[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 82 (Friday, April 29, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22266-22268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8603]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[R01-OAR-2004-ME-0002; A-1-FRL-7903-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Plan for the Control of Designated 
Pollutants; Maine; Total Reduced Sulfur From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to Maine's plan for 
controlling air pollution under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(``111(d) plan''). This revision to Maine's regulations at Chapter 124, 
``Total Reduced Sulfur Control From Kraft Pulp Mills'' (``Chapter 
124''), extends the compliance date for existing brownstock washers to 
April 17, 2007. This action is being taken in accordance with section 
111(d) of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'').

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on May 31, 2005.

ADDRESSES: 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, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress 
Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA 02114-2023; Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-108, 
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC ; and the Bureau of Air 
Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, First Floor of 
the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta, 
ME 04333-0017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian D. Cohen, (617) 918-1655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following table of contents describes 
the format for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section:
1. Background
2. Adverse Public Comment and EPA Response

1. Background

    On March 1, 2005, EPA published a Direct Final Rule (``DFR'') 
approving a revision to the State of Maine's 111(d) plan for the 
control of TRS from existing kraft pulp mills at Chapter 124. 70 FR 
9872. A detailed explanation of EPA's rationale for approving the 
111(d) plan revision was provided in the March 1, 2005 DFR. In 
accordance with direct final rulemaking procedures, on March 1, 2005, 
EPA also published a companion notice of proposed rulemaking of this 
revision. 70 FR 9901. On March 5, 2005, EPA received one adverse 
comment on its proposed approval, which is summarized and addressed in 
section 2 below.\1\ EPA therefore published a withdrawal of the DFR on 
March 15, 2005. 70 FR 12591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA also received a written comment from the Edison Electric 
Institute (``EEI''), objecting to EPA's description of CAA section 
111(d) in the March 1, 2005 DFR. EEI's comment had nothing to do 
with the substance of the DFR, as EEI itself notes in its comment 
letter, but rather concerned one sentence included in the statutory 
background section of the DFR. EEI noted in its comments that the 
one sentence description of CAA section 111(d) was incorrect because 
it did not account for amendments to section 111(d) enacted in 1990, 
and that the description of section 111(d) was inconsistent with 
EPA's proposed Utility Rule, which specifically addressed the 1990 
amendments to section 111(d). See 69 FR 4652 (Jan. 30, 2004) 
(proposed rule). EPA agreed with this comment and, for that reason, 
issued a ``correcting amendment'' to the statutory background 
section of the DFR on March 15, 2005. See 70 FR 12591 (Mar. 1, 
2005); see also 70 FR 15994, 16029-32 (Mar. 29, 2005) (final rule 
containing EPA's interpretation of CAA section 111(d)). As explained 
in the March 15, 2005 notice, EEI's comment, and EPA's response to 
that comment, have no bearing on the substance of EPA's approval of 
Maine's 111(d) plan revision and, therefore, are not addressed 
further in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Adverse Public Comment and EPA Response

    The Agency received one adverse comment on EPA's proposed approval 
of Maine's 111(d) plan revision. A summary of that comment and EPA's 
response is provided below.
    Comment: The commenter submitted a comment by electronic mail on 
March 5, 2005, stating that EPA's approval of Maine's 111(d) plan 
revision gives ``corporate polluters more time to pollute'' and that 
this compliance extension should not be approved. The commenter asserts 
that it is ``illegal to kill your fellow citizens when you have a 
choice'' to spend money to protect the health of American citizens, and 
that ``anything less equates to terrorism and war on [A]mericans.''
    Response: The commenter makes blanket allegations about injury to 
the public with no support. EPA does not anticipate that Maine's 111(d) 
plan revision will endanger the public health and, therefore, disagrees 
with the commenter.
    The term ``total reduced sulfur'' refers to a combination of 
compounds consisting primarily of hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, 
dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide. These compounds are emitted 
when sulfur-based chemicals are used to dissolve wood chips as part of 
the paper making process. 70 FR 9872, 9874 (Mar. 1, 2005). These 
sulfides are extremely odorous. 41 FR 42012 (September 24, 1976) 
(proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) for kraft pulp 
mills).
    As EPA explained in both the Agency's 1979 Emission Guideline for 
kraft pulp mills (EPA Guidelines Series, ``Kraft Pulping: Control of 
TRS Emissions from Existing Mills'' (March 1979) (``TRS Emission 
Guideline'')) and EPA's 1978 new source performance standards for kraft 
pulp mills (43 FR 7568 (February 23, 1978)), studies analyzing the 
effects of TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills have focused on the odor 
associated with those emissions. See TRS Emission Guideline at 2-8. 
Based on those studies, and given the low concentrations of TRS 
compounds found near existing kraft pulp mills, EPA determined that TRS 
emissions from the brownstock washer systems at these facilities were 
not likely to endanger the public health. Id. at 2-12. The commenter 
has submitted no information to the contrary.
    The Administrator has determined that TRS emissions from kraft pulp 
mills may cause or contribute to endangerment of the public welfare but

