[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54842-54844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18426]


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

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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>. 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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2c0d3c79cdfd3c6c6dad7c5f2d7c2d39cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c6e7d6932717d686874796b5c796c7d327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 <greek-i>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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
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

[[Page 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations, 
were below the 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. The 
maximum predicted SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations, the modeled plus 
background concentrations, are 242 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> compared to the 
365 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> 24-hour primary standard and 45 [mu]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP> compared to the 80 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> annual primary 
standard. The maximum predicted 3-hour SO<INF>2</INF> concentration of 
688 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> is below the secondary standard of 1300 [mu]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP>. 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations 
were highest at the fenceline of the Flint Hills facility. The 
fenceline SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations are below the NAAQS. The 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>. It has achieved a 38% 
reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 1980 emissions level. This 
has led to a 45% reduction in ambient SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations predicted by the 
modeling analysis for these sources exceed the actual impact because 
each new source counted three times. The actual SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions will be lower than what was modeled. The model results showed 
that this revision is anticipated to protect air quality because 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 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.

[[Page 54844]]

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.


0
40 CFR part 52 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.

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising 
the entry for ``Flint Hills Resources, L.P.'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
           Name of source              Permit No.     effective     EPA  approval  date          Comments
                                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Flint Hills Resources, L.P.                             06/14/04  06/05/03, 68 FR 33631.  Amendment Seven to
 (formerly Koch Petroleum).                                                                Findings and Order
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-18426 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>