Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Minnesota; Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, 6733-6736 [2013-02019]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0328; FRL–9774–4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Minnesota; Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: EPA is approving Minnesota’s August 29, 2011, request to revise its sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC (FHR Pine Bend), in Dakota County. The facility is shutting down an incinerator, rerouting process gases, planning for a new boiler, and making other emission limit reductions. This revision will result in a decrease in SO2 emissions. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 1, 2013, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 4, 2013. 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: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2011–0328, by one of the following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 0328. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:21 Jan 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353–5954 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954, portanova.mary@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 6733 EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What is the background for this action? II. Analysis III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action? On August 29, 2011, Minnesota submitted a request to EPA to revise its SO2 SIP for the FHR Pine Bend oil refinery in Rosemount, Dakota County. FHR Pine Bend is making modifications to its facility to improve energy efficiency and address plant safety. The facility will remove its Merox process incinerator, reroute process gases to an existing furnace, take additional restrictions on steam-air decoking activities for certain boilers, revise the SO2 emission limits for its fluid catalytic cracking unit, and add a boiler. FHR Pine Bend is subject to an Administrative Order, which contains SO2 emission limits and requirements which are intended to ensure the protection of ambient air quality. The provisions of the Administrative Order have been approved by EPA into the SO2 SIP for FHR Pine Bend (72 FR 39568, July 19, 2007). Minnesota amended the Administrative Order for FHR Pine Bend to provide for the facility’s planned modifications, and submitted it to EPA on August 29, 2011, as a SIP revision request. The effective date of the amended Administrative Order was also August 29, 2011. In addition, Minnesota has issued FHR Pine Bend an amended permit (03700011–008, August 16, 2011). This permit contains SO2 emission limits and related requirements for FHR Pine Bend. After a routine plant safety review, FHR Pine Bend determined that there was a potential flameout risk with its Merox unit incinerator. The company decided to shut down the incinerator and reroute the gas streams it had burned to be either recycled or burned in an existing process heater (31H–2), depending on the mercaptan content of the gases. The Merox incinerator had previously handled gases from a sulfur recovery unit which is no longer in operation. Treating the smaller gas stream that it currently receives had caused the large Merox incinerator to operate less efficiently. The process heater (31H–2) will be able to destroy the Merox off-gases using less additional fuel, resulting in lower emissions of SO2, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and greenhouse gases. The SIP revision request includes revised SO2 emission limits for the process heater (31H–2), in response to the heater’s new input gas streams. The continuous emission E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM 31JAR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 6734 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations monitor (CEM) currently on the Merox incinerator will be moved to the process heater (31H–2), to measure its SO2 emissions. The SIP retains the ability for FHR Pine Bend to use the Merox incinerator temporarily, if it is needed while the gas streams are being rerouted, but the emission limit applicable to the Merox incinerator for this potential operation is approximately 700 tons per year (tpy) lower than its current emission limit. The Merox incinerator is to be permanently shut down after the gas stream rerouting is complete. Other updates which are not related to the Merox incinerator shutdown are also included in the August 29, 2011 SIP revision request. First, FHR Pine Bend intends to apply for a permit to install a new boiler. Therefore, SO2 emissions corresponding to a new boiler were included in the modeling analysis performed for this SIP revision request, based on the emissions and stack measurements of the plant’s existing Boiler 9. To ensure that the company’s SIP will continue to protect air quality after the addition of the new boiler, the Administrative Order prohibits the company from operating the new boiler with stack and emission parameters different from those used in the dispersion modeling supporting the August 29, 2011 SIP revision request. Second, the SIP revision request includes an emission limit reduction of approximately 2700 tpy at the fluid catalytic cracking unit. The revised emission limit was chosen after a review of recent continuous emission monitoring data. Third, FHR Pine Bend is taking additional limits on its steamair decoking activities for four heaters. These limits restrict the heaters from being decoked simultaneously. The decoking process uses steam, air, heat, and water to periodically remove coke buildup from process heater tubing. The decoking residues are directed into water-filled quench pits. The modeled emission rates from the decoking operations have been updated after engineering analyses at the plant. Fourth, the SIP revision request accounts for changes in the stack exit temperature of the oil separation and waste treatment plant’s thermal oxidizer stack, which are expected after a convection stack/heat exchanger replacement is completed. The replacement will increase energy efficiency at the thermal oxidizer. Finally, additional revisions to the SIP address the facility’s name change from Flint Hills Resources, LP, to Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC, and adjustments to numbering within the VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:21 Jan 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 rule. Overall, the August 29, 2011 SIP revision provides for a reduction in SO2 emissions of over 3100 tpy. II. Analysis Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states that the Administrator shall not approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and reasonable further progress. 