Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

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