[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44415-44417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21000]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WI91-01-7322a; FRL-6414-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are approving a site-specific revision to the Wisconsin
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) SIP for
Murphy Oil located in Superior, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) submitted this SIP revision on February 26,
1999 in response to a request for an alternate SO2 emission
limitation by Murphy Oil. The rationale for the approval and other
information are provided in this document.
DATES: This action is effective on October 15, 1999 without further
notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by September 15,
1999. If adverse comments are received, 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 supplementary information section is
organized as follows:
A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
B. Why Was this SIP Revision Submitted?
C. Why Can We Approve this Request?
D. What Is the Background for this Rulemaking?
A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
We are approving WDNR's February 26, 1999 request for a site-
specific revision to the Wisconsin SO2 SIP. Specifically, we
are approving: (A) the SO2 emission limits contained in
Wisconsin Air Pollution Control Operation Permit No. 95-SDD-120-OP,
issued by the WDNR to Murphy Oil, USA on February 17, 1999; and (B) a
modeled attainment demonstration assessing the impact of the alternate
SO2 limits for Murphy Oil, located in Superior (Douglas
County), Wisconsin.
B. Why Was this SIP Revision Submitted?
Murphy Oil owns and operates a petroleum refinery in Superior,
Wisconsin. The categorical statewide emission limit that we had
approved on May 21, 1993 for petroleum refineries is 0.8 pounds of
SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lbs/MMBTU). Also
included in our May 21, 1993 final approval of Wisconsin's Statewide
SO2 rules was NR 417.07(5), which established the State's
procedures for sources to obtain alternate emission limitations.
However, in both our January 2, 1992 proposed rulemaking and our May
21, 1993 final action, we noted that Wisconsin had to submit for
approval all relaxed State limits as site-specific SIP revisions
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. We also stated that any
previous SIP limitations would remain in effect and enforceable until
we approved the proposed relaxed limitations into the SO2
SIP.
Both our alternative emission limit requirements and WDNR's NR
417.05(5) require, among other things, that before an alternate
emission limit can be approved, it must be demonstrated that the
proposed alternate limit will not delay attainment or prevent
maintenance of the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Additionally, the federal requirement limits the demonstration
to no more than 75 percent of the NAAQS. Murphy Oil has requested an
alternate emission limit of 3.0 lbs/MMBTU for any combustion unit when
combusting #6 fuel oil. The WDNR air quality modeling evaluates this
alternate limit in comparison to the SO2 NAAQS. Additional
information is available in our June 6, 1997 Technical Support Document
(TSD).
C. Why Can We Approve This Request?
We are approving the current SIP submittal as a Direct Final
Federal Register document because the source has followed the
procedures of Wisconsin State Rule NR 417.07(5) for obtaining alternate
emission limits, which we approved on May 21, 1993 at 58 FR 29538. Our
June 7, 1999 TSD contains details of the criteria Murphy Oil met to
have the alternate emission limit approved. The State submitted
modeling results incorporating the 3.0 lbs/MMBTU proposed alternative
limit for two separate operating options, one with lower SO2
emission limits and another with higher SO2 emission limits.
The NAAQS for SO2 consist of a 3-hour level of 1300
micrograms per cubic meter (g/m\3\), a 24-hour level of 365
g/m\3\ and an annual arithmetic mean of 80 g/m\3\.
Modeling results from the option with the higher SO2
emission limits, combined with background concentrations, show a 3-hour
concentration of 642.0 g/m\3\ (49.4 percent of NAAQS), a 24-
hour concentration of 211.4 g/m\3\ (57.9 percent of NAAQS) and
an annual concentration of 24.1 g/m\3\ (30.1 percent of
NAAQS). Therefore, the modeling results for both options show that the
NAAQS for SO2 will be attained at the required 75 percent
level.
D. What Is the Background for This Rulemaking?
On April 26, 1984 we notified the Governor of Wisconsin that the
Wisconsin SO2 SIP was inadequate to ensure the protection of
the primary and
[[Page 44416]]
secondary SO2 NAAQS. The State responded to the notice of
SIP deficiency with a Statewide SO2 emission limitations
rule (NR 417.07). On January 2, 1992 at 57 FR 25, we proposed to
approve the majority of Wisconsin's Statewide SO2 rules. A
final approval of the majority of NR 417.07 was published on May 21,
1993 at 58 FR 29538 [we took no action on NR 417.07(2)(e) and NR
417.07(2)(f)].
As allowed under NR 417.07(5), Murphy Oil initially submitted a
request for an alternate SO2 emission limit in 1985 and
proposed the first alternate SO2 emission limitations in
1986. The WDNR concluded in an August 1988 memorandum that Murphy Oil's
request for an alternate SO2 emission limit was approvable.
However, the State did not proceed at that time to propose an operating
permit incorporating the alternate emission limit or to request public
input on the proposed alternate emission limit, as required by the
State rule.
EPA Action
In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the SO2 emission
limits in Wisconsin Air Pollution Control Operation Permit No. 95-SDD-
120-OP, issued by the WDNR to Murphy Oil USA on February 17, 1999, and
the modeled attainment demonstration using the alternate SO2
limits for Murphy Oil in Superior (Douglas County), Wisconsin. The EPA
is publishing this action 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, the EPA is publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the State Plan should relevant
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 15, 1999
without further notice unless relevant adverse comments are received by
September 15, 1999. If EPA receives such comments, this action will be
withdrawn 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
no such comments are received, the public is advised that this action
will be effective October 15, 1999.
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 state implementation plan shall
be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
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, or EPA consults with those governments. 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 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 E.O.
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.
D. 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, or EPA consults with those
governments.
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments and does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this
rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., generally
requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small
governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D, of the Act do not create
any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not
impose any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant impact on small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of
the federal-state relationship under the Act, preparation of a
regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of state action. The Act forbids EPA from
basing its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co.
v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final
rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs
to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to private
sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the
most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements.
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by
the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does
not include a federal mandate that may
[[Page 44417]]
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.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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 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 rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 15, 1999. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for 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.
Dated: July 22, 1999.
Jerri-Anne Garl,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(99) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2570 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(99) On February 26, 1999, the State of Wisconsin submitted a site-
specific revision to the sulfur dioxide (SO2) SIP for Murphy
Oil USA located in Superior (Douglas County), Wisconsin. This SIP
revision was submitted in response to a January 1, 1985, request for an
alternate SO2 emission limitation by Murphy Oil, in
accordance with the procedures of Wisconsin State Rule NR 417.07(5) for
obtaining alternate emission limits, as was approved by EPA in
paragraph (c)(63) of this section.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OPERATION PERMIT NO. 95-DD-120-P, issued
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to Murphy Oil
USA on February 17, 1999.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Proposed
Operation Permit for the Operation of Process Heaters and Processes
Emitting Sulfur Dioxide for Murphy Oil, performed by the WDNR on
September 18, 1998. This document contains a source description,
analysis of the alternate emission limitation request, and an air
quality review, which includes the results of an air quality modeling
analysis demonstrating modeled attainment of the SO2 NAAQS
using the alternate emission limit for Murphy Oil.
[FR Doc. 99-21000 Filed 8-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
