[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31545-31548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14614]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN68-01a; FRL-6991-7]


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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Koch Petroleum Group, LP (Koch). 
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted the SIP 
revision request on December 20, 2000. 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 
document.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 13, 2001, unless 
EPA receives adverse comment by July 12, 2001. 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 Information did Minnesota

[[Page 31546]]

submit, and what were its requests?
    3. How Does the SIP Revision Show Attainment of the SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
SIP a site-specific revision for Koch, located in the Pine Bend Area of 
Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is approving 
into the (SO<INF>2</INF>) SIP Amendment No. 4 to the Administrative 
Order (Order) for Koch.

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 SO<INF>2</INF> National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) and satisfies the applicable SO<INF>2</INF> 
requirements of the Act. A more detailed explanation of how the state's 
submittal meets these requirements is in EPA's March 2, 2000 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 SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area 
on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962) based on monitored violations of the 
primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS from 1975 through 1977. In response to the 
Part D requirements of the Act, MPCA submitted a final SO<INF>2</INF> 
plan for AQCR 131 on August 4, 1980. EPA approved the Minnesota Part D 
SO<INF>2</INF> SIP for AQCR 131 on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20996). Based 
on monitored violations recorded in 1982, EPA declared the Dakota 
County SO<INF>2</INF> SIP inadequate and issued a call for revisions to 
the Minnesota SO<INF>2</INF> SIP on December 5, 1984 (49 FR 47488). The 
SIP call required that MPCA submit a SIP revision demonstrating 
attainment of the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the Pine Bend Area by 
September 1985.
    The promulgation of a good engineering practice stack height rule, 
along with difficulties negotiating a control strategy with Koch, and 
the selection of an appropriate computer model, delayed the submittal. 
On September 10, 1987, MPCA submitted revisions to the operating 
permits for five sources and requested redesignation to attainment for 
all of AQCR 131 except the Pine Bend and St. Paul Park areas.
    As a result of numerous EPA comments, MPCA withdrew the Pine Bend 
SO<INF>2</INF> SIP while passage of the 1990 Amendments to the Act 
delayed action on the rest of the SO<INF>2</INF> revisions for AQCR 
131. On July 29, 1992, MPCA submitted to EPA a revision to the 
SO<INF>2</INF> SIP for the Dakota County/Pine Bend SO<INF>2</INF> 
nonattainment area demonstrating attainment of the SO<INF>2</INF> 
NAAQS. As part of the attainment demonstration for the SIP, Koch was 
modeled for ambient air impacts and MPCA issued an Order based on that 
modeling. To allow some flexibility in adding new sources at the 
facility without compromising the attainment status, the Order allows 
Koch to make changes at the refinery of 2.28 lb/hour SO<INF>2</INF> 
while burning refinery fuel gas without revising the Order. An 
amendment to the original Order for Koch, dated February 11, 1993, 
revised the completion dates for construction and operation of a new 
stack and control equipment.
    EPA identified specific issues regarding the July 29, 1992 
submittal in a June 4, 1993 letter to MPCA. On January 28, 1994 (59 FR 
4016), EPA proposed to disapprove Minnesota's SO<INF>2</INF> SIP 
revision for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 131. However, EPA 
stated that if its comments were adequately addressed by the State by 
the end of the 30-day comment period, and if no other substantive, 
adverse public comments were received, EPA would proceed with a final 
rulemaking approving the SIP revision. The State satisfactorily 
addressed the issues and submitted revised Orders for Koch to EPA on 
February 25, 1994. EPA did not receive any public comments on the 
January 28, 1994 proposed action. Therefore, EPA took final action on 
September 9, 1994 (59 FR 46553), to approve Minnesota's SO<INF>2</INF> 
SIP revision submittals for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 
131.
    On September 7, 1994, MPCA submitted a request to redesignate the 
Pine Bend area of AQCR 131 to attainment. EPA approved the state's 
request in a direct final rule document published on May 31, 1995 (60 
FR 28339) redesignating the Pine Bend area to attainment of the 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.

II. Review of State Implementation Plan Revision

1. Why Did the State Submit This SIP Revision?

    Koch initiated a project at its #2 Crude Unit to reduce emissions 
of nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and SO<INF>2</INF> as part of a 
Consent Decree lodged in the United States District Court for the 
District of Minnesota on December 22, 2000 (United States v. Koch 
Petroleum Group, L.P., Civil Action No. 00-2756-PAM-SRN), relating to 
negotiations conducted between Koch, EPA and MPCA to develop a 
settlement covering a broad range of actions to reduce emissions of air 
pollutants from petroleum refineries owned and operated by Koch.
    Koch will install a new heater (11H-6) with low-NO<INF>X</INF> 
burners which will operate on refinery fuel gas. The SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from this new heater will be offset by a simultaneous 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions decrease resulting from the removal of three 
existing heaters (11H-3, 11H-4 and 11H-5). Two of the three heaters to 
be removed (11H-3 and 11H-5) are currently allowed to burn fuel oil. 
Replacing these existing heaters with a new heater will significantly 
reduce Koch's capacity to generate both NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. As part of this project, Koch also proposes 
to increase the capacity of heater 16H-1, which it converted to burn 
only fuel gas in 1995. Prior to that, it could burn fuel oil as well as 
fuel gas.