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). The August 29, 2011 SIP revision for FHR Pine Bend represents an overall emissions decrease of over 3100 tpy of SO2 emissions. The revision also provides for reductions in nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and greenhouse gases from the shutdown of the Merox incinerator and the associated decrease in fuel usage. The new operating scenario and new limits for FHR Pine Bend were evaluated and compared to the SO2 NAAQS and to the previous SIP scenario using the EPA regulatory dispersion model AERMOD (version 09292), with meteorological data from 2000–2004 collected at the MinneapolisSt. Paul Airport. The comparative modeling results showed large reductions, up to approximately sixty percent, in predicted ambient SO2 concentrations under the new operating scenario. The modeling analysis demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 (3-hour, 24-hour, and annual). The maximum predicted SO2 concentrations including neighboring emission sources and a monitored background concentration were 517 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) for the 3-hour average (compared to the SO2 NAAQS of 1300 mg/m3); 172 mg/m3 for the 24-hour average (compared to the SO2 NAAQS of 365 mg/m3); and 35 mg/ m3 for the annual average (compared to the SO2 NAAQS of 80 mg/m3). The dispersion modeling for this SIP revision request did not specifically address the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. There were difficulties in providing a full modeled 1-hour attainment demonstration for the FHR Pine Bend SIP revision request which were beyond FHR Pine Bend’s control. Because the shutdown of the Merox incinerator addresses a safety issue, Minnesota submitted the SIP revision without waiting to complete a full 1-hour SO2 modeling demonstration. Nonattainment area designations have not yet been promulgated nationally, so the 1-hour SO2 SIP requirements for Dakota County have not yet been determined. The air quality monitors in Dakota County clearly show that the area is currently attaining the 1-hour PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 SO2 NAAQS. There are four SO2 monitors located within three miles of the FHR Pine Bend facility. The SO2 concentrations at all four monitors are well below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The highest of the four monitors’ 2008–2010 design value concentrations was 20 parts per billion (ppb)(compared to the SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb). For the period 2009–2011, the highest of the four Dakota County monitors’ design values was 19 ppb (both design values cited here are from the same monitor). This monitor is located less than one mile east of FHR Pine Bend. Minnesota has recommended that EPA designate Dakota County ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Minnesota must meet the applicable requirements for Dakota County’s final SO2 designation, which may include a modeled demonstration that the entire county will continue to maintain the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. In the meantime, given the significant SO2 emission reductions in the FHR Pine Bend SIP revision submittal, and the fact that the new facility operating scenario has also resulted in reductions in modeled concentrations for the other short-term SO2 standards, EPA believes that the August 29, 2011 SIP revision submittal does not endanger Dakota County’s continued attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and the SIP revision will provide progress toward any future requirements for a modeled demonstration of attainment of the 1hour SO2 NAAQS in Dakota County. It is important to note that future SIP revision requests or modifications at this or other SO2-emitting facilities may be required to include full modeled attainment demonstrations for the 1hour SO2 NAAQS, in accordance with section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act. EPA believes that Minnesota’s August 29, 2011, request to revise its SIP for FHR Pine Bend satisfies the requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act. The SIP revision addresses a plant safety issue and includes significant SO2 reductions which will help the area continue to maintain the current SO2 standards. Dispersion modeling shows that ambient SO2 impacts will decrease under the new operating scenario. The SIP limits and modeling continue to account for limited use of the Merox incinerator in case it is temporarily needed during the transition to the new operating scenario. Actual operations following the shutdown of the Merox incinerator will therefore produce less SO2 than the modeled amount. For these reasons, EPA believes that approval of the August 29, 2011 SIP revision request E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM 31JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations will not jeopardize Dakota County’s attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with III. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving Minnesota’s August 29, 2011, SO2 SIP revision request for FHR Pine Bend, in Dakota County. This SIP revision addresses an operating change based on a safety issue, and also results in a large decrease in SO2 emissions at the facility. This SIP revision is not expected to jeopardize attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in Dakota County. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective April 1, 2013 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by March 4, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action 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. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective April 1, 2013. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:21 Jan 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • 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); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 6735 of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 April 1, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today’s Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. 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, Sulfur oxides. Dated: January 17, 2013. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5. 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. 2. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising the entry for ‘‘Flint Hills Resources, L.P. (formerly Koch Petroleum)’’ to read as follows: ■ § 52.1220 * Identification of plan. * * (d) * * * E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM 31JAR1 * * 6736 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS State effective date Name of source Permit No. * * Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC. * ........................ * * * * * * 08/29/11 * * [FR Doc. 2013–02019 Filed 1–30–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0849; FRL–9760–4] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter (PM) emissions from open burning. We are approving local rules that regulate this emission source under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on April 1, 2013 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 4, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2012–0849, by one of the following methods: SUMMARY: EPA approval date Comments * * 01/31/13, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS]. * * Amendment Nine to Findings and Order. * * 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. 2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, * * California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 4118, Kay.Rynda@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State’s Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State’s Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES Rule No. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with Local agency PCAPCD PCAPCD PCAPCD PCAPCD PCAPCD PCAPCD ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:33 Jan 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 102 301 302 303 304 305 Rule title Amended Definitions ............................................................................................... Nonagricultural Burning Smoke Management ....................................... Agricultural Waste Burning Smoke Management .................................. Prescribed Burning Smoke Management .............................................. Land Development Burning Smoke Management ................................. Residential Allowable Burning ................................................................ PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM 31JAR1 02/09/12 02/09/12 02/09/12 02/09/12 02/09/12 02/09/12 Submitted 04/25/12 09/21/12 09/21/12 09/21/12 09/21/12 09/21/12

