[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