[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47436-47438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23888]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[VA 011-5034a; FRL-6155-9]
Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Commonwealth of Virginia; Control
of Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions from Existing Kraft Pulp Mills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the 111(d) plan for Kraft pulp mills
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The plan requires the
control of total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions from existing Kraft
pulp mills. The Virginia plan establishes emission limits for existing
Kraft pulp mills, and provides for the implementation and enforcement
of those limits. The intended effect of this action is to approve the
plan which was submitted in accordance with the Clean Air Act (the
Act).
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 9, 1998, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 8,
1998. If adverse comments are received EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Makeba A. Morris, Chief, Technical
Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP22, Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies
of the documents relevant to this action are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: Air
Protection Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and Commonwealth of
Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, VA 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Artra B. Cooper at (215) 814-2096, or
by e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Act requires that states submit plans to EPA to implement and
enforce the Emission Guidelines (EG) promulgated for Kraft pulp mills
pursuant to Section 111(d). As required by section 111(d) of the Act,
EPA established a process at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B, which is
similar to the process required by section 110 of the Act , which the
states must follow for adopting and submitting 111(d) plans. Subpart B
provides that, once a standard of performance for the control of a
designated pollutant from a new source category is promulgated, the
Administrator will then publish an emission guideline (E.G.) and
guideline document applicable to the control of the same pollutant from
designated (existing) facilities. The E.G. and related information were
provided in a guideline document entitled ``Kraft Pulping--Control of
TRS Emissions from Existing Mills'' (March 1979).
On May 15, 1990, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted its Kraft
pulp mill 111(d) plan for the control of TRS from existing kraft pulp
mills to EPA for approval. The plan consists of regulations and consent
agreements with the affected facilities within the Commonwealth. EPA
has determined that the plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart B. The Virginia regulation entitled: ``Regulation for the
Control and Abatement of Air Pollution, VR 120-01, Part IV, Rule 4-13,
Emission Standard for Kraft Pulp Mills,'' is the regulatory portion of
Virginia's 111(d) plan. This regulation provides for control of TRS
emissions from Kraft pulp mills. The Commonwealth's regulation contains
the emission limits found in the E.G. issued by EPA. The regulation
includes emission limitations for applicable emission sources,
provisions for compliance schedules, monitoring, record keeping and
reporting requirements, all of which comport with the E.G. The
regulation also requires operational standards for continuous
monitoring systems, development and implementation of a quality control
plan and submittal of control plans. The consent agreements included in
the 111(d) plan were reached with the four affected facilities located
within the Commonwealth of Virginia. They include the following
sources: Westvaco Corporation--Covington, Union Camp--Franklin, Stone
Container Corporation--Hopewell, and Chesapeake Corporation--West
Point. These consent agreements provided interim emission limits while
providing time for the affected facilities to comply with the E.G.-
based limits. The consent agreements required compliance with the E.G.-
based limits specified in the Commonwealth's regulation by no later
than October 1994.
More detailed information on the requirements of Virginia's plan
and EPA's evaluation are contained in the
[[Page 47437]]
Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying this rulemaking. Copies
of the TSD are available upon request from the EPA Regional Office
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
II. Final Action
EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's 111(d) plan for the
control of total reduced sulfur emissions from Kraft pulp mills.
EPA is approving this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the 111(d) plan should
adverse or critical comments be filed. This rule will be effective
November 9, 1998, without further notice unless the Agency receives
adverse comments by October 8, 1998. If EPA receives such comments,
then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this rule. Parties interested in commenting on this rule
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on November 9, 1998, and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review. The final rule is not subject
to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' because it is not an ``economically
significant'' action under E.O. 12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000. State plan approvals under section 111 of the Act do not create
any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the federal action to approve the
state plan does not impose any new requirements, EPA certifies that it
does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Act
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning State plans on such grounds.
See Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
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
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 approval
action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
Federal action approves 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.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
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 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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action approving The Commonwealth of Virginia's
111(d) plan for Kraft pulp mills must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by Nobember 9, 1998.
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 62
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Total reduced sulfur.
Dated: August 27, 1998.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
40 CFR Part 62 is amended as follows:
PART 62--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 62 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart VV--Virginia
2. Under existing heading, Sec. 62.11610 is added to read as
follows:
Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills
Sec. 62.11610 Identification of plan.
(a) Title of Plan. Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation
Plan under section 111(d) plan for the Designated Facility--Kraft Pulp
Mills.
(b) The plan was officially submitted by the Executive Director of
the Department of Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control, on May
15, 1990.
(c) Identification of sources. The Plan includes the following
Kraft Pulp Mills:
(1) Chesapeake Corporation, West Point;
(2) Stone Container Corporation, Hopewell;
(3) Union Camp Corporation, Franklin; and
[[Page 47438]]
(4) Westvaco Corporation, Covington.
(d) Article 13, 9 VAC--40--1690, Section 120-04-1304 (Standard for
total reduced sulfur), effective October 1, 1989. This plan was
submitted on May 15, 1990 by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
[FR Doc. 98-23888 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P