Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21361

Subpart N—Idaho

2. Subpart N is amended by adding

§ 62.3110 and an undesignated center

heading to read as follows:

* * * * *

Metals, Acid Gases, Organic

Compounds, Particulates and Nitrogen

Oxide Emissions From Existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators

§ 62.3110 Identification of plan.

(a) The Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality submitted to the

Environmental Protection Agency a

State Plan for the control of air

emissions from Hospital/Medical/

Infectious Waste Incinerators on

December 16, 1999.

(b) Identification of Sources: The

Idaho State Plan applies to all existing

HMIWI facilities for which construction

was commenced on or before June 20,

1996, as described in 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Ce. (This plan does not apply to

facilities on tribal lands).

(c) The effective date for the portion

of the plan applicable to existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators is June 20, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–9648 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket No. OR–03–0001; FRL–6580–9]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: Oregon; 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 (CAA) requiring states to

submit plans to EPA. These plans show

how states intend to control the

emissions of the designated pollutants

from designated facilities. Federal

regulations provide 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.

On October 20, 1998, the State of

Oregon submitted a negative declaration

adequately certifying that there are no

hospital/medical/infectious waste

incinerators (HMIWI) located within its

boundaries. On November 6, 1998,

Oregon submitted a clarification to their

negative declaration, indicating one of

their sources to be a co-combustor, and

the rest to be crematories, both

categories which are considered exempt

from this emission guideline (EG.) EPA

is approving Oregon’s negative

declaration.

DATES: This action will be effective on

June 20, 2000 without further notice,

unless EPA receives relevant adverse

comments by May 22, 2000. If EPA

receives such comments, then it will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that this rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Catherine Woo, US

EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

Copies of materials submitted to EPA

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following location:

US EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Woo, US EPA, Region X,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 553–1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, whenever

we, us or our is used, this refers to EPA.

Information regarding this action is

presented in the following order:

I. What Action is EPA Taking Today?

II. Why is Oregon Required to Submit a

Negative Declaration?

III. When Did the Requirements for Existing

HMIWIs First Become Known?

IV. When Did Oregon Submit Its Negative

Declaration?

V. How Does This Approval Affect Sources

Located in Indian Country?

VI. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action is EPA Taking Today?

We are approving the State of

Oregon’s negative declaration of air

emissions from HMIWIs. This negative

declaration fulfills the requirements of

Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA for

existing HMIWIs.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial action

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 Oregon negative declaration

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This action will be effective on

June 20, 2000 without further notice,

unless EPA receives relevant adverse

comments by May 22, 2000.

If EPA receives such comments, then

it will publish a timely withdrawal in

the Federal Register informing the

public that this direct final 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. 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 June 20, 2000

and no further action will be taken on

the proposed rule.

II. Why is Oregon Required to Submit

a Negative Declaration?

Section 111 of the CAA, ‘‘Standards of

Performance for New Stationary

Sources,’’ authorizes us to set air

emissions standards for certain

categories of sources. These standards

are called New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS). When a NSPS is

promulgated for new sources, Section

111(d) also requires that we publish an

EG applicable to the control of the same

pollutant from existing (designated)

facilities. States with designated

facilities must then develop a State Plan

to adopt the EG into the State’s body of

regulations. If 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 State Plan for that designated

facility (see 40 CFR 62.06). Oregon does

not have any designated facilities within

its boundaries, so it is required to

submit a negative declaration.

III. When Did the Requirements for

Existing HMIWIs First Become Known?

On June 26, 1996 (see 61 FR 31736),

EPA proposed HMIWIs as designated

facilities. EPA specified particulate

matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide,

hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen,

carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium,

mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans

as designated pollutants by proposing

Emission Guidelines (EG) for existing

HMIWIs. These guidelines were

published in final form as 40 CFR Part

60, Subpart Ce, on September 15, 1997

(see 62 FR 48348).

IV. When Did Oregon Submit Its

Negative Declaration?

