[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65448-65450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31238]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[KS 0145-1145a; FRL-7120-2]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants; Control of Emissions From Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators; State of Kansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the state of Kansas' section 
111(d) plan for controlling emissions from existing hospital/medical/
infectious waste incinerators. The state revised its existing plan to 
establish increments of progress and a new compliance date for two 
HMIWI sources. Approval of the revised state plan will ensure that 
these requirements are Federally enforceable.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective February 19, 2002. 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 18, 2002. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the 
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Wayne Kaiser, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th 
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Copies of documents relative to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business

[[Page 65449]]

hours at the above-listed Region 7 location. The interested persons 
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the 
office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Information regarding this action is presented in the following 
order:

What is a 111(d) plan?
What are the regulatory requirements for HMIWIs?
What changes did the state make to its 111(d) plan?
What action are we taking in this action?

What Is a 111(d) Plan?

    Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit 
plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing 
facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance 
have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same 
type, and EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such 
existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no 
air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not included on a 
list published under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, 
but emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new 
stationary sources.

What Are the Regulatory Requirements for HMIWIs?

    Standards and guidelines for new and existing HMIWIs were 
promulgated under the authority of sections 111 and 129 of the CAA on 
September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48374). These standards are 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Ec for new sources, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce for existing 
sources.
    The subpart Ce EG is not a direct Federal regulation but is a 
``guideline'' for states to use in regulating existing HMIWIs. The EG 
requires states to submit for EPA approval a section 111(d) state plan 
containing air emission regulations and compliance schedules for 
existing HMIWIs.

What Changes Did the State Make to Its 111(d) Plan?

    We originally approved the state's HMIWI 111(d) plan on July 14, 
2000 (65 FR 43702), and it became effective on September 12, 2000. 
Sources were required to be in compliance within one year of the 
effective date of EPA approval of the state plan, i.e., September 12, 
2001, or in any case no later than September 15, 2002. Sources may 
petition the state for a compliance date extension beyond September 12, 
2001, if they are planning to install air pollution control equipment 
and if they commit to an increment of progress schedule. The final 
compliance date cannot extend beyond September 15, 2002, however.
    Two HMIWIs in Kansas, one each located in Johnson and Wyandotte 
Counties, requested that they be granted until September 15, 2002, or 
an additional year, to come into compliance. Both sources justified the 
need for additional time in order to install air pollution control 
equipment and related operating and monitoring equipment. The state has 
approved these requests.
    The state has included increments of progress dates in the sources' 
compliance schedules. Dates have been established for: award of 
contracts, commence on-site construction, complete initial startup, 
calibration and adjustment, conduct required performance testing, and 
demonstrate final compliance. The final compliance date is September 
15, 2002.
    These compliance extensions constitute a revision to the compliance 
date that was contained in the approved 111(d) plan. Thus, the state 
has submitted the new compliance schedules for these two sources to us 
for approval as an amendment to its 111(d) plan.
    This action will ensure consistency between the state plan and the 
approved Federal plan, and ensure Federal enforceability of the 
approved state plan.

What Action Are We Taking in This Action?

    We are approving these revisions to the state's HMIWI 111(d) plan. 
We are processing this action as a final action because the revisions 
make routine changes to the existing plan which are noncontroversial. 
Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that 
if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part 
can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final 
those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves a state action as meeting Federal requirements and 
imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves a state action 
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty, it does not 
contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, 
as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This 
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 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), because it merely approves a state action relating to a 
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This 
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing state plan submissions, our role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), we have no authority to 
disapprove state submissions for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews state 
submissions, to use VCS in place of state submissions that otherwise 
satisfy the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of 
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this 
rule, we have taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors 
and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal 
standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings 
implications of the rule in

[[Page 65450]]

accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for 
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued 
under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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. We will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the 
United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 
the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by February 19, 2002. 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 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides.

    Dated: December 7, 2001.
James B. Gulliford,
Region Administrator, Region 7.

    Chapter I, title 40 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 et seq.

Subpart R--Kansas

    2. Section 62.4179 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 62.4179  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) Amended plan for the control of air emissions from hospital/
medical/infectious waste incinerators submitted by the Kansas 
Department of Health and Environment on October 25, 2001. This plan 
revision establishes a final compliance date of September 15, 2002, for 
two incinerators in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties, Kansas. The 
effective date of the amended plan is February 19, 2002.

[FR Doc. 01-31238 Filed 12-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P