[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52534-52537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25963]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket# VT-020-1223a; FRL-7077-4A]


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

[[Page 52535]]

facilities. On June 5, 2001, the State of Vermont submitted a negative 
declaration adequately certifying that there are no small municipal 
waste combustors (small MWCs) located within its boundaries. EPA is 
approving Vermont's negative declaration.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on December 17, 2001 without 
further notice unless EPA receives significant, material and adverse 
comment by November 15, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comment by the 
above date, 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. Steven 
Rapp, Chief, Air Permits Program 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 small MWC 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 
small MWCs 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 November 15, 2001, this action will be 
effective December 17, 2001.
    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 December 17, 2001.

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 Small MWC Requirements First Become Known?

    On August 30, 1999 (64 FR 47233), EPA proposed emission guidelines 
for small MWC units with an individual unit capacity of 35 to 250 tons 
per day. This action would enable EPA to list small MWCs as designated 
facilities. EPA specified particulate matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, 
hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, 
mercury, and dioxins/furans as designated pollutants by proposing 
emission guidelines for existing small MWCs. These guidelines were 
published in final form on December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76378).

IV. When Did Vermont Submit Its Negative Declaration?

    On June 5, 2001, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) 
submitted a letter certifying that there are no existing small MWCs 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. EPA is publishing this negative 
declaration at 40 CFR 62.11460. Section 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.

V. 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 Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 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

[[Page 52536]]

environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children.

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 action does not create any new requirements. Thus, the 
action will 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

    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 for any entity affected by 
this rule, including small entities. Furthermore, in developing the 
small MWC 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 small MWC 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''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 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 declaration, 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. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. 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 17, 2001. 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

[[Page 52537]]

the comment period allowed for in the proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: September 26, 2001.
Robert W. Varney,
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. 62.11460 and a new 
undesignated center heading to read as follows:
* * * * *

Municipal Waste Combustor Emissions From Existing Small Municipal 
Waste Combustors With the Capacity To Combust Between 35 and 250 
Tons per day of Municipal Solid Waste


Sec. 62.11460  Identification of Plan-negative declaration.

    On June 5, 2001, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources submitted 
a letter certifying that there are no existing small municipal waste 
combustors in the state subject to the emission guidelines under part 
60, subpart B of this chapter.

[FR Doc. 01-25963 Filed 10-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P