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6733-6736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02019]



[[Page 6733]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0328; FRL-9774-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota; Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Minnesota's August 29, 2011, request to 
revise its sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) for Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC (FHR Pine Bend), in 
Dakota County. The facility is shutting down an incinerator, rerouting 
process gases, planning for a new boiler, and making other emission 
limit reductions. This revision will result in a decrease in 
SO2 emissions.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 1, 2013, unless 
EPA receives adverse comments by March 4, 2013. 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: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0328, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-0328. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, 
at (312) 353-5954 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental 
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954, portanova.mary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. Analysis
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    On August 29, 2011, Minnesota submitted a request to EPA to revise 
its SO2 SIP for the FHR Pine Bend oil refinery in Rosemount, 
Dakota County. FHR Pine Bend is making modifications to its facility to 
improve energy efficiency and address plant safety. The facility will 
remove its Merox process incinerator, reroute process gases to an 
existing furnace, take additional restrictions on steam-air decoking 
activities for certain boilers, revise the SO2 emission 
limits for its fluid catalytic cracking unit, and add a boiler.
    FHR Pine Bend is subject to an Administrative Order, which contains 
SO2 emission limits and requirements which are intended to 
ensure the protection of ambient air quality. The provisions of the 
Administrative Order have been approved by EPA into the SO2 
SIP for FHR Pine Bend (72 FR 39568, July 19, 2007). Minnesota amended 
the Administrative Order for FHR Pine Bend to provide for the 
facility's planned modifications, and submitted it to EPA on August 29, 
2011, as a SIP revision request. The effective date of the amended 
Administrative Order was also August 29, 2011. In addition, Minnesota 
has issued FHR Pine Bend an amended permit (03700011-008, August 16, 
2011). This permit contains SO2 emission limits and related 
requirements for FHR Pine Bend.
    After a routine plant safety review, FHR Pine Bend determined that 
there was a potential flameout risk with its Merox unit incinerator. 
The company decided to shut down the incinerator and reroute the gas 
streams it had burned to be either recycled or burned in an existing 
process heater (31H-2), depending on the mercaptan content of the 
gases. The Merox incinerator had previously handled gases from a sulfur 
recovery unit which is no longer in operation. Treating the smaller gas 
stream that it currently receives had caused the large Merox 
incinerator to operate less efficiently. The process heater (31H-2) 
will be able to destroy the Merox off-gases using less additional fuel, 
resulting in lower emissions of SO2, nitrogen oxides, carbon 
monoxide, and greenhouse gases. The SIP revision request includes 
revised SO2 emission limits for the process heater (31H-2), 
in response to the heater's new input gas streams. The continuous 
emission

