54840 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedure; and related management 

system practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. This rule fits the 

category from paragraph (34)(g) because 

it establishes a safety zone. 

A preliminary ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ is available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 

will be considered before we make the 

final decision on whether the rule 

should be categorically excluded from 

further environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. A new temporary section 165.T09–

123 is added as follows: 

§ 165.T09–123 Safety zone; Milwaukee 

River Challenge, Milwaukee River, 

Milwaukee, WI. 

(a) Location: The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: All waters of the 

Milwaukee River from the North Water 

Street Bridge north to the Humboldt 

Avenue Bridge. 

(b) Effective period. This regulation is 

effective from 10 a.m. (local) until 4:30 

p.m. (local), on September 17, 2005. 

(c) Enforcement Period. This zone 

will be enforced from 10 a.m. (local) 

until 4:30 p.m. (local), on September 17 

2005. 

(d) Regulations. 

(1) In accordance with the general 

regulations in section 165.23 of this 

part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring 

within this safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Lake Michigan, or his designated onscene representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port is any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been designated by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

The on-scene representative of the 

Captain of the Port will be aboard either 

a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary 

vessel. The Captain of the Port or his 

designated on-scene representative may 

be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan or his on-scene representative 

to obtain permission to do so. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone shall comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his 

on-scene representative. 

Dated: September 9, 2005. 

S.P. LaRochelle, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 05–18594 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R07–OAR–2005–MO–0003; FRL–7969–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: On July 13, 2005, EPA 

published a final rule approving 

revisions to the Missouri State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). In the July 

13, 2005, rule, EPA inadvertently 

included an incorrect state effective date 

for the Missouri statewide NOX rule. 

The purpose of this action is to correct 

the state effective date to August 30, 

2003. 

DATES: This action is effective 

September 19, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Jay at (913) 551–7460, or by email at jay.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

On July 13, 2005 (70 FR 40193), EPA 

published a final rule approving a SIP 

revision for Missouri that included a 

revision to the statewide NOX rule, 10 

CSR 10–6.350 ‘‘Emissions Limitations 

and Emissions Trading of Oxides of 

Nitrogen.’’ The purpose of the rule is to 

reduce the state’s contribution to the St. 

Louis 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. 

The July 13, 2005, rule inadvertently 

included an incorrect state effective date 

for the statewide NOX rule of June 23, 

2003. Today’s action is necessary to 

correct the state effective date to August 

30, 2003. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54841 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedures are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is such good 

cause for making today’s rule final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment because we are merely 

correcting our identification of the 

effective date of a state rule. The 

correction has no effect on the state rule. 

Thus, notice and public procedure are 

unnecessary. We find that this 

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

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. 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). Because the agency has made 

a good cause finding that this action is 

not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedures Act, it is not subject to the 

regulatory flexibility provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule merely 

corrects an incorrect state effective date 

in a previous action, 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). 

For the same reason, 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). This rule 

will 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), because it 

merely corrects an incorrect state 

effective date in a previous action in 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 (CAA). 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. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, our 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), we have 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 CAA. 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. 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 (CRA), 

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 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make a rule 

effective sooner than otherwise 

provided by the CRA if the agency 

makes a good cause finding that notice 

and public procedure is impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. This determination must be 

supported by a brief statement. As 

stated previously, we made such a good 

cause finding, including the reasons 

therefore and established an effective 

date of September 19, 2005. We will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the United 

States Senate, the United States House 

of Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This correction to the Missouri 

SIP table is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 et seq (2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

William Rice, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

■ Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations 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 AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In ‘‘ 52.1320(c) the table is amended 

under Chapter 6 by revising the entry 

for rule A10–6.350’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri 

citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of 

Missouri 

* * * * * * * 

10–6.350 ........................... Emissions Limitations and Emissions Trading of Oxides of Nitrogen.08/30/03 09/19/05 [insert FR page 

number where the document begins].

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