[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60343-60346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28211]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
