnesota SO2 
SIP certain portions of the Title V permit for Xcel Energy's Inver 
Hills Generating Plant (Xcel) located in the city of Inver Grove 
Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is approving into 
the SIP only those portions of Xcel's Title V permit cited as ``Title I 
Condition: State Implementation Plan for SO2.'' In this same 
action, EPA is removing from the state SO2 SIP the Xcel 
Administrative Order which had first been approved into the 
SO2 SIP on September 9, 1994, and amended on June 13, 1995 
and October 13, 1998. In addition, EPA is removing from the state

[[Page 31892]]

PM SIP the Ashbach Administrative Order which had previously been 
approved into the PM SIP on February 15, 1994.

III. What Is the Background for This Action?

    The SIP revision submitted by MPCA on August 9, 2002, consists of a 
Title V permit issued to Xcel. The state has requested that EPA approve 
the following:
    (1) The inclusion into the Minnesota SO2 SIP of only the 
portions of the Xcel Inver Hills Generating Plant Title V permit cited 
as ``Title I Condition: State Implementation Plan for 
SO2.'';
    (2) The removal from the Minnesota SO2 SIP of the 
Administrative Order for Xcel previously approved into the SIP; and,
    (3) The removal from the Minnesota PM SIP of the Administrative 
Order for Ashbach previously approved into the SIP.
    We concluded in our September 2, 2003, direct final action at 68 FR 
52110 that the SIP revision for Xcel was approvable, because the 
state's request does not change any of the emission limitations 
currently in the SO2 SIP or their accompanying supportive 
documents, such as the SO2 air dispersion modeling. The 
revision to the SO2 SIP does not approve any new 
construction or allow an increase in emissions, thereby providing for 
attainment and maintenance of the SO2 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and satisfying the applicable SO2 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act). The only change to the 
SO2 SIP is the enforceable document for Xcel, from the 
Administrative Order to the Title V permit.
    We also concluded on September 2, 2003, that the Administrative 
Order for Ashbach was no longer necessary since the company has 
permanently ceased operations at the Saint Paul asphalt plant. 
Therefore, we took action to rescind the Administrative Order for 
Ashbach from the Ramsey County PM SIP.
    The September 2, 2003, direct final action stated that if we 
received adverse comments by October 2, 2003, we would publish a timely 
notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register. Because we received an 
adverse comment, we withdrew the direct final approval of the revision 
to the Minnesota SO2 SIP on October 27, 2003, at 68 FR 
61105. As stated in the proposal, there will not be a second comment 
period on this action.

IV. What Public Comments Were Received and What Is EPA's Response?

    We received one comment opposing our September 2, 2003, approval of 
Minnesota's SIP revision. Although the comment does not specifically 
address the actual action taken in the SIP revision, it is ``adverse'' 
to the SIP action in that the commenter asks us to take a different 
action regarding this Minnesota power plant than the action we proposed 
to take. Below, we have paraphrased the comment and have responded to 
it.
    Comment: When a power plant is fixed, there should be an 
improvement as to the amount of toxics being emitted. Any improvements 
in power plants should also reduce emissions. Toxins from Minnesota are 
transported east and negatively impact the health of citizens of the 
eastern United States. Minnesota power plants must be required to clean 
the air.
    Response: This comment raises points that are unrelated to or 
outside the scope of this SIP revision, but are apparently directed to 
either the New Source Review program or the section 112 air toxics 
program. The commenter is asking EPA to impose substantive requirements 
that the Agency is not able to require in response to this SIP 
submission from the State.
    As detailed in the September 2, 2003, direct final action, we are 
approving the current SIP submittal for Xcel because the only change to 
the SO2 SIP is the enforceable document for Xcel, from the 
Administrative Order to the Title V permit. Further, we are taking 
action to rescind the Administrative Order for Ashbach from the Ramsey 
County PM SIP because the company has permanently ceased operations at 
the Saint Paul asphalt plant. The commenter submitted no new 
information that would warrant a disapproval under the requirements of 
the Act.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    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.
Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    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).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
    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.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    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).
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
    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).
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 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.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks
    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.

[[Page 31893]]

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires federal agencies to use 
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus to carry our policy objectives, so long as such standards are 
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In 
reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior 
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus 
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program 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 
Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not 
apply.
Civil Justice Reform
    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential 
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
Governmental Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights
    EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance 
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the 
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under 
the executive order, and has determined that the rule's requirements do 
not constitute a taking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    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.).
Congressional Review Act
    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, EPA 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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    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 6, 2004. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Dioxide.

    Dated: May 20, 2004.
Norman R. Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.


0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 
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 adding paragraph (c)(63) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (63) On August 9, 2002, the State of Minnesota submitted a revision 
to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) for Xcel Energy's Inver Hills Generating Plant (Xcel) 
located in the city of Inver Grove Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota. 
Specifically, EPA is only approving into the SO2 SIP those 
portions of the Xcel Title V operating permit cited as ``Title I 
Condition: State Implementation Plan for SO2'' and is 
removing from the state SO2 SIP the Xcel Administrative 
Order previously approved in paragraph (c)(46) and modified in 
paragraphs (c)(35) and (c)(41) of this section. In this same action, 
EPA is removing from the state particulate matter SIP the 
Administrative Order for Ashbach Construction Company previously 
approved in paragraph (c)(29) and modified in paragraph (c)(41) of this 
section.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) AIR EMISSION PERMIT NO. 03700015-001, issued by the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency to Northern States Power Company Inver Hills 
Generating Plant on July 25, 2000, Title I conditions only.
[FR Doc. 04-12771 Filed 6-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P