Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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: 

• 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 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The 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 www.regulations.gov your email 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 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 

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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
17462 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 μg/m3 compared to the standard of 

80 μg/m3. The modeled 24-hour level of 

266.8 μg/m3 is under the 365 μg/m3

NAAQS. Similarly, the predicted 3-hour 

average is 726.2 μg/m3 which is under 

the secondary standard of 1300 μg/m3. 

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, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. FEMA–B–7713] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Technical information or 

comments are requested on the 

proposed Base (1% annual chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFEs modifications for the communities 

listed below. The BFEs are the basis for 

the floodplain management measures 

that the community is required either to 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order to qualify or 

remain qualified for participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). 

DATES: The comment period is ninety 

(90) days following the second 

publication of this proposed rule in a 

newspaper of local circulation in each 

community. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering 

Management Section, Mitigation 

Division, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

in accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own, or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State or regional entities. These 

proposed elevations are used to meet 

the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and are also 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in these 

buildings. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from the requirements of 44 

CFR part 10, Environmental 

Consideration. An environmental 

impact assessment has not been 

prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Regulatory Classification. This 

proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under the criteria of 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of 

September 30, 1993, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This proposed rule involves no policies 

that have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 67—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 67 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 

§ 67.4 [Amended] 

2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be 

amended as follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL