Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 60785

authority pursuant to section 301(a) to

adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP. The

approval is limited in the sense that the

rules strengthen the SIP. However, the

rules do not meet the section

182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement because

of the rule deficiencies which were

discussed in the PRs. Thus, in order to

strengthen the SIP, EPA is granting

limited approval of these rules under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the

CAA. This action approves the rules

into the SIP as federally enforceable

rules.

At the same time, EPA is finalizing

the limited disapproval of these rules

because they contain deficiencies that

have not been corrected as required by

section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as

such, the rules do not fully meet the

requirements of Part D of the Act. As

stated in the PRs, upon the effective

date of this FR, the 18-month clock for

sanctions and the 24-month FIP clock

will begin. Sections 179(a) and 110(c). If

the State does not submit the required

corrections and EPA does not approve

the submittal within 18 months of the

FR, either the highway sanction or the

offset sanction will be imposed at the 18

month mark. It should be noted that the

rules covered by this FR have been

adopted by the SCAQMD and are

currently in effect in the SCAQMD.

EPA’s limited disapproval action will

not prevent a local agency or EPA from

enforcing these rules.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. 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.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

30l, and subchapter I, part D of the CAA

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, 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

action 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).

C. 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 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 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 Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

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 this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Dated: October 24, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(184)(i)(B)(5) and

(225)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(184) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(5) Rule 1103, adopted on December

7, 1990.

* * * * *

(225) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(2) Rule 462, revised on June 9, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–29863 Filed 11–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[FL–70–1–9738a; FRL–5920–3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Sections

111(d)/129 State Plan submitted by

Florida on November 18, 1996, for

implementing and enforcing the

Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to
60786 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

existing Municipal Waste Combustors

(MWCs) with capacity to combust more

than 250 tons/day of municipal solid

waste (MSW). See 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Cb.

DATES: This final rule is effective

January 12, 1998 unless significant

material, and adverse comments are

received by December 15, 1997. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Joey

LeVasseur at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104. Copies of

materials submitted to EPA may be

examined during normal business hours

at the following locations: EPA Region

4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–

3104, and at Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, Air

Resources Management Division, Twin

Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair

Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399–

2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Davis at 404/562–9127 or Joey

LeVasseur at 404/562–9035.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On December 19, 1995, pursuant to

sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act (Act), EPA promulgated new source

performance standards (NSPS)

applicable to new MWCs and EG

applicable to existing MWCs. The NSPS

and EG are codified at 40 CFR part 60,

Subparts Eb and Cb, respectively. See 60

FR 65387. Subparts Cb and Eb regulate

the following: particulate matter,

opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen

chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon

monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and

dioxins and dibenzofurans.

On April 8, 1997, the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit vacated Subparts Cb

and Eb as they apply to MWC units with

capacity to combust less than or equal

to 250 tons/day of MSW (small MWCs),

consistent with their opinion in Davis

County Solid Waste Management and

Recovery District v. EPA, 101 F.3d 1395

(D.C. Cir. 1996), as amended, 108 F.3d

1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As a result,

Subparts Eb and Cb apply only to MWC

units with individual capacity to

combust more than 250 tons/day of

municipal solid waste (large MWC

units).

Under section 129 of the Act,

emission guidelines are not Federally

enforceable. Section 129(b)(2) of the Act

requires States to submit to EPA for

approval State Plans that implement

and enforce the emission guidelines.

State Plans must be at least as protective

as the emission guidelines, and become

Federally enforceable upon approval by

EPA. The procedures for adoption and

submittal of State Plans are codified in

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B. EPA

originally promulgated the Subpart B

provisions on November 17, 1975. EPA

amended Subpart B on December 19,

1995, to allow the subparts developed

under section 129 to include

specifications that supersede the general

provisions in Subpart B regarding the

schedule for submittal of State Plans,

the stringency of the emission

limitations, and the compliance

schedules. See 60 FR 65414.

This action approves the State Plan

submitted by Florida to implement and

enforce Subpart Cb, as it applies to large

MWC units only.

II. Discussion

The Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP)

submitted to EPA the following in their

111(d)/129 State Plan for implementing

and enforcing the emission guidelines

for existing MWCs in the State: Legal

Authority; Enforceable Mechanisms;

Inventory of MWC Units; Emission

Inventory; Compliance Schedules and

Closure Agreements; Testing,

Monitoring, Recordkeeping and

Reporting; Annual State Progress

Reports; and applicable State

regulations (Rules 62–204.800(8), 62–

296.416, and 62–296.401(6) of the

Florida Administrative Code) on

November 18, 1996. FDEP submitted its

plan before the Court of Appeals

vacated Subpart Cb as it applies to small

MWC units. Thus, FDEP’s plan covers

both large and small MWC units. As a

result of the Davis decision and

subsequent vacatur order, there are no

emission guidelines promulgated under

sections 111 and 129 that apply to small

MWC units. Accordingly, EPA’s review

and approval of FDEP’s State Plan for

MWCs addresses only those parts of

FDEP’s Plan which affect large MWC

units. Small units are not subject to the

requirements of the Federal Rule and

not part of this approval. Until EPA

again promulgates emission guidelines

for small MWC units, EPA has no

authority under section 129(b)(2) of the

Act to review and approve State Plans

applying state rules to small MWC

units.

The approval of FDEP’s State Plan is

based on finding that: (1) FDEP

provided adequate public notice of

public hearings for the proposed

rulemaking which allows Florida to

implement and enforce the EG for large

MWCs, and (2) FDEP also demonstrated

legal authority to adopt emission

standards and compliance schedules

applicable to the designated facilities;

enforce applicable laws, regulations,

standards and compliance schedules;

seek injunctive relief; obtain

information necessary to determine

compliance; require recordkeeping;

conduct inspections and tests; require

the use of monitors; require emission

reports of owners and operators; and

make emission data publicly available.

In Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of the

State Plan, FDEP cites all emission

standards and limitations for the major

pollutant categories related to the

designated sites and facilities. These

standards and limitations in Rules 62–

204.800(8) and 62–296.416 are approved

as being at least as protective as the

Federal requirements contained in

Subpart Cb for existing large MWC

units.

Florida submitted compliance

schedules and legally enforceable

increments of progress and, where

applicable, closure agreements for each

large MWC. This portion of the State

Plan (Section 5.0) has been reviewed

and approved as being at least as

protective as Federal requirements for

existing large MWC units.

Florida’s Plan includes its legal

authority to require owners and

operators of designated facilities to

maintain records and report to the State

the nature and amount of emissions and

any other information that may be

necessary to enable the State to judge

the compliance status of the facilities.

Florida also cites its legal authority to

provide for periodic inspection and

testing and provisions for making

reports of MWC emissions data,

correlated with emission standards that

apply, available to the general public.

Florida submitted Rule 62–204.800(8)(b)

F.A.C. to support the requirements of

monitoring, reporting, and compliance

assurance. These State rules have been

reviewed and approved as meeting

Federal requirements for existing large

MWC units.

As stated in Section 8.0 of the State

Plan, Florida plans to provide progress

reports of plan updates on an annual

basis in conjunction with the required

annual reports pursuant to 40 CFR

section 51.321. This meets the

minimum requirement for State

reporting and is approved.

Final Action

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 60787

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the revision should significant,

material, and adverse comments be

filed. This action will be effective

January 12, 1998 unless, by December

15, 1997, adverse or critical comments

are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent notice that will withdraw

the final action. All public comments

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. The

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 no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective January 12, 1998.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. 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.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This Federal

action approves pre-existing

requirements under Federal, State or

local law, and imposes no new

requirements on any entity affected by

this rule, including small entities.

Therefore, these amendments will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

C. 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 costeffective 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 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.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

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).

E. 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 12, 1998.

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, Municipal waste combustors,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: October 14, 1997.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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 K—Florida

2. Part 62.2350 is amended by adding

paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 62.2350 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) Control of metals, acid gases,

organic compounds and nitrogen oxide

emissions from existing municipal

waste combustors was submitted by the

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection on November 18, 1996.

(c) * * *

(3) Existing municipal waste

combustors.

3. Subpart K is amended by adding a

new § 62.2355 and a new undesignated

center heading to read as follows:

Metals, Acid Gases, Organic

Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity To

Combust Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day

of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.2355 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to existing facilities

with a municipal waste combustor

(MWC) unit capacity greater than 250

tons per day of municipal solid waste

(MSW).

[FR Doc. 97–29860 Filed 11–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P