[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57781-57784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26853]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[PA022-4089a; FRL-6456-4]


Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for 
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Pennsylvania; Control of Total 
Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action approves the section 111(d) plan submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of controlling total 
reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions from existing kraft pulp mills. The plan 
was submitted to fulfill requirements of the Clean Air Act (the Act). 
The Pennsylvania plan establishes emission limits for existing Kraft 
Pulp Mills, and provides for the implementation and enforcement of 
those limits.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 27, 1999 unless by 
November 26, 1999 adverse or critical comments are received. If adverse 
comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct 
final rule in the Federal Register informing the public the rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Harold A. Frankford, Office of Air 
Programs, Mail Code 3AP20, 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 the Pennsylvania

[[Page 57782]]

Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 
8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford at (215) 814-2108, 
or by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, wherever ``we'', ``us'', or ``our'' is 
used, we mean EPA. This portion of this document poses and provides 
responses to the following questions:

    What Action is EPA Taking?
    What does the plan consist of?
    What EPA Administrative Requirements was Pennsylvania required 
to meet?
    What actions did the State take to satisfy these requirements?
    What is EPA's Evaluation?

What Action Is EPA Taking?

    We are approving Pennsylvania's section 111(d) plan for the control 
of total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions from kraft pulp mills.

What Does the Plan Consist of?

    Pennsylvania's section 111(d) plan consists of the following 
elements:
    1. Emissions Standards for five source points: recovery furnaces, 
lime kilns, digesters, evaporators, smelt dissolving tanks. Among the 
recovery furnaces, there are emissions standards for two separate 
designs. These standards are described in Section 129.17(a) of 
Pennsylvania's air quality control regulations. The standards are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          PPM
             Source point               (volume)         Condition
                                          dry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery furnace--old construction            20  12 hour average--
 design (without welded wall or                    corrected to 8%
 membrane wall construction or                     oxygen by volume
 emission-control designed air
 systems).
Recovery furnace--new design (with             5  12 hour average--
 both welded wall or membrane wall                 design corrected to
 construction or emission-control                  8% oxygen by volume
 designed air systems).
Lime kiln (a rotary or fluosolid unit         20  Never to be exceeded--
 used to calcine calcium carbonate                 corrected to 10%
 into calcium oxide).                              oxygen by volume
Digester systems (continuous or batch          5  Never to be exceeded
 process for cooking wood chips in
 sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide
 to produce cellulosic material).
Multiple effect evaporator system              5  Never to be exceeded
 (vapor heads, heating elements, hot
 wells, condensers and associated
 equipment used to concentrate spent
 pulp mill cooking liquid).
Smelt dissolving tank (the vessel             20  Never to be exceeded
 used to produce an aqueous solution
 from the molten mixture discharged
 from the floor of a recovery
 furnace).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. TRS emissions are to be monitored continuously at the recovery 
furnaces, digester systems, and multiple effect evaporator systems 
unless emissions are incinerated at 1,200 deg.F.
    3. Provisions for compliance testing: provisions are found in 
Pennsylvania Regulations 129.17(b), 139.13(3) & (4), 139.15, 
139.102(3), and 139.108 (except for 1994 amendment--parenthetical 
expression at end of Sec. 139.108(1)). These provisions cross-reference 
EPA Methods 16, 16A and 16B found in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. (Last 
revision: May 20, 1986 (51 FR 18545) for emissions monitoring, February 
14, 1990 (55 FR 5212) for test methods and procedures.)
    4. Compliance schedule: All sources except for new source recovery 
furnaces were to be in final compliance with Section 129.17(a) by May 
7, 1991. All new source recovery furnaces were to be in final 
compliance with Section 129.17(a) by May 7, 1994.
    5. Identification of kraft pulp mills subject to this plan: 
Pennsylvania has identified three sources which are subject to the 
plan's provisions:

Appleton Papers--Blair County
P.H. Gladfelter--York County
Penntech Papers--Elk County

    6. Expected reduction in TRS Emissions: Pennsylvania estimates that 
TRS emissions from the three kraft pulp mills totaled about 640 tons 
per year. Pennsylvania further states that the requirements of the 
State TRS regulations would reduce TRS emissions by about 80% (640 
tons/year), thus reducing total TRS emissions to about 120 tons per 
year.

What EPA Administrative Requirements Was Pennsylvania Required To Meet?

Public Hearings, as per 40 CFR 60.23(d)
Submittal by designated official, as per 40 CFR 60.23(a)(2)
Evidence of legal authority, as per 40 CFR 60.26

What Actions Did the State Take To Satisfy These Requirements?

1. Hearing and Submittal Requirements
Original submittal:
    Public Hearings held: 7/24/97
    Submitted by designated official: 7/19/88
Revision No. 1:
    Public Hearings held: 9/21/89, 9/25/89, 9/27/89
    Submitted by designated official: 1/11/91
Revision No. 2:
    Public Hearings held: 7/25/90, 7/30/90, 8/1/90
    Submitted by designated official: 8/15/91
2. Evidence of Legal Authority
Pennsylvania cites Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control 
Act (35 P.S. Sec. 4005).

