Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
This supplemental information section is organized as follows:
In this action, EPA is approving into the Minnesota SO
EPA is taking this action because the state's submittal for Koch is fully approvable. The SIP revision provides for attainment and maintenance of the SO
EPA designated Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131, which contains Dakota County, as a primary SO
On July 29, 1992 MPCA submitted to EPA a revision to the SO
On September 7, 1994, MPCA submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the Pine Bend area of AQCR 131 to attainment. EPA approved the state's request in a direct final action published on May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28339) redesignating the Pine Bend area to attainment of the SO
On December 20, 2000, MPCA submitted a SIP revision consisting of Amendment No. 4 to Koch's order. Amendment No. 4 requires Koch to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
The Fall 2001 Turnaround project is the second project initiated by Koch to reduce emissions of NO
The May 2, 2001 revision submitted by MPCA requests that EPA approve Amendment No. 5 to Koch's order into the Minnesota SO
The MPCA submitted air quality modeling in support of Koch's SO
Net baseline emissions are the allowable emission rates used in the approved 1992 SIP attainment demonstration for the Pine Bend Area. The SO
EPA is approving the site-specific SIP revision for Koch Petroleum Group, LP, located in the Pine Bend area of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is incorporating Amendment No. 5 to Koch's Administrative Order into the Minnesota SO
The EPA is 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
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation plan. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
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. 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). 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
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). 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. 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.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
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 22, 2002. 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).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
42 U.S.C. 7401
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(c) * * *
(60) On May 2, 2001, the State of Minnesota submitted a site-specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the control of emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO
(i) Incorporation by reference
(A) An administrative order identified as Amendment Five to Findings and Order by Stipulation, for Koch Petroleum Group, L.P., dated and effective April 30, 2001, submitted May 2, 2001.