Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Maryland; Revision to Section 111(d) Plan Controlling Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[MD054-3044a; FRL-6456-6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for

Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Maryland; Revision to Section

111(d) Plan Controlling Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Existing

Kraft Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action approves the section 111(d) plan revision

submitted by the State of Maryland regarding revised monitoring

procedures test methods used to determine compliance of total reduced

sulfur (TRS) emissions from existing kraft pulp mills. The plan

revision was submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Clean

Air Act (the Act). EPA is approving this plan revision because

Maryland's revised procedures meet current EPA requirements for

monitoring and testing TRS emissions.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 3, 2000 unless by December

3, 1999 adverse or critical comments are received. If adverse comment

is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule in the Federal Register informing the public the rule will not

take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Harold A. Frankford, Office of Air

Programs, Mail Code 3AP20, 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 the Maryland Department

of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland, 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford at (215) 814-2108,

or by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',

``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

What Action is EPA Taking?

We are approving a revision to Maryland's section 111(d) plan for

the control of total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions from kraft pulp

mills.

What Does the Revision Consist Of?

Maryland has revised COMAR 26.11.14.05 (monitoring and reporting

requirements for control of kraft pulp mills TRS emissions) to

incorporate Method 16B of Technical Memorandum 91-01 as the method for

continuous monitoring of TRS emissions from recovery boilers (COMAR

26.11.14.05A.), and once-a-month grab sampling from smelt dissolving

tanks (COMAR 26.11.14.05B). According to documents supplied by Maryland

accompanying this revision, Method 16B of Technical Memorandum 91-01

consists of cross-references to the Method 16B provisions found in 40

CFR part 60, Appendix A.

What Actions Did the State Take to Satisfy the Federal Public

Hearing Requirements?

Maryland certified that public hearings on the revisions to COMAR

26.11.14.05 were held in Baltimore on November 25, 1991 in accordance

with the requirements of 40 CFR 60.23(d).

What is EPA Evaluation?

The April 2, 1992 revisions to COMAR 26.11.14.05 replace provisions

found in TM-116, Method 12 [Revised 1980] submitted with the State's

original Section 111(d) plan controlling TRS from kraft pulp mills. We

had approved these test methods on May 11, 1982 (47 FR 20127). Since

then, we have revised the monitoring and testing provisions of 40 CFR

part 60 as they apply to measuring TRS emissions from kraft pulp

mills--May 20, 1986 (51 FR 18545) for emissions monitoring, February

14, 1990 (55 FR 5212) for test methods and procedures. We have

determined that Maryland's revised provisions found in COMAR

26.11.14.05 reflect our current requirements for monitoring and testing

TRS emissions from recovery boilers and smelt dissolving tanks.

Final Action

We are approving the revisions to COMAR 26.11.14.05 regarding

monitoring procedures and test methods for measuring TRS emissions from

affected facilities. We are publishing this rule without prior proposal

because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no

adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's

Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve

as the proposal to approve the revision to Maryland's Section 111(d)

plan for controlling TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills if adverse

comments are filed. This rule will be effective on January 3, 2000

without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by December 3,

1999. If we receive adverse comment, we will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule

will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute

a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in

commenting must do so at this time.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

regulatory action from review under E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory

Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or

tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the

extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives

[[Page 59649]]

of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of written communications from the governments, and a

statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,

E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875

do not apply to this rule.

On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order

on federalism, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999),

which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current

Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)), on federalism

still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on

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 12612.

The rule affects only one State, and does not alter the relationship or

the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

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

Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies

to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is ``economically

significant,'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the rule has 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 final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an

economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866,

and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that

would have a disproportionate effect on children.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 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 EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to 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. This action does not involve or impose

any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 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, 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 approvals under section

111(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 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 a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air

Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning section 111(d) plans 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. 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).

H. 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 January 3, 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

[[Page 59650]]

shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This

action to approve revised test methods for Maryland's section 111(d)

plan controlling TRS emissions from existing kraft pulp mills 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, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Total reduced sulfur.

Dated: September 30, 1999.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

40 CFR Part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

Subpart V--Maryland

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

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

2. Under the following undesignated centerhead, Sec. 62.5100 is

amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Plan for Control of Designated Pollutants From Existing Facilities

(Section 111(d) Plan)

* * * * *

Sec. 62.5100 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(d) Submittal of plan revisions--On April 2, 1992, Maryland

submitted revisions to COMAR 26.11.14.05A. and .05B. governing the

testing, monitoring, and reporting of total reduced sulfur (TRS)

emissions from kraft pulp mills.

[FR Doc. 99-26851 Filed 11-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P