[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54585-54587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26897]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MN52-01-7277a; MN53-01-7278a; FRL-6162-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to Minnesota's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur
dioxide (SO2) in Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131. The
EPA's action is based upon a revision request submitted by the State of
Minnesota on April 24, 1997, which amends two State Administrative
Orders for two Northern States Power facilities: Inver Hills and
Riverside. The Orders are included as part of Minnesota's approved SIP
to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
sulfur dioxide.
DATES: This rule is effective on December 14, 1998 unless the Agency
receives relevant adverse comments by November 12, 1998. Should the
Agency receive such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), EPA, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection
during normal business hours at the following location: United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone
Victoria Hayden at (312) 886-4023 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Hayden, Regulation
Development Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312)
886-4023.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 14, 1994, and September 9, 1994, EPA approved SIP
revisions for SO2 for much of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul
area. The regulatory portion of these revisions consisted of
administrative orders limiting emissions from affected facilities. On
June 13, 1995, EPA approved amendments to the previously approved
administrative orders addressing SO2. On April 24, 1997,
Minnesota submitted additional changes to the amendments for the
administrative orders for two Northern States Power facilities: Inver
Hills and Riverside. For the Inver Hills Generating Facility the
administrative order was amended to increase the boilers heat input,
decrease their emission limits, increase the amount of fuel oil usage,
but decrease the sulfur content. The administrative order for the
Riverside Station was revised similarly to increase
[[Page 54586]]
the heat input, decrease their emission limits, and to also add 40 CFR
part 75 to their continuous emissions monitoring requirements.
II. Submittal Summary
The State submittal dated April 24, 1997, consisted of revisions to
the Minnesota SO2 SIP in the form of amendments to two
administrative orders, along with technical support information, for
the following two Northern States Power facilities: Inver Hills and
Riverside. The following discusses the principal revisions made by the
State and submitted to EPA.
For Northern States Power--Riverside Facility
(1) The annual emission limit of SO2 from emission
points 1 and 2 has been revised from 1.08 to 1.00 pounds per million
British Thermal Units (lbs/MMBtu) per emission point on a 3-hour
average.
(2) Changes were made to remove the use of the wording ``Exhibit
5'' and to replace it with and add ``40 CFR part 75'' to their
continuous emissions monitoring requirements (CEMs).
(3) The section in the administrative order discussing the
operation and maintenance of the CEMs was revised to add exemptions
from the 90 percent monitoring uptime requirements.
(4) The Minnesota rule reference within the Notification of
Monitoring Equipment Breakdown section was changed to Minn. R.
7019.100, subpart 4, which requires a company to notify the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency Commissioner of any breakdown or malfunction
lasting greater than eight hours.
(5) Maximum heat input was increased from 792 MMBtu/hr to 852
MMBtu/hr for Emissions Points 1 and 2.
For Northern States Power--Inver Hills Facility
(1) Emission point 7 was removed and the annual emission limit of
SO2 from emission points 1 through 6 was decreased from 1.1
to 0.67 lb/MMBtu each on an instantaneous basis.
(2) For emission points 1 through 6 the use of natural gas was
added as a fuel type and the maximum heat input was changed to 870 x
106 British Thermal Unit per hour (Btu/hr) for fuel oil and
920 x 106 Btu/hr for natural gas.
(3) The amount of fuel oil usage increased from 8.75 to 9.41
million gallons of fuel oil per month based on a monthly 12-month
rolling average. However, the maximum sulfur content of fuel oil burned
was decreased 1.0 to 0.67 percent by weight in gas turbines 1 through
6.
(4) Other minor language changes were made to clarify the sampling
and analyzing method for determining fuel oil sulfur content and
heating value.
III. EPA Final Rulemaking Action
The EPA is approving amendments to two administrative orders as
requested by the State. These amendments were adopted and effective at
the State on November 26, 1996. Specifically for sulfur dioxide, the
EPA is approving amendments to the administrative orders for two
Northern States Power facilities: Inver Hills and Riverside. These
changes do not affect the facilities' ability to meet the NAAQS for
SO2.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
December 14, 1998, without further notice unless the Agency receives
relevant adverse comments by November 12, 1998.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. Only parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If
no such comments are received, the public is advised that this action
will be effective on December 14, 1998 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, representatives of Indian tribal governments
``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of
regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. To the
extent that the area must adopt new regulations, based on its
attainment status, EPA will review the effect of those actions on small
entities at the time the State submits those regulations.
[[Page 54587]]
The Administrator certifies that the approval of the redesignation
request will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
F. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
G. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
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 December 14, 1998. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this 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
an action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) EPA encourages
interested parties to comment in response to the proposed redesignation
rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises
after the comment period allowed for in the proposal.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping.
Dated: September 3, 1998.
Gail Ginsburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 1.
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. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph c(46) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(46) On April 24, 1997, the State of Minnesota submitted
Administrative Order amendments for sulfur dioxide for two Northern
States Power facilities: Inver Hills and Riverside.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Amendment Two, dated and effective November 26, 1996, to
administrative order approved in paragraph (c)(30) of this section for
Northern States Power-Riverside Station.
(B) Amendment Three, dated and effective November 26, 1996, to
administrative order and amendments approved in paragraphs (c)(35) and
(c)(41), respectively, of this section for Northern States Power-Inver
Hills Station.
[FR Doc. 98-26897 Filed 10-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
