Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee: Approval of Source Specific Revisions to the Nonregulatory Portion of the Tennessee SIP Regarding Emission Limits for Particulate Matter and Volatile Organic Compounds

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN-192-1-9962(a); TN-193-1-9963(a); FRL-6465-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee:

Approval of Source Specific Revisions to the Nonregulatory Portion of

the Tennessee SIP Regarding Emission Limits for Particulate Matter and

Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving two requests by the Tennessee Department

of Air Pollution Control (TDAPC) to incorporate revised permits for

eight facilities into the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP).

All of the permits affected by this action were previously approved

into the SIP to meet various Clean Air Act (CAA) and regulatory

requirements. EPA is approving an April 9, 1997, submittal from TDAPC

that amends permits for the Soda Recovery Furnace and the Smelt Tank at

Willamette Industries Inc., Kingsport, to establish revised particulate

matter (PM) emission limits for these units. The revised emission

limits will have a net positive impact on ambient air quality. An April

14, 1997, submittal from the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution

Control Bureau (CHCAPCB), through TDAPC, revises the permits as amended

by agreed order for seven miscellaneous metal parts coaters located in

Hamilton County to qualify them as a synthetic minor sources. Based on

supplemental information received from CHCAPCB, EPA has concluded that

one of these seven facilities is now a new source and thus need not be

included in this approval action. EPA is approving the revised permits

for the remaining six facilities into the SIP.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective January 4, 2000 without

further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 6,

1999. If adverse comment is 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: All comments should be addressed to: Allison Humphris at the

EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta,

Georgia 30303.

Copies of the State submittal(s) are available at the following

addresses for inspection during normal business hours:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Allison Humphris, 404/

562-9030.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air

Pollution Control, L & C Annex, 9th Floor, 401 Church Street,

Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531. 615/532-0554.

[[Page 60344]]

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, 3511

Rossville Boulevard, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37407-2495. 423/867-4321.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Humphris at 404/562-9030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Willamette Industries, Inc.--Kingsport, Tennessee

On December 7, 1982, EPA approved permits establishing PM emission

limits for the Soda Recovery Furnace and the Smelt Tank at Mead Paper

Company (now Willamette Industries Inc.), Kingsport, Tennessee, into

the Tennessee SIP (47 FR 54936). These permits, along with numerous

other facility permits, satisfied Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) requirements and comprised part of the Kingsport

secondary particulate nonattainment area plan. On April 9, 1997, TDAPC

submitted revised permits which establish alternate emission standards

for these two units. The revised emission limits lower the permitted PM

emission limit for the Soda Recovery Furnace from 44.1 pounds per hour

(lb/hr) to 35.0 lb/hr to offset an increase in the permitted PM

emission limit for the Smelt Tank from 1.3 lb/hr to 3.0 lb/hr. In a

letter dated March 26, 1998, EPA informed TDAPC that the revised

permits were unapprovable, as they failed to include conditions to

verify ongoing compliance with these emission limits. On September 16,

1999, TDAPC submitted supplemental information consisting of

practically enforceable conditions that amend the revised permits to

address EPA's concerns. The amended revised permits specify operating

parameters for the Soda Recovery Furnace, and production rates for the

Smelt Tank, that must be maintained to ensure compliance with the

permitted emission limits.

B. Seven Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coaters--Hamilton County, Tennessee

On June 28, 1989, EPA approved the permits as amended by agreed

order for fourteen facilities into the Tennessee SIP to demonstrate

full implementation of the ozone SIP in Hamilton County, thereby

partially fulfilling CAA requirements for redesignating this area to

attainment for ozone (54 FR 27164). The permits as amended by agreed

order for ten of these facilities restricted the volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions of each to below the 25 ton per year (TPY)

applicability limit for sources subject to VOC RACT regulations. On

April 14, 1997, CHCAPCB submitted revised permits as amended by order

for seven of these ten facilities to establish additional, more

stringent, federally enforceable limits on their potential to emit to

qualify them as synthetic minor sources. These limits restrict total

VOC emissions from metal coating operations to below 25 tons per year

(TPY), total VOC emissions to below 100 TPY, total hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) emissions to below 25 TPY and individual HAP emissions

to below 10 TPY. Prior to this action, the potential VOC and HAP

emissions of all seven facilities exceeded one or more of these

criteria. The seven facilities include:

(1) Browning-Ferris Industries of TN, Inc. (formerly Browning-Ferris

Industries)

(2) Cannon Equipment Southeast, Inc. (formerly Cumberland Corporation)

(3) EK Associates, L.P. (formerly Ekco/Gladco, Inc.)

