Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Flint Hills Sulfur Dioxide (SO2, 22091-22093 [2019-09921]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 9, 2019. Deborah Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. [FR Doc. 2019–09978 Filed 5–15–19; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2018–0731 FRL–9993–52– Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Flint Hills Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Revision Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Flint Hills Resources, LLC Pine Bend Refinery (FHR) as submitted on October 23, 2018. The proposed SIP revision pertains to the shutdown and replacement of certain equipment at the refinery as well as amendments to certain emission limits, resulting in an overall decrease of SO2 emissions from FHR. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2018–0731 at https:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 May 15, 2019 cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. Jkt 247001 Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, maietta.anthony@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. What is EPA’s analysis of the SIP revision? a. Replacement of 21H1 and 21H2 Coker Heaters and Their Associated Decoking Units b. Emissions Limits at the #5 Sulfur Recovery Unit c. Emissions Limits at the 31H2 Merox OffGas Unit III. SO2 SIP and Emissions Impacts IV. What action is EPA proposing? V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action? FHR operates an oil refinery located in the Pine Bend Area of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. On October 23, 2018, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a request to EPA to approve the conditions cited as ‘‘Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(SO2 SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y’’ in FHR’s revised joint Title I/Title V document, Permit No. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 22091 03700011–102 1 (joint document 102) into the Minnesota SIP. Joint document 102 contains measures for FHR to implement changes to technology at the plant as well as to revise SO2 emissions limits for existing equipment. MPCA posted joint document 102 for public comment on August 21, 2018, and the comment period ended on September 19, 2018. MPCA received no comments on the document. II. What is EPA’s analysis of the SIP revision? Joint document 102, issued by MPCA on October 5, 2018, contains amended SIP conditions for FHR that will replace SIP conditions in joint document 101, which EPA approved on July 10, 2018 (83 FR 33846). The amended SIP conditions in joint document 102 address the shutdown and replacement of two coker heaters in FHR’s delayed coking units with smaller and more efficient heaters, as well as lowering allowable annual SO2 emissions limits for the #5 sulfur recovery unit and 31H2 Merox off-gas unit. See Table 1 in Section III for a list of detailed changes to SO2 allowable emissions limits associated with this proposed action. The amended SIP conditions in joint document 102 include: a. Replacement of 21H1 and 21H2 Coker Heaters and Their Associated Decoking Units The 21H1 (EQUI491) and 21H2 (EQUI492) coker heaters are older, less efficient coker heaters that will be 1 In 1995, EPA approved consolidated permitting regulations into the Minnesota SIP. (60 FR 21447, May 2, 1995). The consolidated permitting regulations included the term ‘‘Title I condition’’ which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements that SIP control measures remain permanent and enforceable. A ‘‘Title I condition’’ is defined, in part, as ‘‘any condition based on source specific determination of ambient impacts imposed for the purpose of achieving or maintaining attainment with a national ambient air quality standard and which was part of a [SIP] approved by the EPA or submitted to the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act. . .’’ MINN. R. 7007.0100 (2013). The regulations also state that ‘‘Title I conditions and the permittee’s obligation to comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the other conditions of the permit.’’ Further, ‘‘any title I condition shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.’’ MINN. R. 7007.0450 (2007). Minnesota has initiated using the joint Title I/Title V document as the enforceable document for imposing emission limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in the joint Title I/Title V document submitted by MPCA are cited as ‘‘Title I conditions,’’ therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain permanent and enforceable. EPA reviewed the state’s procedure for using joint Title I/Title V documents to implement site specific SIP requirements and found it to be acceptable under both Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky, MPCA). E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM 16MYP1 22092 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules removed, along with their associated steam-air decoking units (EQUI493 and EQUI494). These heaters and decoking units are being replaced with two new coker heaters (EQUI1491 and EQUI1492). The new coker heaters are natural draft heaters equipped with ultra-low oxides of nitrogen burners and heat recovery. These two features make them more energy efficient than the coker heaters they are replacing. Also, unlike the older coker heaters, the new coker heaters will be able to mechanically decoke without the need for separate steam-air decoking equipment. This mechanical decoking can be performed while the heater is online, which increases the utilization of the units but eliminates emissions associated with current steam-air decoking procedures. Overall, the new coker heaters will increase allowable annual average SO2 emissions by 37.74 tons per year (tpy) over the old coker heaters, however this increase in allowable emissions will be more than offset by the facility setting lower limits on other equipment, as shown in Table 1 below. Once EPA approval of joint document 102 is effective and the final construction activity to remove and replace the older units has completed, the SO2 emissions limits for EQUI491, EQUI492, EQUI493, and EQUI494 will expire. b. Emissions Limits at the #5 Sulfur Recovery Unit FHR is investing in SO2 reduction activities that will allow the #5 sulfur recovery unit (STRU83) to meet a more stringent allowable SO2 emission limit of 343 tpy in joint document 102, down from 409.8 tpy in joint document 101. One of the SO2 reduction activities FHR is likely to undertake will involve rerouting downstream sulfur-laden air to the front end of the #5 sulfur recovery unit to recapture and reprocess the sulfur. The proposed reduction in allowable SO2 emissions in joint document 102 is 66.8 tpy, as shown in Table 1 below. c. Emissions Limits at the 31H2 Merox Off-Gas Unit installation of new coker heaters EQUI1491 and EQUI1492, the 31H2 mercaptan oxidation (Merox) off-gas stream unit (EQUI546) will have its allowable SO2 emissions reduced to 200 tpy in joint document 102. This is a 90.8 tpy reduction in allowable SO2 emissions from the limit in joint document 101. The allowable emissions limit revision is further shown in Table 1 below. III. SO2 SIP and Eissions Impacts As shown in Table 1, the impact of the amended SIP conditions in joint document 102 results in a decrease of allowable SO2 emissions of 7.9 pounds of SO2 per hour (lb/hr) for the 3-hour and 24-hour SO2 standards, and for the annual SO2 standard, allowable emissions are decreased by 119.8 tpy. Joint document 102 becomes effective upon the effective date of EPA’s approval of MPCA’s October 23, 2018 request. In order to help offset the increase in allowable SO2 emissions from the TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO ALLOWABLE SO2 EMISSIONS IN JOINT DOCUMENT 102 Change to allowable in lb/hr (3-hr and 24hr standards) Change to allowable in tpy (annual standard) Unit Sections in joint document 102 (where applicable *) EQUI1491/21H4 #1 coker heater .............................................................. EQUI1492/21H5 #2 coker heater .............................................................. EQUI491/21H1 #1 coker heater ................................................................ EQUI492/21H2 #2 coker heater ................................................................ EQUI493/21H1 steam-air decoking ........................................................... EQUI494/21H2 steam-air decoking ........................................................... EQUI546/31H2 Merox off-gas ................................................................... STRU83/#5 sulfur recovery unit ................................................................ 5.165.8, 5.165.9, 5.168.10 .............. 5.166.8, 5.166.9, 5.166.10 .............. .......................................................... .......................................................... .......................................................... .......................................................... 5.147.4 ............................................. 5.173.3 ............................................. 9.65 9.65 ¥5.58 ¥5.58 ¥8.0 ¥8.0 n/a n/a 33.8 33.8 13.2 ¥13.2 ¥1.73 ¥1.73 ¥90.8 ¥66.8 Total Change ...................................................................................... .......................................................... ¥7.9 ¥119.8 * SO2 emissions limits for units that were decommissioned and removed do not exist in joint document 102. IV. What action is EPA proposing? khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Minnesota’s SO2 SIP for FHR, as submitted by MPCA on October 23, 2018, and reflected in conditions labeled ‘‘Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(SO2 SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y’’ in joint document 102. V. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, EPA proposes to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by reference all the conditions in Minnesota Permit No. 03700011–102 cited as ‘‘Title I Condition: 40 CFR VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 May 15, 2019 Jkt 247001 50.4(S02 SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y’’, effective January 13, 2017. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). VI. 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, PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM 16MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules • 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: April 30, 2019. Cheryl L Newton, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. 2019–09921 Filed 5–15–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 May 15, 2019 Jkt 247001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA–R06–OAR–2018–0715; FRL–9993–56– Region 6] Air Plan Approval; Texas; HoustonGalveston-Brazoria Area Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Revoked Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Section 185 Fee Program Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing to approve a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EPA is proposing to determine that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area is continuing to attain the 1979 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard) and has met the CAA criteria for redesignation. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to terminate all anti-backsliding obligations for the HGB area for the 1hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to approve the plan for maintaining the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2032 in the HGB area. The EPA is also proposing to approve the Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area Failure to Attain Fee SIP revision to address section 185 of the CAA for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– OAR–2018–0715, at https:// www.regulations.gov/ or via email to paige.carrie@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 22093 other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Carrie Paige, 214–665–6521, paige.carrie@epa.gov. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https:// www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov/ and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Paige, EPA Regional Office 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75202, 214–665–6521, paige.carrie@ epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Paige or Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. I. Background In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA established the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period (44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979).1 In 1997, we revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997).2 In 2008, we further revised the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008).3 For additional information on ozone, please see the Technical Support Document (TSD) in the docket for this action and visit https://www.epa.gov/ ozone-pollution. 1 Primary standards are set to protect human health while secondary standards are set to protect public welfare. In addition, many reports of ozone concentrations are given in parts per billion (ppb); ppb = ppm × 1000. Thus, 0.12 ppm becomes 120 ppb or 124 ppb when rounding is considered. 2 The standard of 0.08 ppm becomes 0.084 ppm or 84 ppb when rounding, based on the truncating conventions in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P. 3 In 2015, we again revised the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). This action does not address the HGB area under the 2008 or 2015 ozone standards. E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM 16MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22091-22093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09921]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0731 FRL-9993-52-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Flint Hills Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Flint Hills Resources, LLC Pine 
Bend Refinery (FHR) as submitted on October 23, 2018. The proposed SIP 
revision pertains to the shutdown and replacement of certain equipment 
at the refinery as well as amendments to certain emission limits, 
resulting in an overall decrease of SO2 emissions from FHR.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0731 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, 
[email protected].