On October 20, 1998, the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality

submitted a letter to us certifying that

there are no existing HMIWIs subject to

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce. On

November 8, 1998, Oregon sent a

clarifying letter to indicate exempt

21362 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

sources within its jurisdiction. EPA is

publishing this negative declaration

today, as public notification of Oregon’s

exemption from submitting a State Plan,

as required under 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart B. However, in the unlikely

event that a designated source is

discovered within the State of Oregon,

this source will be subject to the

requirements of a Federal Plan (to be

promulgated.) If the State chooses to do

so, it can submit a State Plan for any

newly discovered designated sources as

well. At the time of submittal, the State

Plan will need to be at least as

protective as those requirements

promulgated by the EPA.

V. How Does This Approval Affect

Sources Located in Indian Country?

Oregon’s jurisdiction does not cover

facilities located in Indian Country.

Since this action is approving Oregon’s

declaration that there are no HMIWI

facilities within its jurisdiction, this

action does not affect Indian Country.

However, if there are any sources

located in Indian Country, they will be

subject to the Federal plan, once

promulgated. The EPA plans to

promulgate a Federal Plan which will

cover sources located in Indian Country

and sources for which there is no

approved State Plan (or no approved

negative declaration). Because there is

no Federal Plan yet, existing HMIWI

sources in Indian Country are not

currently subject to any federal

requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’

and therefore is not subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget.

This action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This 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 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing State Plan submissions,

EPA’s role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a State Plan submission

for failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a State Plan

submission, to use VCS in place of a

State Plan submission that otherwise

satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air

Act. Thus, the requirements of section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),

in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. 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).

C. 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 June 20, 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 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Methane, Municipal Solid

Waste Landfills, Non-methane organic

compounds, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 4, 2000.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator, Region X.

40 CFR is amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7642.

Subpart MM—Oregon

2. Section 62.9350 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b)(6) and (c)(6) to

read as follows:

§ 62.9350 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) Control of metals, acid gases,

organic compounds, particulates and

nitrogen oxide emissions from existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators was submitted by the

Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality on October 20, 1998, and

November 6, 1998.

(c) * * *

(6) Existing Hospital/Medical/

Infectious Waste Incinerators.

* * * * *

3. Section 62.9515 and an

undesignated center heading are added

to Subpart MM to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21363

Metals, Acid Gases, Organic

Compounds, Particulates and Nitrogen

Oxide Emissions From Existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators

§ 62.9515 Identification of Sources—

Negative Declaration.

On October 20, 1998, and November

6, 1998, the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality submitted a

letter certifying that there are no

existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious

Waste Incinerators in the State subject

to the Emission Guidelines under part

60, subpart B, of this chapter.

[FR Doc. 00–10033 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6582–3]

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interpretative rule.

SUMMARY: This action clarifies that all

stationary combustion turbines are

subject to the provisions of Subpart B—

Requirements for Control Technology

Determinations for Major Sources in

Accordance with Clean Air Act Sections

112(g) and 112(j) (i.e., case-by-case

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) determinations).

DATES: Effective April 21, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, contact Mr. Sims

Roy, Combustion Group, Emission

Standards Division (MD–13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number: (919) 541–

5263, facsimile:(919) 541–5450,

electronic mail address:

roy.sims@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated

entities. All new stationary combustion

turbines, which meet the criteria for

major sources, are the regulated entities

addressed by this interpretative rule.

However, this interpretative rule does

not subject these entities to new or

additional rule requirements; it merely

resolves confusion which appears to

exist in some cases over whether such

sources are covered under 40 CFR part

63, Subpart B—Requirements for

Control Technology Determinations for

Major Sources in Accordance with

Clean Air Act Sections 112(g) and

112(j).

I. What Is the Background for This

Interpretative Rule

Subpart B requires ‘‘case-by-case’’

determinations of MACT for major

sources constructed after June 29, 1998.