What Is EPA's Evaluation?

    Prior to Pennsylvania's July 19, 1988 formal submittal, we 
evaluated a draft submittal dated December 31, 1985 under the parallel 
processing procedures. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 
published on September 4, 1987 (52 FR 33605), we announced that we 
would approve Section 129.17 if Pennsylvania's rules establish a 12-
hour averaging limit which is consistent with the requirements of 40 
CFR part 60. During the public comment period, we had received comments 
indicating that Pennsylvania's proposed standard for lime kilns had not 
contained a 10% correction factor for oxygen by volume as allowed by 40 
CFR part 60, Appendix B (the new source performance standard for kraft 
pulp mills).
    The 1991 provisions of Section 129.17 and Chapter 139 incorporate 
the revisions suggested by the commenters of EPA's parallel process 
NPR. Since Pennsylvania's current version of Section 129.17 and Chapter 
139 differs than that on which our proposal action was based, we are 
evaluating Pennsylvania current TRS requirements

[[Page 57783]]

in a direct final rulemaking action and concurrent proposed rulemaking 
action.
    We have determined that Pennsylvania's current limits for the 
various individual process facilities listed in Section 129.17(a) are 
in compliance with EPA guidelines except for the smelt dissolving 
tanks. Pennsylvania's standard for smelt dissolving tanks is 20 ppm, 
while the NSPS limit is 16 ppm. Nevertheless, EPA considers 
Pennsylvania's 20 ppm limit to be a reasonable limit for existing 
sources.
    Section 129.17(b)(3) allows Pennsylvania to use data from alternate 
monitoring systems in order to determine compliance with the applicable 
emissions standards set forth in Section 129.17(a). According to 
Pennsylvania's November 7, 1987 proposed rulemaking package, this 
provision was meant to provide the targeted sources with flexibility to 
obtain compliance. We do not interpret this provision as giving 
Pennsylvania the discretion to approve an alternative monitoring system 
for the targeted sources. Rather, we interpret the State's discretion 
as being limited to the data obtained from alternative systems 
prescribed in Chapter 139. Therefore, we have determined that the 
provision set forth in Section 129.17(b)(3) meets the applicable Agency 
requirements. However, the use of any alternate monitoring system other 
than that which is prescribed in Chapter 139 of Pennsylvania's 
regulations must be approved by both the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection (PADEP) and EPA.

II. Final Action

    Based upon the rationale discussed above and in further detail in 
the Technical Support Document (TSD) associated with this action, we 
are approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Kraft Pulp Mill 111(d) 
plan for the control of TRS emissions from affected facilities. Copies 
of the TSD are available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office 
listed in the ADDRESSES portion of this document.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view 
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. 
However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, 
we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal 
to approve Pennsylvania's Section 111(d) plan for controlling TRS 
emissions from kraft pulp mills if adverse comments are filed. This 
rule will be effective on December 27, 1999 without further notice 
unless we receive adverse comment by November 26, 1999. If we receive 
adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We 
will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on 
the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this 
time.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from review under E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. requires EPA to 
provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the 
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected 
state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, 
copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' 
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule. On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued 
a new executive order on federalism, Executive Order 13132 [64 FR 43255 
(August 10, 1999)] which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the 
interim, the current Executive Order 12612 [52 FR 41685 (October 30, 
1987)] on federalism still applies. This rule will not have a 
substantial direct effect on 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 12612. The rule affects only one State, and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

    E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is ``economically 
significant,'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) the environmental 
health or safety risk addressed by the rule has 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 final rule is not subject 
to E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory 
action as defined by E.O. 12866, and it does not address an 
environmental health or safety risk that would have a disproportionate 
effect on children.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and 
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies 
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' 
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities 
of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose 
any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

[[Page 57784]]

E. 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 final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because approvals under section 
111(d) of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal approval does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air 
Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air 
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning section 111(d) plans on 
such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 
(1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. 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 
annual 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 annual 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.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

H. 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 December 27, 1999. 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 to approve Pennsylvania's section 111(d) 
plan controlling TRS emissions from existing kraft pulp mills 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, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Total reduced sulfur.

    Dated: September 30, 1999.

Thomas Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

    40 CFR Part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

    1. The authority citation for Part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Under the following undesignated centerhead, Sec. 62.9611 is 
added to read as follows:

Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills

* * * * *


Sec. 62.9611  Identification of plan--Pennsylvania

    (a) Title of Plan. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Plan under section 
111(d) for Designated Pollutants from Existing Facilities--Kraft Pulp 
Mills.
    (b) The plan was officially submitted by the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Resources on July 19, 1988, with revisions 
submitted on January 11, 1991, and August 15, 1991.
    (c) Identification of sources. The Plan includes the following 
kraft pulp mills:

(1) Appleton Papers--Roaring Spring, Blair County
(2) P.H. Gladfelter--Spring Grove, York County
(3) Penntech Papers--Johnsonburg, Elk County

[FR Doc. 99-26853 Filed 10-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P