62594 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 1997 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5927–3]

Full Delegation of Authority to

Commonwealth of Virginia for the

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Site-Specific Rulemaking for Merck &

Co., Inc. Stonewall Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Information notice.

SUMMARY: The EPA is delegating to the

Commonwealth of Virginia the authority

to implement and enforce the sitespecific rule for the Prevention of

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality

(PSD) for the Merck & Co., Inc.

Stonewall Plant in Elkton, Virginia. The

Commonwealth of Virginia has

requested that EPA delegate to the

Commonwealth the authority to

implement and enforce this site-specific

PSD rule. The Regional Administrator

has determined that such a delegation is

appropriate, with the conditions

described in this notice.

DATES: This delegation is effective on

November 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Copies of the

delegation of authority request and

accompanying support documents are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

offices: U.S. EPA, Region III, 841

Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA,

19107–4431, (215) 566–2064. Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality,

Valley Regional Office, 4411 Early Road,

P.O. Box 1129, Harrisonburg, Virginia

22801–1129, (540) 574–7800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Robin Moran, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, Air,

Radiation & Toxics Division, 841

Chestnut Street (3AT23), Philadelphia,

PA 19107–4431, (215) 566–2064.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a final

rule published on October 8, 1997, EPA

promulgated a site-specific PSD rule

which applies only to the Merck & Co.,

Inc. (Merck) Stonewall Plant in Elkton,

Virginia, in order to implement a project

under the Project XL program. See 62

FR 52622 (October 8, 1997) and 40 CFR

52.2454. This site-specific PSD rule

authorizes the Administrator to delegate

the responsibility to implement and

enforce this rule. The Commonwealth of

Virginia currently implements the

federal PSD program regulations

codified at 40 CFR 52.21 under a

delegation of authority from EPA

effective on June 3, 1981. See 40 CFR

52.2451 and 46 FR 29753 (June 3, 1981).

On October 27, 1997, the Director of the

Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality (VADEQ) sent to EPA Region III

a letter which requested full delegation

of authority for the implementation and

enforcement of the site-specific PSD

rule for the Merck Stonewall Plant.

In the preamble to the proposed sitespecific rulemaking for the Merck XL

project, and in the Merck’s Project XL

proposed Final Project Agreement, EPA

had stated its intention to delegate the

final site-specific PSD rule to the

Commonwealth of Virginia. See 62 FR

15310 (March 31, 1997). EPA received

no adverse comments on this approach

during the public comment period for

the proposed site-specific rulemaking.

In the notice of final rulemaking for the

Merck XL project, EPA also explained

its intent to delegate to VADEQ the

authority to implement and enforce the

PSD site-specific rule. See 62 FR 52623

(October 8, 1997).

Section 301 of the Clean Air Act, in

conjunction with sections 101 and 110,

authorizes the Administrator to delegate

her authority to implement and enforce

the PSD regulations to any state which

has submitted adequate implementation

and enforcement procedures. Further,

40 CFR 52.2454(o) authorizes the

Administrator to delegate the sitespecific PSD rule for the Merck

Stonewall Plant. The Regional

Administrator has determined that the

Commonwealth’s request for delegation

of the site-specific PSD rule for the

Merck Stonewall Plant is appropriate,

subject to the conditions set forth below.

EPA has reviewed the pertinent laws of

the Commonwealth of Virginia and the

rules and regulations thereof, and has

determined that they provide an

adequate and effective procedure for the

implementation of Merck’s site-specific

PSD regulation. On September 11, 1997,

the State Air Pollution Control Board of

the Commonwealth of Virginia (Board)

approved an order granting a variance (9

VAC 5 Chapter 190) to the Merck

Stonewall Plant for purposes of

implementing the XL project. The

variance contains site-specific PSD

provisions consistent with those of

EPA’s final rulemaking. On October 1,

1997, the Board approved a regulation

(9 VAC 5–190–110) which incorporated

by reference the provisions of EPA’s

final site-specific PSD rule (as signed by

the EPA Administrator on September

30, 1997). EPA has determined that the

order and the variance regulation

provide the Commonwealth with the

authority to implement and enforce the

site-specific PSD rule. Therefore,

pursuant to 40 CFR 52.2454(o), EPA

hereby delegates authority to implement

and enforce the site-specific PSD rule

for the Merck Stonewall Plant, 40 CFR

52.2454, to the Commonwealth of

Virginia as follows:

1. Authority is delegated for 40 CFR

52.2454 only for the Merck Stonewall

Plant in Elkton, Virginia, since that is

the only source subject to this

regulation.

2. If at any time there is a conflict

between a Commonwealth regulation

and a Federal regulation (40 CFR

52.2454), the Federal regulation must be

applied if it is more stringent than that

of the Commonwealth. If the

Commonwealth does not have the

authority to implement a Federal

regulation that is more stringent than

the applicable Commonwealth

regulation, the pertinent portion of the

authority may be revoked.

3. If the Regional Administrator

determines that the Commonwealth’s

procedures for implementing all

portions of the site-specific PSD

regulation are inadequate, or that the

site-specific PSD regulation is not being

effectively carried out, this authority

may be revoked in whole or in part. Any

such revocation shall be effective as of

the date specified in a Notice of

Revocation to the VADEQ.