2. What Information Did Minnesota Submit, and What Were Its Requests?

    The December 20, 2000 SIP revision submitted by MPCA consists of 
emission increases and the compensating emission reductions. Amendment 
4 to the Order for Koch requires permanent emission reductions from the 
removal of heaters 11H-3, 11H-4 and 11H-5. The modeling retains some 
ambient impact from 11H-3 and 11H-5 (but not decoking), for PSD/NSR 
credit purposes. The revised Order limits 11H-6 to burning refinery 
fuel gas only with allowable SO<INF>2</INF> emissions of 6.0 lb/hr on 
an annual basis and 9.3 lb/hr on a 3-hour average. Decoking at 11H-6 is 
limited to 90 hours per year, which equates to three 30-hour events per 
year. Emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> from 11H-6 and the associated steam-
air decoking total 26.5 tons/year. The State requested that EPA approve 
the following changes to Koch's Order:
    ``New Project'' Language. Koch plans to remove three existing 
heaters, increase the capacity of an existing heater, and construct a 
new heater. Total SO<INF>2</INF> emissions at the facility will 
substantially decrease after implementation of these changes.
    Name Change. The name of the owner and operator of the refinery in 
Rosemount, Minnesota has changed to Koch Petroleum Group, L.P. from 
Koch Refining Company.
    Incorporation of Changes from Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 3 used 
underlining to identify where new language was added and striking out 
to identify where language was removed. Amendment No. 4 removes the 
underlining and strike out markings and

[[Page 31547]]

eliminates the language marked for removal in Amendment No. 3.
    Updating of Some Information. In cases where it was needed for 
clarity, the language was modified to reflect regulatory changes that 
have occurred since Amendment No. 3 went into effect.
    Correction of Typographical Errors and Changes for Clarification 
and Consistency. MPCA corrected typographical errors and changed 
language which appeared unclear or inconsistent with other portions of 
the document.

3. How Does the SIP Revision Show Attainment of the SO<INF>2</INF> 
Standards?

    The MPCA submitted air quality modeling in support of Koch's 
SO<INF>2</INF> SIP revision. MPCA's modeling demonstrates that the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the #2 Crude Unit modification project do 
not threaten attainment of the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS when factored into 
the 1992 attainment demonstration modeling. A more detailed discussion 
is in EPA's March 2, 2001 TSD.
    Net baseline emissions are the allowable emission rates used in the 
approved 1992 SIP attainment demonstration for the Pine Bend Area. The 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for the four heaters and the steam--air 
decoking associated with each heater totaled 1,560 tons/year in the 
1992 SIP. Total SO<INF>2</INF> emissions associated with the #2 Crude 
Unit modification project are 170 tons/year. The difference in 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the 1992 SIP for the affected sources and 
the current project is a decrease of nearly 1,400 tons/year.

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. 4 to Koch's 
Administrative Order into the Minnesota SO<INF>2</INF> SIP. The State 
submitted this SIP revision on December 20, 2000 as a result of 
negotiations to a consent decree between EPA, MPCA and Koch, in which 
Koch proposed to modify the #2 Crude Unit at the Pine Bend refinery. 
This modification project consists primarily of the removal of three 
existing heaters and the installation of a new heater, thereby 
substantially decreasing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions at the facility. As 
described above, this project provides for attainment and maintenance 
of the SO<INF>2</INF> 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 13, 2001 without 
further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comments by July 12, 
2001. 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. All public comments received will then be 
addressed 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 13, 2001.
    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. 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 preexisting 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 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), nor will it 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), 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 Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. 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. 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. 
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, however, exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules 
relating to agency management or personnel; and 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

[[Page 31548]]

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 13, 2001. 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: May 8, 2001.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting 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 et seq.


    2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(57) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (57) On December 20, 2000, the State of Minnesota submitted a site-
specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the control of 
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) for Koch Petroleum Group, 
L.P., located in the Pine Bend Area of Rosemount, Dakota County, 
Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is approving into the SO<INF>2</INF> SIP 
Amendment No. 4 to the Administrative Order previously approved in 
paragraph (c)(35) of this section.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) An administrative order identified as Amendment Four to 
Findings and Order by Stipulation, for Koch Petroleum Group, L.P., 
dated and effective December 19, 2000, submitted December 20, 2000.

[FR Doc. 01-14614 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U