[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62117-62119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29759]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket No. VT-016-1220a; FRL-6474-1]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans For Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants: Vermont; Negative Declaration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA publishes regulations under Sections 111(d) and 129 of the 
Clean Air Act requiring states to submit plans to EPA. These plans show 
how states intend to control the emissions of designated pollutants 
from designated facilities. 40 CFR 62.06 provides that when no such 
designated facilities exist within a state's boundaries, the affected 
state may submit a letter of ``negative declaration'' instead of a 
control plan. On April 16, 1999, the state of Vermont submitted a 
negative declaration adequately certifying that there are no hospital/
medical/infectious waste incinerators (HMIWIs) located within its 
boundaries. EPA is approving Vermont's negative declaration.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on January 18, 2000 without 
further notice unless EPA receives significant, material and adverse 
comment by December 16, 1999. If EPA receives adverse comment, we 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: You should address your written comments to: Mr. Brian 
Hennessey, Acting Chief, Air Permits Unit, Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, U.S. EPA, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP), Boston, MA 
02114-2023.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the 
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Courcier, (617) 918-1659.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action Is EPA taking today?
II. What is the origin of the requirements?
III. When did the HMIWI requirements first become known?
IV. When did Vermont submit its negative declaration?
V. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving the negative declaration of air emissions from 
HMIWIs submitted by the state of Vermont.
    EPA is publishing this negative declaration 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, EPA is publishing a separate document that 
will serve as the proposal to approve this negative declaration should 
relevant adverse comments be filed. If EPA receives no significant, 
material, or adverse comment by December 16, 1999, this action will be 
effective January 18, 2000.
    If EPA receives significant, material, and adverse comments by the 
above date, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by 
publishing a subsequent document in the Federal Register that will 
withdraw this final action. EPA will address all public comments 
received in a subsequent final rule based on the parallel proposed rule 
published in today's Federal Register. EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on 
this action should do so at this time. If EPA receives no comments, 
this action will be effective January 18, 2000.

II. What Is the Origin of the Requirements?

    Under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA published 
regulations at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B which require states to submit 
plans to control emissions of designated pollutants from designated 
facilities. In the event that a state does not have a particular 
designated facility located within its boundaries, EPA requires that a 
negative declaration be submitted in lieu of a control plan.

III. When Did the Requirements First Become Known?

    On June 26, 1996 (61 FR 31736), EPA proposed HMIWIs as designated 
facilities. EPA specified particulate matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, 
hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, 
mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans as designated pollutants by 
proposing emission guidelines for existing HMIWIs. These guidelines 
were published in final form on September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48348).

IV. When Did Vermont Submit Its Negative Declaration?

    On April 16, 1999, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) 
submitted a letter certifying that there are no existing HMIWIs subject 
to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B. EPA is publishing this negative 
declaration at 40 CFR 62.11475.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (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, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of

[[Page 62118]]

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 
Vermont, 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 a few States, and does not alter the relationship 
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the 
Clean Air Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have 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 rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks 
that EPA has reason to believe may 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 the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must 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, E.O. 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 action does not create any new requirements on any entity 
affected by this State Plan. Thus, the action will not significantly or 
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not 
apply to this rule.

E. 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, 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.
    Negative declaration approvals under section 111(d) of the Clean 
Air Act do not create any new requirements on any entity affected by 
this rule, including small entities. Furthermore, in developing the 
HMIWI emission guidelines and standards, EPA prepared a written 
statement pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act which it published 
in the 1997 promulgation notice (see 62 FR 48348). In accordance with 
EPA's determination in issuing the 1997 HMIWI emission guidelines, this 
negative declaration approval does not include any new requirements 
that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    Therefore, because this approval does not impose any new 
requirements and pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, the Regional Administrator certifies that this rule 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

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 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the 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 on by the rule.
    EPA has determined that this approval action 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 imposes no new requirements. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. Thus, 
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 
204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

[[Page 62119]]

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. 
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 
when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards.
    In approving or disapproving negative declarations under section 
129 of the Clean Air Act, EPA does not have the authority to revise or 
rewrite the State's rule, so the Agency does not have authority to 
require the use of particular voluntary consensus standards. 
Accordingly, EPA has not sought to identify or require the State to use 
voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA 
are not applicable to this final rule.

I. 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 18, 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 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), 42 
U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)). EPA encourages interested parties to comment in 
response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, 
unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the 
proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: November 1, 1999.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
    40 CFR Part 62 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642

Subpart UU--Vermont

    2. Subpart UU is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.11475 and a new 
undesignated center heading to read as follows:
* * * * *

Air Emissions From Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 
Incinerators


Sec. 62.11475  Identification of Plan--negative declaration.

    On April 16, 1999, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 
submitted a letter certifying that there are no existing hospital/
medical/infectious waste incinerators in the state subject to the 
emission guidelines under Part 60, Subpart B of this chapter.

[FR Doc. 99-29759 Filed 11-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P