(4) Mckee Foods Corporation (formerly McKee Baking Company)

(5) Metal Systems, Inc. (formerly Electrical Systems, Inc.)

(6) Sherman & Reilly, Inc.

(7) Tuftco Corporation

On December 23, 1998, EPA informed CHCAPCB that the revised permits

as amended by agreed order for EK Associates, L.P. and Metal Systems

Inc. were unapprovable, as they failed to include conditions to verify

ongoing compliance with the revised emission limits. In a letter dated

February 19, 1998, CHCAPCB indicated that, subsequent to the April 14,

1997 submittal, the facility owned and operated by EK Associates, L.P.

was purchased by Pressco. Inc., who sold the existing equipment,

purchased new equipment and commenced a new operation. EPA notified

CHCAPC that, based on this information, Pressco could be considered a

new source, and did not need to submit a revised permit for inclusion

in the SIP. In supplemental information dated April 22, 1999, CHCAPCB

submitted a revised permit as amended by agreed order for Metal Systems

Inc. that included conditions restricting the maximum usage and VOC

content of materials used by this facility, thereby addressing the

second of EPA's concerns with the original submittal.

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

A. Willamette Industries, Inc.--Kingsport, Tennessee

Following review of TDAPC's April 9, 1997 submittal and subsequent

supplemental information, EPA is incorporating the revised permits for

the Soda Recovery Furnace and the Smelt Tank at Willamette Industries,

Inc. into the SIP. The PM emission limits contained in the revised

permits will reduce the existing total allowable PM emissions for these

two units from 45.4 lb/hr to 38.0 lb/hr. The results of atmospheric

dispersion modeling conducted by the facility also show that the

revised emission limits for these two units will have a net positive

impact on ambient air quality. The alternate emission standards to be

granted to this facility are thus consistent with existing SIP

requirements, as they will reduce PM emissions at least as much as is

required under other applicable rules.

B. Seven Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coaters--Hamilton County, Tennessee

Following review of CHCAPCB's April 14, 1997 submittal and

subsequent supplemental information, EPA is incorporating the revised

permits as amended by agreed order for six of the seven above-listed

miscellaneous metal parts coaters into the SIP. The revised permits are

consistent with existing State and local SIP requirements, as they

replace the emission limits contained in the existing permits with more

stringent emission limits. Moreover, EPA has determined that all six

revised permits include conditions adequate to verify ongoing

compliance with the revised emission limits (i.e. quantifiable limits

on VOC coating content and usage). Based on supplemental information

received from CHCAPCB, the seventh facility included in the April 14,

1997 submittal, EK Associates, L.P., is now a new source (Pressco,

Inc.). The revised permit for this facility thus need not be

incorporated into the SIP and is not included in this approval action.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP because they

are consistent with Clean Air Act and EPA requirements.

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal 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 SIP revision should

adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective January 4, 2000

without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by

December 6, 1999.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document

withdrawing the final rule and

[[Page 60345]]

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. The EPA will not institute a second comment

period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If

no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule

will be effective on January 4, 2000 and no further action will be

taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

regulatory action from Executive Order (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 the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives 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

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 E.O.

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 E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

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 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, E.O. 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. 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 SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part 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 SIP 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 flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs 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

[[Page 60346]]

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. A major rule cannot

take effect until 60 days after it is published in the 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 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing

technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with

NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''

(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies

unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's

action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to

the use of VCS.

I. 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 4, 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 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 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 18, 1999.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is

amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

2. Section 52.2220(d) is amended by revising the entries for

``Revised Permits for the Kingsport Particulate Nonattainment Area''

and ``Miscellaneous Metal Parts'' to read as follows:

Sec. 52.2220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(d) EPA-approved State Source-specific Requirements.

EPA-Approved Tennessee Source-Specific Requirements

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

State EPA

Name of source Permit No. effective approval Explanation

date date

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

Revised Permits for the Kingsport N/A 09/15/99 11/5/99 Various permits.

Particulate Nonattainment Area.

* * * * * *

*

Miscellaneous Metal Parts................. N/A 04/05/99 11/5/99 13 sources.

* * * * * *

*

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

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-28211 Filed 11-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U