54842 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS—Continued 

Missouri 

citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–18427 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R05–OAR–2005–MN–0002; FRL–7969–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plan; MN 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to 

the sulfur dioxide (SO2) requirements 

for Flint Hills Resources, L.P. (Flint 

Hills) of Dakota County, Minnesota. 

Flint Hills operates a petroleum refinery 

in Rosemont, Minnesota. The requested 

revision will allow the refinery to begin 

producing ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. 

This expansion will add five sources 

and will increase SO2 emissions. An 

analysis was conducted on the new 

sources. The analysis indicates that the 

air quality of Dakota County, Minnesota 

will remain in compliance with the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for SO2. Thus, the public 

health and welfare in Minnesota will be 

protected. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 19, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME) Docket ID 

No. R05–OAR–2005–MN–0002. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the RME index at http://docket.epa.gov/ 

rmepub/, once in the system, select 

‘‘quick search,’’ then key in the 

appropriate RME Docket identification 

number. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. We 

recommend that you telephone Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria 

Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), EPA Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6524, 

rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply To Me? 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document 

and Other Related Information? 

II. Background. 

III. What Is the EPA Approving? 

IV. What Is the EPA’s Analysis of the 

Requested Revisions? 

V. What Are the EPA’s Responses to the 

Comments? 

V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review. 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply To Me? 

This action applies to a single source, 

Flint Hills Resources, L.P. of Dakota 

County, Minnesota. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. The Regional Office has established 

an official public rulemaking file for this 

action that is available both 

electronically and in hard copy form at 

the Regional office. The electronic 

public rulemaking file can be found 

under RME ID No. R05–OAR–2005–

MN–0002. The official public file 

consists of the documents specifically 

referenced in this action, any public 

comments received, and other 

information related to this action. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public rulemaking file does not 

include CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. The 

hard copy version of the official public 

rulemaking file is available for public 

viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air 

and Radiation Division, EPA Region 5, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

excluding Federal holidays. 

II. Background 

Minnesota submitted a request to 

revise its SO2 State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) on June 17, 2004. The revision 

allows Flint Hills to install new 

equipment at a new production line. 

EPA published a proposed and a direct 

final rule to approve the requested 

revisions in the July 1, 2005 Federal 

Register (70 FR 38025–28, 38071–73). 

EPA received adverse comment from the 

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. The Band 

is concerned about the increase in SO2

emissions from the Flint Hills facility. 

EPA published a withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the August 24, 2005 

Federal Register (70 FR 49498–99) since 

an adverse comment was received. 

III. What Is the EPA Approving? 

EPA is approving revisions to the 

Minnesota SO2 SIP for the Flint Hills 

refinery. Flint Hills is installing 

equipment to begin producing ultra low 

sulfur diesel fuel. It is adding a 

Hydrocracker Charge Heater (unit 29H–

1), a Hydrocracker Fractionator Heater 

(29H–2), a charge heater for the #4 

Hydrogen Plant (30H–1), an emergency 

diesel generator (EE–29–401), and an 

emergency diesel powered cooling 

water pump (81P 450) to its refinery. 

IV. What Is the EPA’s Analysis of the 

Requested Revisions? 

Flint Hills conducted air dispersion 

modeling to assess the effect of its 

proposed new equipment and operating 

plan on ambient air quality. The 

modelers used the ISCST3 dispersion 

model in the regulatory default mode, 

with five years of meteorological data 

from the Minneapolis-St. Paul 

International Airport. The SO2

emissions from other nearby companies 

were included. When the modeling was 

performed, Flint Hills had not finalized 

the locations of the new boilers and 

heaters. It modeled the new sources 

concurrently at three potential 

locations, with each source at its full 

emission rate. The modeled results are 

more conservative because of this 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54843 

multiple counting. Flint Hills’ proposed 

revisions include an option of reducing 

the firing duty of some existing heaters 

and boilers. To conservatively account 

for this possibility, the modeling 

included those boilers and heaters at 

their current SO2 emission rates, but at 

reduced stack exit velocities 

representative of their new usage 

scenario. This rulemaking action 

concerns only the new sources for 

producing ultra-low sulfur diesel. The 

modeling also includes the impacts 

from portable diesel equipment. The 

sulfur dioxide emissions from these 

sources were combined and modeled as 

from an representative average engine 

located near the facility fence line, 

where previous modeling analyses had 

shown high ambient impacts to occur. 

