[Federal Register: May 22, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 99)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27908-27911]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my03-8]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MT-001-0010; MT-001-0028; FRL-7489-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Billings/Laurel Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving some, and limitedly approving and
limitedly disapproving other, revisions to the Billings/Laurel sulfur
dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Montana on July 29, 1998 and May 4, 2000. The May 4, 2000 SIP revision
was submitted to satisfy earlier commitments made by the Governor. The
intended effect of this action is to make federally enforceable those
provisions that EPA is partially and limitedly approving, and to
limitedly disapprove those provisions that are not fully approvable.
EPA is taking this action under sections 110 and 179 of the Clean Air
Act (Act).
DATES: This final rule is effective June 23, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999
18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202 and copies of the
Incorporation by Reference material may be inspected at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Room B-108 (Mail Code 6102T), 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Copies of the State documents relevant to this
action are available for public inspection at the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, Air and Waste Management Bureau, 1520 E. 6th
Avenue, Helena, Montana 59620.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Ostrand, EPA, Region 8, (303)
312-6437.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Definitions
I. Summary of EPA's Final Action on Portions of the State of
Montana's July 29, 1998 Submittal and all of the May 4, 2000
Submittal
II. Background
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon monoxide.
(iii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(v) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
(vi) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
(vii) The initials SWS mean or refer to sour water stripper.
(viii) The initials YELP mean or refer to the Yellowstone Energy
Limited Partnership.
I. Summary of EPA's Final Action on Portions of the State of Montana's
July 29, 1998 Submittal and All of the May 4, 2000 Submittal
We are approving the following provisions:
[sbull] YELP's emission limits in sections 3(A)(1) through (3) and
reporting requirements in section 7(C)(1)(b) of YELP's exhibit A
submitted on May 4, 2000.
[sbull] Provisions related to the burning of SWS overheads in the
F-1 Crude Furnace (and exhausted through the F-2 Crude/Vacuum Heater
stack) at ExxonMobil in sections 3(E)(4) and 4(E) (excluding ``or in
the flare'' and ``or the flare'' in both sections), 3(A)(2), and
3(B)(3) of ExxonMobil's exhibit A, submitted on July 29, 1998 and
method 6A-1 of attachment 2 of
[[Page 27909]]
ExxonMobil's exhibit A, submitted on May 4, 2000.
[sbull] Minor changes in sections 3, 3(A) and 3(B) (only the
introductory paragraphs); and sections 3(E)(3), 6(B)(7), 7(B)(1)(d),
7(B)(1)(j), 7(C)(1)(b), 7(C)(1)(d), 7(C)(1)(f), and 7(C)(1)(l) of
ExxonMobil's exhibit A, submitted on May 4, 2000.
We are limitedly approving and limitedly disapproving the following
provisions:
[sbull] Provisions related to the fuel gas combustion emission
limitations at ExxonMobil in sections 3(B)(2), 4(B), and 6(B)(3) of
ExxonMobil's exhibit A, submitted on July 29, 1998 and section 3(A)(1)
of ExxonMobil's exhibit A, submitted on May 4, 2000.
[sbull] Provisions related to ExxonMobil's coker CO-boiler emission
limitation in sections 2(A)(11)(d), 3(B)(1) and 4(C) of ExxonMobil's
exhibit A, submitted on May 4, 2000.
[sbull] Provisions related to the burning of SWS overheads at Cenex
in sections 3(B)(2) and 4(D) (excluding ``or in the flare'' and ``or
the flare'' in both sections), 3(A)(1)(d), and 4(B) of Cenex's exhibit
A, submitted on July 29, 1998, and method 6A-1 of attachment
2 of Cenex's exhibit A, submitted on May 4, 2000.
We caution that if sources are subject to more stringent
requirements under other provisions of the Act (e.g., section 111 new
source performance standards; Title I, Part C, (prevention of
significant deterioration); or SIP-approved permit programs under Title
I, Part A), our approval and limited approval of the SIP (including
emission limitations and other requirements), would not excuse sources
from meeting these other more stringent requirements. Also, our action
on this SIP is not meant to imply any sort of applicability
determination under other provisions of the Act (e.g., section 111;
Title I, Part C; or SIP-approved permit programs under Title I, Part
A).
II. Background
On May 2, 2002, 67 FR 22242, we proposed action on portions of the
State of Montana's July 29, 1998 submittal and all of the May 4, 2000
submittal. No comments were received on our proposed action. We are
finalizing our action as proposed. For further information regarding
the basis for this action, the reader should refer to our proposed
action.
Once we approve a SIP, or parts of a SIP, the portions approved are
legally enforceable by us and citizens under the Act. Once we limitedly
approve/disapprove a SIP, or parts of a SIP, the portions limitedly
approved/disapproved are also legally enforceable by us and citizens
under the Act. Under a limited approval/disapproval action, we approve
and disapprove the entire rule even though parts of it do and parts do
not satisfy requirements under the Act. The rule remains a part of the
SIP, however, even though there is a disapproval, because the rule
strengthens the SIP. The disapproval only concerns the failure of the
rule to meet specific requirements of the Act and does not affect
incorporation of the rule as part of the approved, federally
enforceable SIP. By disapproving parts of the plan, we are determining
that the requirements necessary to demonstrate attainment in the area
have not been met and we may develop a plan or parts of a plan to
assure that attainment will be achieved.
