[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2880-2882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1086]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FL-74-1-9941a; FRL-6524-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Florida: 
Approval of Revisions to the Florida State

    Implementation Plan
AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a revision to the Florida State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on December 26, 1996, by the State 
of Florida through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
(FDEP). This source-specific revision amends the SIP to include a 
variance granted to the Harry S. Truman Animal Import Center (HSTAIC) 
for its incinerator facility located in Monroe County, Florida. The 
variance allows HSTAIC to operate under the particulate matter standard 
applicable to biological waste combustion facilities.

DATES:  This direct final rule is effective March 20, 2000, without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 18, 
2000. If adverse comment is 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:  All comments should be addressed to Joey LeVasseur at the 
EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303.
    Copies of the state submittal are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
    Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, Region 4 
Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-
3104.
    Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Twin Towers Office 
Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Joey LeVasseur at 404/562-9035 (E-
mail: [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The State of Florida through the FDEP 
submitted a source-specific revision to the Florida SIP for the HSTAIC 
on December 26, 1996. The HSTAIC is operated by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services and is located 
on Fleming Key on the grounds of the Key West Naval Air Station. The 
HSTAIC serves as a quarantine station for animal herds imported into 
the U.S. from foreign countries and operates an incineration facility 
for disposal of bedding material and animal carcasses. In addition, 
should a public health emergency occur, the incinerator facility would 
be used to cremate infected animal carcasses. Such an emergency has 
never occurred in the history of the Center.
    Florida's biological waste incinerator rule includes standards 
applicable to three categories of biological and medical waste 
incinerators. The first category, incinerators with a feed rate of 500 
pounds per hour (lbs/hr) or less, is subject to Rule 62-296(4)(a)1., 
which includes emissions limiting standards and operating requirements 
applicable to medical waste incinerators and animal crematories and has 
a particulate

[[Page 2881]]

matter emission limit of .080 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/ft 
\3\). Because it was assumed that all animal crematories would have 
capacities less than 500 lbs/hr, the second category (500 to 2000 lbs/
hr, subject to Rule 62-296(4)(c)1., 030 gr/ft \3\) and third category 
(greater than 2000 lbs/hr, subject to Rule 62-296(4)(d)1., 020 gr/ft 
\3\) contain standards developed only for medical waste incinerators. 
The HSTAIC's incinerator facility consists of three units with a 
potential capacity of over 2000 lbs/hr which would make the HSTAIC 
subject to the stricter standard, however the HSTAIC incinerator 
facility routinely only uses one unit with the other two units 
providing emergency backup capacity. The usual operating capacity of 
the Center, operating a single unit, is equal to or less than 500 lbs/
hr.
    The variance being approved allows the HSTAIC to operate under Rule 
62-296.401(4)(a)1. This variance addresses solely the particulate 
matter emission limitation and does not apply to all other emission 
limitations to which the HSTAIC is subject under Rule 62-296.401(4) 
which remain applicable to the facility. As a condition of this 
variance, FDEP requires that the applicant properly install, operate 
and maintain a continuous opacity monitor and recording device on each 
combustion unit, to document compliance with the 5 percent opacity 
limit established under Rule 62-296.401(1)(a). These monitoring records 
shall be kept at the facility and shall be made available to FDEP for 
inspection, as required by FDEP rules.

Final Action

    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP 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 SIP 
revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be 
effective March 20, 2000, without further notice unless the agency 
receives relevant adverse comments by February 18, 2000.
    If the 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. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this rule will be effective on March 20, 2000, and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism) and Executive Order 12875 (Enhancing 
the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
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 13132. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this rule.

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 
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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, 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. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 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,

[[Page 2882]]

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 SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part 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 SIP 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 flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs 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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules 
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency 
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect 
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA 
is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under 
section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

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 March 20, 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: January 3, 2000.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED] I111. The authority for citation for part 52 
continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart K--Florida

    2. Section 52.520(d) is amended by removing the word ``None'' and 
adding an entry to the table for the variance for the Harry S. Truman 
Animal Import Center to read as follows:


Sec. 52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) EPA-approved State source-specific requirements.

                                EPA-Approved Florida Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State effective
         Name of source               Permit No.             date          EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry S. Truman, animal import    NA................  November 26, 1996.  January 19, 2000..  ..................
 center.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-1086 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P