[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52534-52537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25963]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[Docket# VT-020-1223a; FRL-7077-4A]
Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants: Vermont; Negative Declaration
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA publishes regulations under sections 111(d) and 129 of the
Clean Air Act requiring states to submit plans to EPA. These plans show
how states intend to control the emissions of designated pollutants
from designated
[[Page 52535]]
facilities. On June 5, 2001, the State of Vermont submitted a negative
declaration adequately certifying that there are no small municipal
waste combustors (small MWCs) located within its boundaries. EPA is
approving Vermont's negative declaration.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on December 17, 2001 without
further notice unless EPA receives significant, material and adverse
comment by November 15, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comment by the
above date, we 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: You should address your written comments to: Mr. Steven
Rapp, Chief, Air Permits Program Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. EPA, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
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,
Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Courcier, (617) 918-1659.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA taking today?
II. What is the origin of the requirements?
III. When did the small MWC requirements first become known?
IV. When did Vermont submit its negative declaration?
V. Administrative Requirements
I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
EPA is approving the negative declaration of air emissions from
small MWCs submitted by the State of Vermont.
EPA is publishing this negative declaration 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, EPA is publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve this negative declaration should
relevant adverse comments be filed. If EPA receives no significant,
material, or adverse comment by November 15, 2001, this action will be
effective December 17, 2001.
If EPA receives significant, material, and adverse comments by the
above date, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by
publishing a subsequent document in the Federal Register that will
withdraw this final action. EPA will address all public comments
received in a subsequent final rule based on the parallel proposed rule
published in today's Federal Register. EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on
this action should do so at this time. If EPA receives no comments,
this action will be effective December 17, 2001.
II. What Is the Origin of the Requirements?
Under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA published
regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B which require states to submit
plans to control emissions of designated pollutants from designated
facilities. In the event that a state does not have a particular
designated facility located within its boundaries, EPA requires that a
negative declaration be submitted in lieu of a control plan.
III. When Did the Small MWC Requirements First Become Known?
On August 30, 1999 (64 FR 47233), EPA proposed emission guidelines
for small MWC units with an individual unit capacity of 35 to 250 tons
per day. This action would enable EPA to list small MWCs as designated
facilities. EPA specified particulate matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide,
hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium,
mercury, and dioxins/furans as designated pollutants by proposing
emission guidelines for existing small MWCs. These guidelines were
published in final form on December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76378).
IV. When Did Vermont Submit Its Negative Declaration?
On June 5, 2001, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)
submitted a letter certifying that there are no existing small MWCs
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. EPA is publishing this negative
declaration at 40 CFR 62.11460. Section 62.06 provides that when no
such designated facilities exist within a state's boundaries, the
affected state may submit a letter of ``negative declaration'' instead
of a control plan.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 13132
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This final 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.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule.
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
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate
[[Page 52536]]
environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 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, 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 action does not create any new requirements. Thus, the
action will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. 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, 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.
Negative declaration approvals under section 111(d) of the Clean
Air Act do not create any new requirements for any entity affected by
this rule, including small entities. Furthermore, in developing the
small MWC emission guidelines and standards, EPA prepared a written
statement pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act which it published
in the 1997 promulgation notice (see 62 FR 48348). In accordance with
EPA's determination in issuing the 1997 small MWC emission guidelines,
this negative declaration approval does not include any new
requirements that will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, because this approval does not impose any new
requirements and pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Regional Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
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
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the 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 on by the rule.
EPA has determined that this approval action 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 imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. Thus,
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203,
204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
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(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
In approving or disapproving negative declarations under section
129 of the Clean Air Act, EPA does not have the authority to revise or
rewrite the State's declaration, so the Agency does not have authority
to require the use of particular voluntary consensus standards.
Accordingly, EPA has not sought to identify or require the State to use
voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA
are not applicable to this final rule.
I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. 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 December 17, 2001. 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), 42
U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)). EPA encourages interested parties to comment in
response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review,
unless the objection arises after
[[Page 52537]]
the comment period allowed for in the proposal.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: September 26, 2001.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
40 CFR part 62 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. 7401-7642.
Subpart UU--Vermont
2. Subpart UU is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.11460 and a new
undesignated center heading to read as follows:
* * * * *
Municipal Waste Combustor Emissions From Existing Small Municipal
Waste Combustors With the Capacity To Combust Between 35 and 250
Tons per day of Municipal Solid Waste
Sec. 62.11460 Identification of Plan-negative declaration.
On June 5, 2001, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources submitted
a letter certifying that there are no existing small municipal waste
combustors in the state subject to the emission guidelines under part
60, subpart B of this chapter.
[FR Doc. 01-25963 Filed 10-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P