EPA believes partially and limitedly approving the Billings/Laurel
SO2 SIP meets the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act. The
provisions of the plan that we are partially and limitedly approving
strengthen the Montana SIP by providing specific emission limits for
several SO2 sources in Billings/Laurel. This will achieve progress
toward attaining the SO2 NAAQS.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because this rule does not
impose an information collection burden, the Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This partial and limited approval rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not
create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v.
U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Moreover, EPA's limited disapproval will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because the limited
disapproval action only affects two industrial sources of air pollution
in Billings/Laurel, Montana: Cenex Harvest Cooperatives and ExxonMobil
Company, USA. Only a limited number of sources are impacted by this
action. Furthermore, as explained in this action, the submission does
not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA cannot approve
the submission. The limited disapproval will not affect any existing
State requirements applicable to the entities. Federal disapproval of a
State submittal does not affect its State enforceability. Therefore, I
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the partial and limited approval and
limited disapproval actions do not include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State,
local, or tribal
[[Page 27910]]
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal
action partially and limitedly approves and limitedly disapproves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will 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, because it
merely partially or limitedly approves and limitedly disapproves 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6
of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. This action does not involve or impose
any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risk
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
J. 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, 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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA
is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under
section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.
K. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 21, 2003. 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: April 17, 2003.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
[[Page 27911]]
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart BB--Montana
0
2. Section 52.1370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(52) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1370 Identification of plan
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(52) The Governor of Montana submitted sulfur dioxide
(SO2) SIP revisions for Billings/Laurel on July 29, 1998 and
May 4, 2000. EPA is approving some of the provisions of the July 29,
1998 submittal that it did not approve before. The May 4, 2000
submittal revises some previously approved provisions of the Billings/
Laurel SO2 SIP and adds new provisions.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Sections 3(B)(2) and 4(D) (excluding ``or the flare'' and ``or
the flare'' in both sections), 3(A)(1)(d) and 4(B) of Cenex Harvest
States Cooperatives' exhibit A to the stipulation between the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality and Cenex Harvest States
Cooperatives, adopted June 12, 1998 by Board Order issued by the
Montana Board of Environmental Review.
(B) Board Order issued March 17, 2000 by the Montana Board of
Environmental Review adopting and incorporating the February 14, 2000
stipulation between the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and
Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives. This stipulation revises attachment
2 to Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives' exhibit A to require
the use of method 6A-1.
(C) Sections 3(E)(4) and 4(E) (excluding ``or in the flare'' and
``or the flare'' in both sections), 3(A)(2), 3(B)(2), 3(B)(3), 4(B) and
6(B)(3) of Exxon's exhibit A to the stipulation between the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality and Exxon, adopted June 12, 1998 by
Board Order issued by the Montana Board of Environmental Review.
(D) Board Order issued March 17, 2000, by the Montana Board of
Environmental Review adopting and incorporating the February 14, 2000
stipulation between the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and
Exxon Mobil Corporation. The stipulation adds the following to Exxon
Mobil Corporation's exhibit A: method 6A-1 of attachment
2 and sections 2(A)(11)(d), 4(C), 7(B)(1)(j) and 7(C)(1)(l).
The stipulation revises the following sections of Exxon Mobil
Corporation's exhibit A: 3 (introductory text only), 3(A) (introductory
text only), 3(A)(1), 3(B) (introductory text only), 3(B)(1), 3(E)(3),
6(B)(7), 7(B)(1)(d), 7(C)(1)(b), 7(C)(1)(d), and 7(C)(1)(f).
(E) Board Order issued on March 17, 2000, by the Montana Board of
Environmental Review adopting and incorporating the February 14, 2000
stipulation between the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and
Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership (YELP). The stipulation revises
the following sections of YELP's exhibit A: sections 3(A)(1) through
(3) and 7(C)(1)(b).
0
3. In Sec. 52.1384, add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1384 Emission control regulations.
* * * * *
(e) In 40 CFR 52.1370(c)(52), we approved portions of the Billings/
Laurel Sulfur Dioxide SIP for the limited purpose of strengthening the
SIP. Those provisions that we limitedly approved are hereby limitedly
disapproved. This limited disapproval does not prevent EPA, citizens,
or the State from enforcing the provisions. This paragraph identifies
those provisions of the Billings/Laurel SO2 SIP identified
in 40 CFR 52.1370(c)(52) that have been limitedly disapproved.
(1) Sections 3(B)(2) and 4(D) (excluding ``or in the flare'' and
``or the flare'' in both sections, which was previously disapproved in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(B) and (C) above), 3(A)(1)(d) and 4(B) of Cenex
Harvest State Cooperatives' exhibit A to the stipulation between the
Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Cenex Harvest State
Cooperatives, adopted June 12, 1998 by Board Order issued by the
Montana Board of Environmental Review.
(2) Method 6A-1 of attachment 2 of Cenex Harvest
State Cooperatives' exhibit A, as revised pursuant to the stipulation
between the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Cenex
Harvest State Cooperatives, adopted by Board Order issued on March 17,
2000, by the Montana Board of Environmental Review.
(3) Sections 3(B)(2), 4(B), and 6(B)(3) of Exxon's exhibit A to the
stipulation between the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and
Exxon, adopted on June 12, 1998 by Board Order issued by the Montana
Board of Environmental Review.
(4) Sections 2(A)(11)(d), 3(A)(1), 3(B)(1) and 4(C) of Exxon Mobil
Corporation's exhibit A, as revised pursuant to the stipulation between
the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Exxon Mobil
Corporation, adopted by Board Order issued on March 17, 2000, by the
Montana Board of Environmental Review.
[FR Doc. 03-12616 Filed 5-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P