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. What is EPA's analysis of the SIP revision?
    a. Replacement of 21H1 and 21H2 Coker Heaters and Their 
Associated Decoking Units
    b. Emissions Limits at the #5 Sulfur Recovery Unit
    c. Emissions Limits at the 31H2 Merox Off-Gas Unit
III. SO2 SIP and Emissions Impacts
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    FHR operates an oil refinery located in the Pine Bend Area of 
Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. On October 23, 2018, the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a request to EPA to approve 
the conditions cited as ``Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(SO2 
SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, 
subp. Y'' in FHR's revised joint Title I/Title V document, Permit No. 
03700011-102 \1\ (joint document 102) into the Minnesota SIP. Joint 
document 102 contains measures for FHR to implement changes to 
technology at the plant as well as to revise SO2 emissions 
limits for existing equipment. MPCA posted joint document 102 for 
public comment on August 21, 2018, and the comment period ended on 
September 19, 2018. MPCA received no comments on the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 1995, EPA approved consolidated permitting regulations 
into the Minnesota SIP. (60 FR 21447, May 2, 1995). The consolidated 
permitting regulations included the term ``Title I condition'' which 
was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements that SIP control 
measures remain permanent and enforceable. A ``Title I condition'' 
is defined, in part, as ``any condition based on source specific 
determination of ambient impacts imposed for the purpose of 
achieving or maintaining attainment with a national ambient air 
quality standard and which was part of a [SIP] approved by the EPA 
or submitted to the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the 
act. . .'' MINN. R. 7007.0100 (2013). The regulations also state 
that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to comply 
with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the 
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any title I condition 
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or 
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.'' MINN. R. 
7007.0450 (2007). Minnesota has initiated using the joint Title I/
Title V document as the enforceable document for imposing emission 
limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP 
requirements in the joint Title I/Title V document submitted by MPCA 
are cited as ``Title I conditions,'' therefore ensuring that SIP 
requirements remain permanent and enforceable. EPA reviewed the 
state's procedure for using joint Title I/Title V documents to 
implement site specific SIP requirements and found it to be 
acceptable under both Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act (July 
3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky, MPCA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of the SIP revision?