[[Page 22267]]

has not found adverse effects on public health. Id. at 1-4, 2-12; 41 FR 
at 42012 (stating that TRS compounds have an adverse effect on public 
welfare). Therefore, TRS emissions are considered ``welfare-related 
pollutants'' for purposes of CAA section 111(d). TRS Emission Guideline 
at 2-1. EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, which provide the 
procedures under which states submit 111(d) plans to control existing 
sources of designated pollutants, allow states to ``balance the 
emission guidelines, compliance times, and other information provided 
in the applicable guideline document against other factors of public 
concern in establishing emission standards, compliance schedules, and 
variances' for welfare-related pollutants. 40 CFR 60.24(d). Thus, 
states have more flexibility in establishing plans for the control of 
TRS emissions, including establishing compliance schedules, than would 
be the case if public health might be affected. TRS Emission Guideline 
at 1-3, 1-4.
    EPA has previously approved other revisions to Maine's section 
111(d) plan consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60. EPA has 
determined that the limited extension of the compliance date for 
brownstock washer systems at existing kraft pulp mills in Maine is 
reasonable and consistent with our regulations for the reasons 
discussed in the DFR and below. As an initial matter, EPA's recommended 
guideline emission limit for brownstock washers at existing kraft pulp 
mills is ``no control.'' TRS Emission Guideline at 1-7, 10-12. This is 
due to both safety concerns and excessive costs associated with the 
retrofit of existing brownstock washer systems to control vent gases in 
comparison to the marginal amount of TRS reduction that would be 
achieved by such controls (about 1 percent of total mill TRS 
emissions). Id. at 10-12, 10-13. See also 43 FR 7568, 7570 (February 
23, 1978) (final NSPS for kraft pulp mills explaining safety concerns 
and prohibitive costs associated with altering existing brownstock 
washers to achieve more effective TRS control). Maine's approved 111(d) 
plan governing TRS emissions from brownstock washers at existing kraft 
pulp mills is more stringent than EPA's emission guideline, because 
Chapter 124 establishes a specific emission limit and control 
requirements for TRS emissions from existing brownstock washer systems. 
Specifically, Chapter 124 requires that TRS emissions greater than 0.75 
pounds per hour or 5 parts per million from brownstock washer systems 
at existing facilities be collected and controlled so as to meet the 
specified emission limit, unless the gases are combusted in accordance 
with other specific requirements of the rule. Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection Regulations, Chapter 124, section 3(D).
    As explained in the preamble to EPA's National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry (``Pulp 
and Paper MACT''), the emission controls needed to comply with the Pulp 
and Paper MACT rule, which is a rule that directly affects brownstock 
washers, are expected to also reduce TRS emissions from kraft pulp 
mills. 63 FR 18504, 18507 (Apr. 15, 1998). The compliance date for 
kraft pulp mills in the Pulp and Paper MACT is April 17, 2006. 40 CFR 
63.440(d)(1). EPA or a state may, however, allow an extension of up to 
1 year from a MACT compliance date if a source needs additional time to 
install controls. CAA section 112(i)(3)(B); 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4). Maine 
recently granted a 1-year compliance extension to the Pulp and Paper 
MACT rule to four existing kraft pulp mills in the state. Consistent 
with 40 CFR 63.6(i), the extension of compliance will be incorporated 
into the sources' Title V operating permits. See 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4), 
(9)-(12). These four sources, therefore, will have until April 17, 2007 
to obtain and install effective controls for purposes of compliance 
with the Pulp and Paper MACT. These same sources are subject to Chapter 
124. Because the controls needed to achieve compliance with Chapter 124 
are the same as those needed to achieve compliance with the Pulp and 
Paper MACT, Maine submitted for EPA approval a revision to Chapter 124 
that extends the compliance date for the brownstock washer systems to 
April 17, 2007.
    It is reasonable and cost-effective to coordinate the compliance 
deadline for brownstock washer systems in Chapter 124 with the Pulp and 
Paper MACT compliance deadline, given that the four facilities affected 
by the 111(d) plan revision need additional time to obtain and install 
the control technology needed to achieve compliance with both Chapter 
124 and the Pulp and Paper MACT. Such consideration of economic and 
technological difficulties associated with retrofitting existing 
facilities is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, 
Subpart B. EPA is approving Maine's 111(d) plan revision because it is 
not anticipated to endanger the public health, and because it is 
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 111(d) and 40 CFR part 
60, subpart B.

I. Final Action

    EPA is approving the revised 111(d) plan controlling TRS emissions 
from existing kraft pulp mills as submitted by ME DEP on June 23, 2004. 
The revised plan, which consists of the revised regulation entitled 
``Chapter 124: Total Reduced Sulfur from Kraft Pulp Mills,'' requires 
brownstock washers at existing kraft pulp mills to be in compliance 
with Chapter 124 by April 17, 2007. This action affects four existing 
kraft pulp mills in the State of Maine.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
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 pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism 
implications because it does 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 rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power

[[Page 22268]]

and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also 
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing 111(d) submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a 111(d) 
submission, to use VCS in place of a 111(d) submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. 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. 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. 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. 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. 
section 804(2).
    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 June 28, 2005. 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 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Total reduced 
sulfur.

    Dated: April 17, 2005.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

0
Part 62 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart U--Maine

0
2. Section 62.4845 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  62.4845  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) A revision to the plan controlling TRS from existing kraft pulp 
mills which extends the final compliance date for brownstock washers to 
April 17, 2007, was submitted on June 23, 2004.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-8603 Filed 4-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P