This also should produce a conservative 

result. The final results of the Flint Hills 

modeling, including background SO2

concentrations, were below the 3-hour, 

24-hour, and annual SO2 NAAQS. The 

maximum predicted SO2

concentrations, the modeled plus 

background concentrations, are 

242 μg/m3 compared to the 365 μg/m3

24-hour primary standard and 45 μg/m3

compared to the 80 μg/m3 annual 

primary standard. The maximum 

predicted 3-hour SO2 concentration of 

688 μg/m3 is below the secondary 

standard of 1300 μg/m3. The primary 

standards protect public health and the 

secondary standard guards the public 

welfare including protection of wildlife 

and vegetation. 

V. What Are the EPA’s Responses to the 

Comments? 

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe 

expressed several concerns about the 

revisions at the Flint Hills facility. The 

first concern is the transport of 

emissions to the Leech Lake Reservation 

airshed. The Band is also concerned 

about the 125.7 TPY increase in SO2

emissions and its effect on acid rain and 

vegetation damage. Further concern was 

raised about the uncertainty of the exact 

locations of the units within the Flint 

Hills facility in the modeling analysis. 

The distance from Flint Hills to the 

Leech Lake Reservation air shed is 

beyond the limits of the modeling 

analysis, so the specific impact cannot 

be quantified. The modeled SO2

concentrations were highest at the 

fenceline of the Flint Hills facility. The 

fenceline SO2 concentrations are below 

the NAAQS. The SO2 plume will 

disperse as it moves away from its 

source, resulting in lower 

concentrations further away from the 

facility. Therefore, any impact on the 

Leech Lake Reservation airshed is not 

expected to threaten the public health or 

welfare of area residents. 

The analysis of the Flint Hills 

revisions show that concentrations near 

the facility will remain below the 

primary and secondary SO2 NAAQS. 

Therefore, public health and public 

welfare including vegetation in Dakota 

County and rest of Minnesota are 

expected to be protected. EPA’s Acid 

Rain Program guards against increases 

in acidified precipitation. The Program 

covers power plants and other facilities 

that emit SO2. It has achieved a 38% 

reduction in SO2 emissions from 1980 

emissions level. This has led to a 45% 

reduction in ambient SO2 levels from 

1989–91 to 2001–03. Wet sulfate 

deposition, which can acidify lakes, 

streams, and soil, has dropped 36% over 

the same period. 

The new sources were modeled at 

different locations because at the time 

the modeling analysis was done the 

company had not made its final 

decision on the layout of the new ultra 

low sulfur diesel production area. The 

sources were modeled at three different 

potential locations concurrently. The 

SO2 concentrations predicted by the 

modeling analysis for these sources 

exceed the actual impact because each 

new source counted three times. The 

actual SO2 emissions will be lower than 

what was modeled. The model results 

showed that this revision is anticipated 

to protect air quality because SO2

concentration are below the NAAQS. 

VI. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

EPA is approving revisions to the 

Minnesota sulfur dioxide SIP for the 

Flint Hills refinery. Flint Hills is adding 

equipment to begin producing ultra low 

sulfur diesel fuel. The five new 

emission sources will cause an increase 

in SO2 emissions from the refinery. Flint 

Hills conducted air dispersion modeling 

to gauge the impact of the new sources 

on ambient air quality. The modeling 

analysis shows that the SO2

concentrations will remain below the 

NAAQS. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

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 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ 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 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 (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. 

54844 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

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. 

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, 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. 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 November 18, 

2005. 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 oxides. 

Dated: September 7, 2005. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ 40 CFR 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. 

Subpart Y—Minnesota 

■ 2. In § 52.1220 the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Flint Hills Resources, L.P.’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS

Name of source Permit No. 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA 

approval 

date 

Comments 

* * * * * * * 

Flint Hills Resources, L.P. (formerly 

Koch Petroleum).

06/14/04 06/05/03, 68 FR 33631 ..... Amendment Seven to Findings and 

Order 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–18426 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket No. FEMA–7780] 

List of Communities Eligible for the 

Sale of Flood Insurance 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Directorate, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities that are participating and 

suspended from the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). These 

communities have applied to the 

program and have agreed to enact 

certain floodplain management 

measures. The communities’

participation in the program authorizes 

the sale of flood insurance to owners of 

properties located in the communities 

listed below. 

EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date for 

each community is listed in the fourth 

column of the following tables.