It appears that there is confusion

regarding the applicability of subpart B

to new stationary combustion turbines

in some situations. This interpretative

rule resolves this confusion by

clarifying that all new stationary

combustion turbines, regardless of

configuration, end use, or location, are

subject to subpart B, provided they also

meet the definition of a major source.

Stationary combustion turbines were

included on the list of source categories

under section 112(c)(5) of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) for the development of

emission standards, thus, EPA is

currently developing national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) for this source category.

Proposal of the NESHAP is anticipated

in late 2000, with promulgation in early

2002.

Electric utility steam generating units,

on the other hand, are excluded from

subpart B and the development of

emission standards under section 112,

unless or until such time as they are

added to the source category list under

section 112(c)(5) of the CAA. Since,

among other uses, stationary gas

turbines may be used to generate

electricity, confusion has arisen whether

stationary combustion turbines used to

generate electricity are considered

‘‘electric utility steam generating units.’’

An ‘‘electric utility steam generating

unit’’ is defined in subpart B as follows:

Electric utility steam generating unit means

any fossil fuel fired combustion unit of more

than 25 megawatts that serves a generator

that produces electricity for sale. A unit that

co-generates steam and electricity and

supplies more than one-third of its potential

electric output capacity and more than 25

megawatts electric output to any utility

power distribution system for sale shall be

considered an electric utility steam

generating unit.

The phrase ‘‘steam generating unit’’ in

the term ‘‘electric utility steam

generating unit’’ is critical to

understanding which types of

combustion units are covered by this

definition and which types are not. For

example, this definition clearly covers a

conventional fossil fuel fired steam

generating unit (e.g., coal-fired boiler)

which extracts heat from the

combustion of fuel and generates steam

for use in a steam turbine which, in

turn, provides shaft power to spin an

electric generator and generate

electricity.

This definition does not cover a

stationary combustion turbine which

extracts shaft power from the

combustion of fuel and spins an electric

generator to generate electricity. The

combustion turbine does not extract

heat to generate steam; in fact, there is

no steam generating unit at all in this

example. Hence, the definition ‘‘electric

utility steam generating unit’’ does not

include stationary combustion turbines,

and such turbines are subject to case-bycase MACT determinations.

The confusion surrounds combined

cycle systems. A combined cycle

system, consistent with the meaning of

the word ‘‘combined,’’ is a combination

of a stationary combustion turbine and

a waste heat recovery unit.

In a combined cycle system, a

combustion turbine extracts shaft power

from the combustion of fuel and spins

an electric generator to generate

electricity. The hot exhaust gases from

the combustion turbine are then routed

to a separate ‘‘waste heat recovery unit.’’

The waste heat recovery unit extracts

heat from the gases and generates steam

for use in a steam turbine which, in

turn, provides shaft power to spin an

electric generator and generate

electricity.

The combustion turbine in a

combined cycle system does not extract

heat to generate steam. It is not a ‘‘steam

generating unit,’’ and it is not an

‘‘electric utility steam generating unit.’’

New combustion turbines in combined

cycle systems, therefore, must undergo

case-by-case MACT determinations.

The waste heat recovery unit in a

combined cycle system, however, does

generate steam. It is an electric utility

steam generating unit. New waste heat

recovery units in combined cycle

systems, therefore, are excluded from

subpart B (i.e., case-by-case MACT

determination).

While new waste heat recovery units

in combined cycle systems are excluded

from case-by-case MACT, in many cases

this is a moot point since they are not

an emission source. The sole emission

source, in the type of combined cycle

system outlined above, is the

combustion turbine. The emissions from

the combustion turbine pass through the

waste heat recovery unit, but the waste

heat recovery unit is not a source of

additional emissions.

There is another type of combined

cycle system, however, in which the

waste heat recovery unit does contribute

additional emissions. In these types of

combined cycle systems, fuel is burned

in the duct, through the use of ‘‘duct