Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Commonwealth of Virginia; Control of Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions from Existing Kraft Pulp Mills

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[VA 011-5034a; FRL-6155-9]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for

Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Commonwealth of Virginia; Control

of Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions from Existing Kraft Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the 111(d) plan for Kraft pulp mills

submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The plan requires the

control of total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions from existing Kraft

pulp mills. The Virginia plan establishes emission limits for existing

Kraft pulp mills, and provides for the implementation and enforcement

of those limits. The intended effect of this action is to approve the

plan which was submitted in accordance with the Clean Air Act (the

Act).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 9, 1998, without

further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 8,

1998. If adverse comments are 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: Comments may be mailed to Makeba A. Morris, Chief, Technical

Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP22, Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies

of the documents relevant to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: Air

Protection Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and Commonwealth of

Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,

Richmond, VA 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Artra B. Cooper at (215) 814-2096, or

by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Act requires that states submit plans to EPA to implement and

enforce the Emission Guidelines (EG) promulgated for Kraft pulp mills

pursuant to Section 111(d). As required by section 111(d) of the Act,

EPA established a process at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B, which is

similar to the process required by section 110 of the Act , which the

states must follow for adopting and submitting 111(d) plans. Subpart B

provides that, once a standard of performance for the control of a

designated pollutant from a new source category is promulgated, the

Administrator will then publish an emission guideline (E.G.) and

guideline document applicable to the control of the same pollutant from

designated (existing) facilities. The E.G. and related information were

provided in a guideline document entitled ``Kraft Pulping--Control of

TRS Emissions from Existing Mills'' (March 1979).

On May 15, 1990, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted its Kraft

pulp mill 111(d) plan for the control of TRS from existing kraft pulp

mills to EPA for approval. The plan consists of regulations and consent

agreements with the affected facilities within the Commonwealth. EPA

has determined that the plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart B. The Virginia regulation entitled: ``Regulation for the

Control and Abatement of Air Pollution, VR 120-01, Part IV, Rule 4-13,

Emission Standard for Kraft Pulp Mills,'' is the regulatory portion of

Virginia's 111(d) plan. This regulation provides for control of TRS

emissions from Kraft pulp mills. The Commonwealth's regulation contains

the emission limits found in the E.G. issued by EPA. The regulation

includes emission limitations for applicable emission sources,

provisions for compliance schedules, monitoring, record keeping and

reporting requirements, all of which comport with the E.G. The

regulation also requires operational standards for continuous

monitoring systems, development and implementation of a quality control

plan and submittal of control plans. The consent agreements included in

the 111(d) plan were reached with the four affected facilities located

within the Commonwealth of Virginia. They include the following

sources: Westvaco Corporation--Covington, Union Camp--Franklin, Stone

Container Corporation--Hopewell, and Chesapeake Corporation--West

Point. These consent agreements provided interim emission limits while

providing time for the affected facilities to comply with the E.G.-

based limits. The consent agreements required compliance with the E.G.-

based limits specified in the Commonwealth's regulation by no later

than October 1994.

More detailed information on the requirements of Virginia's plan

and EPA's evaluation are contained in the

[[Page 47437]]

Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying this rulemaking. Copies

of the TSD are available upon request from the EPA Regional Office

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. Final Action

EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's 111(d) plan for the

control of total reduced sulfur emissions from Kraft pulp mills.

EPA is approving this rule 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 111(d) plan should

adverse or critical comments be filed. This rule will be effective

November 9, 1998, without further notice unless the Agency receives

adverse comments by October 8, 1998. If 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. EPA will not institute a second comment

period on this rule. Parties interested in commenting on this rule

should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public

is advised that this rule will be effective on November 9, 1998, and no

further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review. The final rule is not subject

to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' because it is not an ``economically

significant'' action under E.O. 12866.

B. 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, the 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. State plan approvals under section 111 of the Act do not create

any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the federal action to approve the

state plan does not impose any new requirements, EPA certifies that it

does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions concerning State plans on such grounds.

See Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. 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

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 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.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

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. 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. This rule is not a

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action approving The Commonwealth of Virginia's

111(d) plan for Kraft pulp mills must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by Nobember 9, 1998.

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, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Total reduced sulfur.

Dated: August 27, 1998.

Thomas C. Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

40 CFR Part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart VV--Virginia

2. Under existing heading, Sec. 62.11610 is added to read as

follows:

Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills

Sec. 62.11610 Identification of plan.

(a) Title of Plan. Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation

Plan under section 111(d) plan for the Designated Facility--Kraft Pulp

Mills.

(b) The plan was officially submitted by the Executive Director of

the Department of Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control, on May

15, 1990.

(c) Identification of sources. The Plan includes the following

Kraft Pulp Mills:

(1) Chesapeake Corporation, West Point;

(2) Stone Container Corporation, Hopewell;

(3) Union Camp Corporation, Franklin; and

[[Page 47438]]

(4) Westvaco Corporation, Covington.

(d) Article 13, 9 VAC--40--1690, Section 120-04-1304 (Standard for

total reduced sulfur), effective October 1, 1989. This plan was

submitted on May 15, 1990 by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

[FR Doc. 98-23888 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P