[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59648-59650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26851]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[MD054-3044a; FRL-6456-6]
Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Maryland; Revision to Section
111(d) Plan Controlling 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 revision
submitted by the State of Maryland regarding revised monitoring
procedures test methods used to determine compliance of total reduced
sulfur (TRS) emissions from existing kraft pulp mills. The plan
revision was submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (the Act). EPA is approving this plan revision because
Maryland's revised procedures meet current EPA requirements for
monitoring and testing TRS emissions.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 3, 2000 unless by December
3, 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 Maryland Department
of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland, 21224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford at (215) 814-2108,
or by e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
What Action is EPA Taking?
We are approving a revision to Maryland's section 111(d) plan for
the control of total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions from kraft pulp
mills.
What Does the Revision Consist Of?
Maryland has revised COMAR 26.11.14.05 (monitoring and reporting
requirements for control of kraft pulp mills TRS emissions) to
incorporate Method 16B of Technical Memorandum 91-01 as the method for
continuous monitoring of TRS emissions from recovery boilers (COMAR
26.11.14.05A.), and once-a-month grab sampling from smelt dissolving
tanks (COMAR 26.11.14.05B). According to documents supplied by Maryland
accompanying this revision, Method 16B of Technical Memorandum 91-01
consists of cross-references to the Method 16B provisions found in 40
CFR part 60, Appendix A.
What Actions Did the State Take to Satisfy the Federal Public
Hearing Requirements?
Maryland certified that public hearings on the revisions to COMAR
26.11.14.05 were held in Baltimore on November 25, 1991 in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR 60.23(d).
What is EPA Evaluation?
The April 2, 1992 revisions to COMAR 26.11.14.05 replace provisions
found in TM-116, Method 12 [Revised 1980] submitted with the State's
original Section 111(d) plan controlling TRS from kraft pulp mills. We
had approved these test methods on May 11, 1982 (47 FR 20127). Since
then, we have revised the monitoring and testing provisions of 40 CFR
part 60 as they apply to measuring TRS emissions from kraft pulp
mills--May 20, 1986 (51 FR 18545) for emissions monitoring, February
14, 1990 (55 FR 5212) for test methods and procedures. We have
determined that Maryland's revised provisions found in COMAR
26.11.14.05 reflect our current requirements for monitoring and testing
TRS emissions from recovery boilers and smelt dissolving tanks.
Final Action
We are approving the revisions to COMAR 26.11.14.05 regarding
monitoring procedures and test methods for measuring TRS emissions from
affected facilities. 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 the revision to Maryland's Section 111(d)
plan for controlling TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be effective on January 3, 2000
without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by December 3,
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
[[Page 59649]]
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.
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 January 3, 2000. 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
[[Page 59650]]
shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This
action to approve revised test methods for Maryland'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 V--Maryland
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. 62.5100 is
amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Plan for Control of Designated Pollutants From Existing Facilities
(Section 111(d) Plan)
* * * * *
Sec. 62.5100 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) Submittal of plan revisions--On April 2, 1992, Maryland
submitted revisions to COMAR 26.11.14.05A. and .05B. governing the
testing, monitoring, and reporting of total reduced sulfur (TRS)
emissions from kraft pulp mills.
[FR Doc. 99-26851 Filed 11-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P