4. Enforcement of the Merck sitespecific PSD rule in the Commonwealth

of Virginia will be the primary

responsibility of the VADEQ. If the

Commonwealth determines that such

enforcement is not feasible and so

notifies EPA, or where the

Commonwealth acts in a manner

inconsistent with the terms of this

granted authority, EPA will exercise its

concurrent enforcement authority

pursuant to Sections 113 and 167 of the

Clean Air Act. In accordance with

Sections 113 and 167 of the Clean Air

Act, EPA reserves the right to

commence an enforcement action

against Merck in violation of the sitespecific PSD requirements should the

Commonwealth of Virginia fail to take

such an enforcement action or, in the

opinion of EPA, fail to pursue a timely

or appropriate enforcement action.

5. Acceptance of this delegation of the

presently promulgated site-specific PSD

regulation does not commit the

Commonwealth of Virginia to request or

implement enforcement authority for

future standards and requirements.

6. The Commonwealth and EPA will

develop a system of communication

sufficient to guarantee a program that

includes, at a minimum, the items

described below:

a. Each agency is informed of the

current compliance status of the Merck

Stonewall Plant;

b. The VADEQ shall send a copy of

the preliminary determination and

public comment notices required under
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 1997 / Notices 62595

paragraph (m) of 40 CFR 52.2454 to EPA

Region III at the same time the notice is

being forwarded for publication in the

newspaper.

c. The VADEQ will forward to EPA

Region III copies of the final PSD permit

and any future permit modifications at

the time of issuance.

7. The VADEQ will obtain prior EPA

concurrence on any matter involving the

interpretation of sections 160–169 of the

Clean Air Act or 40 CFR 52.2454 to the

extent that implementation, review,

administration or enforcement of these

sections have not been covered by

determinations or guidance sent by EPA

to the VADEQ.

8. This delegation of authority should

not be construed as a transfer of PSD

responsibility under section 110(a)(2)(J)

of the Clean Air Act, since such a

transfer would involve different

procedures and considerations.

Delegation: Pursuant to the authority

delegated to him by the Administrator,

the Regional Administrator is formally

notifying the Director of the VADEQ

that the Commonwealth is hereby

delegated the authority to implement

and enforce the site-specific PSD rule

for the Merck Stonewall Plant, 40 CFR

52.2454, as of the publication date of

this notice.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

A. Effective Date

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and 42

U.S.C. 6930(b)(3), the Regional

Administrator finds good cause for

making this delegation of authority

effective immediately because it is an

administrative change and not one of

substantive content. Further, the Merck

& Co., Inc. Stonewall Plant is the only

regulated entity affected by this

delegation. Merck has full notice of this

delegation and is prepared to comply

immediately with the permit to be

issued expeditiously under the rule that

is being delegated to the Commonwealth

of Virginia.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

C. 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. This delegation would

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it only affects one source, the

Merck Stonewall Plant, which is not a

small entity. Therefore, EPA certifies

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action applies only to one

company, and therefore requires no

information collection activities subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act, and

therefore no information collection

request (ICR) will be submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review in compliance with

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–

4, establishes requirements for Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan.

As noted above, this delegation is

limited to Merck’s facility in Elkton,

Virginia. EPA has determined that this

delegation contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments. EPA

has also determined that this delegation

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. Thus,

today’s delegation is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

Dated: November 17, 1997.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–30811 Filed 11–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5926–5]

Notice of Availability of and Initiation

of a 30 Day Public Comment Period for

Two Administrative Orders on Consent

for de minimis Waste Contributors and

One Administrative Order on Consent

for a de micromis Waste Contributor

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response

Compensation and Liability Act

(CERCLA)

Notice is hereby given that on October

15, 1997, 3 administrative orders on

consent (‘‘Orders’’) between the United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region VIII and various parties

potentially responsible for costs

incurred by the United States for

cleaning up the Summitville Mine

Superfund Site (collectively, ‘‘the

Settling Parties’’) were approved by the

Assistant Attorney General of the

Department of Justice, Environment and

Natural Resources Division, on behalf of

the Attorney General of the United

States.

Because of the minimal nature, by

volume and toxicity, of the hazardous

substances allegedly contributed by the

Settling Parties to the Site, EPA

determined that the Settling Parties are

eligible for either a de minimis or de

micromis settlement in accordance with

Section 122(g) of CERCLA.

The first settlement is a de micromis

Order with Newmont Exploration

Limited, Newmont Mining Corporation,

and Newmont Gold Company

(collectively, ‘‘Newmont’’). It settles

Newmont’s potential liabilities under

CERCLA Sections 106 and 107 and

RCRA Section 7003 for extremely

limited historic exploration activities

Newmont undertook at the Site. Because

of the minuscule nature of Newmont’s

contribution of waste at the Site, and in

accordance with EPA guidance, EPA is

entering into this without requiring the

payment of a settlement amount.

EPA is also entering into 2 de minimis

Orders—one with ASARCO, Inc. and

one with ARCO Environmental

Remediation, L.L.C. These Orders settle

ARCO and ASARCO’s potential

liabilities under CERCLA Sections 106

and 107 and RCRA Section 7003 for the

limited historic exploration activities

they undertook at the Site. ASARCO

and ARCO are paying the United States

settlement amounts of $86,052.73 and

$95,000, respectively. All 3 Orders are

based on the respective applicable EPA

model Orders.

EPA Region VIII will receive

comments relating to the proposed