[[Page 6734]]

monitor (CEM) currently on the Merox incinerator will be moved to the 
process heater (31H-2), to measure its SO2 emissions. The 
SIP retains the ability for FHR Pine Bend to use the Merox incinerator 
temporarily, if it is needed while the gas streams are being rerouted, 
but the emission limit applicable to the Merox incinerator for this 
potential operation is approximately 700 tons per year (tpy) lower than 
its current emission limit. The Merox incinerator is to be permanently 
shut down after the gas stream rerouting is complete.
    Other updates which are not related to the Merox incinerator 
shutdown are also included in the August 29, 2011 SIP revision request. 
First, FHR Pine Bend intends to apply for a permit to install a new 
boiler. Therefore, SO2 emissions corresponding to a new 
boiler were included in the modeling analysis performed for this SIP 
revision request, based on the emissions and stack measurements of the 
plant's existing Boiler 9. To ensure that the company's SIP will 
continue to protect air quality after the addition of the new boiler, 
the Administrative Order prohibits the company from operating the new 
boiler with stack and emission parameters different from those used in 
the dispersion modeling supporting the August 29, 2011 SIP revision 
request. Second, the SIP revision request includes an emission limit 
reduction of approximately 2700 tpy at the fluid catalytic cracking 
unit. The revised emission limit was chosen after a review of recent 
continuous emission monitoring data. Third, FHR Pine Bend is taking 
additional limits on its steam-air decoking activities for four 
heaters. These limits restrict the heaters from being decoked 
simultaneously. The decoking process uses steam, air, heat, and water 
to periodically remove coke buildup from process heater tubing. The 
decoking residues are directed into water-filled quench pits. The 
modeled emission rates from the decoking operations have been updated 
after engineering analyses at the plant. Fourth, the SIP revision 
request accounts for changes in the stack exit temperature of the oil 
separation and waste treatment plant's thermal oxidizer stack, which 
are expected after a convection stack/heat exchanger replacement is 
completed. The replacement will increase energy efficiency at the 
thermal oxidizer. Finally, additional revisions to the SIP address the 
facility's name change from Flint Hills Resources, LP, to Flint Hills 
Resources Pine Bend, LLC, and adjustments to numbering within the rule. 
Overall, the August 29, 2011 SIP revision provides for a reduction in 
SO2 emissions of over 3100 tpy.

