[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 8, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31891-31893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12771]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MN79-3; FRL-7670-5]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a site-specific revision to the Minnesota
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Xcel Energy (formerly known as Northern States Power Company) Inver
Hills Generating Plant located in the city of Inver Grove Heights,
Dakota County, Minnesota. By its submittal dated August 9, 2002, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requested that EPA approve
Xcel's federally enforceable Title V operating permit into the
Minnesota SO2 SIP and remove the Xcel Administrative Order
from the state SO2 SIP. The state is also requesting in this
submittal, that EPA rescind the Administrative Order for Ashbach
Construction Company (Ashbach) from the Ramsey County particulate
matter (PM) SIP. EPA proposed approval of this SIP revision and
published a direct final approval on September 2, 2003. EPA received
adverse comments on the proposed rulemaking, and therefore withdrew the
direct final rulemaking on October 27, 2003.
DATES: This rule is effective July 8, 2004.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. MN-79. All documents in the docket are listed in the index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information where disclosure is
restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are
available in hard copy at the following address: United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. The Docket Facility
is open during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Christos Panos at (312)
353-8328, before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Mailcode AR-18J, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Telephone: (312) 353-
8328. E-mail address: panos.christos@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information section is
organized as follows:
I. Does This Action Apply to Me?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Public Comments Were Received and What Is EPA's Response?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
General Information
I. Does This Action Apply to Me?
No, it applies to a single source, Xcel Energy's Inver Hills
Generating Plant located in the city of Inver Grove Heights, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
In this action, EPA is approving into the Minnesota SO2
SIP certain portions of the Title V permit for Xcel Energy's Inver
Hills Generating Plant (Xcel) located in the city of Inver Grove
Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is approving into
the SIP only those portions of Xcel's Title V permit cited as ``Title I
Condition: State Implementation Plan for SO2.'' In this same
action, EPA is removing from the state SO2 SIP the Xcel
Administrative Order which had first been approved into the
SO2 SIP on September 9, 1994, and amended on June 13, 1995
and October 13, 1998. In addition, EPA is removing from the state
[[Page 31892]]
PM SIP the Ashbach Administrative Order which had previously been
approved into the PM SIP on February 15, 1994.
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
The SIP revision submitted by MPCA on August 9, 2002, consists of a
Title V permit issued to Xcel. The state has requested that EPA approve
the following:
(1) The inclusion into the Minnesota SO2 SIP of only the
portions of the Xcel Inver Hills Generating Plant Title V permit cited
as ``Title I Condition: State Implementation Plan for
SO2.'';
(2) The removal from the Minnesota SO2 SIP of the
Administrative Order for Xcel previously approved into the SIP; and,
(3) The removal from the Minnesota PM SIP of the Administrative
Order for Ashbach previously approved into the SIP.
We concluded in our September 2, 2003, direct final action at 68 FR
52110 that the SIP revision for Xcel was approvable, because the
state's request does not change any of the emission limitations
currently in the SO2 SIP or their accompanying supportive
documents, such as the SO2 air dispersion modeling. The
revision to the SO2 SIP does not approve any new
construction or allow an increase in emissions, thereby providing for
attainment and maintenance of the SO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and satisfying the applicable SO2
requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act). The only change to the
SO2 SIP is the enforceable document for Xcel, from the
Administrative Order to the Title V permit.
We also concluded on September 2, 2003, that the Administrative
Order for Ashbach was no longer necessary since the company has
permanently ceased operations at the Saint Paul asphalt plant.
Therefore, we took action to rescind the Administrative Order for
Ashbach from the Ramsey County PM SIP.
The September 2, 2003, direct final action stated that if we
received adverse comments by October 2, 2003, we would publish a timely
notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register. Because we received an
adverse comment, we withdrew the direct final approval of the revision
to the Minnesota SO2 SIP on October 27, 2003, at 68 FR
61105. As stated in the proposal, there will not be a second comment
period on this action.
IV. What Public Comments Were Received and What Is EPA's Response?
We received one comment opposing our September 2, 2003, approval of
Minnesota's SIP revision. Although the comment does not specifically
address the actual action taken in the SIP revision, it is ``adverse''
to the SIP action in that the commenter asks us to take a different
action regarding this Minnesota power plant than the action we proposed
to take. Below, we have paraphrased the comment and have responded to
it.
Comment: When a power plant is fixed, there should be an
improvement as to the amount of toxics being emitted. Any improvements
in power plants should also reduce emissions. Toxins from Minnesota are
transported east and negatively impact the health of citizens of the
eastern United States. Minnesota power plants must be required to clean
the air.
Response: This comment raises points that are unrelated to or
outside the scope of this SIP revision, but are apparently directed to
either the New Source Review program or the section 112 air toxics
program. The commenter is asking EPA to impose substantive requirements
that the Agency is not able to require in response to this SIP
submission from the State.
As detailed in the September 2, 2003, direct final action, we are
approving the current SIP submittal for Xcel because the only change to
the SO2 SIP is the enforceable document for Xcel, from the
Administrative Order to the Title V permit. Further, we are taking
action to rescind the Administrative Order for Ashbach from the Ramsey
County PM SIP because the company has permanently ceased operations at
the Saint Paul asphalt plant. The commenter submitted no new
information that would warrant a disapproval under the requirements of
the Act.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it 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).
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
[[Page 31893]]
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry our policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In
reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not
apply.
Civil Justice Reform
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
Governmental Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under
the executive order, and has determined that the rule's requirements do
not constitute a taking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Congressional Review Act
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, EPA 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. 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 August 6, 2004. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Dioxide.
Dated: May 20, 2004.
Norman R. Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations 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. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(63) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(63) On August 9, 2002, the State of Minnesota submitted a revision
to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for Xcel Energy's Inver Hills Generating Plant (Xcel)
located in the city of Inver Grove Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Specifically, EPA is only approving into the SO2 SIP those
portions of the Xcel Title V operating permit cited as ``Title I
Condition: State Implementation Plan for SO2'' and is
removing from the state SO2 SIP the Xcel Administrative
Order previously approved in paragraph (c)(46) and modified in
paragraphs (c)(35) and (c)(41) of this section. In this same action,
EPA is removing from the state particulate matter SIP the
Administrative Order for Ashbach Construction Company previously
approved in paragraph (c)(29) and modified in paragraph (c)(41) of this
section.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) AIR EMISSION PERMIT NO. 03700015-001, issued by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency to Northern States Power Company Inver Hills
Generating Plant on July 25, 2000, Title I conditions only.
[FR Doc. 04-12771 Filed 6-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P