27492 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the 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 impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies 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 Act, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

undertake various actions in association

with 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. 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 the private sector,

result from this action.

D. 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).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by July 20, 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 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping.

Dated: April 29, 1998.

Barry C. DeGraff,

Acting Regional Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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 et seq.

Subpart O—Illinois

2. Section 52.720 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(140) to read as

follows:

§ 52.720 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(140) On March 5, 1998, the State of

Illinois submitted amended rules for the

control of volatile organic material

emissions from wood furniture coating

operations in the Chicago and MetroEast (East St. Louis) ozone

nonattainment areas, as a requested

revision to the ozone State

Implementation Plan. This plan was

submitted to meet the Clean Air Act

requirement for States to adopt

Reasonably Available Control

Technology rules for sources that are

covered by Control Techniques

Guideline documents.

(i) Incorporation by reference

Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35:

Environmental Protection, Subtitle B:

Air Pollution, Chapter I: Pollution

Control Board, Subchapter c: Emissions

Standards and Limitations for

Stationary Sources.

(A) Part 211: Definitions and General

Provisions, Subpart B; Definitions,

211.1467 Continuous Coater, 211.1520

Conventional Air Spray, 211.6420

Strippable Spray Booth Coating,

211.7200 Washoff Operations, amended

at 22 Ill. Reg. 3497, effective February 2,

1998.

(B) Part 218: Organic Material

Emission Standards and Limitations for

the Chicago Area, Subpart F: Coating

Operations 218.204 Emission

Limitations, 218.205 Daily-weighted

Average Limitations, 218.210

Compliance Schedule, 218.211

Recordkeeping and Reporting, 218.215

Wood Furniture Coating Averaging

Approach, 218.216 Wood Furniture

Coating Add-On Control Use, 218.217

Wood Furniture Coating Work Practice

Standards, amended at 22 Ill. Reg. 3556,

effective February 2, 1998.

(C) Part 219: Organic Material

Emission Standards and Limitations for

the Metro East Area, Subpart F: Coating

Operations 219.204 Emission

Limitations, 219.205 Daily-weighted

Average Limitations, 219.210

Compliance Schedule, 219.211

Recordkeeping and Reporting, 219.215

Wood Furniture Coating Averaging

Approach, 219.216 Wood Furniture

Coating Add-On Control Use, 219.217

Wood Furniture Coating Work Practice

Standards, amended at 22 Ill. Reg. 3517,

effective February 2, 1998.

[FR Doc. 98–13299 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MI67–01–7275; FRL–6003–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is promulgating a

correction to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for the State of Michigan

regarding the State’s emission

limitations and prohibitions for air

contaminant or water vapor. EPA has

determined that this rule was

erroneously incorporated into the SIP.

EPA is removing this rule from the

approved Michigan SIP because the rule

does not have a reasonable connection

to the national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) and related air

quality goals of the Clean Air Act. The

intended effect of this correction to the

SIP is to make the SIP consistent with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (‘‘the Act’’),

regarding EPA action on SIP submittals

and SIPs for national primary and

secondary ambient air quality standards.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 20,

1998 unless the Agency receives
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 27493

relevant adverse comments by June 18,

1998. Should the Agency receive such

comments, it will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that this rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following location:

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please

telephone Victoria Hayden at (312) 886–

4023 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria Hayden, Regulation

Development Section (AR–18J), Air

Programs Branch, Air and Radiation

Division, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, Telephone Number (312) 886–

4023.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Correction to SIP

In a letter dated January 29, 1998, the

Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality raised the issue of whether

Michigan’s air quality Administrative

Rule, R336.1901 (Rule 901) had a

reasonable connection to the NAAQSrelated air quality goals of the Act, and

whether it properly was approved into

the Michigan SIP. Rule 901 is a general

rule that prohibits the emission of an air

contaminant which is injurious to

human health or safety, animal life,

plant life of significant economic value,

property, or which causes unreasonable

interference with the comfortable

enjoyment of life and property. In the

January 29, 1998 letter, Michigan states

that Rule 901 is a State rule that has

been primarily used to address odors

and other local nuisances. According to

the State, Rule 901 historically has not

been used to attain nor maintain any

NAAQS nor to satisfy any other

provision of the Act and, therefore, does

not belong in the SIP. EPA, pursuant to

section 110(k)(6), is agreeing to correct

the SIP since Rule 901 is not reasonably

connected to the NAAQS-related air

quality goals of the Act.