II. Analysis

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states that the Administrator 
shall not approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning attainment of the national ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS) and reasonable further progress. 42 
U.S.C. 7410(l). The August 29, 2011 SIP revision for FHR Pine Bend 
represents an overall emissions decrease of over 3100 tpy of 
SO2 emissions. The revision also provides for reductions in 
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and greenhouse gases from the 
shutdown of the Merox incinerator and the associated decrease in fuel 
usage.
    The new operating scenario and new limits for FHR Pine Bend were 
evaluated and compared to the SO2 NAAQS and to the previous 
SIP scenario using the EPA regulatory dispersion model AERMOD (version 
09292), with meteorological data from 2000-2004 collected at the 
Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. The comparative modeling results showed 
large reductions, up to approximately sixty percent, in predicted 
ambient SO2 concentrations under the new operating scenario. 
The modeling analysis demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS for 
SO2 (3-hour, 24-hour, and annual). The maximum predicted 
SO2 concentrations including neighboring emission sources 
and a monitored background concentration were 517 micrograms per cubic 
meter ([mu]g/m\3\) for the 3-hour average (compared to the 
SO2 NAAQS of 1300 [mu]g/m\3\); 172 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-
hour average (compared to the SO2 NAAQS of 365 [mu]g/m\3\); 
and 35 [mu]g/m\3\ for the annual average (compared to the 
SO2 NAAQS of 80 [mu]g/m\3\).
    The dispersion modeling for this SIP revision request did not 
specifically address the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. There were 
difficulties in providing a full modeled 1-hour attainment 
demonstration for the FHR Pine Bend SIP revision request which were 
beyond FHR Pine Bend's control. Because the shutdown of the Merox 
incinerator addresses a safety issue, Minnesota submitted the SIP 
revision without waiting to complete a full 1-hour SO2 
modeling demonstration. Nonattainment area designations have not yet 
been promulgated nationally, so the 1-hour SO2 SIP 
requirements for Dakota County have not yet been determined. The air 
quality monitors in Dakota County clearly show that the area is 
currently attaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. There are four 
SO2 monitors located within three miles of the FHR Pine Bend 
facility. The SO2 concentrations at all four monitors are 
well below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The highest of the four 
monitors' 2008-2010 design value concentrations was 20 parts per 
billion (ppb)(compared to the SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb). For the 
period 2009-2011, the highest of the four Dakota County monitors' 
design values was 19 ppb (both design values cited here are from the 
same monitor). This monitor is located less than one mile east of FHR 
Pine Bend. Minnesota has recommended that EPA designate Dakota County 
``unclassifiable'' for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Minnesota must 
meet the applicable requirements for Dakota County's final 
SO2 designation, which may include a modeled demonstration 
that the entire county will continue to maintain the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. In the meantime, given the significant 
SO2 emission reductions in the FHR Pine Bend SIP revision 
submittal, and the fact that the new facility operating scenario has 
also resulted in reductions in modeled concentrations for the other 
short-term SO2 standards, EPA believes that the August 29, 
2011 SIP revision submittal does not endanger Dakota County's continued 
attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and the SIP revision 
will provide progress toward any future requirements for a modeled 
demonstration of attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
Dakota County. It is important to note that future SIP revision 
requests or modifications at this or other SO2-emitting 
facilities may be required to include full modeled attainment 
demonstrations for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, in accordance with 
section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.
    EPA believes that Minnesota's August 29, 2011, request to revise 
its SIP for FHR Pine Bend satisfies the requirements of section 110(l) 
of the Clean Air Act. The SIP revision addresses a plant safety issue 
and includes significant SO2 reductions which will help the 
area continue to maintain the current SO2 standards. 
Dispersion modeling shows that ambient SO2 impacts will 
decrease under the new operating scenario. The SIP limits and modeling 
continue to account for limited use of the Merox incinerator in case it 
is temporarily needed during the transition to the new operating 
scenario. Actual operations following the shutdown of the Merox 
incinerator will therefore produce less SO2 than the modeled 
amount. For these reasons, EPA believes that approval of the August 29, 
2011 SIP revision request

[[Page 6735]]

will not jeopardize Dakota County's attainment of the SO2 
NAAQS.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Minnesota's August 29, 2011, SO2 SIP 
revision request for FHR Pine Bend, in Dakota County. This SIP revision 
addresses an operating change based on a safety issue, and also results 
in a large decrease in SO2 emissions at the facility. This 
SIP revision is not expected to jeopardize attainment of the 
SO2 NAAQS in Dakota County.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse 
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective April 1, 2013 
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comments by March 4, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will 
withdraw this action 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. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do 
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an 
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those 
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. 
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective April 
1, 2013.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act 
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action 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 April 1, 2013. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final 
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel 
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed 
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an 
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so 
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in 
the proposed rulemaking. 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, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: January 17, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    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.


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


Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

[[Page 6736]]



                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State
          Name of source              Permit No.    effective date    EPA approval date           Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend,    ..............        08/29/11  01/31/13, [INSERT      Amendment Nine to
 LLC.                                                                PAGE NUMBER WHERE      Findings and Order.
                                                                     THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-02019 Filed 1-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P