    Joint document 102, issued by MPCA on October 5, 2018, contains 
amended SIP conditions for FHR that will replace SIP conditions in 
joint document 101, which EPA approved on July 10, 2018 (83 FR 33846). 
The amended SIP conditions in joint document 102 address the shutdown 
and replacement of two coker heaters in FHR's delayed coking units with 
smaller and more efficient heaters, as well as lowering allowable 
annual SO2 emissions limits for the #5 sulfur recovery unit 
and 31H2 Merox off-gas unit. See Table 1 in Section III for a list of 
detailed changes to SO2 allowable emissions limits 
associated with this proposed action. The amended SIP conditions in 
joint document 102 include:

a. Replacement of 21H1 and 21H2 Coker Heaters and Their Associated 
Decoking Units

    The 21H1 (EQUI491) and 21H2 (EQUI492) coker heaters are older, less 
efficient coker heaters that will be

[[Page 22092]]

removed, along with their associated steam-air decoking units (EQUI493 
and EQUI494). These heaters and decoking units are being replaced with 
two new coker heaters (EQUI1491 and EQUI1492). The new coker heaters 
are natural draft heaters equipped with ultra-low oxides of nitrogen 
burners and heat recovery. These two features make them more energy 
efficient than the coker heaters they are replacing. Also, unlike the 
older coker heaters, the new coker heaters will be able to mechanically 
decoke without the need for separate steam-air decoking equipment. This 
mechanical decoking can be performed while the heater is online, which 
increases the utilization of the units but eliminates emissions 
associated with current steam-air decoking procedures. Overall, the new 
coker heaters will increase allowable annual average SO2 
emissions by 37.74 tons per year (tpy) over the old coker heaters, 
however this increase in allowable emissions will be more than offset 
by the facility setting lower limits on other equipment, as shown in 
Table 1 below. Once EPA approval of joint document 102 is effective and 
the final construction activity to remove and replace the older units 
has completed, the SO2 emissions limits for EQUI491, 
EQUI492, EQUI493, and EQUI494 will expire.

b. Emissions Limits at the #5 Sulfur Recovery Unit

    FHR is investing in SO2 reduction activities that will 
allow the #5 sulfur recovery unit (STRU83) to meet a more stringent 
allowable SO2 emission limit of 343 tpy in joint document 
102, down from 409.8 tpy in joint document 101. One of the 
SO2 reduction activities FHR is likely to undertake will 
involve rerouting downstream sulfur-laden air to the front end of the 
#5 sulfur recovery unit to recapture and reprocess the sulfur. The 
proposed reduction in allowable SO2 emissions in joint 
document 102 is 66.8 tpy, as shown in Table 1 below.

c. Emissions Limits at the 31H2 Merox Off-Gas Unit

    In order to help offset the increase in allowable SO2 
emissions from the installation of new coker heaters EQUI1491 and 
EQUI1492, the 31H2 mercaptan oxidation (Merox) off-gas stream unit 
(EQUI546) will have its allowable SO2 emissions reduced to 
200 tpy in joint document 102. This is a 90.8 tpy reduction in 
allowable SO2 emissions from the limit in joint document 
101. The allowable emissions limit revision is further shown in Table 1 
below.

III. SO2 SIP and Eissions Impacts

    As shown in Table 1, the impact of the amended SIP conditions in 
joint document 102 results in a decrease of allowable SO2 
emissions of 7.9 pounds of SO2 per hour (lb/hr) for the 3-
hour and 24-hour SO2 standards, and for the annual 
SO2 standard, allowable emissions are decreased by 119.8 
tpy. Joint document 102 becomes effective upon the effective date of 
EPA's approval of MPCA's October 23, 2018 request.

                  Table 1--Summary of Changes to Allowable SO2 Emissions in Joint Document 102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Change to
                                                                                   allowable in      Change to
                     Unit                        Sections in joint document 102     lb/hr (3-hr    allowable in
                                                      (where applicable *)           and 24-hr      tpy (annual
                                                                                    standards)       standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUI1491/21H4 #1 coker heater.................  5.165.8, 5.165.9, 5.168.10......            9.65            33.8
EQUI1492/21H5 #2 coker heater.................  5.166.8, 5.166.9, 5.166.10......            9.65            33.8
EQUI491/21H1 #1 coker heater..................  ................................           -5.58            13.2
EQUI492/21H2 #2 coker heater..................  ................................           -5.58           -13.2
EQUI493/21H1 steam-air decoking...............  ................................            -8.0           -1.73
EQUI494/21H2 steam-air decoking...............  ................................            -8.0           -1.73
EQUI546/31H2 Merox off-gas....................  5.147.4.........................             n/a           -90.8
STRU83/#5 sulfur recovery unit................  5.173.3.........................             n/a           -66.8
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Change..............................  ................................            -7.9          -119.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* SO2 emissions limits for units that were decommissioned and removed do not exist in joint document 102.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Minnesota's 
SO2 SIP for FHR, as submitted by MPCA on October 23, 2018, 
and reflected in conditions labeled ``Title I Condition: 40 CFR 
50.4(SO2 SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I 
Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y'' in joint document 102.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA proposes to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by 
reference all the conditions in Minnesota Permit No. 03700011-102 cited 
as ``Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(S02 SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 
51; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y'', effective January 13, 
2017. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 
5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

VI. 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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;

[[Page 22093]]

     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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 30, 2019.
Cheryl L Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-09921 Filed 5-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.