Section 110(k)(6) of the amended Act

provides: Whenever the Administrator

determines that the Administrator’s action

approving, disapproving, or promulgating

any plan or plan revision (or part thereof),

area designation, redesignation,

classification, or reclassification was in error,

the Administrator may in the same manner

as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation

revise such action as appropriate without

requiring any further submission from the

State. Such determination and the basis

thereof shall be provided to the State and

public.

Since the State of Michigan’s Rule 901

has no reasonable connection to the

NAAQS-related air quality goals of the

Act, and since the State has requested

that EPA remove this rule from the

approved SIP, EPA has found the

approval of this State rule was in error.

Consequently, EPA is removing Rule

901 of the Michigan air quality

Administrative Rules from the approved

Michigan SIP pursuant to section

110(k)(6).

II. EPA Final Rulemaking Action

The EPA is removing Rule 901 of the

Michigan air quality Administrative

Rules from the approved Michigan SIP

pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Act.

EPA is publishing this rule 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

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This rule will be effective July 20,

1998, without further notice unless the

Agency receives relevant adverse

comments by June 18, 1998.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the final rule and

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 on

the proposed rule. Only parties

interested in commenting on the

proposed rule should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this action will be

effective on July 20, 1998 and no further

action will be taken on the proposed

rule.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

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

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

In this action, EPA is removing

certain prohibitions from the federally

enforceable SIP. Therefore, because EPA

is not imposing any new requirements,

the Administrator certifies 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 Act, preparation

of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246,

255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the 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, the 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 the 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 this 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

removes from the federally enforceable

SIP certain prohibitions on the emission

of air contaminants, 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
27494 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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 Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by July 20, 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 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping.

Dated: April 8, 1998.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

40 CFR part 52, 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 X-Michigan

2. Section 52.1174 is amended by

adding paragraph (q) to read as follows:

§ 52.1174 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(q) Correction of approved plan—

Michigan air quality Administrative

Rule, R336.1901 (Rule 901)—Air

Contaminant or Water Vapor, has been

removed from the approved plan

pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the

Clean Air Act (as amended in 1990).

[FR Doc. 98–13295 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[GA–37–9811a; FRL–6003–8]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans For Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: Georgia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the

Sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan

submitted by the Georgia Department of

Natural Resources (DNR) for the State of

Georgia on November 13, 1997, for

implementing and enforcing the

Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to

existing Municipal Waste Combustors

(MWCs) with capacity to combust more

than 250 tons per day of municipal solid

waste (MSW).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

July 20, 1998 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by June 18,

1998. If the direct final rule is

withdrawn, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Scott M.

Martin at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch,

61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Copies of documents relative to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Reference file GA 37–9811a. The Region

4 office may have additional

background documents not available at

the other locations.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303–3104.

Air Protection Branch, Georgia

Environmental Protection Division,

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, 4244 International

Parkway, suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia

30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Davis at (404) 562–9127 or Scott

Martin at (404) 562–9036.

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 per 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 Cb and Eb apply only to MWC

units with individual capacity to

combust more than 250 tons per day of

MSW (large MWC units).

Under section 129 of the Act, EG 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 EG.

State Plans must be at least as protective

as the EG, 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 the Georgia DNR for the

State of Georgia to implement and

enforce Subpart Cb, as it applies to large

MWC units only.

II. Discussion

The Georgia DNR submitted to EPA

on November 13, 1997, the following in

their 111(d) and 129 State Plan for

implementing and enforcing the EG for

existing MWCs under its direct

jurisdiction in the State of Georgia:

Legal Authority; Inventory of MWC

Plants/Units; MWC Emissions

Inventory; Emission Limits and

Standards; Compliance Schedule;

Procedures for Testing and Monitoring

Sources of Air Pollutants,

Demonstration That the Public Had

Adequate Notice and Opportunity to

Submit Written Comments and Public

Hearing Summary; Submittal of Progress

Reports to EPA; Federally Enforceable

State Operating Permit (FESOP) for the

Savannah Energy Systems Company

MWC facility; Pollution Control Project

review for the Savannah Energy Systems

Company MWC facility; and applicable

State of Georgia statutes and rules of the

Georgia DNR. The Georgia DNR

submitted its Plan after the Court of

Appeals vacated Subpart Cb as it

applies to small MWC units. Thus, the

Georgia State Plan covers only large

MWC units. As a result of the Davis

decision and subsequent vacatur order,